Quote (J-Breakz)
They have been light on some industries and hard on others. But the industries they do regulate they say it's out of necessity.
and the industries they don't regulate are regulated by the companies that have control over their own supplies.
Quote (J-Breakz)
Oh, no, I do. We call it self-regulation. It's different from government control where a collective use of force is regulating.
"gov⋅ern
/ˈgʌvərn/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [guhv-ern] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.
4. to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case.
5. Grammar. to be regularly accompanied by or require the use of (a particular form). In They helped us, the verb helped governs the objective case of the pronoun we.
6. to regulate the speed of (an engine) with a governor.
–verb (used without object)
7. to exercise the function of government.
8. to have predominating influence."
by these definitions, both of our ideas are a form of governance. you're fighting an uphill battle. the difference between our two societies, by this definition, is that your society would be made up of multiple mini governments, whereas mine would be made up of local community governments. luckily the dictionary isn't the absolute authority. also, i would contest that even by these definitions my idea escapes the fire:
"to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation."
-in order to "rule over", as this definition states, one person or group would have to have power over another. one cannot rule over one's self (as you seem to assert with your absurd idea of "self-ownership") because that would be recursive (given the idea of monism; one rules one's self rules one's self rules one's self, etc., ad absurdum). a group does not have authority over itself. it makes decisions amongst it's members and comes to the best possible decision to please all with precedence given to the say of those directly effected by the decision. no authority is present because everyone effected by the decision is properly represented in the decision making process, making the possibility of a tyranny of the majority impossible. your society, on the other hand, involves property rights that lend an individual or group the right "to rule over [what they own] by right of authority" and by extension, what they own and are governing is a product that the public wants and so they are a governing authority over their customers demands. they aren't the only governing authority because they must compete for authority with other companies (much like countries compete to create the best nation for their citizens), but they are still a governing authority that has say over others and those others have no say of their own.
"to exercise a directing or restraining influence over"
again, the key word here being "over". one cannot restrain one's self, one is one's self. one does not have any form of restraining influence over the lake, for example, because they cannot hold the lake as their property. it is very clear, however, that in your society, control over one's property (ie: the lake) leads to control over other individuals in the sense that it unnecessarily restricts their use of natural resources.
additionally, the restrictions one would put on the lake would, in this broad sense, "govern" or "restrain" the lake, regardless of whether or not it were common governance (in my case) or private governance (in your case). however, when a group voluntarily chooses not to use a certain amount of the lake, they are not really governing. it is a legitimate restriction and it is only being restricted as much as it's needs to be restricted. when something is restricted by supposed "self"-regulation (which, in reality, is private regulation because one is not regulating one's self, but rather regulating things outside of his/her/it's self), it is restricted to an unnecessary degree given the self-evident necessity within capitalism of profit. if one owns a lake, for example, he has a monopoly over that specific supply of water (unless, of course, his security isn't up to par and someone decides to steal his water supply and sell it as a black market competition) and chooses what price he wants to sell his water for (adjusting, of course, accordingly to competitors with other water supplies). if he is as efficient as physically possible within the business structure, he will hire scientists that will estimate water levels and economists that will be able to estimate, based on water levels and demand, how much supply would create an equilibrium price to maximize profit and the water supplied to the people relative to each other. to keep it simple, we'll say that the natural water supply in the lake far exceeds the average demand for water by the people of that area and no outside communities are having a water shortage and asking for our assistance. with a person owning the lake, automatically, because this is how capitalism works, they will supply the people with water, but charge an interest fee. this interest fee is the business's profit. this unnatural extra charge would drop demand and create an artificial surplus of water and, while the people would think that they are getting as much water as they wanted, their demand of water would have been artificially limited by the price at which the seller is willing to sell it (a price which is completely unnecessary because the water isn't as scarce as it is being made out to be because profit is an automatic, albeit unnatural quality of capitalism. in this case the water isn't scarce at all yet it is being treated as though it is scarce) and therefore the people will have, as a whole, unknowingly been limited in their water intake. in addition, the water sales would increase even more to recoup for property costs, employment costs, etc. since i realized this dilemma, i've decided to name it the Tragedy of Privatization to counteract the Tragedy of the Commons 
