Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Freedom: Political

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 2:28:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(As in I'm not talking about freedom in the existential sense...)

Define freedom - or rather, what is freedom in the political sense? For instance, it is often said that America is the land of the free. For you flag waving patriots out there, what makes us free? If you believe we aren't free, when were we ever free, or can we ever really be free?
President of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 2:54:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The degree to which your will, or everyone's will, is reflected in your environment, particularly in your relationships with other human beings. That's what I would say practical freedom is, as opposed to theoretical freedom.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 3:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Freedom, I believe, is our capacity to direct and control our own futures. The more the government unnecessarily intervenes, the less freedom we have. That said, I think we have a mediocre level of freedom in the United States.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 3:04:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 3:01:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
Freedom, I believe, is our capacity to direct and control our own futures. The more the government unnecessarily intervenes, the less freedom we have. That said, I think we have a mediocre level of freedom in the United States.


Probably, though more than many other nations.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 3:46:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 3:04:28 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/27/2012 3:01:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
Freedom, I believe, is our capacity to direct and control our own futures. The more the government unnecessarily intervenes, the less freedom we have. That said, I think we have a mediocre level of freedom in the United States.


Probably, though more than many other nations.

What makes us more free than other nations?
President of DDO
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 3:57:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 3:46:29 PM, Danielle wrote:
What makes us more free than other nations?

I would say being more technologically advanced is the only thing.

Politically, our freedoms are trivial.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 4:25:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 3:46:29 PM, Danielle wrote:
What makes us more free than other nations?
Having lots of states with varying laws is a huge bonus. Where I live, same laws apply just about anywhere. Should anything nonsensical start happening in the country, it will affect every inch. In the States, this can be avoided.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 4:29:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have an intense admiration for this definition of freedom:

"There are two kinds of freedom. Freedom from (negative freedom) and freedom to (positive freedom). --- Negative freedom is freedom from external interference that prevents you from doing what you want, when you want to do it. These restrictions are placed on you by other people. The more negative freedom you have, the less obstacles that exist between you and doing whatever it is you desire. --- Positive freedom is the freedom to control and direct one's own life. Positive freedom allows a man to consciously make his own choices, create his own purpose, and shape his own life; he acts instead of being acted upon." http://artofmanliness.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 6:27:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Just the fact that it takes time to think about it. Indicates there is a problem with the conception. Especially when it is supposed to be so important.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 6:28:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 3:46:29 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/27/2012 3:04:28 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/27/2012 3:01:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
Freedom, I believe, is our capacity to direct and control our own futures. The more the government unnecessarily intervenes, the less freedom we have. That said, I think we have a mediocre level of freedom in the United States.


Probably, though more than many other nations.

What makes us more free than other nations?

The Fool: You guys are stuck with political and religious fundementalism. There is nothing free about that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 6:28:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 2:28:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
(As in I'm not talking about freedom in the existential sense...)

Define freedom - or rather, what is freedom in the political sense? For instance, it is often said that America is the land of the free. For you flag waving patriots out there, what makes us free? If you believe we aren't free, when were we ever free, or can we ever really be free?

Free elections, freedom from corruption, freedom to vote, participate or have your voice heard in government.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 6:32:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't mean Republican as in the GOP. I am discussing the philosophy of Civic Republicanism, which is quite liberal.

Let me provide an example:

Is someone who is coerced into a sexual relationship with her boss due to fear of losing her job free? Is someone who is extorted and blackmailed free when he provides money to the extortionist?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 6:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 2:28:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
(As in I'm not talking about freedom in the existential sense...)

Define freedom - or rather, what is freedom in the political sense? For instance, it is often said that America is the land of the free. For you flag waving patriots out there, what makes us free? If you believe we aren't free, when were we ever free, or can we ever really be free?

I view it from an "individualism vs government" framework. I think true freedom exists in a society where the NAP is upheld - everybody can do what they want to as long as they're not hurting anybody. To me, the definition of freedom is to be able to do whatever one wants with their life, body, property - as long as they respect everyone else's ability to do the same.

