No, I said that people would suggest that as an alternative. Again, people have a say in decision making to the proportion that they are affected by the decision. If someone is going to have to move, they are entitled to more say in that decision than anyone because they are most directly affected by it. There are different ways to handle such a decision in such a society. And again, you still haven't explained how your society would handle such a situation. So tell me, how would this be handled in your society?

What does this have to do with the CNT?? Once again, calling them "jobs" is a complete misrepresentation of what this society would be about. People volunteer to work. You can work at a factory, restaurant, store, run your own business (though employing people would be frowned on because of the values of society and you wouldn't likely be able to find people seeking employment, especially considering employment wouldn't be enforceable), etc. There would be no authority enforcing such things or regulating them. No one will have property rights to anything, preventing them from being able to establish a business big enough to undermine the economic system. Specialized services, such as personal training, would be an example of a special situation where businesses would arise and it would work on the basis of a system in which a personal trainer accepts vouchers as payment and can choose the price of their service.

And on the same token we get tired of your inability to disseminate between semantics and substantial arguments. You aren't looking deeper. The reason we are anarchists is because we believe authority, not just government, is parasitic to society as a whole. The argument is not "hey, stop calling yourself anarchist because you believe in authority", though it seems to be that on the surface. The true argument is that you are not an anarchist and because of that, your ideology is always going to be authoritarian and, by extension, parasitic to society.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

This statement is fully truthful except for one GLARING LIE inherent in it. Let's see if you can see where it is

It's too bad that the author of this article doesn't realize that is negated by private property by making certain arrangements next to impossible (such as collectives).

That's GREAT!

AH FUCK!

Hey genius! Who/what is going to enforce your ownership?

Yet you want society to enforce personal property rights? Hmmm.... Contradiction much????

You can always check the dictionary. That would be sufficient

Social ownership? How many times does Proudhon have to reiterate that "property is theft"???? That includes social property, not just private. We believe in POSSESSIONS, not PROPERTY.

Ah, apparently it is the author of this article that needs a dictionary. Hierarchy =/= expertise. Hierarchy is purely authority. There is no other purpose for hierarchy.

You mean sort of like what we do when we choose to immigrate into "democratic" countries like the United States and sign up for a green card?

Or you could simply offer these skills to whatever workingplace you choose to work in to get vouchers in return without being an owner and therefore not being employed or incurring any burden of the company (because, after all, there is no company).

Or if you aren't employed, you won't be dismissed. You will simply be pushed aside by someone who labors harder.

Really? Tell that to the people that work at Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco. Tell that to the workers of FaSinPat (formerly Zanon) in Argentina. Tell that to the millions of tribal communities in that existed for thousands of years by making decisions amongst the entire tribe. Tell that to the people that worked in the factories discussed in Gaston Leval's account of the Spanish Revolution.

Really??? So now you are a sociologist, biologist, and a better one than any of the experts who disagree with you on this at that?

False dichotomy much????

Really? And this is based on what information???? What historical reference do you have, sir, to prove this? I think Menace did a fine job of providing evidence to the opposite in the other thread when he completely debunked the living shit out of the idea that Iceland was an anarcho-capitalist society prior to it beginning it's transition to monarchy. Oh wait, I forgot, Menace and his sources were trying to "rewrite history". Yeah, the Encyclopedia Britannica is a very biased source

Ok, ok, I'll stop

Sorry if this sounded dickish. I was just trying to inject some humor into this argument. We were starting to get a bit too stiff

What do you see as an alternative to human labor? I mean, I understand your philosophy of replacing low end/overly laborious/dangerous work with machine labor and I agree, but what happens when machines malfunction? Does someone not need to come fix them? There are plenty of examples where machines cannot be replaced. People will always need to work. Also, scarcity will always be unavoidable, for time is scarce. And even if we invented a time machine, our time of existence is still scarce.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

"The final irony? The Icelandic Anarchy collapsed not because of its private nature, but because of the intervention of the Norwegian monarchy, who used the Christian religion to polarize Icelandic society (through the tithe system, which concentrated wealth and was fixed by law) and eventually take it over. If the Icelandic system allowed for alternate laws, then it may have been able to survive this trial. Either way, critics of the Icelandic system call it "chaos," but it lasted three hundred years, and without competing States may have lasted centuries more. And even at its worst, when the system was disintegrating, the civil unrest was subdued by our standards"

So, if you are to please pull your head out of your ass you would realize that this statement is true:

the article is just claiming their idea of ownership to be something different. My article has actual evidence of how it can be related to ownership. Just because it's not individual ownership of land does not mean it can't be considered property. You claimed the ownership to be "extended usership", yet you don't tell me the difference between the two. Also, would extended usership be used in your society?

