Re: anarcho socialism question
 

The compensation for their work will not hinge on their product being sold. It is syndicalism. The fruits of labour would be shared collectively.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The compensation for their work will not hinge on their product being sold. It is syndicalism. The fruits of labour would be shared collectively.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bull [censored]. If the compensation doesn't hinge at least partly on the product being sold, what incentive is there to make a good product in the first place?

And I think you're missing my point. Say it takes $10 million to set up a car factory. Once the factory is built, the workers begin making cars. Where are their paychecks coming from?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

Do you realise there are other economic systems than capitalism? Just learn the basics about it on Wiki or somewhere and you will see your question is very ignorant of what ASism actually implies.

Do you believe there is no incentive to work in an egalitarian society?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realise there are other economic systems than capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Just learn the basics about it on Wiki or somewhere and you will see your question is very ignorant of what ASism actually implies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you afraid of answering them yourself? Wiki doesn't have an answer for who builds factories and where workers wages in the interim before their goods are sold come from or why people would get up at 5 am to pick up other peoples' garbage.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe there is no incentive to work in an egalitarian society?

[/ QUOTE ]
What incentive is there to do anything more than the minimum required?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe there is no incentive to work in an egalitarian society?

[/ QUOTE ]
What incentive is there to do anything more than the minimum required?

[/ QUOTE ]well ideally I think for the love of the people you're helping. I think this works better in small groups (ie. families and possibly small communities).

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
...through grassroots workplace and community councils, united at the local, regional, national and international levels...

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they call this a stateless society?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...through grassroots workplace and community councils, united at the local, regional, national and international levels...

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they call this a stateless society?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a state unless you disagree with what it's doing! If the state does what you want it to do, it's a grassroots organization.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe there is no incentive to work in an egalitarian society?

[/ QUOTE ]
What incentive is there to do anything more than the minimum required?

[/ QUOTE ]well ideally I think for the love of the people you're helping. I think this works better in small groups (ie. families and possibly small communities).

[/ QUOTE ]
The "New Socialist Man" that people must be "remade" into. At least to subscribe to AC you only need to be consistent with values instead of reconfiguring those values altogether.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

I would agree with captzeebo that this kind of thing works in small groups. It's hard to see yourself working for the sake of the collective when the collective is millions of people and many of them are far away as opposed to a collective where you might know everyone locally.

Then of course, I'm more interested on how voluntary it is. Yes, it does sound overused at this point, but I don't think I can be supportive of something that is "forced" (say, forced redistribution of wealth or whatnot) which is what I feel anarchy is about. Then of course, I also feel that voluntary collective ownership will probaly be a natural part of an anarchist society, because some will probaly feel they fit in best like that. But then others don't, so they'll go do something else instead of forcing something down the former's throats. I suppose that's the whole idea of anarchy though. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...through grassroots workplace and community councils, united at the local, regional, national and international levels...

[/ QUOTE ]

How can they call this a stateless society?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a business associated at those levels does that imply a state? So why then does a communal association imply a state?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe there is no incentive to work in an egalitarian society?

[/ QUOTE ]
What incentive is there to do anything more than the minimum required?

[/ QUOTE ]well ideally I think for the love of the people you're helping. I think this works better in small groups (ie. families and possibly small communities).

[/ QUOTE ]
The "New Socialist Man" that people must be "remade" into. At least to subscribe to AC you only need to be consistent with values instead of reconfiguring those values altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know about the USA but in Britain there are many successful profit making non state supported business run along communal lines. Ownership is shared and decisions are "democratic".

However I would agree that at present there are structural limits to how large these enterprises can be and what markets they can participate in. However those limits may change with advances in production/manufacturing technology.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Then of course, I'm more interested on how voluntary it is. Yes, it does sound overused at this point, but I don't think I can be supportive of something that is "forced" (say, forced redistribution of wealth or whatnot) which is what I feel anarchy is about.