lol. if we add technology to the equation, and complicate the issue a bit, we can speak on why this would be an issue even if there was no scarcity. today things operate very differently. people don't go down to the lake to scoop out water. instead the water goes to a distillery which uses various systems for water transport, one of the most common being the aqueduct, and when the water gets there it is distilled and from there it is piped directly into a person's house. this requires multiple workers to make sure the aqueduct continues to run properly and to run the distillery. these workers would likely be paid by a company that owns the entire system, from the aqueduct to the distillery, and it would undoubtedly have other costs, such as parts costs in case a machine breaks down. in your society it would also work like this. so let's add some numbers in here. let's say that the daily natural demand (the amount demanded by each individual daily in the case that they are given the resource for free, limited by the rule of diminishing returns when the rule reaches it's natural limit for the individual), on average, is 2 gallons, the population of the community is 1,000 citizens, and the lake contains 10,000,000 gallons of water, an amount that is fully replaced by rain and other natural phenomena in a matter of 1,000 days. let's say that the monetary factor that drops demand to 1/2 of natural demand is $1 per person per day (i know that isn't how we would normally measure how much water one gets, but to keep it simple, let's go with it). in an anarcho-syndicalist society, workers would work at the aqueduct and the distillery on a voluntary basis and be given vouchers for their work by their unions which they would be a member of and they would have a vote in how much their work is worth. that right there takes away the burden of the distillery and the aqueduct to pay the workers. next, there would be no property costs because people would have voluntarily built the property. supply costs would not exist because they would get their supplies from people working voluntarily for factories where those supplies are manufactured and from people transporting natural supplies voluntarily as well, and these individuals will also have been paid by their unions for their labor. money, in the form of vouchers, would be directly backed, not by assets, as in capitalism, or by nothing (given an imaginary value, as with fiat money, but by labor. the productivity of a community will determine the value of their money. using this model, there would be no costs above the given cost to counteract scarcity of the resource that would raise the price just enough to ensure we do not deplete our supply. we would, therefore, be able to charge the minimum amount of money to each individual for their daily supply of water without adding in the extra money to pay the costs of keeping employers on board, keeping supplies available, and of course our extra profit interest, which is, again, inevitable because businesses have a goal to expand and business owners want to profit from their businesses. in your society, given that the costs i just mentioned, which would not exist in my society, would be inevitable, and given they exceed $1,000, your society would have an artificially high price in order to meet market equilibrium. i believe in supply and demand as well, but your system is undermining natural demand through a profit margin and that is what i am against. this is also how in your society a business would, as this definition provides, "exercise a directing or restraining influence over" society.
"to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper."
"to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case."
"Grammar. to be regularly accompanied by or require the use of (a particular form). In They helped us, the verb helped governs the objective case of the pronoun we."
"to regulate the speed of (an engine) with a governor."
theses definition are obviously not the ones that are being applied in this case.
"to exercise the function of government."
the function of a government is to regulate or govern. if you really want to go by this definition, again, any form of regulation, including your so called "self-regulation", is still regulation, so in general, the use of money to cure the problem of scarcity is regulation and, by extension, government, and the only true, ungoverned economy would be a gift economy like I_Guy's Venus Project, and of course we would have the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons in that case, as you brought up. however, giving such a broad definition to government would make every decision process a form of government, which is absurd. so basically, by your logic, as i type these words, the decision of which word to use where, what punctuation to use, etc. is a form of government. it is myself governing myself (which i already debunked as absurd) and also myself governing over my keyboard, PC, and computer screen. so, therefore, every human being is a government as well. that is the silliest notion i've heard in my life.
if you don't understand yet, btw, the way in which my society would regulate the lake in the case that it needs to be regulated would simply be to charge a minimal amount to offset demand in relation to scarcity. the differences between my society and yours are that 1. your society wouldn't likely be able to sell at the minimal amount because of the profit margin and operational costs and 2. everyone would have a say in the decision to regulate the amount of water consumed in my society to the proportion by which they are effected by the decision, whereas in your society the decision making power is in the hands of a small handful of people (those with ownership over the supply).
