Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are flat out wrong. A corporate board is not a state despite making these same decisions you describe. If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but you're splitting hairs. A corporation is analagous to a state in so much as it has a "territorial" monopoly over its property and means of production and makes laws governing the behavior of its "citizens". There are many more similarities than differences, and calling it a state is not at all a reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but then the "state" has no meaning. Any household is thus a "state" if your parents set the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that doesnt cause "state" to have no meaning, it causes a need for "state" to be defined, and for that definition to not be biased to support a particular philosophy. There may be no "bright line" that divides a "state" from "not a state". The definition is crucial to many arguments about anarchy.

Eg. is a State (eg California) a "state", or is only the US a "state". Is a county a "state", is a municipality a "state"? Is a homeowners association a state? You've already claimed a family isn't. Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, everything that involves people is a state. Now how does this help the discussion?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are flat out wrong. A corporate board is not a state despite making these same decisions you describe. If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but you're splitting hairs. A corporation is analagous to a state in so much as it has a "territorial" monopoly over its property and means of production and makes laws governing the behavior of its "citizens". There are many more similarities than differences, and calling it a state is not at all a reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but then the "state" has no meaning. Any household is thus a "state" if your parents set the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that doesnt cause "state" to have no meaning, it causes a need for "state" to be defined, and for that definition to not be biased to support a particular philosophy. There may be no "bright line" that divides a "state" from "not a state". The definition is crucial to many arguments about anarchy.

Eg. is a State (eg California) a "state", or is only the US a "state". Is a county a "state", is a municipality a "state"? Is a homeowners association a state? You've already claimed a family isn't. Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, everything that involves people is a state. Now how does this help the discussion?

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like an admission that you are unable to provide a defensible definition of a state that isn't also self-serving. That doesnt help the discussion, it ends it, and any defense of AC that relies on such a definition.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are flat out wrong. A corporate board is not a state despite making these same decisions you describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

A corporate board is appointed by the OWNERS of the company to act on their behalf. This is not an apppropriate analogy to your situation where (I believe) no one is allowed to own the land and therefore no one is in a position to vote on leadership.

[ QUOTE ]
If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is if they don't OWN the land in the first place. If the people don't own the land, but they live there and appoint a representative to be in charge then you have created a representative democracy.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are flat out wrong. A corporate board is not a state despite making these same decisions you describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

A corporate board is appointed by the OWNERS of the company to act on their behalf. This is not an apppropriate analogy to your situation where (I believe) no one is allowed to own the land and therefore no one is in a position to vote on leadership.

Or, EVERYONE is in a position to vote on leadership.

[ QUOTE ]
If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is if they don't OWN the land in the first place. If the people don't own the land, but they live there and appoint a representative to be in charge then you have created a representative democracy.

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or, EVERYONE is in a position to vote on leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I'll buy that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If 100 people live in a territory and say "hey Bob, we voted you in charge of growing crops", Bob isn't all of a sudden the de facto state which has a monopolistic use of force and final say in the territory.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is if they don't OWN the land in the first place. If the people don't own the land, but they live there and appoint a representative to be in charge then you have created a representative democracy.

Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't see what else you can call it when you claim that everybody owns the land, and everybody elects officials to run tasks. You call Bob "the guy in charge or growing crops"; I can call him "the Department of Agriculture". The only difference I see is that you aren't formally demanding that people will vote on things, but just assuming that they will (or might).

Answer me this: if people refuse to follow Bob's crop growing orders, what happens?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't see what else you can call it when you claim that everybody owns the land, and everybody elects officials to run tasks. You call Bob "the guy in charge or growing crops"; I can call him "the Department of Agriculture". The only difference I see is that you aren't formally demanding that people will vote on things, but just assuming that they will (or might).

Answer me this: if people refuse to follow Bob's crop growing orders, what happens?

[/ QUOTE ]

If people don't want to follow Bob's plan, then they don't follow Bob's plan and either other people volunteer to grow those crops or they don't get grown and people say "hey, wtf, we have no wheat for bread, why aren't we growing wheat?" Then in the town meeting it comes out that Persons X, Y, and Z are not growing wheat but instead trying to plant corn in violation of the group's farm plan. People can choose to not buy their corn and not trade with them, in which case they can either start working with the group or find a new community to live in. If people choose to say "no biggee, I think Bob's an idiot anyway", then so be it, too. Bob has no special standing that automatically gives him the power to use violence to enforce his own policy. And there's the difference between your Dept of Agriculture and a voluntary collectivist society.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My AS question is how would something like a large factory (car factory, for example) come into existence? A car factory represents an awful lot of capital that must be tied up before a return to that capital is ever seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there'd be fewer large factories. That's one plus for AS.

[/ QUOTE ]
So basically, there'd be no real methods for mass production. How then is AS anything but a gigantic step backwards in standard of living?

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My AS question is how would something like a large factory (car factory, for example) come into existence? A car factory represents an awful lot of capital that must be tied up before a return to that capital is ever seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there'd be fewer large factories. That's one plus for AS.

[/ QUOTE ]
So basically, there'd be no real methods for mass production. How then is AS anything but a gigantic step backwards in standard of living?

[/ QUOTE ]

There certainly are methods for mass production. If we converted to AS today, we don't all of a sudden forget how to build things and all the capability in the world magically vanishes. Also, I know this concept may be hard for a capitalist fan, but unabated technological progress from 2007 isn't necessarily going to raise the standard of living. Widespread globalization of the industrial sector without any checks may actually be the recipe for the end of a high standard of living civilization (at least in theory). The point is that any assumption that rampant industrialization from hereon will raise the standard of living across the globe may be incorrect. There are a lot of variables and a lot of different definitions for progress to make anybody conclusively "right". As an extreme example, one could argue using some definitions that the average Lakota tribe member in 1700 had a higher quality of life than the average Midwesterner today -- but not if you base this on trinkets and GDP and the like.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we converted to AS today, we don't all of a sudden forget how to build things and all the capability in the world magically vanishes.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not that they forget how, it's that they no longer have capitalists to bear the risks of the business failing while the workers continue to be paid before the goods they've produced are sold.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I know this concept may be hard for a capitalist fan, but unabated technological progress from 2007 isn't necessarily going to raise the standard of living. Widespread globalization of the industrial sector without any checks may actually be the recipe for the end of a high standard of living civilization (at least in theory). The point is that any assumption that rampant industrialization from hereon will raise the standard of living across the globe may be incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then provide an argument instead weak insinuations.

Re: anarcho socialism question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Voting is one means of decision-making and does not require a supreme state, unless you believe that you just formed a government when you and your buddies voted to decide on where to eat lunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts here - if you're talking means of production, including land, and a vote is conducted to give some entity temporary and binding decision making power over the use of the land, you have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely wrong. The are numerous forms of anarchism that propopse some sort of democracy. Usually 'direct democracy' and on a regional basis such as libertarian municipalism.