community and anarchy - pt I
 

so I've been thinking about the best way to present anarcho-socialism in this forum - obviously if I start with an axiom that most of you disagree with, then it doesn't matter how the arguments follow from there since by rejecting the initial axiom you have rejected all the following arguments. I think that arguments can be made for roughly-egalitarian anarchy in a variety of ways - both from a variety of "moral" approaches and from a variety of "consequential" approaches. (Likewise I think arguments against AC can be made from a variety of approaches - eg I don't think the "original aquisition" objection or the "future generations" objection to property rights have ever been adequately dealt with) However, for the purpose of this conversation I shall try to make an argument that starts from the one thing I'm reasonably sure anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists agree on, and draw it out from there.

A rough overview of the argument is:

axiom: a stateless society is better than a statist society for maximizing freedom and liberty

first point: the problem of maintaining a statist society without moving back towards a state or ("states by other names") is a problem of maintaining some sort of social cohesion/social order

second point: this is only possible through having a community (communities)

third point: a viable community requires a rough egalitarianism in terms of economic equality

corrolary: contrary to Nozick's claims against any form of patterned distribution, this rough equality can be maintained (and has been maintained for thousands of years) in stateless societies

conclusions: in the presence of gross inequality the shared norms and interdependence that form the backbone of a community begin to breakdown and a stateless society can not be maintained. inequality is not necessarily a result of individual liberty, but is always a predictable result of capitalism. capitalism and anarchism are mututally exclusive - one must pick what they would prefer - a capitalist state or anarchy - if you want to argue that free market capitalism is to the great benefit of all humans be my guest, but recognize that it is not compatible with a stateless society.

so in essence, I hope to show not that egalitarianism is good or meaningful or beneficial in and of itself, but that statelessness is good and beneficial in and of itself and that rough egalitarian distributions are necessary to maintaining that condition of statelessness. In essence that rough equality is not the antithesis of liberty, but rather one of its bedrocks.

It may take me a few days to flesh out the argument. I have no illusions that any ACers will see the light, it is more a rhetorical exercise in being able to present a premise that you agree with and draw it out logically to a conclusion that you don't, rather than simply starting with a premise you don't agree with.

While I personally think there is a good argument for looking at anarchism's relationship with the State in light of much post-structural work around capilliary power, hegemony, ideology, biopower, the production of knowledge, rationality, etc and set anarchism in opposition to a wide variety of these things, for this argument I will be sticking pretty closely to the Weberian definition of a state - "that which has a successful monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographic area" - perhaps expanding it to highly concentrated and inequal amounts of force/power in a given geographic area (I do not argue that a condition where power is perfectly equal has ever or will ever exist, merely that there is some tipping point where a gross concentration of power begins to congeal itself into statist tendencies)

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
axiom: a stateless society is better than a statist society for maximizing freedom and liberty

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed!

[ QUOTE ]
first point: the problem of maintaining a statist society without moving back towards a state or ("states by other names") is a problem of maintaining some sort of social cohesion/social order

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Luckily, Liberty is the mother and not the daughter of order!

[ QUOTE ]
second point: this is only possible through having a community (communities)

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "communities"? It seems to me that any sort of workable anarchist society is going to have something resembling a town/village/community/city... and any workable anarchist society is going to be HIGHLY decentralized, so I would think that there would likely be lots of small communities and fewer huge cities.

[ QUOTE ]
third point: a viable community requires a rough egalitarianism in terms of economic equality

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "rough egalitarianism" and "economic equality"? It seems to me that throughout history there are plenty of examples of 'communities' that have been quite inegalitarian. These, of course, have generally existed within statist frameworks, and aren't necessarily the 'ideal' that anarchists should work toward.
But it seems to me that any free society is going to have some reasonable amount of economic inequality, because a free society allows individuals to control their own lives and people have different abilities/habits/luck and make different choices.
So I think you need to be more clear on what you mean here, and on what you think might be 'acceptable' levels of inequality. Certainly the inequality we have today would be inconducive to liberty and to a stateless society, but our current inequalities are primarily a result of the statism we aim to eliminate.
So I guess my initial reaction is to say that a) there will some fair amount of inequality in a stateless society, b) that it will be far far less than the inequality today, c) that such inequality will pose some danger to a free society (but that the danger will be drastically reduced without the presence of a centralized and coercive State), and d) that any aggressive attempts to eliminate economic inequalities in a stateless society should be opposed.

