Right-Wing Discussion Thread Part Two

[MERIZoC]

If there's rape or non consensual pornography that sure fucking is violence.

Right, but what is your community going to do about it? Even the state has difficulty dealing with the vast amount of child porn on the internet, you've given us no reason to think scaled down communities are going to do any better. And even if they find perpetrators, their actions are probably not going to be fair, judicial process that involves punishment and rehabilitation rather than a lynching.

And what if one of the communities is okay with 6 or 7 being the age of consent, or believes it's okay for a "prophet" to sleep with an underaged girl (e.g David Koresh)?

What if a state believes it's okay to marry children away at young ages, i.e. countries that exist right now?

[The Grey Wolf]

Right, but what is your community going to do about it? Even the state has difficulty dealing with the vast amount of child porn on the internet, you've given us no reason to think scaled down communities are going to do any better. And even if they find perpetrators, their actions are probably not going to be fair, judicial process that involves punishment and rehabilitation rather than a lynching.

And what if one of the communities is okay with 6 or 7 being the age of consent, or believes it's okay for a "prophet" to sleep with an underaged girl (e.g David Koresh)?

What if a state believes it's okay to marry children away at young ages, i.e. countries that exist right now?

You didn't answer my question.

Child marriage in countries is largely the result of economic and social retardation, instead of pedophilia or cult manipulation.

It'll be hell for LGBT kids if fundamentalists decide to form communities based on their ideals. Life's already hard, but at least we can work to ban conversion therapy and other homophobic & transphobic practices. You want to make them inculpable before any higher form of law beside their communities'.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

I think the question I have to ask here is "Why is the monopoly on the use of force such a bad thing?"

[The Liberated Territories]

I think the question I have to ask here is "Why is the monopoly on the use of force such a bad thing?"

Why is a monopoly on anything a bad thing?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I think the question I have to ask here is "Why is the monopoly on the use of force such a bad thing?"

Why is a monopoly on anything a bad thing?

Can you have a monopoly on a concept?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

I think the question I have to ask here is "Why is the monopoly on the use of force such a bad thing?"

Why is a monopoly on anything a bad thing?

A monopoly on an industry is a bad thing because it stagnates innovation, enables price gouging, and so forth. Assuming a baseline capitalist system, that is.

A monopoly of force is necessary to enforce the law and keep order.

Corporations =/= the Government. They are different.

[The Liberated Territories]

Why is a monopoly on anything a bad thing?

A monopoly on an industry is a bad thing because it stagnates innovation, enables price gouging, and so forth. Assuming a baseline capitalist system, that is.

A monopoly of force is necessary to enforce the law and keep order.

Corporations =/= the Government. They are different.

Not really. A government is just a large corporation with a monopoly on violence. No different the Dutch East India company, where in the absence of competitors grew to be a state like entity in itself which even issued its own currency. In this case, the state is a natural monopoly, but these do not need to be bad things.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

*shrug*

You made an assertion, and one would expect you to back it up. No matter. I'll explain again. A government is how society is organized. This can be through representative democracy, an oligarchy, direct democracy, etc. The state is the entity that has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In most societies, the state is the apparatus through which the government acts.

This makes me question how an anarchist society would get anything done long-term without the use of force.

It wouldn't.

Pacifists and primmies don't have too much of a leg to stand on, ideologically, even compared to the rest of us idealistic anarchist fucks.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

A monopoly on an industry is a bad thing because it stagnates innovation, enables price gouging, and so forth. Assuming a baseline capitalist system, that is.

A monopoly of force is necessary to enforce the law and keep order.

Corporations =/= the Government. They are different.

Not really. A government is just a large corporation with a monopoly on violence. No different the Dutch East India company, where in the absence of competitors grew to be a state like entity in itself which even issued its own currency. In this case, the state is a natural monopoly, but these do not need to be bad things.

No, the Dutch East India acted as a government only because the State sanctioned it. Similar story with the British East India company. Corporations are for profit ventures that only exist under corporate law established by the State. The State is a level above corporations, and certainly is not for profit.

[The Liberated Territories]

Not really. A government is just a large corporation with a monopoly on violence. No different the Dutch East India company, where in the absence of competitors grew to be a state like entity in itself which even issued its own currency. In this case, the state is a natural monopoly, but these do not need to be bad things.

No, the Dutch East India acted as a government only because the State sanctioned it. Similar story with the British East India company. Corporations are for profit ventures that only exist under corporate law established by the State. The State is a level above corporations, and certainly is not for profit.

Let us review the definition of corporation (via google):

a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Sounds a lot like a democratic republic, where you simply replace shareholders as "the people." And what state doesnt recognize itself as its own sovereign entity?

The state is definitely a for profit entity when it needs to keep tax revenues above expenses. It needs to pay its employees and shareholders.

Of course, thats called collusion. Or violating anti trust, for that matter.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Authorized by whom, hmmm? The State, of course.
Recognized under whose law? Why, that'd also be, the State's.

Also the idea of Corporate Personhood is patently ridiculous.

[The Liberated Territories]

a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

Authorized by whom, hmmm? The State, of course.
Recognized under whose law? Why, that'd also be, the State's.

Also the idea of Corporate Personhood is patently ridiculous.

Why does the fact that it recognizes itself make it's status as a private corporation irrelevant? It is both a state (by Weberian definition) and a corporation. What you are trying to enforce is a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

No it isn't. The US Government even recognizes itself from a corporation, starting with the District of Columbia ACT of 1871, which incorporated the various departments (the US Treasury for example, is a private corporation registered in Puerto Rico.)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-s ... hi-t-gemba

Similar governments, like Great Britain have done the same with London as a corporate municipality.