"to have predominating influence."
once again, if we want to be nitpicky, we can call either of our societies governments by this definition. however, i think we would be better off to understand a government by our common understanding of it in this case: an official decision making body. there's nothing official about a community that voluntarily assembles to make decisions. as a matter of fact, the word "voluntary" is pretty much an antonym to the word "official" which means that there is nothing governmental about the decision making process within my society.
Quote (J-Breakz)
No, common property being protected by a collective use of force is government.
read everything above.
Quote (J-Breakz)
Okay, ur still RESTRICTING ppl from drinking from the lake.
in the same way that you are: using money.
Quote (J-Breakz)
Whoa, whoa, I thought we already came to the conclusion that a monopoly is impossible? There's going to be competition obviously so no... he won't create an artificial market scarcity. He wouldn't be able to.
when i say monopoly i mean the person that owns the lake would have a monopoly over that lake (which would be a state btw) and he would be able to exert force over anyone who trespasses on that lake because he owns it.
Quote (J-Breakz)
Alright, so what if the majority of people who directly drink from the lake decided that it should be regulated but you ended up having a few people that ignored the idea of regulation and still used and consumed the same amount?
as long as it doesn't become a big problem, there's no reason to prevent the activity from continuing. if people begin going to the lake and taking water by the truckloads, then another meeting would be held to discuss the issue again and the issue would be discussed and scientists would begin working on problem solving and try to find a way to come to the best solution possible for everyone and suggest those solutions to the people in a meeting.
Quote (J-Breakz)
A corporation isn't an entity or a group of people that's suppose to represent a community.
but it undoubtedly would. a big enough corporation would support an entire community and have authoritative power over that community in many (but not all) senses.
Quote (J-Breakz)
Also, I'm arguing that self regulation is more efficient than government regulation (like what you're society is doing, except you say that you're government is a democracy).
sorry, no government regulation going on here. no "self" regulation going on in your society either. let's call it what it is -- private regulation. in fact, as i've stated, the regulation going on in my society is a lot like the regulation going on in your society, only in your society it is privatized and given to specific individuals and in mine, everyone has a say.
Quote (J-Breakz)
the art or science of government works. The art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy works too. You say that a democracy will guide or influence governmental policy.
once again, let's not be nitpicky. either we call every decision government, or we be a bit more selective on what we define as government, as it should be.
Quote (J-Breakz)
Yeah it is. What do you think votes are? We had a voluntary gathering of people for the purposes of deciding whether or not obama should be president lol.
no, this is an example of the people voting for the government. you are assuming here that the government is the people. they are not. they are voting for the government.
Quote (J-Breakz)
Here's the difference: When I explained anarcho-capitalism, I made everything clear on how things would be ran. After I made it clear you and Menace began attacking it, calling it a government and saying your society is the true form of anarchy.
no, we called anarcho-capitalism a form of state. state and government are two completely different entities. i hope the above gives you a good idea of how things will be ran in an anarcho-syndicalist society. we are saying that what we believe in is anarchy and what you believe in is not because your ideology simply wants to eliminate the government but you don't take into account the coercive body that is the state. the state arises when property rights are protected. in fact, the entity of "state" is pretty much synonymous with property; a state is "a monopoly of force over a definite territory", which is pretty much exactly what property is. property, then, is basically a private state.
Quote (J-Breakz)
When you explained libertarian socialism you left a whole lot of points out that would make it a government. The more we're examining this society the more it looks like a government is needed to regulate things (which is funny because you talk about how you're completely against regulation... moreso than me apperantly).
again, just read above.
Quote (J-Breakz)
I'm trying to show you that there is govn't in ur society, but I'm doing that to prove a point.
You also try to claim that private enterprise is a form of government yet you forget that they are ultimately controlled by the laws of supply and demand. There is no sovereignty in private enterprise.
"supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community."
show me how a community deciding as a whole to raise the price of water in order to regulate the demand of water (which is exactly what a private enterprise would do in your society) is exercising "supreme and independent power" over itself and if you raise a good enough argument, i'll concede that i was wrong and there is an inherent government in my society and we'll go from there.
