The Ancap-Ancom Divide.

[Ripoll]

First of all wikipedia is not the end all be all source, second of all Government is a human institution, law is a human institution. Currency only has value because we put trust in it, Gold only has value because we put trust in it.

That article has 31 references.

Government - a system of which a state or community is governed. Many an archist have said that anarchism does not exclude Government, it simply excludes the power of state. Authority is essential to the preservation of freedom.

Authority is detrimental to freedom.

I'm also fairly positive that Gobry is smarter than you are.

Personal attacks, how cute. That Gobry person claimed that every currency is fiat. Demonstratively false.

Calling a well established market researcher and economics commentator an idiot is a personal attack no? I'll retract my claim if you can in fact establish that you've done more than he has and you've taken multiple courses in economics and are well established enough in the field to make a contention with any real weight behind it.

His Bio:

I'm the Founder of Noosphere, a new kind of market research firm. I most recently worked at Business Insider, where I co-created BI Intelligence, the company's market research service. I'm also a business and economics columnist at Atlantico and a lecturer at HEC Paris business school and a mentor at startup accelerator programs SeedCamp and Le Camping. I live in Paris with my beloved wife and daughter.

As for the authority debate, that's really just an opinionated statement that is a question of cultural values and pragmatism. All I can say is I wholeheartedly agree with this statement

We've been taught that authority is the enemy of freedom. It's not true. Authority, in fact, it is essential to freedom. Law is a human institution; responsibility is a human institution. If teachers don't have authority to run the classroom, to maintain order, everybody's learning suffers. If the judge doesn't have the authority to toss out unreasonable claims, then all of us go through the day looking over our shoulders. If the environmental agency can't decide that the power lines are good for the environment, then there's no way to bring the power from the wind farms to the city. A free society requires red lights and green lights, otherwise it soon descends into gridlock.

http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_howard/ ... n#t-295211 16:50 L2

Coming from someone completely disgruntled by excessive Government bureaucracy and Red Tape

[Divitaen]

Today the governments manipulate the fiat currencies to control the people. You should not be forced to accept any currency.

And yes, a standardized currency would probably arise. Then there is no problem.

Manipulation of currencies do not control the people. You may not think they are effective, and that is a fair point of view, but the purpose of things like quantitative easing or lowered interest rates is to make use of an independent monetary policy to stimulate the economy. There is no tyranny or control in this.

[Natapoc]

That article has 31 references.

Authority is detrimental to freedom.

Personal attacks, how cute. That Gobry person claimed that every currency is fiat. Demonstratively false.

Calling a well established market researcher and economics commentator an idiot is a personal attack no? I'll retract my claim if you can in fact establish that you've done more than he has and you've taken multiple courses in economics and are well established enough in the field to make a contention with any real weight behind it.

Appeals to authority are boring. It does not matter if sib is a nobel prize winning economist or a elementary school dropout. The validity of his ideas have no relation to his authority.

[Ripoll]

No, I'm aware of the unintended consequences of many Government policies such as rent control and the like. However, the incentives of carbon footprint taxes give directly are far more beneficially to the society at large than the unintended consequences of such.

You're arguing on the behalf of Austrian economics which is a school of thought that has been criticized and discredited to death. You're also looking at this in black and white.

All smoke pollutes the environment I reside in, it's my business.

That's what happened in Spain, right?

What the fuck does Austrian economics have to do with this? You're just throwing around random terms.

Incorrect. A single cigarette will not pollute the environment for more than, 20 feet around (and above) the smoker. Depending on the wind, etc.

And second hand smoke is basically harmless. It is far less harmful than many products we use, and no one is crying about them.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statist ... h_effects/ second hand smoke, not so harmless

Environmental concerns

http://www.tobaccofreeca.com/smoking-pr ... vironment/
http://www.oxygen.org.au/hardfacts/toba ... nvironment

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Today the governments manipulate the fiat currencies to control the people. You should not be forced to accept any currency.

And yes, a standardized currency would probably arise. Then there is no problem.

Manipulation of currencies do not control the people. You may not think they are effective, and that is a fair point of view, but the purpose of things like quantitative easing or lowered interest rates is to make use of an independent monetary policy to stimulate the economy. There is no tyranny or control in this.

But there is.

