http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

it is the state that has a monopoly on violence, not the government. one of the problems with anarcho-capitalist thinking is that you guys confuse the two. while government and state overlap and the government can even be defined as a result of the state, the state, being defined by the territory it rules over, is not defined as the government. the state has a distinct property -- it rules over a region, therefore claiming ownership over that region, therefore having a monopoly of force over that region. by this definition, a PDA, or any business that claims ownership over a specific area, or even privately owned portion of land, is actually a state. this is why Menace and i say that you don't believe in antistatism, therefore your ideology isn't anarchistic in nature. this is not an argument over semantics either. it is an argument over a principle; one that we hold dear and that you claim to follow as well. your beliefs are also authoritarian in that the hierarchy that is allowed (and actually encouraged) within these states gives power (in the form of authority) to specific individuals over others, and the inherent classism of this system distributes power to elites, making them inherent rulers.

i'm saying there's a correlation there.

and btw, Indonesia, one of the foremost free market capitalist countries in the world, is slated to see a rise in it's poverty rate in 2010 to a staggering 14%:

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6855312.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Indonesia

btw, do you follow Murray Rothbard's vision of anarcho-capitalism, David Friedman's vision, or do you have a completely different vision?

also, to let you know that self-ownership is bullshit:

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Also, they don't have law making authority, supply and demand does.

"It has a market-based economy in which the government plays a significant role by owning more than 164 state-owned enterprises and administers prices on several basic goods, including fuel, rice, and electricity."

"state - a politically unified people occupying a definite territory"

a PDA has jurisdiction of law over an allotted territory in the same way that any state would. the difference is simply that they are hired by private individuals rather than given that jurisdiction by a government. a PDA would essentially have the right to use force against someone who breaks the law on or against that individual's property, force being the key term here. a PDA is no more than a private state and a state is a form of rule, ergo what you are proposing is pure capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism.

how in the hell does that work? give me an example, and not one that specifically pertains to the market (ie, how laws about murder would come about through the market).

logic... reason......... philosophy............................. ?

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

there is no jursdiction. no one has property rights. you have possessions, which includes the house that you live in (hence you are USING this house, therefore you are claiming usership, not ownership), but you don't have the ability to claim ownership of a house that you wish to rent out to someone else, or just use every once in a while. you possess the house you currently inhabit because you are using it. you do not own that house. ownership, as in the legal right of all encompassing access to something, must be backed up by some form of force using authority. this authority is inherently a form of state for a state is, as i have defined above, a politically unified people occupying a definite territory. this authority practices control over a definite territory and, moreover, in your case, with "definite territory" being the key, it practices dominance over that territory using PDAs to flex their force over non-owners of that territory. territory, in any form of libertarian socialism, is simply that. it belongs to no one. nothing "belongs" to anything in libertarian socialist philosophy. everything just is. a state of being. belonging implies that something is not free. something has jurisdiction over it, and if that something is territory, the something that has jurisdiction over it is a state. states are, by definition, a form of authority. authority has the option to use force over that which it has authority over. i am against force, therefore i am against the state, therefore i am against property, whether it be private or public. self ownership is the same in this regard. you don't own yourself, you are yourself. "you" is a state of being. does this clear things up a bit?

no, we only believe in democracy by it's grassroots definition of "political or social equality". everything being on a voluntary basis, the people do not have dominion over themselves, which would, in fact, make it a form of direct democracy rather than anarchy, for it would, in fact, be self rule. but libertarian socialism instead is self management in a completely voluntary and non-authoritative manner. there is no dominion whatsoever. not over property, not over people, not over ideas. ownership becomes fruitless in a libertarian socialist model. we see ownership as a form of bind. binds are contrary to freedom.

so how would this work when being brought to court? i'm just imagining the fiasco it would be when, say, one PDA has a law supporting trespassing and is defending a trespasser and another PDA has a law criminalizing trespassing and is trying to prosecute said trespasser. would this be an issue of jurisdiction? would the court have power over the case? if so, what determines the laws the court abides by? who owns the court? is it a private entity owned by a third party PDA? is it completely independent of all PDAs? how is it determined which court gets the case?

oh lol. i mainly brought it up because in order to believe in property and wage labor one would need to have ownership over one's self, for one's labor is a product of his/her self and in order to rent one's labor to an employer (employment is exactly this), one must also rent his/her self to the employer for the self needs to be exploited in order to create the product of labor which is then in turn exploited by the employer. the self then, in turn, becomes a product and products are owned. being as the self is not a slave to an outside entity (prior to employment, of course you would disagree with this point, hence the parentheses ), the self, now commodified, is in a state of self-ownership. for this reason many anarcho-capitalists on YouTube, much like the atheist challenge, have taken up a "Declaration of Self-Ownership CHALLENGE" and so i was contesting that as it was pertinent to our discussion:

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Also about PDA's . As regards the anarchist criterion, it is clear that "defence companies" exist to defend private property; that they are hierarchical (in that they are capitalist companies which defend the power of those who employ them); that they are professional coercive bodies; and that they exercise a monopoly of force over a given area (the area, initially, being the property of the person or company who is employing the "association"). If, as Ayn Rand noted (using a Weberian definition of the state) a government is an institution "that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of conduct in a given geographical area" then these "defense companies" are the means by which the property owner (who exercises a monopoly to determine the rules governing their property) enforce their rules. So PDA's are states because they a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". Unlike participatory communities , workers coops etc. which don't have such authority .