[Conscentia]

*If you use Max Weber's definition.

Sure. What do you prefer? We aren't talking about hard sciences of course, so everything's open to interpretation.

I prefer Marx's definition. [x] I think it's less ambiguous than Weber's definition.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Sure. What do you prefer? We aren't talking about hard sciences of course, so everything's open to interpretation.

I prefer Marx's definition. [x] I think it's less ambiguous than Weber's definition.

In all honesty, so do I. *shrugs* don't bring it up, k

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Authorized by whom, hmmm? The State, of course.
Recognized under whose law? Why, that'd also be, the State's.

Also the idea of Corporate Personhood is patently ridiculous.

Why does the fact that it recognizes itself make it's status as a private corporation irrelevant? It is both a state (by Weberian definition) and a corporation. What you are trying to enforce is a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

No it isn't. The US Government even recognizes itself from a corporation, starting with the District of Columbia ACT of 1871, which incorporated the various departments (the US Treasury for example, is a private corporation registered in Puerto Rico.)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-s ... hi-t-gemba

Similar governments, like Great Britain have done the same with London as a corporate municipality.

The difference is that a Corporation has a higher authority that it has to bow to. Namely, corporate law as passed by the State. The State is an authority unto itself (excluding International Law).

[The Liberated Territories]

Why does the fact that it recognizes itself make it's status as a private corporation irrelevant? It is both a state (by Weberian definition) and a corporation. What you are trying to enforce is a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

No it isn't. The US Government even recognizes itself from a corporation, starting with the District of Columbia ACT of 1871, which incorporated the various departments (the US Treasury for example, is a private corporation registered in Puerto Rico.)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/united-s ... hi-t-gemba

Similar governments, like Great Britain have done the same with London as a corporate municipality.

The difference is that a Corporation has a higher authority that it has to bow to. Namely, corporate law as passed by the State. The State is an authority unto itself (excluding International Law).

Most modern corporations are internationalist creatures which give fuck all about the law.

The state has an authority it has to bow to. It has to bow to the people, (in theory). Similarly, a state has to at least give it's shareholders a portion of their profits. So no, it's not an authority unto itself.

I see the path from corporation to state as something like the tale of a slave: when does a corporation cease to become a corporation? So if we live under a state of anarchy, and we go to a business selling the service of security, and then after merging with other similar businesses, does it become a state then?

Tale of the slave for reference.

[Conscentia]

I prefer Marx's definition. [x] I think it's less ambiguous than Weber's definition.

In all honesty, so do I. *shrugs* don't bring it up, k

Why shouldn't I bring it up?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

In all honesty, so do I. *shrugs* don't bring it up, k

Why shouldn't I bring it up?

Because I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist. Anarchists are supposed to use Weber, Marxists are supposed to use Marx. And some anarchists get really pissy about Marx for no good reason.

It was a joke, anyway.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Why shouldn't I bring it up?

Because I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist. Anarchists are supposed to use Weber, Marxists are supposed to use Marx. And some anarchists get really pissy about Marx for no good reason.

It was a joke, anyway.

True Communism is sorta like anarchy, if I understand it properly.

[MERIZoC]

Sure. What do you prefer? We aren't talking about hard sciences of course, so everything's open to interpretation.

I prefer Marx's definition. [x] I think it's less ambiguous than Weber's definition.

I don't think there's any reason to view the two as mutually exclusive.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist. Anarchists are supposed to use Weber, Marxists are supposed to use Marx. And some anarchists get really pissy about Marx for no good reason.

It was a joke, anyway.

True Communism is sorta like anarchy, if I understand it properly.

*sighs* Ugh.

Libertarian communists, Marxist-Leninists, anarchist communists, all have the literally exact same end goal: Communism. Most anarchists (not all) are indeed communists. And ultimately, Marxists do envision an anarchic society. So, yeah. We just disagree on methods of getting there, primarily - along with fucking definitions of simple goddamn words and innumerable other things.

The Left in general has issues with solidarity,, which is sad, since that's kind of supposed to be our thing. But the far left? Like, you don't line up one hundred-motherfucking-percent, if you don't make your bed the "right" goddamn way, there's a bullet or an icepick or a gulag coming for your ass.

[MERIZoC]

This makes me question how an anarchist society would get anything done long-term without the use of force.

It wouldn't.

Pacifists and primmies don't have too much of a leg to stand on, ideologically, even compared to the rest of us idealistic anarchist fucks.

I mean we do have thousands of years of historical precedent so there's that.

[The Liberated Territories]

Why shouldn't I bring it up?

Because I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist. Anarchists are supposed to use Weber, Marxists are supposed to use Marx. And some anarchists get really pissy about Marx for no good reason.

It was a joke, anyway.

Did you get bad Marx in school, Pruss?

hurr hurr

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because I'm an anarchist, not a Marxist. Anarchists are supposed to use Weber, Marxists are supposed to use Marx. And some anarchists get really pissy about Marx for no good reason.

It was a joke, anyway.

Did you get bad Marx in school, Pruss?

hurr hurr

Nah, never went below a 3.6 so far as I recall.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It wouldn't.

Pacifists and primmies don't have too much of a leg to stand on, ideologically, even compared to the rest of us idealistic anarchist fucks.

I mean we do have thousands of years of historical precedent so there's that.

You did not just do that, Merizoc.