Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

tame,

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet it has worked reasonably well for 50 years in a corporation with up to 75,000 employees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
tame,

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet it has worked reasonably well for 50 years in a corporation with up to 75,000 employees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way is a company that receives special tax incentives an example of AC.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tame,

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet it has worked reasonably well for 50 years in a corporation with up to 75,000 employees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way is a company that receives special tax incentives an example of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about AC.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
tame,

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet it has worked reasonably well for 50 years in a corporation with up to 75,000 employees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting article. I'll def keep it in mind. My estimate was way off.

It is very interesting that this cooperative was founded before Spain became a democracy, but ofcourse in the Basque province. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Nice, anarcho-syndicalism as a corporate structure - and working. Also interesting to see how heavily they are running on democratic process.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My question was poorly worded. I didn't mean to imply that ACists believed that there would be no coercion, but merely that their "system" of property rights was somehow devoid of implicit "coercion". And yes, I believe that to be the case. I ask a question to understand how I might be mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there isnt really an objective reason why we should have property rights, but what would you put in its place. I cant think if any other system of property that is theoretically consistant. If no property rights then what?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a question of "if not property rights then what". It's a matter of doing exactly Chomsky (and guys like Foucalt, etc) have said, which is that you look at any instance of force and ask if it is what you want.

What bothers me is when property rights are put on a pedestal as if they are the only reasonable sorts of rights, or as if that is the one area where one may essentially force his or her own morality upon others.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a question of "if not property rights then what". It's a matter of doing exactly Chomsky (and guys like Foucalt, etc) have said, which is that you look at any instance of force and ask if it is what you want.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you be a little more specific? I mean theres lots of enforcement of property rights that I could easily say I dont want but its not acceptable for me to declare someones property rights illegitimate just because I want their property.

[ QUOTE ]
What bothers me is when property rights are put on a pedestal as if they are the only reasonable sorts of rights, or as if that is the one area where one may essentially force his or her own morality upon others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine, but what else is there? Saying that property rights somehow force a morality on people is pretty unrealistic since the majority of people want property rights. The only time people start to get relative about property rights is when they want a piece of someone elses action.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tame,

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet it has worked reasonably well for 50 years in a corporation with up to 75,000 employees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way is a company that receives special tax incentives an example of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, it isnt an example of Anarcho-anything

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a question of "if not property rights then what". It's a matter of doing exactly Chomsky (and guys like Foucalt, etc) have said, which is that you look at any instance of force and ask if it is what you want.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you be a little more specific? I mean theres lots of enforcement of property rights that I could easily say I dont want but its not acceptable for me to declare someones property rights illegitimate just because I want their property.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure in what way you want me to get more specific, as I was just making a general observation. I don't necessarily believe that property rights are more or less legitimate depending on how they are enforced. It's more that I believe property rights are not the only sort of rights, and that other rights can supersede them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What bothers me is when property rights are put on a pedestal as if they are the only reasonable sorts of rights, or as if that is the one area where one may essentially force his or her own morality upon others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine, but what else is there? Saying that property rights somehow force a morality on people is pretty unrealistic since the majority of people want property rights. The only time people start to get relative about property rights is when they want a piece of someone elses action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that people generally want property rights, although it's not as though this is ever really posed as having any sort of viable alternative. Property rights are deeply ingrained in us. The question is to what degree do these property rights give us total dominion of our property, under what conditions may this be taken away, and so forth.

Just as people like property rights, people dislike gaping inequality, and they dislike a host of other things that might be generated under a system which only respected property rights.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The question is to what degree do these property rights give us total dominion of our property, under what conditions may this be taken away, and so forth.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I dont get. If I dont have a right to my property what gives the government a right to my property? Just because people cant think of better ways to help poor people? The idea that we need a government to help the poor is one of most persistant myths we perpetuate as a society, to the detriment of the poor.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tame,

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet it has worked reasonably well for 50 years in a corporation with up to 75,000 employees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way is a company that receives special tax incentives an example of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, it isnt an example of Anarcho-anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. It is a valid example of anarcho-syndicalistic principle, which is a very different ideology from anarcho-capitalism.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that we need a government to help the poor is one of most persistant myths we perpetuate as a society, to the detriment of the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO if the government disappeared, so would the poor, because the demographics that are poverty vectors would literally become extinct. As in: dead.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO if the government disappeared, so would the poor

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if you are being serious but you would need to expand on this. If the government which integrates certain democratic elements were to be replaced by private tyrannies as in ACism the poor would increase, nevermind disappear. However, the argument that poverty will always exist under state power (and is a consequence thereof) is a valid one imo.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

I don't think most of the "poverty" class would be viable without government aid/interference. Schedule A drugs alone, if cheaply and safely available, would catalyze the self-destruction of huge sectors of society. Social darwinism FTW. (Obviously drug dealers would be the fastest beneficiaries of AC.)

Basically I think the government is allowing poor people to survive and reproduce at levels that would be nonviable otherwise.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

I would assume the profit margins on drug-sales would drop rapidly though, so I don't know if drug dealers would benefit so much.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Well, "drug dealing" would be subsumed under the umbrella of big pharmaceuticals...so it would be J&J, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott cashing in, not necessarily Joe Gangster.