[ QUOTE ]
In essence that rough equality is not the antithesis of liberty, but rather one of its bedrocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, most libertarians and ACists already agree with this, except that the 'equality' they mean is one of authority and not of property.
But I would agree that substantial economic inequality is also bad, and that any society ('free" or otherwise) that attempted to exist within a framework of massive economic inequality would be unworkable.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

You seem to be trying to make something very complicated out of something that's actually very simple. ACers believe that by making use of land, a person gains ownership of it and ASers disagree and call trying to own land "theft". As far as I can tell, that's the only real difference between the two beliefs. All the other differences are rooted in this one.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]

third point: a viable community requires a rough egalitarianism in terms of economic equality

[/ QUOTE ]

It's called a town.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

The one question I have is "why do you think equality in outcome is so important? (wouldn't this create a bunch of robotic type cardboard cutout people?)A truly free society would have very different outcomes for different people. Opportunity and outcome will not follow the same line on a graph. If you choose to provide a service you enjoy providing...ie ice cream shop owner and you make a average income, that is your choice. Perhaps you could make three times as much being a IT manager at a large company...but would not enjoy it as much. (the option is available but you decide hapiness is worth more than the money)

Your previous posts on AS lead me to believe that some commitee is going to decide how ones personel skills are best utilized for the benefit of the commune. You or I could get stuck doing labor we truly hate...for the benefit of others. I do not consider that freedom. In AC everything is voluntary because your purpose is for yourself and not to benefit others or the "greater good" (a term I detest...because the greater good in my opinion may not be the greater good in your opinion) Many things today are said to be for the greater good that I do not agree with....I do not see how this would change in AS....I do see it changing in AC.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

geez hold on folks, i haven't even made the argument yet [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be trying to make something very complicated out of something that's actually very simple. ACers believe that by making use of land, a person gains ownership of it and ASers disagree and call trying to own land "theft". As far as I can tell, that's the only real difference between the two beliefs. All the other differences are rooted in this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I would say it's bigger than that. Capitalism doesn't just function on land ownership, it functions on profit.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
first point: the problem of maintaining a statist society without moving back towards a state or ("states by other names") is a problem of maintaining some sort of social cohesion/social order

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the Anarchocapitalist definition of the state - "that which has a successful monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographic area" - isn't Anarchocapitalism the replacement of one kind of government (democracy) for another?

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]


Well I would say it's bigger than that. Capitalism doesn't just function on land ownership, it functions on profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every voluntary exchange "functions on profit." A person only seeks an exchange if he or she believes to be getting more than that which he or she gives up.

In anarchy, or a society without rulers, involuntary exchange is no longer institutionalized and conducted on a mass scale. It becomes explicitly criminal, and voluntary exchange, exchanges that seek profit, become the norm.

Therefore any anarchist society functions on profit.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
According to the Anarchocapitalist definition of the state - "that which has a successful monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographic area" - isn't Anarchocapitalism the replacement of one kind of government (democracy) for another?

[/ QUOTE ]

No?

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean, since most 'anarchocapitalists' recognize that monpolies would not exist without statist coercion. So it's hard to see why any monopolies (let alone those on the legitimate use of force) would exist in a statless society.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

Niet: you're right: if most anarchocapitalists "recognize" that no monopolies would exist without a state, it's pretty hard to see why any monopolies would exist without a state.

With logic like that, it's surprising you guys haven't convinced everyone.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

Good post. You'll notice that the anarcho-capitalist societies that ACers quote as successful (i.e. Ireland and Iceland for a short period in the middle ages) are actually great examples of informal anarcho-socialism due to strong social and community bonds, an intelligent, generally non violent populace, limited geography (islands), environmental constraints (cold winters), and homogeneity of race and religion.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
first point: the problem of maintaining a statist society without moving back towards a state or ("states by other names") is a problem of maintaining some sort of social cohesion/social order

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the Anarchocapitalist definition of the state - "that which has a successful monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographic area" - isn't Anarchocapitalism the replacement of one kind of government (democracy) for another?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were legitimate, there would be no argument against it.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]

Good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't even post anything yet.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
Niet: you're right: if most anarchocapitalists "recognize" that no monopolies would exist without a state, it's pretty hard to see why any monopolies would exist without a state.

With logic like that, it's surprising you guys haven't convinced everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Historically, it just isn't the case that monopolies form without help from government. Read Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism--despite myths to the contrary, there really were no monopolies (with the possible exception of the telephone industry, though this was primarily caused by patents). There was not widespread centralization and cartelization of business until the Big Businesses, under the guise of 'Progressivism" lobbied the government for increased federal regulation.