[/ QUOTE ] Your viewpoint seems to imply a respect for private property that is not set in stone in anarcho socialism.

edit: say the people in town Y has agreed that noone should have more than 10x the average property, and what they have that is more than 10x the average they either have to give away or it's up for grabs. You might call this forced redistribution of wealth, I might call it voluntarily letting someone have some property all for themselves up to 9.9x the town average.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I might call it voluntarily letting someone have some property all for themselves up to 9.9x the town average.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any street mugger could claim that what he's doing is voluntary as well. Now if none of the town members object, then very well. But if someone does object, it's no longer voluntary.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I might call it voluntarily letting someone have some property all for themselves up to 9.9x the town average.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any street mugger could claim that what he's doing is voluntary as well. Now if none of the town members object, then very well. But if someone does object, it's no longer voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ] Threatening someone with bodily harm is hardly the same. Also there's a difference between property like land or factories, and property like your watch and the money in your pocket.

And all the town members would have to agree to the town rules obviously. That's how they become town members. If someone objects, they are free to move to another town. But they can't take the factory or the patch of land with them, obviously.

I agree that it's not easy to see how all the practical problems would be worked out, but it's at least easier if you manage to let your overgrown respect for private property go for the sake thought experiment.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then of course, I'm more interested on how voluntary it is. Yes, it does sound overused at this point, but I don't think I can be supportive of something that is "forced" (say, forced redistribution of wealth or whatnot) which is what I feel anarchy is about.

[/ QUOTE ] Your viewpoint seems to imply a respect for private property that is not set in stone in anarcho socialism.

edit: say the people in town Y has agreed that noone should have more than 10x the average property, and what they have that is more than 10x the average they either have to give away or it's up for grabs. You might call this forced redistribution of wealth, I might call it voluntarily letting someone have some property all for themselves up to 9.9x the town average.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the people agreed to it, I don't see how the redistribution is forced.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Threatening someone with bodily harm is hardly the same. Also there's a difference between property like land or factories, and property like your watch and the money in your pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[ QUOTE ]
And all the town members would have to agree to the town rules obviously. That's how they become town members. If someone objects, they are free to move to another town. But they can't take the factory or the patch of land with them, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]
This presupposes that the objector owned the land/factory. What would the townfolk say if the owner says "You can't have my factory and I'm not leaving."? If they all just decide to not work for this guy, fine. But it sounds like there's an implied threat if the owner doesn't comply or leave, which obviously isn't voluntary.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Threatening someone with bodily harm is hardly the same. Also there's a difference between property like land or factories, and property like your watch and the money in your pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ] Land and factories are means of production.

[ QUOTE ]
This presupposes that the objector owned the land/factory. What would the townfolk say if the owner says "You can't have my factory and I'm not leaving."? If they all just decide to not work for this guy, fine. But it sounds like there's an implied threat if the owner doesn't comply or leave, which obviously isn't voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok say the factory expands and gets to the point where it's considered to be worth 20x the property of the average townsman. That means the owner has to give up half the factory to the town. They could come up with an arrangement where he continued to run the factory and gives half of the profit to the community, for example. If he refuses to do so he has violated the contract he agreed to when he became a member of the town. I don't think many people think honoring your word/contract should be voluntary.

There's no reason to get too hung up in this. This is just one example I made of a set of rules some people can agree on when they form a community. I don't really think it would be a good rule.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Threatening someone with bodily harm is hardly the same. Also there's a difference between property like land or factories, and property like your watch and the money in your pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ] Land and factories are means of production.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This presupposes that the objector owned the land/factory. What would the townfolk say if the owner says "You can't have my factory and I'm not leaving."? If they all just decide to not work for this guy, fine. But it sounds like there's an implied threat if the owner doesn't comply or leave, which obviously isn't voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok say the factory expands and gets to the point where it's considered to be worth 20x the property of the average townsman. That means the owner has to give up half the factory to the town. They could come up with an arrangement where he continued to run the factory and gives half of the profit to the community, for example. If he refuses to do so he has violated the contract he agreed to when he became a member of the town. I don't think many people think honoring your word/contract should be voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would the owner sign such a contract? Who's deciding how much the factory/land is worth? There's no objective way to decide how much something is worth.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no reason to get too hung up in this. This is just one example I made of a set of rules some people can agree on when they form a community. I don't really think it would be a good rule.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, but these are questions that seem to be giving the ASists some trouble.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Land and factories are means of production.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily.