Lol yeah, that's why anthropologists have well document evidence of Indian tribes sharing all "production" (ie the spoils of a hunt, the crafts the women created, etc.) between their members and tribal societies all over the world doing the same. They believed in personal possessions, not ownership.

1. Bullshit. Who is it that you are talking about? Name a few. If you are speaking of John Locke then yes, I agree, but in no way was he a leftist (or a right winger for that matter). His political affiliation was of no consequence. He was a philosopher first and foremost.

No, it isn't. That's the problem. Property allows for hoarding and allows single individuals to own what should be distributed publicly. If we create a society where there is no entity enforcing private owners' rights to buy up all of the resources and build big corporation, they won't arise and we won't have to worry about trying to stop them from arising. The society would naturally become cooperative (of course education would be required as well).

Exactly! It doesn't matter who protects it and that's the point! Some force that isn't natural is protecting the rights of a person or entity's property! If we gave up property rights there would be no need for business!

Ok, in that case, I have a shitload of money and I want to live in a society where my right to buy the entire country and be the US monarch is respected. I will do this by claiming property rights and use my money to buy the whole US making the entire country my property. I will then hire several PDAs and enforce my PDAs' law all across the country. If you trespass on my property (the United States) you will be prosecuted.

I do if my best living option is to rent from her.

A company will have a hard time arising in a society without property rights and hence, so will a hierarchy. I wouldn't support such a company but I wouldn't be trying to regulate it. I simply wouldn't support it, as you said. The difference is, without regulation, my society wouldn't be conducive to people forming corporations so it's nothing to worry about.

Simple. They are both "voluntary" (either you starve or you choose to subdue to their authority) and authoritarian.

Ok, humor me.

Yeah, I read that already. Menace also did research and provided links.

Menace's research, which looked pretty legit to me, negated this. Idk. Maybe we should both throw out Iceland as a source.

When you negated what Menace said. Maybe not biased, but incorrect. He got a portion of his sources directly from there.

And how many times have I disagreed? (0)

Lol OMG! They believe in COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP! The only reason they believed in collective ownership is because of surrounding nations that believed in private property and so they were letting outside populations know that those things are under their possession in a language that they spoke.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Lol ok, then I'll simply say that if you implying that property rights were something human beings "naturally adopted" in some kind of convoluted way, rather than simply claiming by conscious decision such rights, then I will tell you that you are wrong and ask you to prove me otherwise philosophically. Look at animals. Would you say that they have property rights? Property rights are NOT a natural adaptation.

And look at it from our perspective. If everyone can have an understanding of a philosophical difference between ownership and possession, there is no need for your idea of communal property either. Explain to me, what is so direly important about property rights that we need them for there to be peace, prosperity, etc.?

Ok, and I say that you're wrong and that this is a fundamentally flawed line of logic. Property rights cannot be justified philosophically, especially when one wants to claim the right to property to be a "natural right" (or when they claim any right to be natural for that matter).

And here's where my fundamental disagreement with you lies. Jim Jones convinced thousands of people to commit mass suicide to fulfill a supposed religious calling. Muslim Jihadists are convinced that if they suicide bomb public places they will go to heaven and be awarded 40 virgins. Anti-abortionist Christians have been convinced by their leaders that if they kill abortion doctors they are fulfilling God's will. It is not outside of the scope of possibility that one individual can use such an ideology to convince a massive amount of people to sell their property to that person's family for some reason or another. Such a practice can become a custom for that family and over time that family would steadily gain authority over a certain area. These are the beginnings of authority in the form of feudal systems, republics, etc.

