Re: anarcho socialism question
[ 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?
|