So I'm really not understanding your points. How is it that monopolies will form without government coercion? How is it that free markets and voluntary exchange will lead to a situation where the very very few own most of the stuff? You have yet to really point out what you find so objectionable about voluntary exchange, since everything you've said so far can far more easily be traced to government intervention and corporate capitalism.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. You'll notice that the anarcho-capitalist societies that ACers quote as successful (i.e. Ireland and Iceland for a short period in the middle ages) are actually great examples of informal anarcho-socialism due to strong social and community bonds, an intelligent, generally non violent populace, limited geography (islands), environmental constraints (cold winters), and homogeneity of race and religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, they're excellent examples of anarchist--or near-anarchist--socities.

Seriously, trying to say "Ireland was completely AC" or "Iceland was totally not AC but all Anarchosocialist" is kind of stupid. There were clearly strong elements of both in such societies insofar as both Iceland and Ireland are excellent examples of highly decentralized socities that solved many 'problems' with voluntary measures. Some solutions might be classified as 'market solutions', others not.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

I agree - and anarchy can work in a place with the above mentioned criteria - military isolation, limited geography, and a relatively small, homogenous population with high social intelligence. In fact, it's a very noble thing that leaves government for dead.

But I think the concept of the market solving everything, where those prerequisites don't exist, is lol. I'm looking forward to more of latefordinner's posts.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. You'll notice that the anarcho-capitalist societies that ACers quote as successful (i.e. Ireland and Iceland for a short period in the middle ages) are actually great examples of informal anarcho-socialism due to strong social and community bonds, an intelligent, generally non violent populace,

[/ QUOTE ]

So they're ASism due to a bunch of things ASism shares in common with ACism? Hmm...

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I think the concept of the market solving everything, where those prerequisites don't exist, is lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree, since part of why anarchism works so well is the inherent decentralization. So even in a place like the US anarchism would work, I think, because if people wanted to be in a small community with people of their 'kind' it would be pretty easy--small communities might be internally homogenous even if the entire 'country' were quite heterogenous.

Military isolation, while obviously beneficial, is I think also unnecessary since a) neighboring countries might be less likely to attack an anarchist 'country' since it would never provoke attacks, and b) an anarchist society would already be difficult to attack since all such attacks would take place in the anarchist society and the high level of decentralization would make capture far more difficult and far less appealing.

I don't think the idea is that the market must 'solve everything', as if all of life's problems magically disappear before the free market. But I think free markets, when combined with non-market methods (charities, mutual aid societies, unions, town militias, nonviolent resistance) can overcome many of the things you list as 'essential' for an anarchist society.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

What the hell is an anarcho-socialist? That makes no sense. Maybe you mean syndicalist?

"Good post. You'll notice that the anarcho-capitalist societies that ACers quote as successful (i.e. Ireland and Iceland for a short period in the middle ages) are actually great examples of informal anarcho-socialism due to strong social and community bonds, an intelligent, generally non violent populace, limited geography (islands), environmental constraints (cold winters), and homogeneity of race and religion. "

Neither of those were anarchist. The only anarchist area I can think of is the paris commune, spain in the late 1800's, and early 90's somalia.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
statelessness is good and beneficial in and of itself and that rough egalitarian distributions are necessary to maintaining that condition of statelessness. In essence that rough equality is not the antithesis of liberty, but rather one of its bedrocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does the "rough equality" exist without a state to enforce it? It seems like you are just taking a circuitous route to claiming that a stateless society cannot exist.

If you have no state to enforce equality, how will you stop people from capitalizing on their talents and their trade advantages? If you want to postulate a world where nobody wants to leverage their talents for social or material advantage, then you are simply making the claim that a stateless, egalitarian society is impossible, since human nature dictates people will do so. And since you are claiming (without backing it up yet I'll point out), that a non-egalitarian society cannot survive and will return to a state, you are just taking a very long time to say that anarchy is impossible, which has been said many times on this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
if you want to argue that free market capitalism is to the great benefit of all humans be my guest, but recognize that it is not compatible with a stateless society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the onus is still on you to show why people would not engage in commerce without a state around.

natedogg

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
Niet: you're right: if most anarchocapitalists "recognize" that no monopolies would exist without a state, it's pretty hard to see why any monopolies would exist without a state.

With logic like that, it's surprising you guys haven't convinced everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logic explaining how monopolies cannot arise and last without a state is something that has been gone over before in this forum in depth.

Nietz simply pointed out the glaring flaw in your inane hypothetical. Your smarmy attitude is getting old. If you want to actually learn something (and its clear you have a lot to learn) then start acting like an adult.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

You're saying that we know a priori that in a stateless society there would be no monopolies? Wow. Let me guess, Austrian?

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that we know a priori that in a stateless society there would be no monopolies? Wow. Let me guess, Austrian?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't believe Ive ever said that.