Almost by definition this means I think true freedom is only possible when no group in society has a monopoly on the use of legal force/violence (which is precisely what government is by definition). I'm still deciding between Chomsky's style of libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism, but I think both are generally agreed on the illegitimate nature of the state and statist power.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:06:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 6:30:28 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
The traditional positive/negative conception of freedom is nonsense. The Republican conception of freedom makes more sense.

Oh come on.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:19:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:27:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Free=nonexistence of something.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:49:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 6:32:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't mean Republican as in the GOP. I am discussing the philosophy of Civic Republicanism, which is quite liberal.

Let me provide an example:

Is someone who is coerced into a sexual relationship with her boss due to fear of losing her job free? Is someone who is extorted and blackmailed free when he provides money to the extortionist?

The Fool: It should be immediate and non confusing. I mean you murder people over it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
jedipengiun
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 8:35:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 2:28:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
(As in I'm not talking about freedom in the existential sense...)

Define freedom - or rather, what is freedom in the political sense? For instance, it is often said that America is the land of the free. For you flag waving patriots out there, what makes us free? If you believe we aren't free, when were we ever free, or can we ever really be free?

I think i'm an anarchist because of my views on freedom aswell as human nature. Mainly it's about freedom though.
I'm all for negative freedom rather than positive freedom. I think Mill's on liberty has one of the best notions of freedom. This is because it's mainly negative rather than positive. Positive freedom can so easily become totalitarianism. I'm not trying to run a reductio (ad totalitarian), I'm not presuming totalitarianism is inherently bad, i'm just saying a totalitarian notion of freedom (positive freedom) is not that good a definition.
"That the only person for which power can be rightfully excercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

I'm for the type of freedom to promote individualism, and one that is not susceptible to becoming totalitarianism. Freedom of consciousness!!! Rememebered it after so long long. :D
Freedom of consciousness, thought and feeling, opinion, tastes and pursuits, and freedom to join a collective group. These are very important in any concept of freedom worth having.
Things that make me happy!

: At 6/22/2012 1:46:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
: Also, as an Englishman I'm obligated to be prejudiced against gingers and the French.

: At 8/27/2012 10:00:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
: Every self-respecting philosopher needs to smoke a pipe.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 1:52:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Freedom to me is freedom from coercion and violence along with some sort of provision concerning contracts that involve a high amount of exploitation I.e., those signed under duress or under severe conditions. I don't think if someone is starving and you offer them a cheeseburger in exchange for a lifetime of servitude, that that is a legitimate freedom.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 1:53:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 1:52:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Freedom to me is freedom from coercion and violence along with some sort of provision concerning contracts that involve a high amount of exploitation I.e., those signed under duress or under severe conditions. I don't think if someone is starving and you offer them a cheeseburger in exchange for a lifetime of servitude, that that is a legitimate freedom.

Welcome to civic republicanism ;)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 1:57:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Freedom is the capacity and space we have to thrive independently. The ability and capacity of self-development and self-fulfilment.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 2:04:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 1:53:28 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/29/2012 1:52:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Freedom to me is freedom from coercion and violence along with some sort of provision concerning contracts that involve a high amount of exploitation I.e., those signed under duress or under severe conditions. I don't think if someone is starving and you offer them a cheeseburger in exchange for a lifetime of servitude, that that is a legitimate freedom.

Welcome to civic republicanism ;)

Could you expand on that term?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 7:40:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 2:28:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
(As in I'm not talking about freedom in the existential sense...)

Understood, but I'd like to note that I think an individual, and thus a nation, necessarily has to concern themselves with this sense of freedom in order to be in any position to define it in the political sense, let alone achieve political freedom in reality.

Define freedom - or rather, what is freedom in the political sense? For instance, it is often said that America is the land of the free. For you flag waving patriots out there, what makes us free? If you believe we aren't free, when were we ever free, or can we ever really be free?

Political freedom in its highest form is hard to define because it has never been achieved by a total population of "civilized" humans as organized by State.

