do you live in every country? have you experienced every country? have you studied every country? the only reason the majority of countries have a clear concept of ownership is because of European and American imperialism prior to the 20th century. that still doesn't mean every society and every country have the same values regarding ownership. i can't think of any specific example right this minute but i will look. it's inconsequential though. everyone in the world at this point has had contact with the "civilized world" which has been shaped by European and American society. many Native American societies, which i have provided extensive evidence to show that by and large they had no concept of personal property, were, in many ways, more advanced than the groups of Europeans and, later, Americans that made contact with them, but since Europe was so focused on fighting purposeless wars against each other for greedy purposes, they had advanced weapons with which they wiped out 90% of the American Natives and temporarily placed the rest in internment camps, only to later release them and try to force them to live like "Americans". it wasn't then until the 1930's that FDR finally gave them the opportunity to live on reservations which, over time, grew smaller and smaller as "America" asked for "their" land back. and that is just one example of a society that didn't believe in individual property. their fate was genocide. other societies, such as tribal Scotland (another group of people crushed by imperialistic force perpetuated for greed), shared similar views with the Native Americans:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....b097ba7

before i say this, i will say this isn't meant to be rude. i am seriously asking this question to try to understand the problem here and possibly help you out. do you have a reading comprehension issue? i mean seriously, you truly completely misunderstood what i said in that quote. read it again. idk what the problem is, but you truly misunderstood what i was saying.

this is going nowhere. i really don't think we're going to meet common ground at all to even argue on the same grounds so i'm just going to drop this argument.

it is relevant. idk how i can make myself more clear.

it isn't about the definition. it is about the concept of self-ownership falling apart philosophically because of fallacious reasoning.

not without the proper moves being made and and patience being a virtue. it is absolutely possible though. although i am no Christian, i truly believe the meek shall inherent the earth. if it doesn't, the world is going to meet an early demise at the hands of it's inhabitants. this system is destined to either come true or fail to do so and lead the world to it's demise.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Here you go:

i'm calm lol. emotions often get misconstrued when conveyed through writing. i most definitely will let you know.

i provided quotes from actual Native Americans who actually were well known members and spiritual leaders of specific successful tribes that were describing the Native philosophy. i also provided, quite recently (like in the last two pages or so), a link to a page that discusses, in detail, Native American philosophy on personal property (the fact that they didn't even comprehend the concept because they lived without such an ideal). i also provided information (a link to the abstract of a scientific report on tribal Scotland) on the Scottish tribes who didn't believe in personal property in my last comment. i will post the link that i recently posted on the Natives again in a moment.

the problem is that you often misread what i write and, while on occasion, because i'm typing fast and not putting much thought into my grammar, i do write somewhat incoherently, the majority of what i write is quite clear and straight forward. but please, enlighten me, how was my thinking wrong and how was what i wrote not clearly written?

but they can't live off of not having to work in such a society. that is what you are not understanding. i can't speak for the Venus Project, but i can speak for the society i propose, and there is no way anyone can get away with not working. they would starve.

it's ok.

and i agree. i have seen this first hand. look into the kibbutzen. people had to work harder there than in any society i can think of. the entire basis of the system i am talking about is work. work is key to survival. work or starve is a basic function of both of our societies. we are in agreement here.

the Soviet Union's downfall had to do with it's strong centralization of authority and assets and the fact that it didn't promote voluntarism but rather the leaders forced people to work in collectives and the bourgeoisie class benefited most from the spoils of labor, which is something that was supposed to be prevented from the beginning, but because of authoritarianism it was a problem that only got worse. of course this is an oversimplification and there are many other problems involved, and seeing as they used fiat money, it is quite possible that this lead to a problem, but while i am not promoting a form of money backed by a hard asset, i am also not promoting fiat money. i am promoting a form of money backed by exactly what drives the economy -- labor. the money i am speaking of directly represents labor and therefore does not have some made up value (which is what fiat money is). it's value directly represents work done by an individual. it does not inflate or deflate based on the value of an asset backing it or because some authority says so. it only inflates or deflates if the people decide to change the worth of their labor. it is a more stable form of currency than any form of currency in existence today.

i'm in total agreement and you will find that most libertarian socialists are with you on this point.

he was saying that based on a proper philosophy revolving around that word, that specific definition was inadequate.

no, not at all. hold on, i'm doing more research on the definition right now since that is what it seems to be coming down to in this regard. i will get back to you on this soon if i find anything of interest.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us1.htm

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

http://struggle.ws/anarchi....AC.html

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

You are simplifying it in your mind. There are many philosophies on how it would work. Give me an example of what you mean though. Remember though, there will be no "administrative", "managerial" or "boss-type" jobs in this society and people that try to erect them will be losing money in doing so.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

That's called a "hobby", not work. And notice, I didn't say "job". Employment would not exist in such a society.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

That's why I ignore a lot of menace's arguments. I don't care about if the society is labeled correctly. I only care about how well the society would work.

"I was recently told that I’m not a “real” anarchist by several people who call themselves anarcho or libertarian socialists. Most people like to think of themselves as being reasonable and logical, rarely is this the case. A side effect of this is that once they have an idea they are usually pretty dogmatic in their ideologies. Many accuse others of this same trait and are lacking enough self awareness to see how wedded to their own ideas they actually are, this is just the pot calling the kettle black. As for me I am trying to augment my education, on my own time and under my own direction. The result is that I expand my mind and explore new ideas. As I learn I grow. However, once I find an idea that I see as logical and cogent I am tenacious about it. Is this rigidity? Maybe it is, however my ideas can be swayed if the counter point is reasonable and logically coherent. However, most of the debates I have had recently have offered nothing of the sort, they are emotional and reactionary arguments made by people who believe they are being logical. It’s a case of rationalization usurping being rational.