I for one am not well versed in the monopoly debate and am not fully convinced one way or the other to be frank.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Niet: you're right: if most anarchocapitalists "recognize" that no monopolies would exist without a state, it's pretty hard to see why any monopolies would exist without a state.

With logic like that, it's surprising you guys haven't convinced everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logic explaining how monopolies cannot arise and last without a state is something that has been gone over before in this forum in depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, obviously if the ACists in the Politics forum have settled the issue, there's no point in discussing it anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
Nietz simply pointed out the glaring flaw in your inane hypothetical. Your smarmy attitude is getting old. If you want to actually learn something (and its clear you have a lot to learn) then start acting like an adult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Val, why don't we take your personal attacks to this thread, so we don't derail late's thread any further.


PS - It's funny how ACists switch from "you can't prove it WON'T work" when defending their own theory, to "the onus is on YOU," when attacking somebody else's.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, obviously if the ACists in the Politics forum have settled the issue, there's no point in discussing it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simple question. Can you name a monopoly that has occured without government intervention? Also I'd tell you to read the faq, but you seem to be more preoccupied with trolling then actually engaging in an honest debate or leaning something about a theory you seem to like talking about a lot.
[ QUOTE ]
It's funny how ACists switch from "you can't prove it WON'T work" when defending their own theory...

[/ QUOTE ]
Link to any ACist doing this ever plz.
[ QUOTE ]
to "the onus is on YOU," when attacking somebody else's.

[/ QUOTE ]
The onus is on the statist. Government is an intervention on a person's natural liberty. You should have to be the one to prove that government is +EV over ACism.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that we know a priori that in a stateless society there would be no monopolies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly--we know a priori that monopolies are far less likely to occur in a stateless society than a statist one.
It also depends on what is meant by 'monopoly'. Most Austrians apply the term only to cases where there are entry barriers enforced with physical force, so it seems obvious that these would be far less likely to happen without State coercion.
If though by monopoly you mean 'the only company in a given geographical area', or something like that, it still seems obvious that a highly decentralized society will have a much easier time avoiding monopolies than a highly centralized statist one.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me guess, Austrian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Austrian and [censored] proud of it! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
PS - It's funny how ACists switch from "you can't prove it WON'T work" when defending their own theory, to "the onus is on YOU," when attacking somebody else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, the extent to which 'ACists' do this is probably pretty equal to the extent that any other group on this forum does this. I really find it unlikely that one group commits this fallacy with such great frequency that they need be singled out.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
PS - It's funny how ACists switch from "you can't prove it WON'T work" when defending their own theory, to "the onus is on YOU," when attacking somebody else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference between these two positions?

Also, note that there is nothing to prove when it comes to AC. Do I need to prove that, for example, not swimming will "work" or not?

Even if you could prove that it would "work" or not (I'm not really sure what it means for it to work, but that's irrelevant), nothing changes, since the use of force against unwilling parties is still not justified.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]


Not exactly--we know a priori that monopolies are far less likely to occur in a stateless society than a statist one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we know that, logically. It may be true but not before the fact.

[ QUOTE ]
It also depends on what is meant by 'monopoly'. Most Austrians apply the term only to cases where there are entry barriers enforced with physical force, so it seems obvious that these would be far less likely to happen without State coercion.


[/ QUOTE ]

But even now when you say "state coercion" that is coercion of government working with capitalists!! If you are an Austrian you must know that barriers to entry are levied by firms, using the law, to harm competitors.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it were legitimate, there would be no argument against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it /isn't/ legitimate in the eyes of anarchists, I'm using a more general sociological definition here in that the only way the state maintains its stateness is by claiming (and convincing/coercing its subjects) that it has a monopoly on violence

Thanks for the thoughts so far, it helps to see where there will be points of strong contention so that I can focus on those - Thanks also to Phil for intuiting in advance the social norms and social control that a community exerts on its members as being an important part of the picture

I'll try to write the first half of the argument tonight

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is an anarcho-socialist? That makes no sense. Maybe you mean syndicalist?

[/ QUOTE ]

syndicalism is certainly a type of libertarian socialism - though i would argue that it suffers from the same industrial bias that most Marxist variants do - if yr familiar with your anarchist theory you'll note that most anarchist writers explicitly identify the political philosophy as a branch of socialism (and actually as the only /true/ socialism)

I agree with the spanish communes during the revolution as being anarchist, not so much with the paris commune or situationists, don't know enough about somalia, but I think that the strongest arguments for anarchism can be found in the social relations of pre-civilized societies and in small intentionally anarchist communal experiments in both the US and especially in the large scale squats in the Scandanavian countries, Spain, and the autonomia movements in Germany and Italy

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
So how does the "rough equality" exist without a state to enforce it? It seems like you are just taking a circuitous route to claiming that a stateless society cannot exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

no in fact I'm arguing the opposite, that a stateless society CAN exist, HAS in fact existed, but that it is not compatible with massive wealth/power disparities -- let me get there sheesh!