[/ QUOTE ] No, but necessarily potentially. If that makes sense in English. Another difference is land and factories don't fit in your pocket. If you want to stop someone from being on your land, you have to engage them and possibly threaten to do them harm. If I want to take your watch, I'm the one who has to threaten to do you harm.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the owner sign such a contract? Who's deciding how much the factory/land is worth? There's no objective way to decide how much something is worth.

[/ QUOTE ] The owner would sign such a contract before he became the owner of the factory. This contract is what allows him to own anything in the first place. If no rules are agreed upon there are no rules, so property would be a meaningless concept.

I agree that there would be great difficulties deciding how much the factory is worth, and that's part of the reason I said I didn't think this was a good rule. For land it's a little more feasible for the townspeople to outline in the contract how to measure the value of it.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, but necessarily potentially. If that makes sense in English. Another difference is land and factories don't fit in your pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]
So size is the issue? Pretty arbitrary distinction if you ask me. A grandfather clock doesn't fit in my pocket either.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to stop someone from being on your land, you have to engage them and possibly threaten to do them harm. If I want to take your watch, I'm the one who has to threaten to do you harm.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't have to threaten harm to take someone's watch. You could just walk up to them and take it. Or take it from them if they set it down for a moment. Heck what if they walked up to your watch while it was sitting on a table and they peed on it? Is this wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
The owner would sign such a contract before he became the owner of the factory. This contract is what allows him to own anything in the first place. If no rules are agreed upon there are no rules, so property would be a meaningless concept.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I talking about owners of things who go through the "change". If some factory owner wants to sign such a contract, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I don't see many owners of stuff deciding to voluntarily agree to such contracts in the first place. More power to the ASists if they can convince a few people to go along with them.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
So size is the issue? Pretty arbitrary distinction if you ask me. A grandfather clock doesn't fit in my pocket either.

[/ QUOTE ] It's not compltely arbitrary. Stuff you carry around with you is different from stuff you don't carry around with you.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to threaten harm to take someone's watch. You could just walk up to them and take it. Or take it from them if they set it down for a moment. Heck what if they walked up to your watch while it was sitting on a table and they peed on it? Is this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ] The question is not if it is wrong, but what people around you think about it and what will happen to you if you do it. People will more than likely think that that's wrong, and they will refuse to help you out and refuse to deal with you in the future because of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I talking about owners of things who go through the "change". If some factory owner wants to sign such a contract, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I don't see many owners of stuff deciding to voluntarily agree to such contracts in the first place. More power to the ASists if they can convince a few people to go along with them.

[/ QUOTE ] What do you mean? That factory owners would try hard to resist a transformation to ASism? Well, I agree.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realise there are other economic systems than capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Just not any that work without brutal tyranny. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe there is no incentive to work in an egalitarian society?

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "egalitarian" you mean "socialist" (cause I'd call ACism "egalitarian") then no.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

lol at AC being egalitarian

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So size is the issue? Pretty arbitrary distinction if you ask me. A grandfather clock doesn't fit in my pocket either.

[/ QUOTE ] It's not compltely arbitrary. Stuff you carry around with you is different from stuff you don't carry around with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's arbitrary is that "stuff you can carry" is the determining factor of whether you can own it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to threaten harm to take someone's watch. You could just walk up to them and take it. Or take it from them if they set it down for a moment. Heck what if they walked up to your watch while it was sitting on a table and they peed on it? Is this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ] The question is not if it is wrong, but what people around you think about it and what will happen to you if you do it. People will more than likely think that that's wrong, and they will refuse to help you out and refuse to deal with you in the future because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I talking about owners of things who go through the "change". If some factory owner wants to sign such a contract, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I don't see many owners of stuff deciding to voluntarily agree to such contracts in the first place. More power to the ASists if they can convince a few people to go along with them.