Recently I was called “authoritarian” because I am an agorist. According to my critic I am more a “classic liberal than an anarchist”. I would like to ask the question: And your point is? Classic liberalism is the basis of the libertarian philosophy when taken to its logical conclusion is market anarchy, agorism. It is the belief that people should not only be free politically, but economically as well. The original leftist radicals were laissez-faire capitalists, they believed in the right to property, the free trade of goods and tolerance to diverse ideas. I am a believer in a totally voluntary society, I see the free market as the ecosystem where people are free to exchange goods and services according to any arrangement they wish. Agorism includes syndicates, co-operatives, straight barter, mutualism, etc., as long as it is peaceful and voluntary. Ergo, if a group wished a communitarian approach to their survival, I would not be opposed to that, as long as they respect my choice to own personal property. I have no wish to tell people how to live, on the contrary I want people to live however they want. So, if someone thinks that makes me “authoritarian” I would love to know exactly what is their definition of “authoritarian” or if it’s simply an accusatory they lob at anyone who disagrees with them.

I have also been accused of being pro hierarchy because I don’t believe in social ownership of all property. This is based on the premise that all hierarchies are bad, including voluntary ones. I ask, would you rather a nurse or a surgeon do brain surgery on your child? Or even better would you rather a doctor right out of med school do the surgery or the head of neurosurgery? Experience and talent count in most spheres and people are rewarded on merit. This doesn’t bother me, I do not waste my energy cursing all hierarchy, what I oppose is forced hierarchy. If I choose to work for someone else, I enter into a voluntary association to our mutual benefit. There are times when another person has better judgment and expertise that I do not possess. I can earn a living by offering my skills and talents to an employer in exchange for not having the full responsibility of the company on my shoulders. If I choose to learn the skills of my employer, through such employment, I am being paid to learn them. In the final analysis I have bettered my own situation either way. How is this unfair or coercive? If I feel I am being mistreated I can leave and if I don’t perform my duties competently I can be dismissed. Those are all terms of the contract. The truth is there are situations that I think a chain of command is necessary, that someone with experience has to make decisions and there are decisions that aren’t subject to a vote. To deny that is to deny human nature and the existence of reality.

I was also informed that I advocate the use of “mercenaries” because I advocate private security. Of course I advocate private security, I’m an anarchist, who else would supply security without a state? It would be illogical to call myself an anarchist and support public policing and standing armies. Those are the functions of a state. There is a glaring lack of understanding involved in this, they don’t seem to understand that thousands of people and companies already employ their own security from private contractors and they don’t use them as mercenaries. All you have to do is look at all the private security firms already operating to see that this is an alarmist’s argument. For the record it has been the state that has had a long history of employing assassins and mercenaries. Blackwater isn’t contracted by private citizens, it’s contracted by the government. Our military has long been used as mercenaries by the corporations and the central bank that own our government in this country, how exactly has the state stopped the use of mercenaries then? I don’t see the logic there. No one company in private sector could ever amass the wealth necessary to do this in a truly free market, that is why certain corporations have commandeered the mechanisms of the state for this purpose. They need our taxes to finance their monopolies and international dominance, the military- industrial complex is the unholy union of industry and state. It’s not capitalistic in nature it’s a result of a mixed economy, in other words we already have a socialist economy known as corporatism. Without this union the opportunity to control the peoples of this country, and others, would be impossible. It is the state that makes exploitation of the many by the few possible.

What I have found is that it’s those people who call themselves anarcho socialists that are not really anarchists at all, they still want a state structure and they are just deluding themselves. They just want to engineer a perfect society and as one critic told me he favors the Platonic idea of democracy and the people taking over the mechanisms of the state. How can you be anti state and pro Platonic social engineering? I have come to believe that the whole premise of socialism rests on a hatred of humanity at its core, an idea that humanity is inherently evil and people must be made to act differently. This is why the ends of every socialist revolution have been tyranny and genocide, the means define the ends and the anarcho socialists have historically resorted to violence to advance their ideas. Emma Goldman found out the hard way where her beliefs led, she was horrified by the bloodshed. Of course Kropotkin made excuses for the brutality of the Bolsheviks saying that the “statists” had taken control but the syndicates would soon rise and help finish the evolution from state to anarchic socialism.

It never materialised, why? Because the fundamental idea of socialism and communism rests on public sector power, it has to, you cannot have common ownership without a common use of force to ensure compliance to the ideal. Collective use of force is government. Ultimately socialism becomes the ultimate purveyor of public power, not personal power. It is the only outcome that can happen when your premise is that the whole is greater than the individual. It makes human life cheap, they are nothing more than eggs to break for the omelette of Utopia. When we lose our sense of unalienable individual rights all rights become provisional, this way of thinking leads not only fascism but to super fascism. That’s why I no longer believe that socialism is humanitarian or preferable to free markets. From everything I have learned I’ve come to think that the free market is the only economic system that can keep people free, no other way is possible because there is no freedom of speech, press, religion, or right to privacy, without the right of private property and economic freedom. There is no greater good served if you are not protecting the rights of every individual. You cannot protect the rights of humanity when you don’t believe every human life is valuable, no matter what rhetoric you use."

Read that, that's basically my view on things. I love how she mentions that everything is voluntary. You can still have your anarcho-communism society while I can have my anarcho-capitalist society. That's something I've been stating over and over. I'm not going to waste time talking about whether I'm a true anarchist or not. And GOD DAMN is that a well written essay. Like I agree with I'd say all her points but besides that... it's a very well structured essay, I wish I could write that good.