Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Communism is Compatible with Anarchism

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 11:33:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Communism is a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society; with COMMON ownership of the means of production. And where goods are produced to satisfy human need, instead of for profit. It is perfectly compatible with Anarchism. The Marxist-Leninist concept of an intermediary worker's state is only one theory of how such a society can be achieved. All Anarcho-Communists dismiss this theory outright, or are very skeptical of it.

In small groups below Dunbar's number (150 people), there are examples of AnCom functioning.

I'll now open up the floor to discussion about Anarcho-Communism and/or its compatibility with Anarchism.

If any comments are off-topic, make sure to reply to them with, "You smell like dick cheese."
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Edwardmv
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 2:34:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, i believe communism is not only compatible with anarchism, but in a sense, is anarchism because the government has been dictated by the people in such a way, that the "government" is no longer a thing and is simply an emulation of the government on a mass scale.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 3:23:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 11:33:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Communism is a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society; with COMMON ownership of the means of production. And where goods are produced to satisfy human need, instead of for profit. It is perfectly compatible with Anarchism. The Marxist-Leninist concept of an intermediary worker's state is only one theory of how such a society can be achieved. All Anarcho-Communists dismiss this theory outright, or are very skeptical of it.

In small groups below Dunbar's number (150 people), there are examples of AnCom functioning.

I'll now open up the floor to discussion about Anarcho-Communism and/or its compatibility with Anarchism.

If any comments are off-topic, make sure to reply to them with, "You smell like dick cheese."

Of course Karl Marx, and all authentic communists of every philosophical variety (yours truly included), envision the eventual "withering away of the state" and the realization of an "anarchistic" socioeconomic form of life. There's really nothing much to argue about here.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 7:47:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 11:33:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Communism is a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society; with COMMON ownership of the means of production. And where goods are produced to satisfy human need, instead of for profit. It is perfectly compatible with Anarchism. The Marxist-Leninist concept of an intermediary worker's state is only one theory of how such a society can be achieved. All Anarcho-Communists dismiss this theory outright, or are very skeptical of it.

In small groups below Dunbar's number (150 people), there are examples of AnCom functioning.

I'll now open up the floor to discussion about Anarcho-Communism and/or its compatibility with Anarchism.

If any comments are off-topic, make sure to reply to them with, "You smell like dick cheese."

The real question is whether capitalism is compatible with anarchism.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 12:11:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 11:33:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Communism is a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society; with COMMON ownership of the means of production. And where goods are produced to satisfy human need, instead of for profit. It is perfectly compatible with Anarchism. The Marxist-Leninist concept of an intermediary worker's state is only one theory of how such a society can be achieved. All Anarcho-Communists dismiss this theory outright, or are very skeptical of it.

In small groups below Dunbar's number (150 people), there are examples of AnCom functioning.

I'll now open up the floor to discussion about Anarcho-Communism and/or its compatibility with Anarchism.

If any comments are off-topic, make sure to reply to them with, "You smell like dick cheese."

It's not exactly a controversial stance outside of Ancap circles.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 12:15:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 7:47:42 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Communism is a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society; with COMMON ownership of the means of production. And where goods are produced to satisfy human need, instead of for profit. It is perfectly compatible with Anarchism. The Marxist-Leninist concept of an intermediary worker's state is only one theory of how such a society can be achieved. All Anarcho-Communists dismiss this theory outright, or are very skeptical of it.

In small groups below Dunbar's number (150 people), there are examples of AnCom functioning.

I'll now open up the floor to discussion about Anarcho-Communism and/or its compatibility with Anarchism.

If any comments are off-topic, make sure to reply to them with, "You smell like dick cheese."

The real question is whether capitalism is compatible with anarchism.

This.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 8:40:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 7:47:42 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Communism is a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society; with COMMON ownership of the means of production. And where goods are produced to satisfy human need, instead of for profit. It is perfectly compatible with Anarchism. The Marxist-Leninist concept of an intermediary worker's state is only one theory of how such a society can be achieved. All Anarcho-Communists dismiss this theory outright, or are very skeptical of it.

In small groups below Dunbar's number (150 people), there are examples of AnCom functioning.

I'll now open up the floor to discussion about Anarcho-Communism and/or its compatibility with Anarchism.

If any comments are off-topic, make sure to reply to them with, "You smell like dick cheese."

The real question is whether capitalism is compatible with anarchism.