[/ QUOTE ] What do you mean? That factory owners would try hard to resist a transformation to ASism? Well, I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I meant is that there's really not much incentive for anyone who owns stuff like that to essentially hand over control to the locals with such a "contract".

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's arbitrary is that "stuff you can carry" is the determining factor of whether you can own it.

[/ QUOTE ] That was only one of the differences I pointed to between a patch of land and a watch. But the fact that you can't carry with you the land if you decide to leave a community does make a difference.


[ QUOTE ]

What I meant is that there's really not much incentive for anyone who owns stuff like that to essentially hand over control to the locals with such a "contract".

[/ QUOTE ] There isn't much incentive for people on welfare today to accept ACism and give up their welfare checks. Maybe there would be violent demonstrations from the people who would lose their welfare checks if we made the change to ACism. They wouldn't accept voluntarily at all, that taxpayers no longer had to pay for them. Do you see what I'm getting at? It seems to me your respect for private property clouds your mind.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realise there are other economic systems than capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Just not any that work without brutal tyranny. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe there is no incentive to work in an egalitarian society?

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "egalitarian" you mean "socialist" (cause I'd call ACism "egalitarian") then no.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Not true. There is no evidence to suggest that all proposed economic systems void of capitalism would result in tyranny. Whereas state capitalism (e.g. Soviet Russia, Communist China, USA, Britain...) has been proven to only function with some form of tyranny. Would there by brutal tyranny in a ACist doctrinal system of private property and unobligated free markets... hmmmm?

2. ACism is not egalitarian- obvously. Egalitarian= "a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals from birth."

The writings by ACist and right-wing libertarians that I have read, have argued, one can only have liberty at the cost of inequality. E.g they ackmowledge private property is a right e.g. a liberty, but that it results in inequality.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then of course, I'm more interested on how voluntary it is. Yes, it does sound overused at this point, but I don't think I can be supportive of something that is "forced" (say, forced redistribution of wealth or whatnot) which is what I feel anarchy is about.

[/ QUOTE ] Your viewpoint seems to imply a respect for private property that is not set in stone in anarcho socialism.

edit: say the people in town Y has agreed that noone should have more than 10x the average property, and what they have that is more than 10x the average they either have to give away or it's up for grabs. You might call this forced redistribution of wealth, I might call it voluntarily letting someone have some property all for themselves up to 9.9x the town average.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they agreed, how can it be forced? If it's forced, who is it "voluntary" for? Did they ALL agree?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I might call it voluntarily letting someone have some property all for themselves up to 9.9x the town average.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any street mugger could claim that what he's doing is voluntary as well. Now if none of the town members object, then very well. But if someone does object, it's no longer voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ] Threatening someone with bodily harm is hardly the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what happens to the guy who refuses to let you redistribute his stuff?

[ QUOTE ]
And all the town members would have to agree to the town rules obviously. That's how they become town members.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if he agreed to it, then there's no problem here. But this is FAR from self-evidently obvious. If you're suggesting some town where all the land is owned by some collective entity, and some sort of residency leases are granted to people who can trade them to other people, that's one thing.

[ QUOTE ]
If someone objects, they are free to move to another town. But they can't take the factory or the patch of land with them, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, love it or leave it! By living where you live, you agree to buy the $100 hot dogs I'm selling, because I said so. If you didn't agree, you wouldn't live there, LDO! Also, if you don't like this arrangement, you can always move to siberia! And if you try to stop me from collecting your $100 each day, that would be unthinkable violence!

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it's not easy to see how all the practical problems would be worked out,

[/ QUOTE ]

Understatement of the century.

[ QUOTE ]
but it's at least easier if you manage to let your overgrown respect for individual rights go for the sake thought experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Threatening someone with bodily harm is hardly the same. Also there's a difference between property like land or factories, and property like your watch and the money in your pocket.

[/ QUOTE ]
How so?

