The Ancap-Ancom Divide.

[Norstal]

So what happens when the shop doesn't want to give me something for my rocks?

Sounds like a "You" problem.

Go find some alcohol or a good that is worth something.

But you just said I have the right to use whatever I want as currency. Now suddenly I have problem? Wow, this is sounding like fascism.

[Ripoll]

And it wasn't all that great when it was used. It doesn't neccessarily hjave to be Government to be fiat, it can be anything taking the place of Government as well or any form of law or regulation.

A gold standard for essence, would still be fiat currency. For as long as civilization has exited, fiat currency has existed.

So in other words, you think we should return to a barter system?

The gold standard is not fiat. (S)he said nothing of the barter system.

In both cases, what makes Tide detergent, or cigarettes, or the US dollar, or Bitcoin, or whatever, a currency, is simply common agreement that these an item of currency is valuable. What makes it possible to buy drugs with Tide is not because Tide is useful as a detergent. It’s because drug dealers and users have agreed that it is currency.

This is, of course, equally true of gold. Gold’s uses in industry are marginal to its appeal. What makes gold valuable is that we’ve all agreed since time immemorial that it’s valuable.

Switching to a gold-backed currency regime does not mean switching away from fiat currency, it means switching to a fiat currency system where the money supply is linked to a commodity.

[United Russian Soviet States]

There is too much difference between the two types of anarchists.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

People have every right to use whatever they want as currency.

How would corporations even function then? What right do cashiers have to barter with their company's retail products? Barter is an awful system and this will severely lower demand, hurt business, and cause painful deflationary cycles.

Certain goods are universally useful.

I have gone over this. Ammunition, gold, silver, bitcoin, alcohol, drugs, gasoline, etc.

The business can set certain prices they want. You really dont get that people work well woth freedom do you?

[Sibirsky]

Peak oil will be a slow increase in oil prices, maiking it more economically viable to use green energy.

If you actually research peak oil, you will see that it is a bell curve: prices slowly increase.

So again, waiting for decades after it is pretty much irreversible to begin to do anything and just allow the market to naturally correct itself. Or we can do what we do now and incentivize companies to go green, and give tax breaks to companies that practice sustainability and tax carbon footprints.

Who said anything about waiting for decades?

Businessmen and women are not stupid, as much as you claim them to be, and would work on technologies ahead of time because that would make them money.

[Natapoc]

Sounds like a "You" problem.

Go find some alcohol or a good that is worth something.

But you just said I have the right to use whatever I want as currency. Now suddenly I have problem? Wow, this is sounding like fascism.

Rocks are actually very valuable currency when used appropriately...

With proper force and aim one can "barter" for whatever one wants with a rock quite easily. You could say that rocks are a mechanism of exchange.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Sounds like a "You" problem.

Go find some alcohol or a good that is worth something.

But you just said I have the right to use whatever I want as currency. Now suddenly I have problem? Wow, this is sounding like fascism.

Both parties must agree to it.

You cannot force them to take rocks. They have to agree.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

There is too much difference between the two types of anarchists.

But a commune here, a market community there, why cannot they coexist?

[Sibirsky]

People have every right to use whatever they want as currency.

How would corporations even function then? What right do cashiers have to barter with their company's retail products? Barter is an awful system and this will severely lower demand, hurt business, and cause painful deflationary cycles.

Why do you keep bringing up the fucking barter system? You are the only one to do it.

In free banking, some currency (likely, but not necessarily backed by something) would win out. That's what we would use.

[Norstal]

But you just said I have the right to use whatever I want as currency. Now suddenly I have problem? Wow, this is sounding like fascism.

Both parties must agree to it.

You cannot force them to take rocks. They have to agree.

So it's not a right. It's a scarce resource. Much like anything else. Why did you say currency is a right?

[Ripoll]

1) so your solution is we will fix the environment after we destroy it? Nah, I think a tax on carbon footprints and some mandatory form of environmental review is a better idea.

2) Smoking violates the health of potential offspring and they never had a say on your decision to poison them.

3) No, you do not have the right to reintroduce small pox into society because "mah bodily sovereignty is at risk for taking harmless medicine thatwill only protect me and keep our society functional and disease free"

1. That's not what (s)he said.

Taxes work well, in making us worse off.

2. What the fuck are you talking about? "Potential offspring" are just that. Potential. They are not real and do not get to restrict anyone else's rights. If/when (s)he decides to have children it would be a good idea to stop smoking, but still none of your fucking business.

3. You ok? You sound like you need help. You, the government or anyone else has no right to force anything into his or her body. Get over it.