They print money to fund government programs (LBJ's war on poverty is a good example) and to line the pockets of Wall Street.

They then cause inflation, while the economy does not actually expand. This causes lower wages due to a drop in real income.

And you MUST use a government currency to pay taxes (extortion). So there is no avoiding it.

[Ripoll]

Calling a well established market researcher and economics commentator an idiot is a personal attack no? I'll retract my claim if you can in fact establish that you've done more than he has and you've taken multiple courses in economics and are well established enough in the field to make a contention with any real weight behind it.

Appeals to authority are boring. It does not matter if sib is a nobel prize winning economist or a elementary school dropout. The validity of his ideas have no relation to his authority.

But his "authroity" are inherently related to the validity of his ideas.

[Natapoc]

Appeals to authority are boring. It does not matter if sib is a nobel prize winning economist or a elementary school dropout. The validity of his ideas have no relation to his authority.

But his "authroity" are inherently related to the validity of his ideas.

A well known and widely discredited form of logic.

[Sibirsky]

That's what happened in Spain, right?

What the fuck does Austrian economics have to do with this? You're just throwing around random terms.

Incorrect. A single cigarette will not pollute the environment for more than, 20 feet around (and above) the smoker. Depending on the wind, etc.

And second hand smoke is basically harmless. It is far less harmful than many products we use, and no one is crying about them.

It's not harmless at all. People can suffer from lung problems as a result of prolonged passive smoking, and in countries where a good proportion of people smoking, I could be forced to suck people's fumes for hours on end in public roads and even offices. I hate it when smokers claim it is "discrimination" to stop them from smoking in public places. People have the right to smoke but not the right to not breathe. I have to breathe the air whether I like to or not, so I should have the right to demand for cleaner air from the people polluting it. It's as simple as that. Air is common property.

And at no point did I say that smokers should have a right to exhale into your face.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... nd-cancer/

The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as “borderline statistical significance.”

So I have to live with a smoker, who presumably would smoke inside, for 30 years to have a borderline statistically significant chance of an increase in risk?

Can't I just politely ask the smoker to go outside, while smoking?

Obviously cancer is not the only problem, but all the other problems are solved by the same action, and are caused by the same process.

“What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great,” he said. “While that’s good news, it shouldn’t stop anyone from saying, “I don’t want to be a in a bar or any place else with someone who is smoking.”

Some other links for you.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -big-lies/

And there are many more that say similar things.

[Threlizdun]

Personal property yes, though "property" as an abstract idea in anarchism and as Natapoc was addressing refers private property, which no form of anarchism allows. You may of course own possessions such as computers and the like, and have the right to real property such as that which you work. However, you cannot go and declare the means of production to belong to you, as that is depriving from others what is essential for labor and their wellbeing. Social property belongs to all; for a single individual or small group to claim it as their own and deprive it from all others is theft and extortion. When Proudhon famously declared property to be theft, this is what he meant. This is an essential notion to anarchism, and why it is diametrically opposed to capitalism. You can still support what you believe in, but calling it anarchism is dishonest, even if unintentionally so.

Let me get this straight....

The means of production cannot be owned....

So I cannot own seeds? Or an axe? Or a computer to write things? Or a sowing machine?

All these things are means of production. They produce things.

Tools generally could be expected to be communal property, though as working members of the community you certainly have access to them. Surplus tools could effectively mean you would have less of a need to share them, though otherwise it could generally be expected that you just let whoever needs the tools as the time use them. If your neighbor needs to use a hammer and you don't, what good does it do sitting in your drawer? Seeds would really depend on what they are for. Agriculture is obviously a communal effort, though should it be something as simple as planting flowers in your yard then it's a far stretch calling them essential means of production. Personal computers operate more effectively when they are just that, personal, so it is within social interest to see many people make personal use of them. The spread of knowledge is obvious, but people also of course benefit from the entertainment they provide, so it makes sense to regard them as personal property in that sense as it actually is in the interest of the community to do so. Of course, public computers in libraries and other social centers should be expected.

And who would enforce these arbitrary rules? You woulf have to make a stste to stop me from making clothing and food.

You aren't being stopped from making clothing or food, just stealing it from others. Citizen militias would step in when needed, though I'd hardly see why anyone would want to break the law when they don't really stand to gain anything and will obviously be caught. Everything they need is provided for them, and they are free to do as they wish, so why would you have a problem with this?

