Monopoly on violence not monopoly in economic activity .

We have legislative bodies backing those courts ? Laws must be passed so courts can enforce them .

That business owner will already by expropriated by the workforce he himself hired . That will be the case in a revolution . Bosses will be overwelmed by their own workers and EXPROPRIATED by the workers themselves . A modern example is Argentina.

The price sets itself in conjunction whit how much resources was used to create it how much damage it will do and did and how much labor was used . Its actually more natural because we don't ignore externalities .

full control = full ownership

how, do you assume, in such a society a business owner would even be able to arise? he won't have the resources because there is no property, no ownership. resources will be distributed to stores evenly rather than based on a pricing system. with a cooperative mindset people will know that it is society's prerogative to distribute evenly. this mindset can be achieved through education. we will know how much of everything there is based on a sort of census system much like, but far more in depth than, our current systems for taking polls and such. the only way one could possibly start a business with employees is if they spend a ton of time working in the collectives in order to buy a ridiculous amount of supplies, then sell them at a price below what they bought them for, and as you can see, this would be highly inefficient. the business owner can't actually make money. oh, and of course there's the independent farmer scenario. if a farmer is independent, in order to make money he either has to do trade with someone or distribute to collectives. trading with people will prove to be highly inefficient because the person making the trade can get more for that trade from a collective (people would only want to trade if they get more for that trade than what they are trading is worth, therefore the independent farmer would be at a loss). now idk other peoples' views of this, but i have no problem personally with sole proprietorship as long as the person has no employees. if, say, i want to be a personal trainer, i have no problem with barter or even possibly some sort of program that will account for my labor as a sole proprietor. of course i am only at the early stages of developing my thought on this and i do not believe any other anarchist thinkers have considered this possibility so i will get back to you when i have fully developed this idea.

not true at all. we are setting up a system that is actually a far more natural price system than what you are speaking of because work directly translates to money. labor actually dictates the price of goods.

no, not at all. capitalism will arise naturally in the form of barter. crude, simple capitalism that involves no bosses or wage labor. a free trade market will exist and will not be suppressed, and will even be encouraged. a more natural system will arise instead. one in which labor is the means to consumption and directly translates to supply and demand without actually suppressing supply and demand like the artificial form of capitalism you are speaking of will through competition and private authority. like i said, it is a complete paradigm shift. you aren't expanding your mind outside the box right now. you are thinking within the cube that you have been cultured into in which markets and wage labor are the only possibility. it might do you some good to read up on "primitive" societies that functioned much like what we are talking about. you will see that it is a completely different mindset in which people aren't automatically assumed to be greedy by nature and collectivism and cooperation are actually natural functions of society. will it take time? of course. will you or i ever see the rise of such a system? highly unlikely. but it is damn sure worth it to work for it.

what centralized organization? name the centralized organization that is deciding the prices of things lol. you can't, because there isn't. prices are decided by labor and resources. demand is an artificial factor, not a natural factor. there are no people running businesses who can jack up prices because demand goes up. that is a completely artificial feature of economics. if someone raises the prices it will be done collectively. anyone who votes to raise the price due to demand is an idiot because they are directly hurting themselves by doing so.

once again, census records, much like we have today. people will rotate jobs, including census work, and so censuses will be consistently taken. it will also be much easier to keep track of in such a society because there won't be people assigned to that job specifically and only handling one job and that's it. census work will be considered labor and the person doing the job will get paid for it (in vouchers which represent hours of work).

and then i will once again direct you to the video i posted which debunks the idea of self-ownership philosophically as recursive and illogical (because it assumes mind-body dualism which has been thoroughly refuted). you do not own yourself. that would require yourself to not be yourself or for "you" to be composed of two completely separate entities, of which one owns the other. this is mind-body dualism. this does not make sense philosophically or scientifically. the video i posted thoroughly refutes it. you do not own yourself. you are not a commodity. you have liberty. you are yourself, you don't own yourself.