1) Intentions =/= outcomes, taxing carbon footprints gives a market incentive to not pollute so that sustainability is a profitable and legal way to avoid tax.

2) No, parents don't have the right to damage their children, it is my business to defend the rights of those that cannot defend themselves. Off hand smoke alone is reason enough to debunk the fact that it is purely a personal choice and doesn't effect anyone else. It is my business if I'm being effected by it and the environment I live in is being effected as well. Regardless of what we do to act on it, or if we act at all, it is my damn business.

3) The moment it starts affecting people other than yourself, you cannot claim bodily sovereignty as the end all be all.

[Natapoc]

There is too much difference between the two types of anarchists.

But a commune here, a market community there, why cannot they coexist?

It's possible, although history shows this to be dangerous. The market economy of the pilgrims did not play too nicely with the local "communes".

[Conglomerate of Iron]

But you just said I have the right to use whatever I want as currency. Now suddenly I have problem? Wow, this is sounding like fascism.

Rocks are actually very valuable currency when used appropriately...

With proper force and aim one can "barter" for whatever one wants with a rock quite easily. You could say that rocks are a mechanism of exchange.

That would be taking of personal property through violence.

Then the person would shoot or taze you.

[Norstal]

There is too much difference between the two types of anarchists.

But a commune here, a market community there, why cannot they coexist?

Ancoms want to share. Ancaps want to sell. There is no currency in ancoms, for one. All resources are distributed freely. Can you do that in ancap?

[Sibirsky]

Taxes work well, in making us worse off.

When you raise taxes on cigarettes, people smoke less.

When you place a tax on carbon and raise it progressively, companies pollute less carbon.

Less smoking, less pollution, what's not to like?

When you raise taxes on cigarettes, smokers spend more on cigarettes and that leaves them less money for everything else. They are worse off, and so are the businesses that they had to curb spending on, to pay for the more expensive cigarettes.

They produce less carbon by producing less goods.

[Atlanticatia]

When you raise taxes on cigarettes, people smoke less.

When you place a tax on carbon and raise it progressively, companies pollute less carbon.

Less smoking, less pollution, what's not to like?

When you raise taxes on cigarettes, smokers spend more on cigarettes and that leaves them less money for everything else. They are worse off, and so are the businesses that they had to curb spending on, to pay for the more expensive cigarettes.

They produce less carbon by producing less goods.

Uh, actually tax increases cause people to smoke less. Smoking rates decline.

And they begin to use renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions as it becomes more costly to produce carbon. Market incentives.

[Shilya]

The fundamental problem I see is land ownership and usage rights.

Land - in both quality and quantity - is definitly limited, and for quite a lot of people in the past it has been important enough to wage wars over. So, it's sort of a critical thing, and land ownership in the absence of government essentially makes you the government, seeing how people on your property have to follow your rules or leave. So, AnCap isn't really anarchistic, it's just an extreme fragmentation into many small states.

Assuming that AnCom doesn't permit private land ownership - why would it - that means it has to somehow work out land usage rights, but that gives it at least a shot at abolishing the state. Still, once a commune forms and, to restrict too extreme behaviours starts setting up rules for its members to follow (and all human societies have rules, for good reason), the commune is basically its own, fully democratic state again, bringing us back to the problem of increasing state power. Specialization is efficient, and when it comes to the management of societies, specialization means governments.

So, the main difference that makes Ancap and Ancom so hard to work together is that one is feudalist and the other democratic in nature, two clashing ideologies.

And that's why I'm not an anarchist.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

But a commune here, a market community there, why cannot they coexist?

It's possible, although history shows this to be dangerous. The market economy of the pilgrims did not play too nicely with the local "communes".

But that was through war and violence.

There would be no unjustified violence by a society at large. At least not without it being immoral and wrong.

Both parties must agree to it.

You cannot force them to take rocks. They have to agree.

So it's not a right. It's a scarce resource. Much like anything else. Why did you say currency is a right?

You have a right to USE WHATEVER YOU THINK IS WORTHWHILE.

IF OTHER PEOPLE DONT WANT TO, THEY DONT WANT TO.

[Ripoll]

So again, waiting for decades after it is pretty much irreversible to begin to do anything and just allow the market to naturally correct itself. Or we can do what we do now and incentivize companies to go green, and give tax breaks to companies that practice sustainability and tax carbon footprints.

Who said anything about waiting for decades?

Businessmen and women are not stupid, as much as you claim them to be, and would work on technologies ahead of time because that would make them money.