[Ripoll]

But his "authroity" are inherently related to the validity of his ideas.

A well known and widely discredited form of logic.

So those dudes watson and crick didn't recieve the nobel prize for discovering DNA, and discovering DNA does not make them valid authorities on the topic of genetics?

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Let me get this straight....

The means of production cannot be owned....

So I cannot own seeds? Or an axe? Or a computer to write things? Or a sowing machine?

All these things are means of production. They produce things.

Tools generally could be expected to be communal property, though as working members of the community you certainly have access to them. Surplus tools could effectively mean you would have less of a need to share them, though otherwise it could generally be expected that you just let whoever needs the tools as the time use them. If your neighbor needs to use a hammer and you don't, what good does it do sitting in your drawer? Seeds would really depend on what they are for. Agriculture is obviously a communal effort, though should it be something as simple as planting flowers in your yard then it's a far stretch calling them essential means of production. Personal computers operate more effectively when they are just that, personal, so it is within social interest to see many people make personal use of them. The spread of knowledge is obvious, but people also of course benefit from the entertainment they provide, so it makes sense to regard them as personal property in that sense as it actually is in the interest of the community to do so. Of course, public computers in libraries and other social centers should be expected.

And who would enforce these arbitrary rules? You woulf have to make a stste to stop me from making clothing and food.

You aren't being stopped from making clothing or food, just stealing it from others. Citizen militias would step in when needed, though I'd hardly see why anyone would want to break the law when they don't really stand to gain anything and will obviously be caught. Everything they need is provided for them, and they are free to do as they wish, so why would you have a problem with this?

But as I said, why should I be forced to share? Why can I not share voluntarily? And trade voluntarily?

[Natapoc]

A well known and widely discredited form of logic.

So those dudes watson and crick didn't recieve the nobel prize for discovering DNA, and discovering DNA does not make them valid authorities on the topic of genetics?

It does not make their arguments about genetics more or less valid.

[Sibirsky]

That article has 31 references.

Authority is detrimental to freedom.

Personal attacks, how cute. That Gobry person claimed that every currency is fiat. Demonstratively false.

Calling a well established market researcher and economics commentator an idiot is a personal attack no? I'll retract my claim if you can in fact establish that you've done more than he has and you've taken multiple courses in economics and are well established enough in the field to make a contention with any real weight behind it.

No. Unless he is personally posting here, it is not a personal attack.

My credentials are not on trial. I have already shown why he is an idiot, with the fiat currency claims.

As for the authority debate, that's really just an opinionated statement that is a question of cultural values and pragmatism. All I can say is I wholeheartedly agree with this statement

We've been taught that authority is the enemy of freedom. It's not true. Authority, in fact, it is essential to freedom. Law is a human institution; responsibility is a human institution. If teachers don't have authority to run the classroom, to maintain order, everybody's learning suffers. If the judge doesn't have the authority to toss out unreasonable claims, then all of us go through the day looking over our shoulders. If the environmental agency can't decide that the power lines are good for the environment, then there's no way to bring the power from the wind farms to the city. A free society requires red lights and green lights, otherwise it soon descends into gridlock.

http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_howard/ ... n#t-295211 16:50 L2

Coming from someone completely disgruntled by excessive Government bureaucracy and Red Tape

There is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate authority.

[Skeckoa]

It's not harmless at all. People can suffer from lung problems as a result of prolonged passive smoking, and in countries where a good proportion of people smoking, I could be forced to suck people's fumes for hours on end in public roads and even offices. I hate it when smokers claim it is "discrimination" to stop them from smoking in public places. People have the right to smoke but not the right to not breathe. I have to breathe the air whether I like to or not, so I should have the right to demand for cleaner air from the people polluting it. It's as simple as that. Air is common property.

Whether or not you can smoke should be up to the property owner. Take a cig in front of a deli, the deli owner has all her right to tell you to put it out or fuck off.

I'm sure that in ancommunism, the people can exert that same power in their homes and in their places of work.