[/ QUOTE ] Land and factories are means of production.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? Cheese, which can fit in my pocket by the way, is a means of producing pizza. What difference does the fact that something is a means of production make? Is a screwdriver a means of production? A lathe? A car?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This presupposes that the objector owned the land/factory. What would the townfolk say if the owner says "You can't have my factory and I'm not leaving."? If they all just decide to not work for this guy, fine. But it sounds like there's an implied threat if the owner doesn't comply or leave, which obviously isn't voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok say the factory expands and gets to the point where it's considered to be worth 20x the property of the average townsman. That means the owner has to give up half the factory to the town. They could come up with an arrangement where he continued to run the factory and gives half of the profit to the community, for example. If he refuses to do so he has violated the contract he agreed to when he became a member of the town. I don't think many people think honoring your word/contract should be voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dodging the question. What if he didn't agree to that on the front end?

Your "thought experiment" is too simplistic to be interesting if it assumes that *all* people magically agree to scheme X and never change their minds.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would the owner sign such a contract? Who's deciding how much the factory/land is worth? There's no objective way to decide how much something is worth.

[/ QUOTE ] The owner would sign such a contract before he became the owner of the factory.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he's buying the factory from someone who wants to set conditions on the sale? That's fine.

What if he built the factory himself?

[ QUOTE ]
This contract is what allows him to own anything in the first place. If no rules are agreed upon there are no rules, so property would be a meaningless concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might makes right? Since you and I have no written agreement in place, you have no legitimate objection to me hitting you in the head with a lead pipe? There are no rules!

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that there would be great difficulties deciding how much the factory is worth, and that's part of the reason I said I didn't think this was a good rule. For land it's a little more feasible for the townspeople to outline in the contract how to measure the value of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, because central planning for factory values is doomed, but central planning of LAND values is easy. Right.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
What difference does the fact that something is a means of production make?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is does make a difference, in so far as control of the means of consumption is at the core of many socioeconomic beliefs/theories, whereas control of product for consumption is generally not. For the most part, the GOAL of controlling the means of production is to control what is produced and when for consumption.

Now, I think the interesting thing is that in a well-developed (subjective term, I know) the means of production and consumable goods are exchangeable. When you can exchange your watch for some cash and exchange the cash for raw materials, there really isn't any need to classify production goods and consumer goods.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
So what happens to the guy who refuses to let you redistribute his stuff?

[/ QUOTE ] What do you mean his stuff?

[ QUOTE ]
Again, if he agreed to it, then there's no problem here. But this is FAR from self-evidently obvious. If you're suggesting some town where all the land is owned by some collective entity, and some sort of residency leases are granted to people who can trade them to other people, that's one thing.

[/ QUOTE ] That is what I`m suggesting.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone objects, they are free to move to another town. But they can't take the factory or the patch of land with them, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, love it or leave it! By living where you live, you agree to buy the $100 hot dogs I'm selling, because I said so. If you didn't agree, you wouldn't live there, LDO! Also, if you don't like this arrangement, you can always move to siberia! And if you try to stop me from collecting your $100 each day, that would be unthinkable violence!

[/ QUOTE ] What do you mean "your $100"? Anyway I don`t have to move if I don`t like the arrangement, but if I won`t cooperate I can`t expect others to cooperate with me. And if I try to claim right to property that is not really mine, I have to expect people to take it from me. And your example is ridiculous. I expect none of the townspeople would feel like working with the hot dog guy. Any society relies on people not acting ridiculous. I feel you are on the level on someone attacking democracy by saying: But what if the people elect a retarded 9-year old as president? Would we all have to listen to him and do as he says all the time? In one way it`s a valid question, but you just have to trust people to not create a ridiculous community for themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it's not easy to see how all the practical problems would be worked out,

[/ QUOTE ]
Understatement of the century.

[/ QUOTE ] Can`t disagree with that.

[ QUOTE ]
but it's at least easier if you manage to let your overgrown respect for private property go for the sake thought experiment.

[/ QUOTE ] FYFYP [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] I already know that you think private property is an individual right. Don`t know what else you mean to say.

[ QUOTE ]
Might makes right? Since you and I have no written agreement in place, you have no legitimate objection to me hitting you in the head with a lead pipe? There are no rules!