first off, philosophers have been debating this for close to a century, maybe longer, and the argument has been over whether the distinction between positive and negative rights even exists. natural rights would have to exist in order for this distinction to exist and i've already argued that they don't. rights are not natural, they are created by us. you would have to believe in a form of natural authority, like, say, God to believe in natural rights, and you as an atheist already know where this discussion will go if we go there. and even if we can argue for specific natural rights, there are plenty of rights that are not natural that you often try to consider natural, including the right to property. just because John Locke says so doesn't make property a natural right. hell, life isn't even a natural right. if it was, people wouldn't die. but i'm not even going to argue that. i will play your game. is trespassing not a breach of your "natural" right to property? property being a negative right, would PDAs not have jurisdiction over trespassers? would the PDA of an owner not have jurisdiction over the negative rights of a renter of that owner's property? read my scenario on the previous page and evaluate it. i created a dilemma for you.

it wouldn't because everything they would produce would be at a loss. it would be too much of a risk. read the first few portions of this comment and you will see why it will be at a loss.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

and here's the situation i set up for you to evaluate in regards to negative rights (like i said, the distinction between positive and negative rights is a false one in my opinion, but i'm putting that aside for this argument):

because it's recursive and self-contradictory. can you possess yourself? that's absurd. i can possess the pair of tweezers i have in my hand. these tweezers can belong to me if in society we have property laws that allow that to be. i cannot belong to myself though. i am not a belonging, faculty, or quality that is possessed by myself. i am myself. i have liberty of self as an individual free from control or rule even from myself, for myself is me, it is not an outside force. in order to control me, one would have to be an outside force. i would then have to be two or more separate entities in order to control myself. this is not the case. i am me, one fluid substance with multiple interacting proponents, not multiple substances. i am self. i do not own self.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

I can exercise restraint from myself (I can restrain myself from eating cookies), I have direct influence over myself (if I want to type, I type), I have power over myself (I can make myself work, run, etc). We can conclude that we control ourselves. Therefore also concluding we own ourselves.

liberty is "freedom from external or foreign rule". therefore, to be in control of self (if we even are) without any outside control is to be in a state of liberty. as a self proclaimed libertarian, i would assume that your highest goal is liberty. i will show how, then, how liberty and self-ownership are mutually exclusive, one falling into absurdity while the other other becomes prevalent. i will then also show how it is self-ownership, not liberty, that is absurd:

the dictionary... ?

"own - to have or hold as one's own; possess"

"possess:

1. to have as belonging to one; have as property; own.
2. to have as a faculty, quality, or the like."

and before you even go there, while the above definition of the word "possess" is pertinent to our discussion now, when i speak of possessing something rather than owning it, this is what i am referring to:

"possess - to occupy or hold."

first of all, if determinism is true (which it likely is), we are, ultimately, not in control of ourselves. secondly, again, the argument that we own ourselves is recursive. as the video i posted states, "if one considers one to own one's self, it's necessarily the case that, consciously or subconsciously, one is drawing a dichotomy between the mind and the body. to the person who believes that the mind and the body are separable, liberty becomes nothing more than a special case, or a synonym for, property. a special kind of property. property in one's self. alternatively, if liberty is not a kind of property, then it means that one's mind controls one's mind controls one's mind etc. recursively ad infinita. a ridiculous and recursive meaning of the word 'liberty'. now consider the position of the person who does not draw a dichotomy between mind and body; between spirit and body; between soul and body. for such people, liberty refers to control of one's body whereas property refers to control of things other than one's body. to the person who regards mind and body as inseparable, it is self-ownership, not liberty, that has the ridiculous and infinitely recursive meaning; that the self owns the self owns the self, etc. who then finds it necessary to use this concept of self-ownership in the defense of freedom?"

again, that is liberty, not self-ownership.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

no, but they exercise force over one's property at the discretion of the owner of that property, and the person who owns the land, not the PDA itself, is actually the state, for it is them that has the monopoly of force over that land. the PDA is just the means by which they exercise that force.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

"1 a : to have or hold as property : possess b : to have power or mastery over"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/own

occupy - to take or hold possession or control of

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupy

Your in control of yourself.