In many senses I think that tribal civilizations have outperformed monarchic, aristocratic, democratic, republican, communist, and despotic civilizations in terms of maximizing political freedom, though not entirely consistently. Native Americans are one positive tribal example. I admit I'm not currently up to date on all specifics of all tribes, but I'm inclined to think that many had a healthy, familial relationship with their tribe as well as with their environment. They didn't vote in a stranger who marketed themselves to them in order to deceive them into control of them, they instead simply trusted, instinctively, someone who they knew well to lead them. They in turn did what they did best naturally (usually hunting and fighting for men, and gathering and care-giving for women) for their tribe -- those closest to them.

Then, of course, we have exceptions such as cannibalistic, human-sacrificing, women persecuting, slave-driving, or warmongering tribes. A population as small as a tribe (According to modern science, ~150 people) can develop trust, and thus cooperation, quicker and more efficiently than a population as large as a nation. However, they are also equally, if not more, vulnerable to dangerous groupthink, spiritual evangelism, and moral Ideology. All of these things entail limiting political freedom as a consequence, if they are projected into reality.

A bureaucratic civilization, on the way other hand, isn't subject so much in terms of their total population becoming ensnared by groupthink, Evangelism, or Ideology. They are, however, subject to much more incompetence and incoherence on a large scale ( with some obvious exceptions, see Afghanistan Invasion of '01 and Iraq invasion of '03, for example.) This overall incompetence and incoherence leads to a select group inevitably centralizing power into their own hands. Sort of like a tribe. This tribe tends to have acquired a belief-set that has allowed them to be motivated enough to complete their conquest. Whether the tribe was Caesar's, Marx's, Lenin's, Hitler's, Smith's, Washington's, Jesus's, Moses's, Mohammed's, or Buddha's, this is true for all of them. In most, if not all, cases the belief-set has transcended its founders and original prophets in an evolutionary, diverse, and sometimes unsettling way (again, see Iraq '03 and Afghanistan '01.)

With all of that being said, to answer your original question directly I'm not a flag-waving patriot. I am a patriot of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and many ideas of Jefferson and other founding fathers, that is I'm a fan of them, but I recognize that even they were unduly influenced by the prejudices of their time. That is why I think political freedom is a quality of life that needs to be in the foreground of individual and national political thought, discussion, and debate. Especially as a nation grows and expands, the evolution of political freedom will only flourish if it is conscious and intelligent.

The present state of American political freedom is complex, but I find it to be fairly dismal overall. Perhaps putting it on a scale will represent my perspective the best, so on a scale from 1 (being like the Jews in ancient Egypt or early-1900's Germany) to 10 (being like a freedom that is unimaginable and practically unattainable), I would rate the U.S. at present at about a 4 or 5 for political freedom overall. I also tend to think the trend is downward. Limiting or revoking the political freedoms of citizens of foreign lands for quite obviously false pretenses, especially if one of those freedoms is that of life, keeps a nation under a 5. Limiting or revoking political freedoms in a national homeland brings a nation down more points proportionally to the weight of the specific freedoms infringed. So if and/or when the U.S. decides to imprison, confine, or persecute their own citizens, then I would/will drop them down to a 2 or 1.

Improving (and/or repairing...) the political freedom of Americans specifically would entail all of, but not limited to, these steps:

1) Repealing the Patriot Act immediately.

2) Repealing related or similar bills passed in the past 12+ years (I forget most of them right now.)

3) Updating the Constitution and amendments to clearly-written modern English, as well as "patching it up" a bit in order to avoid some of the inconsistencies that have inevitably raised their heads as our language and culture has evolved. It then needs to be reinstated as absolute law of the land, particularly the original Bill of Rights. Obviously, this requires interpretation and thus should be undertaken by a diverse, educated, and earnest group (I know easier said than done, but that's somewhat what the founding fathers were) instead of simply career politicians and judges.

4) Ending all foreign military operations, reducing (drastically) military spending, and reassigning all military branches to training and defensive operations exclusively, as well as greatly reducing offensive military weapons+technology R&D.

5) Nationalizing the military. Military weapon and technology corporations make enormous profits off of national preoccupation with war at home and human suffering abroad. This just seems wrong to me I suppose, so I think that cutting off their cash pipeline directly would be the best way to revoke their political power (which is undeniable present and able) and therefore the only way to limit military spending whatsoever.

