by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .3,4843,4853,4863,4873,4883,4893,490. . .3,6073,608»

The new sea territory

The liberated territories wrote:That would be impossible under a demarchy. While the selective funding of politicians by corporations could still potentially exist under demarchy, special interests would have no way to determine who to support, who's trustworthy, etc. until after they are selected for it. Campaigns and super PACs wouldn't exist. Political parties wouldn't exist. You get the idea.

http://muskegonlibertarian.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/libertarianism-and-demarchy/

There are no political parties in demarchy. People will cooperate out of necessity, not for selfish reasons. Despite what the Randists may say, selfishness is not a virtue I want running the country, unless it's in the private sector.

That basically means we get rid of parties and elections and the corporations bribe the random officials as soon as they get into office.

Terrakristovia

The liberated territories wrote:Friedman is the most pragmatic out of everyone.

That and Libertarianism isn't solely regulated to Austrian economics.

Go figure.

But no TRUE Scots- erm, I mean Libertarian, would...nevermind.

@ New Sea Territory: do you really think it's possible for propertarian anarchists, who derive their entire system of morality based on the individual's right to private property, to meaningfully co-operate with left-libertarians and anarcho-communists who see all private property as theft from the commons? I mean sure, you both want to "smash the state" (mostly, anyway. Some like Chomsky see "expanding the cage" as a better strategy!). But even your conceptions of the state are radically different and I'm not sure you can reconcile them.

The new sea territory

Mirule wrote:@ New Sea Territory: do you really think it's possible for propertarian anarchists, who derive their entire system of morality based on the individual's right to private property, to meaningfully co-operate with left-libertarians and anarcho-communists who see all private property as theft from the commons? I mean sure, you both want to "smash the state" (mostly, anyway. Some like Chomsky see "expanding the cage" as a better strategy!). But even your conceptions of the state are radically different and I'm not sure you can reconcile them.

The idea is that voluntaryism is the answer. Within a voluntary society, any system can exist so long as it is not coercive.

The liberated territories

Sibirsky wrote:Yes, power seekers will be diminished, since winners are random.

But those in power will use it to their own gain. Guaranteed.

When has any constitution limited any power? *amends the constitution. Expands power*

Sure, they can abuse it, if they want to get recalled. In the minarchist state, they don't even command a lot of power other than overseeing it's function. As for bribing the legislature, I am sure tough deterrents would help against that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010

What deterrent is there in AnCapistan for a corporation to do bribes with a private legislating body? Nothing, except maybe that body's own legislation, which is pretty arbitrary when you have one free floating firm that is not checked and balanced by another body.

The new sea territory wrote:That basically means we get rid of parties and elections and the corporations bribe the random officials as soon as they get into office.

You seem so sure of this, do you?

The new sea territory wrote:The idea is that voluntaryism is the answer. Within a voluntary society, any system can exist so long as it is not coercive.

Precisely; so how can you expect to work with those who see capitalism as inherently coercive?

The new sea territory

Mirule wrote:Precisely; so how can you expect to work with those who see capitalism as inherently coercive?

As I am a syndicalist myself and associate with a lot of left-anarchists, I usually make the case that only capitalism that is forced onto those who don't want it is coercive, as like any system.

The liberated territories wrote:Sure, they can abuse it, if they want to get recalled. In the minarchist state, they don't even command a lot of power other than overseeing it's function. As for bribing the legislature, I am sure tough deterrents would help against that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery_Act_2010

What deterrent is there in AnCapistan for a corporation to do bribes with a private legislating body? Nothing, except maybe that body's own legislation, which is pretty arbitrary when you have one free floating firm that is not checked and balanced by another body.

You seem so sure of this, do you?

Do bribes? Private legislating body?

There is no public spending in ancapistan. Public spending is the root of all bribery. There is no one to bribe in ancapistan.

The new sea territory

Sibirsky wrote:Do bribes? Private legislating body?

There is no public spending in ancapistan. Public spending is the root of all bribery. There is no one to bribe in...

A voluntary society. Ancapistan is used very derogatorily.

The new sea territory wrote:A voluntary society. Ancapistan is used very derogatorily.

I don't use it derogatory.

The new sea territory

Sibirsky wrote:I don't use it derogatory.

I like a voluntary society better, because voluntaryism is anarcho-capitalism, but anarcho-capitalism isn't necessarily voluntaryist, and non voluntaryist ancapism is not philosophically justified, IMO.

The new sea territory wrote:As I am a syndicalist myself and associate with a lot of left-anarchists, I usually make the case that only capitalism that is forced onto those who don't want it is coercive, as like any system.