You smell like dick cheese.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 10:50:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 8:40:08 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/22/2014 7:47:42 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/21/2014 11:33:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Communism is a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society; with COMMON ownership of the means of production. And where goods are produced to satisfy human need, instead of for profit. It is perfectly compatible with Anarchism. The Marxist-Leninist concept of an intermediary worker's state is only one theory of how such a society can be achieved. All Anarcho-Communists dismiss this theory outright, or are very skeptical of it.

In small groups below Dunbar's number (150 people), there are examples of AnCom functioning.

I'll now open up the floor to discussion about Anarcho-Communism and/or its compatibility with Anarchism.

If any comments are off-topic, make sure to reply to them with, "You smell like dick cheese."

The real question is whether capitalism is compatible with anarchism.

You smell like dick cheese.

AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM I WIN CAPITALISM SUCKS
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 11:22:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
On a more serious note, anarchism is, to the best of my understanding, a stance of extreme skepticism, towards authority, or indeed hatred of it having seen its effects. The anarchist has demanded that authority must be justifiable or necessary, or failing that, abolished, and the anarchist has not been met with sufficient justification for authorities such as the state, among other things.

It seems difficult to comprehend how anything other than a "stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society" could be compatible with anarchism. Private property is a principle of hierarchy, or unequal power, so abolish it, right?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 12:44:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wocambs wrote:
On a more serious note, anarchism is, to the best of my understanding, a stance of extreme skepticism, towards authority, or indeed hatred of it having seen its effects. The anarchist has demanded that authority must be justifiable or necessary, or failing that, abolished, and the anarchist has not been met with sufficient justification for authorities such as the state, among other things.

It seems difficult to comprehend how anything other than a "stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society" could be compatible with anarchism. Private property is a principle of hierarchy, or unequal power, so abolish it, right?

Authority for what? The best writing I've found on authority is a book called The Most Dangerous Superstition. In it the author describes authority as the right to rule, which he eviscerates like a starved lion disemboweling a gazelle. No one views private companies or private individuals as having "the right to rule." The Problem of Political Authority is also a great read with better organization.

What's to be accomplished by abolishing private property and what methods would you use to do so?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 1:23:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 12:44:01 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wocambs wrote:
On a more serious note, anarchism is, to the best of my understanding, a stance of extreme skepticism, towards authority, or indeed hatred of it having seen its effects. The anarchist has demanded that authority must be justifiable or necessary, or failing that, abolished, and the anarchist has not been met with sufficient justification for authorities such as the state, among other things.

It seems difficult to comprehend how anything other than a "stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society" could be compatible with anarchism. Private property is a principle of hierarchy, or unequal power, so abolish it, right?

Authority for what? The best writing I've found on authority is a book called The Most Dangerous Superstition. In it the author describes authority as the right to rule, which he eviscerates like a starved lion disemboweling a gazelle. No one views private companies or private individuals as having "the right to rule." The Problem of Political Authority is also a great read with better organization.

What's to be accomplished by abolishing private property and what methods would you use to do so?

There is no real distinction to be made between "the state", as you oppose it, and private property. They are in fact essentially the same thing, the state just a greater manifestation of private property. And so what is to be accomplished is in fact in line with what you might imagine to be attempting to accomplish, but on a larger (and less futile) scale.

As regards the "how", it's simply a matter of commitment, cooperation and basic math.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 1:33:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Think of it as scattering the pieces off a chess board because you don't want to play chess anymore, as opposed to obliterating the game and putting something else in its place that will keep it from the minds of the people for the rest of our existence.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 2:47:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 12:44:01 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wocambs wrote:
On a more serious note, anarchism is, to the best of my understanding, a stance of extreme skepticism, towards authority, or indeed hatred of it having seen its effects. The anarchist has demanded that authority must be justifiable or necessary, or failing that, abolished, and the anarchist has not been met with sufficient justification for authorities such as the state, among other things.

It seems difficult to comprehend how anything other than a "stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society" could be compatible with anarchism. Private property is a principle of hierarchy, or unequal power, so abolish it, right?

Authority for what? The best writing I've found on authority is a book called The Most Dangerous Superstition. In it the author describes authority as the right to rule, which he eviscerates like a starved lion disemboweling a gazelle. No one views private companies or private individuals as having "the right to rule." The Problem of Political Authority is also a great read with better organization.

What's to be accomplished by abolishing private property and what methods would you use to do so?