Anarchism is far more than the common dictionary definition of "no government" -- it also entails being against all forms of archy, including those generated by capitalist property. The word anarchy means "no rulers" or "contrary to authority." As Rothbard himself acknowledges, the property owner is the ruler of their property and, therefore, those who use it. For this reason "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be considered as a form of anarchism -- a real anarchist must logically oppose the authority of the property owner along with that of the state. As "anarcho"-capitalism does not explicitly (or implicitly, for that matter) call for economic arrangements that will end wage labour and usury it cannot be considered anarchist or part of the anarchist tradition.

So, far from being new states by which one section of a community imposes its ethical standards on another, the anarchist commune is just a public forum. In this forum, issues of community interest (for example, management of the commons, control of communalised economic activity, and so forth) are discussed and policy agreed upon. In addition, interests beyond a local area are also discussed and delegates for confederal conferences are mandated with the wishes of the community. Hence, administration of things replaces government of people, with the community of communities existing to ensure that the interests of all are managed by all and that liberty, justice and equality are more than just ideals.

Yeah kinda

yes, but while one PDA has jurisdiction over an area they do, in fact, have a monopoly on force over that area. sure, they can lose that monopoly if the person that hires them so decides, but because of property rights, the PDA has an unrestrained monopoly on force over the person who does not own that territory and the person who does not own that territory has no say whatsoever in restraining that PDAs force over him. only the owner has a say. and it gets even worse when we get into ownership of a specific territory that is being rented out to someone else because it is the owner, not the renter, whose PDA governs his land and so the renter now has authoritarian power from the outside that he is not in control of governing over him. and even if this is not true, if the renter has right to his own PDA in the space in which he lives, now the owner has no legal jurisdiction over his own land, so there's an unnecessary dilemma you have created just to protect an artificial right to property.

here's a comment i posted on an anarcho-capitalist video where a person was asking "what if someone wants to be a wage slave?":

"the idea is that in the current society we live in, the layout being a competitive market, for the majority of the people wage slavery is the only option. it is either work for a boss or be a boss and most people will not be successful bosses (because competition creates winners and losers) and will likely succumb to employment. what we are implying is not authoritative coercion against people becoming wage slaves in a capitalistic environment. we are talking about a complete paradigm shift.

instead of a market based on fierce competition, we are speaking of a cooperative society in which people go to work voluntarily at a collective of their choosing without employment. rather than having businesses you will have factories, restaurants, post offices, etc. and people will go to work knowing that they are producing a good or service for people and in return getting (in my personal view) vouchers that will represent hours of work with which one can buy resources.

in such a society i don't see people wanting to work as a wage slave. there will be no need. it will be much more beneficial for that individual to simply work at a collective for they will have access to more resources. if someone wants to be a wage slave will we stop them? no. but why the hell would they in such a society? i think it's ridiculous to assume they would. also, in this system there is plenty of desire and motivation. in fact i would contest more so than in a capitalist environment."

if wage slavery won't arise, why would capitalism arise? i mean honestly, we are actually ok with a certain form of capitalism in a sense. trade will still be completely free and uninhibited, but the society will take on a completely new form. in all honesty it isn't really a form of regulation. it is more of a full fledged paradigm shift.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

WHAT ?? you make no SENSE at all my friend . These "defense companies" are the means by which the property owner (who exercises a monopoly to determine the rules governing their property) enforce their rules. By that they guarantee the owner that they will use legitimate force if someone interferes whit the owners property . They exercise a monopoly of force over a given area (the area, initially, being the property of the person or company who is employing the "association"). I hire them to guard my property or squash and bust strikes . This my man is considered STATIST . We don't want public policing we have private policing . Well my friend POLICING IS STILL FREAKING POLICING whatever is public or private .

My man Erik . He's Popeye the Sailor

Because capitalism is bad mmkay ? and private proprety is bad mmkay ? wage labor is bad mmkay ? because it's bad mmkay

I was just kidding there LOL . Here's my official reply mmkay ?

In an anarchist society, there is no need for anyone to "forbid" capitalist acts. Private property cannot stem out of communal property whit out the help of a state or legislative body . This leads us to my dilemma which you forgot to answer . Whit out the state that gives you the RIGHT to own property , this RIGHT by the US bill of rights is i quote " God given " so who will grant you this right ?. You will grab a wasteland owned by no one and put a fence around it and call it your property ? there is no state granting you that right anyone can fuck you up . Not to say that eliminating the STATE you will eliminate the monetarist system which fuels capitalism.