[/ QUOTE ] There are rules. Each indiviual owns and has a right to control his own body without interference from others. But that`s the only rule. As I understand it it`s much like ACism, only there you have two rules: The same as mentioned above + each person can own his own property and has a right to control that without interference from others.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, because central planning for factory values is doomed, but central planning of LAND values is easy. Right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn`t say it would be easy, I said it would be easier. Do you disagree?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what happens to the guy who refuses to let you redistribute his stuff?

[/ QUOTE ] What do you mean his stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

The stuff in his possession, which he has obtained through voluntary transactions with other people, which you now want to redistribute.

If it's not "his stuff" then it's not really being redistributed, is it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, if he agreed to it, then there's no problem here. But this is FAR from self-evidently obvious. If you're suggesting some town where all the land is owned by some collective entity, and some sort of residency leases are granted to people who can trade them to other people, that's one thing.

[/ QUOTE ] That is what I`m suggesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, great. I have no problem with this arrangement.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone objects, they are free to move to another town. But they can't take the factory or the patch of land with them, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, love it or leave it! By living where you live, you agree to buy the $100 hot dogs I'm selling, because I said so. If you didn't agree, you wouldn't live there, LDO! Also, if you don't like this arrangement, you can always move to siberia! And if you try to stop me from collecting your $100 each day, that would be unthinkable violence!

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean "your $100"? Anyway I don`t have to move if I don`t like the arrangement, but if I won`t cooperate I can`t expect others to cooperate with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, this whole example is already bogus if you're off living somewhere in a voluntary commune.

But going forward with it anyway... since you assert that you don't have to move, do you withdraw your position that the factory owner in the above scenario is "free to move" if he doesn't like it?

[ QUOTE ]
And if I try to claim right to property that is not really mine, I have to expect people to take it from me. And your example is ridiculous. I expect none of the townspeople would feel like working with the hot dog guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I AGREE 100%!!! It IS ridiculous.

Except, in the real world, almost everyone works with the hot dog guy. He has guns. And lots of people think they have a "duty" to work with him. And lots of people, on this very forum, will tell you that you're free to leave if you don't like the hot dog guy!

(as a side note, in many cases you're NOT free to leave, but that's a whole seperate thread.)

[ QUOTE ]
Any society relies on people not acting ridiculous. I feel you are on the level on someone attacking democracy by saying: But what if the people elect a retarded 9-year old as president? Would we all have to listen to him and do as he says all the time? In one way it`s a valid question, but you just have to trust people to not create a ridiculous community for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

About half the people in the US think we have the functional equivilent of a retarded 9-year-old in office. And all of us are stuck with him.

Again, I *agree*, it's RIDICULOUS!

Trusting people not to do ridiculous stuff is a bad idea, because people will do ridiculous stuff. And lots of times, what YOU think is ridiculous seems perfectly reasonable to the person inflicting it upon you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but it's at least easier if you manage to let your overgrown respect for private property go for the sake thought experiment.

[/ QUOTE ] FYFYP [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] I already know that you think private property is an individual right. Don`t know what else you mean to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU also think this. By restricting your little social collective to communities where people explicitly agree to such terms, you're basically acknowledging that there is no pre-existing right to redistribute other people's stuff without their consent.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, because central planning for factory values is doomed, but central planning of LAND values is easy. Right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn`t say it would be easy, I said it would be easier. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It's two sides of the same coin. Value is subjective, whether it's land or a bulldozer or a factory or a wheel of cheese makes no difference.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The stuff in his possession, which he has obtained through voluntary transactions with other people, which you now want to redistribute.

If it's not "his stuff" then it's not really being redistributed, is it?

[/ QUOTE ] The stuff can be distributed to him without being "his" in the way you think about it, where he has a right to exercise a territorial monopoly over his property no matter how large it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Look, this whole example is already bogus if you're off living somewhere in a voluntary commune.

[/ QUOTE ] Where else are you going to live but in some voluntary community or other? Alone in a cave in the mountains?

[ QUOTE ]
But going forward with it anyway... since you assert that you don't have to move, do you withdraw your position that the factory owner in the above scenario is "free to move" if he doesn't like it?