But, yeah, they would def make some insane $$.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the "poverty" class would be viable without government aid/interference.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was trying to make was that the only reason the government takes care of poor people is because the majority of people care about poor people and vote in social programs. Without a government people are still going to care about poor people and can take care of the poor better by eliminating the middle man. The worst possible scenario for the poor is to have an institution that claims to help the poor when it really does a half assed job of it. People think the poor are being taken care of and so wont take care of the poor themselves as "thats the governments job".

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the "poverty" class would be viable without government aid/interference. Schedule A drugs alone, if cheaply and safely available, would catalyze the self-destruction of huge sectors of society. Social darwinism FTW. (Obviously drug dealers would be the fastest beneficiaries of AC.)

Basically I think the government is allowing poor people to survive and reproduce at levels that would be nonviable otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The war on drugs is probably one of the biggest wastes of money. Money that could be spent on helping those with addiction and those that are in poverty. We need to hurt the poor to help the poor? Doesnt make too much sense.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the "poverty" class would be viable without government aid/interference.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was trying to make was that the only reason the government takes care of poor people is because the majority of people care about poor people and vote in social programs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your correct. Most people also favour some form of egalitarian reform, universal healthcare, etc. but thanks to private powers manipulation of government and the nature of the constitution the democratic opinion of the majority is inept without major pubblic stuggle.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Without a government people are still going to care about poor people and can take care of the poor better by eliminating the middle man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people, definitely. But most people would have nothing to do with charity if the government wasn't here to coerce us into funding social programs with our tax dollars.

At least IMO.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, "drug dealing" would be subsumed under the umbrella of big pharmaceuticals...so it would be J&J, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott cashing in, not necessarily Joe Gangster.

But, yeah, they would def make some insane $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free market, why would they make insane $?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, "drug dealing" would be subsumed under the umbrella of big pharmaceuticals...so it would be J&J, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott cashing in, not necessarily Joe Gangster.

But, yeah, they would def make some insane $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free market, why would they make insane $?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason tobacco companies do?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, "drug dealing" would be subsumed under the umbrella of big pharmaceuticals...so it would be J&J, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott cashing in, not necessarily Joe Gangster.

But, yeah, they would def make some insane $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free market, why would they make insane $?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason tobacco companies do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Except they don't. And most of the reasons why they would make a lot of money is due to price floors imposed by the government.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, "drug dealing" would be subsumed under the umbrella of big pharmaceuticals...so it would be J&J, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott cashing in, not necessarily Joe Gangster.

But, yeah, they would def make some insane $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free market, why would they make insane $?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason tobacco companies do?

[/ QUOTE ]

They make good money but certainly not insane money. Why do you imagine otherwise?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, "drug dealing" would be subsumed under the umbrella of big pharmaceuticals...so it would be J&J, Pfizer, Merck, and Abbott cashing in, not necessarily Joe Gangster.

But, yeah, they would def make some insane $$.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a free market, why would they make insane $?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the same reason tobacco companies do?

[/ QUOTE ]

They make good money but certainly not insane money. Why do you imagine otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

What? I guess "insane" is a gray area, but Altria Group, for example, has a market cap. of $150B...

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some people, definitely. But most people would have nothing to do with charity if the government wasn't here to coerce us into funding social programs with our tax dollars.

At least IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

You say we need the government to help the poor. The government has the resources to eliminate poverty in America and yet there is still poverty. Something doesnt add up here.

Although they do pump resources into charitable causes, they also take massive amounts of resources away from the working class. So the people that do care about the poor are no more (and I'd argue less) effective than if we lived in a free market and those that cared about the poor just voluntarily took care of the poor.

If people dont care about the poor why do our politicians always cloak every beauracratic program in the veil of morality? Why is it that they claim to be in Iraq helping the poor Iraqis build their country? Why dont they just say "Hey we are going over to Iraq to blow the [censored] out of them, murder thousands of innocent civilians, steal their oil, and give a bunch of your money to connected contractors"? Because it would never work, people are inherantly moral and this is why the government has to constantly pay lip service to the morals that society values.

Its just unfortunate that people cant see through the hipocrisy and come to terms with what is actually going on in their society.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
You say we need the government to help the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, as I believe it's mostly impossible to "help" society in the big picture without genetic engineering or some sort of mechanism to punish dysgenic reproduction. And---again---it seems the government today does exactly the opposite.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

Then why would you argue for government charity in the first place. I mean if you arent really interested in discussing these things thats find, I was just getting the impression that you were interested in finding solutions for the poor.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I was just getting the impression that you were interested in finding solutions for the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I just doubt that getting rid of inefficient government charity would somehow "add by subtraction" and decrease the immediate suffering caused by poverty.

But that's just the short term. In the long term, the best strategy might be to eliminate all non-obligating charity to adults. (For example, make sterilization a prerequisite to receiving welfare.)