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is an anarcho-socialist? That makes no sense. Maybe you mean syndicalist?

[/ QUOTE ]

syndicalism is certainly a type of libertarian socialism - though i would argue that it suffers from the same industrial bias that most Marxist variants do - if yr familiar with your anarchist theory you'll note that most anarchist writers explicitly identify the political philosophy as a branch of socialism (and actually as the only /true/ socialism)

I agree with the spanish communes during the revolution as being anarchist, not so much with the paris commune or situationists, don't know enough about somalia, but I think that the strongest arguments for anarchism can be found in the social relations of pre-civilized societies and in small intentionally anarchist communal experiments in both the US and especially in the large scale squats in the Scandanavian countries, Spain, and the autonomia movements in Germany and Italy

[/ QUOTE ]

Socialism to me, is at least temporarily marx's idea of the workers' state, the main thing that seperates socialists/marxists from anarchists.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]


But even now when you say "state coercion" that is coercion of government working with capitalists!! If you are an Austrian you must know that barriers to entry are levied by firms, using the law, to harm competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and?

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


But even now when you say "state coercion" that is coercion of government working with capitalists!! If you are an Austrian you must know that barriers to entry are levied by firms, using the law, to harm competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and?

[/ QUOTE ]

So saying "state coercion" implies that capitalists are somehow not a part. They want to harm other firms just as much as the state does.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
So saying "state coercion" implies that capitalists are somehow not a part.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't. I and other ACists have been very vocal about the fact that capitalists often use government to externalize costs or to get sweet/no bid contracts. We do so because we recognize the incentives involved with having a government.
[ QUOTE ]
They want to harm other firms just as much as the state does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, that's why ACism has the A to go along with the C, so that other firms can't use government to their advantage.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
Socialism to me, is at least temporarily marx's idea of the workers' state, the main thing that seperates socialists/marxists from anarchists.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's marxism, not nec. socialism and was the reason for the schism between anarchists and mainstream socialists. bakunin, malatesta, rocker, kropotkin, makhno, emma goldman, alexander berkman, the CNT-FAI - nearly all post enlightment European political movements that identified as anarchist explicitly and repeatedly identify it as libertarian socialism in opposition to both authoritarian socialism and capitalism

also important to note that, there have been intermediate grounds between libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism, like Prodhoun's mutualism which still advocates individual ownership of land and functioning markets though it is telling that most anarcho capitalists still see mutualism as socialist. I would count the Mandragon collectives as important examples of a bridge between collectivist, individual, socialist and capitalist tendencies.

Also forgot to mention the Israeli kibbutzum as being examples of libertarian socialist communities

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
The one question I have is "why do you think equality in outcome is so important? (wouldn't this create a bunch of robotic type cardboard cutout people?)A truly free society would have very different outcomes for different people. Opportunity and outcome will not follow the same line on a graph. If you choose to provide a service you enjoy providing...ie ice cream shop owner and you make a average income, that is your choice. Perhaps you could make three times as much being a IT manager at a large company...but would not enjoy it as much. (the option is available but you decide hapiness is worth more than the money)

Your previous posts on AS lead me to believe that some commitee is going to decide how ones personel skills are best utilized for the benefit of the commune. You or I could get stuck doing labor we truly hate...for the benefit of others. I do not consider that freedom. In AC everything is voluntary because your purpose is for yourself and not to benefit others or the "greater good" (a term I detest...because the greater good in my opinion may not be the greater good in your opinion) Many things today are said to be for the greater good that I do not agree with....I do not see how this would change in AS....I do see it changing in AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can any of you socialist leaning folks out there please respond to this? I am truly interested in why outcome is so important even if it takes away personel choice.

Re: community and anarchy - pt I
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be trying to make something very complicated out of something that's actually very simple. ACers believe that by making use of land, a person gains ownership of it and ASers disagree and call trying to own land "theft". As far as I can tell, that's the only real difference between the two beliefs. All the other differences are rooted in this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I would say it's bigger than that. Capitalism doesn't just function on land ownership, it functions on profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it functions on mutually beneficial trades. There's nothing in AS that stops people from making mutually beneficial trades, is there? Cause I thought AS was against initiation of force.

Also, I don't even think the land thing is true. Let's say you have your little commune factory and I blow it up? That's ok, right, since no one owns the property?