Well, if I own something, I dominate that thing entirely, and it is exclusively mine. My right to own this thing gives me the authority to refuse you access to it - your ability to freely interact with the world is interfered with by this right I have claimed. This seems like the kind of power structure that anarchists are meant to oppose, does it not? That is what there is to accomplish, and it is an admirable goal. If institutions significant enough resist expropriation, then it seems violent methods might be justified.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 9:04:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/23/2014 12:44:01 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wocambs wrote:
On a more serious note, anarchism is, to the best of my understanding, a stance of extreme skepticism, towards authority, or indeed hatred of it having seen its effects. The anarchist has demanded that authority must be justifiable or necessary, or failing that, abolished, and the anarchist has not been met with sufficient justification for authorities such as the state, among other things.

It seems difficult to comprehend how anything other than a "stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society" could be compatible with anarchism. Private property is a principle of hierarchy, or unequal power, so abolish it, right?

Authority for what? The best writing I've found on authority is a book called The Most Dangerous Superstition. In it the author describes authority as the right to rule, which he eviscerates like a starved lion disemboweling a gazelle. No one views private companies or private individuals as having "the right to rule." The Problem of Political Authority is also a great read with better organization.

What's to be accomplished by abolishing private property and what methods would you use to do so?

Well, if I own something, I dominate that thing entirely, and it is exclusively mine. My right to own this thing gives me the authority to refuse you access to it - your ability to freely interact with the world is interfered with by this right I have claimed. This seems like the kind of power structure that anarchists are meant to oppose, does it not? That is what there is to accomplish, and it is an admirable goal. If institutions significant enough resist expropriation, then it seems violent methods might be justified.

Does the "right to freely interact with the world" only apply you want to do something, not when others do? And if you eliminate all private property, what will you have left? What do you think private property is? On so-called "public property", would a man be able to breath specific particles of air in such a way that, afterwards (or even at the same time) no one else would be able to? Would that indicate a hierarchy of power? Should you slit his throat and puncture his lungs to "limit" authority?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 2:29:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 9:04:56 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 2/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/23/2014 12:44:01 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wocambs wrote:
On a more serious note, anarchism is, to the best of my understanding, a stance of extreme skepticism, towards authority, or indeed hatred of it having seen its effects. The anarchist has demanded that authority must be justifiable or necessary, or failing that, abolished, and the anarchist has not been met with sufficient justification for authorities such as the state, among other things.

It seems difficult to comprehend how anything other than a "stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society" could be compatible with anarchism. Private property is a principle of hierarchy, or unequal power, so abolish it, right?

Authority for what? The best writing I've found on authority is a book called The Most Dangerous Superstition. In it the author describes authority as the right to rule, which he eviscerates like a starved lion disemboweling a gazelle. No one views private companies or private individuals as having "the right to rule." The Problem of Political Authority is also a great read with better organization.

What's to be accomplished by abolishing private property and what methods would you use to do so?

Well, if I own something, I dominate that thing entirely, and it is exclusively mine. My right to own this thing gives me the authority to refuse you access to it - your ability to freely interact with the world is interfered with by this right I have claimed. This seems like the kind of power structure that anarchists are meant to oppose, does it not? That is what there is to accomplish, and it is an admirable goal. If institutions significant enough resist expropriation, then it seems violent methods might be justified.

Does the "right to freely interact with the world" only apply you want to do something, not when others do? And if you eliminate all private property, what will you have left? What do you think private property is? On so-called "public property", would a man be able to breath specific particles of air in such a way that, afterwards (or even at the same time) no one else would be able to? Would that indicate a hierarchy of power? Should you slit his throat and puncture his lungs to "limit" authority?

I don't get it. Are suggesting (social...) anarchists are selfish and restrictive? I thought that's what I was meant to call you, while you accused me of being too much of a dandelion to survive in the 'real world'.

Private property is the right to dominate something in such a way that only your authority can permit access to it, right? Whence cometh that authority?

I don't see using something in itself as an 'imposition of authority', as there is no victim, no one to be subjugated, so I don't think I'll need to go around puncturing lungs any time soon.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 11:17:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 2:29:24 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/26/2014 9:04:56 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 2/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/23/2014 12:44:01 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wocambs wrote:
On a more serious note, anarchism is, to the best of my understanding, a stance of extreme skepticism, towards authority, or indeed hatred of it having seen its effects. The anarchist has demanded that authority must be justifiable or necessary, or failing that, abolished, and the anarchist has not been met with sufficient justification for authorities such as the state, among other things.

It seems difficult to comprehend how anything other than a "stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society" could be compatible with anarchism. Private property is a principle of hierarchy, or unequal power, so abolish it, right?