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tame,

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, you don't think it would work at all and I don't think it would work for a group of more than say 30-40 people max. So I don't think we disagree much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet it has worked reasonably well for 50 years in a corporation with up to 75,000 employees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way is a company that receives special tax incentives an example of AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, it isnt an example of Anarcho-anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. It is a valid example of anarcho-syndicalistic principle, which is a very different ideology from anarcho-capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It cant be anarcho anything because it is receiving subsidies from a GOVERNMENT

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is to what degree do these property rights give us total dominion of our property, under what conditions may this be taken away, and so forth.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I dont get. If I dont have a right to my property what gives the government a right to my property? Just because people cant think of better ways to help poor people? The idea that we need a government to help the poor is one of most persistant myths we perpetuate as a society, to the detriment of the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, rights are simply things that society has agreed you deserve or have a claim to. If you don't think the government is helpful for solving certain problems of social significance, and if you had a bunch of people who agreed, you could go without one and see how it went.

I'm not sure I agree, so I'd probably want a government of some sort, although it would certainly look quite different than the structure we have here (or in other industrial countries).

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is to what degree do these property rights give us total dominion of our property, under what conditions may this be taken away, and so forth.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I dont get. If I dont have a right to my property what gives the government a right to my property? Just because people cant think of better ways to help poor people? The idea that we need a government to help the poor is one of most persistant myths we perpetuate as a society, to the detriment of the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, rights are simply things that society has agreed you deserve or have a claim to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society doesn't get to legitimately make those decisions for you. This is just might makes right (part XXXIV).

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think the government is helpful for solving certain problems of social significance, and if you had a bunch of people who agreed, you could go without one and see how it went.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you can't. If you tried, it would probably end up looking like this:

http://www.waco-anewrevelation.com/media/fire.jpg

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Society doesn't get to legitimately make those decisions for you. This is just might makes right (part XXXIV).


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, you can't. If you tried, it would probably end up looking like this:

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that my completely factual statement is true, but that you don't want it to be true?

Reality may lack moral legitimacy, but that makes it no less real. We try to change reality, and in all likelihood the steps you and I would take, at this point, would be quite similar.

You can continue to believe that your moral conception of the world means jack [censored], but it doesn't.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Society doesn't get to legitimately make those decisions for you. This is just might makes right (part XXXIV).


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, you can't. If you tried, it would probably end up looking like this:

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is that my completely factual statement is true, but that you don't want it to be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The fact that "Society" decides these things and *asserts* that they are "my rights" does not make it so.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can continue to believe that your moral conception of the world means jack [censored], but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can continue to believe that might makes right.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can continue to believe that your moral conception of the world means jack [censored], but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can continue to believe that might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sincerely do not understand why you keep repeating this.

Morality is an anthropological artifact, a label for evolved group norms. It doesn't have meaning apart from human society. And, historically, moral codes have always been birthed and defined according to the behaviors that society enforced through violent coercion.

In other words, might always HAS made "right."

So what the hell are you talking about?

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can continue to believe that your moral conception of the world means jack [censored], but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can continue to believe that might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so frustrating.

What is the importance of "right". What defines "right". Why should I even care what you think is "right".

Answer these questions, because I've already explained quite clearly what I mean when I say "rights" and I believe it is a definition that at least fits the real world pretty well.

You can continue to complain that life doesn't fit your particular ideal, but nothing will ever come about until you FORCE it to. FORCE.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Morality is an anthropological artifact, a label for evolved group norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have meaning apart from human society.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And, historically, moral codes have always been birthed and defined according to the behaviors that society enforced through violent coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Prove all of those assertions or just admit that they are only axioms in the non-theistic philosophy that you adhere to.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can continue to believe that your moral conception of the world means jack [censored], but it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can continue to believe that might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so frustrating.

What is the importance of "right". What defines "right". Why should I even care what you think is "right".

Answer these questions, because I've already explained quite clearly what I mean when I say "rights" and I believe it is a definition that at least fits the real world pretty well.

You can continue to complain that life doesn't fit your particular ideal, but nothing will ever come about until you FORCE it to. FORCE.

[/ QUOTE ]

The world runs on morality. Most people pay their taxes because they think it's good to do so. Either that or fear but the guns can only intimidate so many without the underlying false morality they are nothing. Why do you think the government comes up with all this bulls**t about the poor and the environment and blah blah blah if they could just say we've got nukes give us your cash now. Convincing people that taxation is evil is the best thing anyone can do for the world.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Convincing people that taxation is evil is the best thing anyone can do for the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

I give up... So clearly missing the point its unbelievable.

Re: Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your correct. Most people also favour some form of egalitarian reform, universal healthcare, etc. but thanks to private powers manipulation of government and the nature of the constitution the democratic opinion of the majority is inept without major pubblic stuggle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think wins this struggle when you give all the guns to one institution in society? Those people with the money and resources to manipulate the political process and the media.

So you guys can continue to claim that we need government to do this or that but understand that the ultimate consequence is that government is going to get controlled by those with money. Its irrational to claim we need government and then complain when your social programs get co-opted by interests that care nothing about the poor and only care about their monopolistic control of society. Its the natural consequence of the structure you want for society.

But mabey you could elaborate on exactly which point I missed.