6) Nationalizing medicine in general. See #5.

7) Overriding the Democratic and Republican parties to make way for a larger and more diverse field of parties and candidates.

8) Abolishing the electoral system.

9) Revoking the unduly assigned 1st amendment "rights" of corporations. Especially any political campaign financing.

That's all I can come up with for now, but I'm sure that the list is nowhere near complete.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:13:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 1:52:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Freedom to me is freedom from coercion and violence along with some sort of provision concerning contracts that involve a high amount of exploitation I.e., those signed under duress or under severe conditions. I don't think if someone is starving and you offer them a cheeseburger in exchange for a lifetime of servitude, that that is a legitimate freedom.

Why do you not support anarcho-capitalism? What other political system aside from anarcho-capitalism that calls for a stateless society where people live generally free from coercion and violence?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:44:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 3:57:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/27/2012 3:46:29 PM, Danielle wrote:
What makes us more free than other nations?

I would say being more technologically advanced is the only thing.

I have the completely opposite view of technology.

Politically, our freedoms are trivial.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:47:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 4:29:01 PM, Mirza wrote:
I have an intense admiration for this definition of freedom:

"There are two kinds of freedom. Freedom from (negative freedom) and freedom to (positive freedom)...

Freedom is a zero-sum game. Positive freedoms create the loss of negative freedoms.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:54:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 6:32:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't mean Republican as in the GOP. I am discussing the philosophy of Civic Republicanism, which is quite liberal.

Let me provide an example:

Is someone who is coerced into a sexual relationship with her boss due to fear of losing her job free?

No, she isn't. But, off the subject, the more important question here is whether a boss has automatic coercion over the worker because of his position.

Is someone who is extorted and blackmailed free when he provides money to the extortionist?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 11:06:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 6:36:02 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/27/2012 2:28:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
(As in I'm not talking about freedom in the existential sense...)

Define freedom - or rather, what is freedom in the political sense? For instance, it is often said that America is the land of the free. For you flag waving patriots out there, what makes us free? If you believe we aren't free, when were we ever free, or can we ever really be free?

I view it from an "individualism vs government" framework. I think true freedom exists in a society where the NAP is upheld - everybody can do what they want to as long as they're not hurting anybody. To me, the definition of freedom is to be able to do whatever one wants with their life, body, property - as long as they respect everyone else's ability to do the same.

Almost by definition this means I think true freedom is only possible when no group in society has a monopoly on the use of legal force/violence (which is precisely what government is by definition). I'm still deciding between Chomsky's style of libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism, but I think both are generally agreed on the illegitimate nature of the state and statist power.

The NAG principle does not point to an-cap; I would say it points more to communism than anything else. Let's say you make a bunch of money selling tootsie-rolls and you take it and buy a lakefront property. I go to the lake and notice my utility is diminished because you've taken ownership of some of it, and deadly force is indeed warranted if I try to use the lake from your property. Capitalism is inherently aggressive.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 11:26:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 10:13:04 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/29/2012 1:52:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Freedom to me is freedom from coercion and violence along with some sort of provision concerning contracts that involve a high amount of exploitation I.e., those signed under duress or under severe conditions. I don't think if someone is starving and you offer them a cheeseburger in exchange for a lifetime of servitude, that that is a legitimate freedom.

Why do you not support anarcho-capitalism? What other political system aside from anarcho-capitalism that calls for a stateless society where people live generally free from coercion and violence?

I simply place a larger emphasis on labor and syndicalism than most self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists. The legal framework of an anarcho-capitalist society is something I agree with (e.g. non-monopolistic and voluntary provision of defense, legal system, roads, etc.). My own conception of anarchism would include firms managed by workers themselves while still competing with other firms via free competition.

That's where I think traditional anarcho-syndicalism ultimately fails. Community based production for need has been shown not to work. A price mechanism is always necessary for rational allocation. Anarcho-capitalism on the other hand doesn't really take into account labor struggles and that's where anarcho-syndicalism comes in. I think both schools of thought have good aspects and lacking aspects.

Of course I'm in a higher sense, a voluntarist. Anarcho- market syndicalism or whatever is really just a second order preference of mine.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.