What would you class as "forced" capitalism and what is "voluntary" capitalism? As a member of a socialist community which doesn't accept the legitimacy of property rights, I have two choices if I want to get my hands on the fruit grown in the farm next door; maintain my ideological consistency and take them or engage in the capitalist system and buy them. Either the two systems come into constant conflict with one another, or the socialists are simply absorbed into capitalist society as owners of what is basically just a democratically managed corporate entity. I'm not convinced either alternative shows the two systems coexisting peacefully, and I'm not sure why you think socialists would want to support a voluntaryist society over their own ideas.

The new sea territory

Mirule wrote:What would you class as "forced" capitalism and what is "voluntary" capitalism? As a member of a socialist community which doesn't accept the legitimacy of property rights, I have two choices if I want to get my hands on the fruit grown in the farm next door; maintain my ideological consistency and take them or engage in the capitalist system and buy them. Either the two systems come into constant conflict with one another, or the socialists are simply absorbed into capitalist society as owners of what is basically just a democratically managed corporate entity. I'm not convinced either alternative shows the two systems coexisting peacefully, and I'm not sure why you think socialists would want to support a voluntaryist society over their own ideas.

nation=the_new_sea_territory/detail=factbook/id=272330

This should cover most of this.

The new sea territory wrote:I like a voluntary society better, because voluntaryism is anarcho-capitalism, but anarcho-capitalism isn't necessarily voluntaryist, and non voluntaryist ancapism is not philosophically justified, IMO.

Anarcho-capitalism is voluntary by definition.

The new sea territory

Sibirsky wrote:Anarcho-capitalism is voluntary by definition.

Yes, but not all anarcho-capitalists are voluntaryists. Though most are.

Either way, I say voluntary society because a voluntary society is the real end goal, not ancapistan (which sounds like some post-soviet obscure hellhole between whogivsafukistan and shiitistan), and it is not exclusively capitalist.

The new sea territory wrote:Yes, but not all anarcho-capitalists are voluntaryists. Though most are.

Either way, I say voluntary society because a voluntary society is the real end goal, not ancapistan (which sounds like some post-soviet obscure hellhole between whogivsafukistan and shiitistan), and it is not exclusively capitalist.

A voluntary society cannot have a universal, exclusive economic system, of course.

But some would be more common than others.

The new sea territory

Sibirsky wrote:A voluntary society cannot have a universal, exclusive economic system, of course.

But some would be more common than others.

Obviously mutualism and primitivism are just not "cool".

The new sea territory wrote:Obviously mutualism and primitivism are just not "cool".

Mutualism is cool.

Primitivism is definitely not.

The new sea territory

Sibirsky wrote:Mutualism is cool.

Primitivism is definitely not.

Mutualism seems weird to me. And, in my entire NSG career of four years, I have met one mutualist, who I forgot his name. And if you can't find them on NSG, they must be rare.

I prefer syndicalism, but if not that, then capitalism.

Hi

The new sea territory

Idshal wrote:Hi

Howdy.

The new sea territory wrote:nation=the_new_sea_territory/detail=factbook/id=272330

This should cover most of this.

Not really, unless you can quote me specific passages that you feel answers the questions I asked.

If communists feel that capitalism is inherently coercive, and that there is no such thing as a non-coercive capitalist system, how do you expect them to co-exist in an ultimately propertarian system which stresses non-coercive social relationships? Given your insistence that property rights of individuals and/or communities not be infringed ("People should be able to do whatever they want so long as they are not acting violently or causing harm to other people/their property." - from your factbook) I don't see how this is any different from a typical anarcho-capitalist utopia, and what makes you think any communist would want to fight for that?

@ New Sea Territory:

Also, I take it from your factbook that you are totally against National Anarchism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

The new sea territory

Mirule wrote:Not really, unless you can quote me specific passages that you feel answers the questions I asked.

If communists feel that capitalism is inherently coercive, and that there is no such thing as a non-coercive capitalist system, how do you expect them to co-exist in an ultimately propertarian system which stresses non-coercive social relationships? Given your insistence that property rights of individuals and/or communities not be infringed ("People should be able to do whatever they want so long as they are not acting violently or causing harm to other people/their property." - from your factbook) I don't see how this is any different from a typical anarcho-capitalist utopia, and what makes you think any communist would want to fight for that?

First, communists believe in property rights. They believe in collective property, which should, in a voluntary society, hold the same status as private and personal property. All systems are propertarian.

Secondly, the idea is that telling the communist capitalism is not inherently coercive so long as all who partake in the markets consent to it. This is where I usually say: "It's hypocritical to be an anarchist and against individual association".

Within a voluntary society, any system is permissible so long as it is voluntarily accepted. It is truly anarchism without adjectives.

The new sea territory

Mirule wrote:@ New Sea Territory:

Also, I take it from your factbook that you are totally against National Anarchism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-Anarchism

If it's nonviolent, no. But I have a feeling old white dudes will be racist and violent.

«12. . .3,4843,4853,4863,4873,4883,4893,490. . .3,6073,608»

Advertisement