Idk if you have studied history on an academic level, but one of the things you will learn at the college level in history that you won't learn at an earlier level is that much of the property that Hitler "took" from the Jews was actually voluntarily given over. Hitler was a very good speaker and debater. He actually convinced Jewish families to yield their businesses and homes (not the homes they lived in, but rather homes they owned outside of their possessed home, like vacation homes or homes they were renting out) over to him or, at the very least, donate large sums of money to him AFTER HAVING WRITTEN MEIN KAMPF, WHICH MANY OF SAID JEWS ACTUALLY READ OR HAD AT THE VERY LEAST HEARD ABOUT! I want to now ask you a question. Knowing that it is not outside of the scope of reality for people to be convinced to give power to a person like Hitler, and knowing that there is a possible solution to assure that an individual doesn't come into power and become corrupt, namely simply not recognizing property rights, would you still argue that property rights are essential for peace and freedom or would you concede to the fact that property rights allow for disproportionate power and are a safe haven for corruption?

Add "and in my society, certain people will only have one economic option and that is to rent" (undeniable truth) to the bolded clause and this quote actually proves my point. Yes, they can try to play the game a bit and get themselves into a position of ownership, but some people aren't willing to take the risk and/or get beat down by wage labor to the point that they mentally subdue themselves to renting rather than owning. Of course you would blame that on them, which is philosophically horrible.

No, the failure in your logic here is that you are automatically assuming we have some kind of naturally pre-ordained property rights. If you don't assume that, you will see that what I am talking about is not coercive. I am not forcing people to conform to my standard, I am simply speaking of ridding society of the institutions that assure property rights (and of course, as both of us promote, also ridding society of a government and an established state). That and educating people to understand why we have made this change are the only two requirements for my society to naturally arise. Don't believe me? Ask someone who is 90 or so and from Spain.

No, there are many governments. Don't want to immigrate to the US? There are HUNDREDS of other oppressive governments to choose from

Maybe that's because he never claimed that the Norwegian monarchy manipulated the chieftains to take control of the territory. Don't try playing that trick on me lol. That would automatically presume your opinion on this subject to be correct. Menace's research showed that it was a sudden shift to the recognizing of property rights due to the peoples' allegiance to Norway and desire to build their society more like theirs that lead to the small families accumulating the majority of capital and power and the rights to this capital being enforced by the chieftains, and also the country's very allegiance to Norway, that lead to Iceland eventually being ruled by the Norwegian Monarch (remember, Iceland was inhabited by Norwegian settlers).

No. That's why it wasn't random as I stated above.

Lol you're a big boy. You can handle it besides I'm backing you up now

1. Their version of "ownership" is a lot like Proudhon's idea of possession (which I agree with). Possession is the right to a house that a person is currently occupying. Ownership is the right to a house that said person is not occupying, possibly renting out to someone or maybe it's a vacation house. The Native Americans didn't claim ownership of buffalo, for example, that were roaming through the land that they occupied. Native tribes simply respected each others' tribe's privacy. This was more of a mutual respect for spiritual reasons. It is not necessarily something I agree with, but in that time, when it was hard for vastly different cultures to understand each other, for various reasons, this mutual respect was beneficial. This is where I dissent from anarcho-primitivists. And this brings me to point #2.

2. We now live in what I like to call a "global community". Me and you, two people who live in California, can communicate instantly with people like Menace who lives 10,000+ miles away in Romania and we both have an understanding of each other's culture. This is completely new. Only 50 years ago this wasn't possible. The idea of land boundaries is no longer necessary.

And to get back to the article on the previous page momentarily, I would absolutely respect that woman's POSSESSION of her house. What I wouldn't respect is her wanting to own a second property that she isn't occupying.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Take notice, I did not say that Mondragón was the 100% perfect example of my society. If anything, the article you posted proves that capitalism and collectivism are incompatible and cooperative businesses are forced to conform to capitalist standards in order to succeed in a capitalist environment. Someone who commented on that article said it best:

"Norway's consolidation of power in Iceland was slow, and the Althing intended to hold onto its legislative and judicial power. Nonetheless, the Christian clergy had unique opportunities to accumulate wealth via the tithe, and power gradually shifted to ecclesiastical authorities as Iceland's two bishops in Skálholt and Hólar acquired land at the expense of the old chieftains."

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

Maybe we should both throw out Native American Tribes as a source, right? lol