Authority for what? The best writing I've found on authority is a book called The Most Dangerous Superstition. In it the author describes authority as the right to rule, which he eviscerates like a starved lion disemboweling a gazelle. No one views private companies or private individuals as having "the right to rule." The Problem of Political Authority is also a great read with better organization.

What's to be accomplished by abolishing private property and what methods would you use to do so?

Well, if I own something, I dominate that thing entirely, and it is exclusively mine. My right to own this thing gives me the authority to refuse you access to it - your ability to freely interact with the world is interfered with by this right I have claimed. This seems like the kind of power structure that anarchists are meant to oppose, does it not? That is what there is to accomplish, and it is an admirable goal. If institutions significant enough resist expropriation, then it seems violent methods might be justified.

Does the "right to freely interact with the world" only apply you want to do something, not when others do? And if you eliminate all private property, what will you have left? What do you think private property is? On so-called "public property", would a man be able to breath specific particles of air in such a way that, afterwards (or even at the same time) no one else would be able to? Would that indicate a hierarchy of power? Should you slit his throat and puncture his lungs to "limit" authority?

I don't get it. Are suggesting (social...) anarchists are selfish and restrictive? I thought that's what I was meant to call you, while you accused me of being too much of a dandelion to survive in the 'real world'.

I think that there is no way for it to work, so any step towards their ideals is a bad one.

Private property is the right to dominate something in such a way that only your authority can permit access to it, right? Whence cometh that authority?

Private property is the right to the results of your actions. Without this right, no human beings can survive. One of the most important things to note is that, if you come to the conclusion that you have a right to property and to life (Which are essentialy the same) through the reasoning that it is necessary for your survival as a human, you must also recognize that all other humans have the same right (until they violate the rights pf another). Therefore, you can refuse access to your property, but others can also refuse access to theirs.

I don't see using something in itself as an 'imposition of authority', as there is no victim, no one to be subjugated, so I don't think I'll need to go around puncturing lungs any time soon.

What do you think counts as subjugation? As far as I can tell, you're saying that making something impossible to use to someone else is subjugation. If that is the case, any action would be subjugation, as you are changing the world around you and making the exact resources around you change in some way. If this is too extreme, then what if there was a fixed amount of air? After this was depleted, no one could breathe. John takes a breath, meaning that there will not be enough air for Tony. Does this mean that John is subjugating Tony? If, instead, Tony took a breath, would he be subjugating John? What would be the moral course of actio in this situation? To have them both suffocate? If John does take a breath, is it moral for Tony to murder him?

There's always a "victim" if you think everyone has the right to everything.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2014 11:47:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 11:17:09 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 2/28/2014 2:29:24 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/26/2014 9:04:56 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 2/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/23/2014 12:44:01 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:22:18 AM, Wocambs wrote:
On a more serious note, anarchism is, to the best of my understanding, a stance of extreme skepticism, towards authority, or indeed hatred of it having seen its effects. The anarchist has demanded that authority must be justifiable or necessary, or failing that, abolished, and the anarchist has not been met with sufficient justification for authorities such as the state, among other things.

It seems difficult to comprehend how anything other than a "stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society" could be compatible with anarchism. Private property is a principle of hierarchy, or unequal power, so abolish it, right?

Authority for what? The best writing I've found on authority is a book called The Most Dangerous Superstition. In it the author describes authority as the right to rule, which he eviscerates like a starved lion disemboweling a gazelle. No one views private companies or private individuals as having "the right to rule." The Problem of Political Authority is also a great read with better organization.

What's to be accomplished by abolishing private property and what methods would you use to do so?

Well, if I own something, I dominate that thing entirely, and it is exclusively mine. My right to own this thing gives me the authority to refuse you access to it - your ability to freely interact with the world is interfered with by this right I have claimed. This seems like the kind of power structure that anarchists are meant to oppose, does it not? That is what there is to accomplish, and it is an admirable goal. If institutions significant enough resist expropriation, then it seems violent methods might be justified.

Does the "right to freely interact with the world" only apply you want to do something, not when others do? And if you eliminate all private property, what will you have left? What do you think private property is? On so-called "public property", would a man be able to breath specific particles of air in such a way that, afterwards (or even at the same time) no one else would be able to? Would that indicate a hierarchy of power? Should you slit his throat and puncture his lungs to "limit" authority?

I don't get it. Are suggesting (social...) anarchists are selfish and restrictive? I thought that's what I was meant to call you, while you accused me of being too much of a dandelion to survive in the 'real world'.

I think that there is no way for it to work, so any step towards their ideals is a bad one.

Private property is the right to dominate something in such a way that only your authority can permit access to it, right? Whence cometh that authority?