I never claimed they were stupid, and I am actually very conservative when it comes to economical matters and policy. But simply put, the market motive/profit motive is not enough to reverse climate change at an effective scale, and state involvement in this matter would do more good than harm if done properly.

Also you cannot possibly know how fast the market can self correct itself, sometimes economies have been brought to ruin before the correct, sometimes they correct in less than a month. Sometimes recessions effectively cleanse waste, sometimes all they do is prevent future growth. but in reality climate change has nothing to do with markets and corporations are rational economic actors, most of which don't really specialize in sustainability.

[Natapoc]

Rocks are actually very valuable currency when used appropriately...

With proper force and aim one can "barter" for whatever one wants with a rock quite easily. You could say that rocks are a mechanism of exchange.

That would be taking of personal property through violence.

Then the person would shoot or taze you.

Property is violence obfuscated by illusions of choice and imagined freedom. Those with property use it to enslave those without and call it "voluntary". We have millions of people today "voluntary" starving and billions living in poverty in service to those illusions.

[Ripoll]

How would corporations even function then? What right do cashiers have to barter with their company's retail products? Barter is an awful system and this will severely lower demand, hurt business, and cause painful deflationary cycles.

Certain goods are universally useful.

I have gone over this. Ammunition, gold, silver, bitcoin, alcohol, drugs, gasoline, etc.

The business can set certain prices they want. You really dont get that people work well woth freedom do you?

People define usefulness, and it makes much more sense to establish a universal currency that all men can put faith in and use that does not artificially and nonsensically limit the money supply.

And It's called opportunity cost.

[Sibirsky]

The gold standard is not fiat. (S)he said nothing of the barter system.

In both cases, what makes Tide detergent, or cigarettes, or the US dollar, or Bitcoin, or whatever, a currency, is simply common agreement that these an item of currency is valuable. What makes it possible to buy drugs with Tide is not because Tide is useful as a detergent. It’s because drug dealers and users have agreed that it is currency.

This is, of course, equally true of gold. Gold’s uses in industry are marginal to its appeal. What makes gold valuable is that we’ve all agreed since time immemorial that it’s valuable.

Switching to a gold-backed currency regime does not mean switching away from fiat currency, it means switching to a fiat currency system where the money supply is linked to a commodity.

If you're going to quote an article, link to it.

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry is an idiot.

Fiat money is currency which derives its value from government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat ("let it be done", "it shall be").[1] It differs from commodity money and representative money. Commodity money is based on a good, often a precious metal such as gold or silver, which has uses other than as a medium of exchange, while representative money is a claim on the commodity rather than the actual good.[2][3][4]

The first use of fiat money was recorded in China around 1000 AD. Since then, it has been used continuously by various countries, concurrently with commodity currencies.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

The fundamental problem I see is land ownership and usage rights.

Land - in both quality and quantity - is definitly limited, and for quite a lot of people in the past it has been important enough to wage wars over. So, it's sort of a critical thing, and land ownership in the absence of government essentially makes you the government, seeing how people on your property have to follow your rules or leave. So, AnCap isn't really anarchistic, it's just an extreme fragmentation into many small states.

Assuming that AnCom doesn't permit private land ownership - why would it - that means it has to somehow work out land usage rights, but that gives it at least a shot at abolishing the state. Still, once a commune forms and, to restrict too extreme behaviours starts setting up rules for its members to follow (and all human societies have rules, for good reason), the commune is basically its own, fully democratic state again, bringing us back to the problem of increasing state power. Specialization is efficient, and when it comes to the management of societies, specialization means governments.

So, the main difference that makes Ancap and Ancom so hard to work together is that one is feudalist and the other democratic in nature, two clashing ideologies.

And that's why I'm not an anarchist.

You do realize that homesteading determines property ownership in Ancapistan?

If I built that house or purchasrd it, I own it. If I grew crops on that land, I own it.

In this way, one owns the land they use and the goods they produce.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

That would be taking of personal property through violence.

Then the person would shoot or taze you.

Property is violence obfuscated by illusions of choice and imagined freedom. Those with property use it to enslave those without and call it "voluntary". We have millions of people today "voluntary" starving and billions living in poverty in service to those illusions.

Dont ancoms believe in personal property?

Or can I take your computer because it is shared?

Humans produce goods. The goods I produce are mine.

[Shilya]

You do realize that homesteading determines property ownership in Ancapistan?

If I built that house or purchasrd it, I own it. If I grew crops on that land, I own it.

In this way, one owns the land they use and the goods they produce.

That goes against what I said exactly? You can't make up rules on the land you own?