[/ QUOTE ] No. He is free to move. Or to not move and try to make a life for himself without the cooperation of others. But that would be difficult probably. Another option is for him to talk with the townspeople and see if others are interested in a change of the arrangement. If 30% of the people want change, they can crrate their own community. I willingly admit that this would not be an easy situation to resolve, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Except, in the real world, almost everyone works with the hot dog guy. He has guns. And lots of people think they have a "duty" to work with him. And lots of people, on this very forum, will tell you that you're free to leave if you don't like the hot dog guy!

[/ QUOTE ] Well, if they feel they have a duty to work with him let them work with him. If they won`t work with you unless you work with him, leave them alone. If they work with him because he has guns and they are afraid of him, conspire with them to get rid of the oppressing force.

[ QUOTE ]
About half the people in the US think we have the functional equivilent of a retarded 9-year-old in office. And all of us are stuck with him.

[/ QUOTE ] The problem is not that they want this man as their leader. It is that you are stuck with him too. That would not, at least not in theory, be the case in an anarchistic society.

[ QUOTE ]
YOU also think this. By restricting your little social collective to communities where people explicitly agree to such terms, you're basically acknowledging that there is no pre-existing right to redistribute other people's stuff without their consent.

[/ QUOTE ] Oh no. I don`t think that unlimited right to private property is an individual right. I really doubt if anarchism could work in the real world, but I`m defending it now because I love the idea and it`s the only system I feel comfortable with morally. Practically every place would be a commune where people explicitly agreed to terms. How else do you expect people to live?

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. It's two sides of the same coin. Value is subjective, whether it's land or a bulldozer or a factory or a wheel of cheese makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, if you are right and the rule I proposed could not work well it would probably be an unpopular rule that few communities would implement. There`s no problem.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any society relies on people not acting ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would that include a society touted as 'the greatest nation on earth' where the PRESIDENT gets on the witness stand as a defendent in a trial and says makes statements such as:

"Well, that would depend on what your definition of the word is, is...." ?

We have gone way, way past ridiculous my friend and people are either apathetic, brainwashed, or feel/belive they have no other choice than to be bent over for their daily dose of ridiculousness [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

Yes. I agree. But I still think you have to trust people do not act ridiculous. If they act ridiculous, they get the ridiculous society they deserve. And in an anarchistic society, people that find each other non-ridiculous can come together and form their own community and make their own rules.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
So he's buying the factory from someone who wants to set conditions on the sale? That's fine.

What if he built the factory himself?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry to bump an old thread, but I didn't reply to this the first time around and I think this is a little important. First of all, what do you mean he built it himself? People don't build factories by themselves. He'd need help, and probably the person you think of as the builder wouldn't even build more than each of the people he has to help him. I might buy into that the people who built the factory has some claim to it, but I don't buy into that the person who "thought of it first" has some everlasting sole claim to the factory and it's products.

Second, if he did actually build it himself (more practical for a simpler means of production, like a hammer I guess), I think he owns the hammer. That doesn't mean he automatically owns everything someone else uses the factory/hammer to build.

The point is that there is no reason property rights should be set in stone. You (ACists) say they are set in stone because "the system" wouldn't work well without them. This is the same argument statists use against you.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that there is no reason property rights should be set in stone. You (ACists) say they are set in stone because "the system" wouldn't work well without them. This is the same argument statists use against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is quite correct, wtfsvi.

Property rights is the weakness of anyone that would somehow support AC, What would happen if no ACist had a will drawn up disposing of their property rights? What would happen, If they had a will?


Would they expect the state (horror) to enforce their wills? If not the state, who and how?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

While I agree that property rights is the weakness of AC, I don't see why somebody couldn't be paid to enforce a will.

What would happen if there was no will could be a good question, though.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree that property rights is the weakness of AC, I don't see why somebody couldn't be paid to enforce a will.

What would happen if there was no will could be a good question, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a matter of who has the higherst claim over a piece of property. It's not binary it's grayscale. As decided through negotiation and where neccesary independant arbitors.