Private property is the right to the results of your actions. Without this right, no human beings can survive. One of the most important things to note is that, if you come to the conclusion that you have a right to property and to life (Which are essentialy the same) through the reasoning that it is necessary for your survival as a human, you must also recognize that all other humans have the same right (until they violate the rights pf another). Therefore, you can refuse access to your property, but others can also refuse access to theirs.

I don't see using something in itself as an 'imposition of authority', as there is no victim, no one to be subjugated, so I don't think I'll need to go around puncturing lungs any time soon.

What do you think counts as subjugation? As far as I can tell, you're saying that making something impossible to use to someone else is subjugation. If that is the case, any action would be subjugation, as you are changing the world around you and making the exact resources around you change in some way. If this is too extreme, then what if there was a fixed amount of air? After this was depleted, no one could breathe. John takes a breath, meaning that there will not be enough air for Tony. Does this mean that John is subjugating Tony? If, instead, Tony took a breath, would he be subjugating John? What would be the moral course of actio in this situation? To have them both suffocate? If John does take a breath, is it moral for Tony to murder him?

There's always a "victim" if you think everyone has the right to everything.

Sh't yer a Randian now aren't you.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2014 5:28:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/28/2014 11:17:09 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

"Private property is the right to the results of your actions. Without this right, no human beings can survive. One of the most important things to note is that, if you come to the conclusion that you have a right to property and to life (Which are essentialy the same) through the reasoning that it is necessary for your survival as a human, you must also recognize that all other humans have the same right (until they violate the rights pf another). Therefore, you can refuse access to your property, but others can also refuse access to theirs."

The 'right to the results of my actions' is nonsense, is it not? If I 'mix my labour' with the air by breathing, do I own that? Simply stating 'private property is essential to life' without proving it is not going to work, and even if you could, that still wouldn't make it justified. 'X is essential to life' doesn't contain any 'oughts' now does it.

"What do you think counts as subjugation? As far as I can tell, you're saying that making something impossible to use to someone else is subjugation. If that is the case, any action would be subjugation, as you are changing the world around you and making the exact resources around you change in some way. If this is too extreme, then what if there was a fixed amount of air? After this was depleted, no one could breathe. John takes a breath, meaning that there will not be enough air for Tony. Does this mean that John is subjugating Tony? If, instead, Tony took a breath, would he be subjugating John? What would be the moral course of actio in this situation? To have them both suffocate? If John does take a breath, is it moral for Tony to murder him?

There's always a "victim" if you think everyone has the right to everything."

Subjugation, in the sense I am using it, is the imposition of a normative right to power over another individual creating a hierarchy of power.

I'm not saying everyone has the right to everything, I'm saying that rights in this sense don't seem to make sense at the moment. I'm asking you to prove something. How are we to make sense of John and Tony? I fail to see how injecting private property would improve the situation. They both breathe, reducing the amount of time they each have to live, but the impossibility of them both getting what they want, to breathe all of their air, may be a 'natural fact' rather than an imposition of authority, despite it being dependent on choices. I'll have a think.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 2:32:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
JOKE TIME

How many "Anarcho-" Communists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Nobody knows. As soon as one got on the ladder, another yelled "I'm not going to stand for this hierarchial bullshlt!" and a riot broke out.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 2:50:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Shut up dude. Nothing about your politics makes sense but that you're pissed off with god and your father.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 2:57:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
JOKE TIME

Why did the anarcho-capitalist cross the road?

Because he was trespassing and was threatened with force.

Why did the illegal immigrant cross the atlantic ocean?

Because he was trespassing and was threatened with force.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

You're retarded.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:06:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You know, you all just go along with incredibly stupid sh*t, but it's all just one big adventure for you guys, you have no idea what the f*ck you're actually talking about, or why you're doing the things you do. It's like being just an incredibly fat f*ck, your "intellectualism" only really being taste in your mouth. It's so f*cking unfair lol
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:29:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 2:50:23 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Shut up dude. Nothing about your politics makes sense but that you're pissed off with god and your father.

Good argument
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:31:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 3:29:42 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/7/2014 2:50:23 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Shut up dude. Nothing about your politics makes sense but that you're pissed off with god and your father.

Good argument

The argument came after. That's just what you are.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 4:05:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 3:31:32 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 3/7/2014 3:29:42 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/7/2014 2:50:23 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Shut up dude. Nothing about your politics makes sense but that you're pissed off with god and your father.

Good argument

The argument came after. That's just what you are.

Ladies come first.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.