[Natapoc]

It's not harmless at all. People can suffer from lung problems as a result of prolonged passive smoking, and in countries where a good proportion of people smoking, I could be forced to suck people's fumes for hours on end in public roads and even offices. I hate it when smokers claim it is "discrimination" to stop them from smoking in public places. People have the right to smoke but not the right to not breathe. I have to breathe the air whether I like to or not, so I should have the right to demand for cleaner air from the people polluting it. It's as simple as that. Air is common property.

Whether or not you can smoke should be up to the property owner. Take a cig in front of a deli, the deli owner has all her right to tell you to put it out or fuck off.

... And here comes tyranny. When the owners of property can make arbitrary rules. If only liberty did not vanish the moment it was conceived...

[Conglomerate of Iron]

Whether or not you can smoke should be up to the property owner. Take a cig in front of a deli, the deli owner has all her right to tell you to put it out or fuck off.

... And here comes tyranny. When the owners of property can make arbitrary rules. If only liberty did not vanish the moment it was conceived...

But that smoke is in someone else's face. On your porch or in your house, do whatever. But not in someone elses where they are breathing.

[Threlizdun]

Tools generally could be expected to be communal property, though as working members of the community you certainly have access to them. Surplus tools could effectively mean you would have less of a need to share them, though otherwise it could generally be expected that you just let whoever needs the tools as the time use them. If your neighbor needs to use a hammer and you don't, what good does it do sitting in your drawer? Seeds would really depend on what they are for. Agriculture is obviously a communal effort, though should it be something as simple as planting flowers in your yard then it's a far stretch calling them essential means of production. Personal computers operate more effectively when they are just that, personal, so it is within social interest to see many people make personal use of them. The spread of knowledge is obvious, but people also of course benefit from the entertainment they provide, so it makes sense to regard them as personal property in that sense as it actually is in the interest of the community to do so. Of course, public computers in libraries and other social centers should be expected.

You aren't being stopped from making clothing or food, just stealing it from others. Citizen militias would step in when needed, though I'd hardly see why anyone would want to break the law when they don't really stand to gain anything and will obviously be caught. Everything they need is provided for them, and they are free to do as they wish, so why would you have a problem with this?

But as I said, why should I be forced to share? Why can I not share voluntarily? And trade voluntarily?

Because your idea of "voluntarism" involves theft and extortion. The means of production are socially owned and democratically administrated. By trying to take them as your own and declaring that no one else may have them unless you allow them to, you are stealing from society and extorting them for what is rightfully theirs. You aren't being forced to do anything except for act peacefully and respect the property of others, which in this case is also your property, so you have mutual interest in these rules being enforced.

[The New Sea Territory]

They are, just not AWA/voluntaryists.

But, doesn't anarchism call for an end of coercion, whether it be done by private organizations or states? Or, am I entirely wrong?

It does, but some anarchists call for different ways of bringing about a stateless society, such as platformists and insurrectionists. This has less to do with the actual anarchist society itself and more to do with revolutionary theory.

AWA/Voluntaryists usually advocate nonviolent revolution, cooperation between different anarchist schools, etc. Insurrectionists advocate what would essentially be considered terrorism, done by small groups to damage the state (examples include William McKinley's assassination). Platformists are almost always anarcho-communists, and they reject other forms of anarchism as legitimate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism

[Skeckoa]

... And here comes tyranny. When the owners of property can make arbitrary rules. If only liberty did not vanish the moment it was conceived...

Should people not have that power? That deli owner should have the right to exclude smokers if she wants, the same way that she should be able to exclude people who are smoking from her home or from her car.

[Natapoc]

... And here comes tyranny. When the owners of property can make arbitrary rules. If only liberty did not vanish the moment it was conceived...

But that smoke is in someone else's face. On your porch or in your house, do whatever. But not in someone elses where they are breathing.

Why have you shifted your ethics from being based on the rights of a property owner (the owner of a deli, ect) to a bodily sovereignty argument for the breather?

I agree with your new basis of argument but not your old one.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

But as I said, why should I be forced to share? Why can I not share voluntarily? And trade voluntarily?

Because your idea of "voluntarism" involves theft and extortion. The means of production are socially owned and democratically administrated. By trying to take them as your own and declaring that no one else may have them unless you allow them to, you are stealing from society and extorting them for what is rightfully theirs. You aren't being forced to do anything except for act peacefully and respect the property of others, which in this case is also your property, so you have mutual interest in these rules being enforced.

So if I go live in the woods and chop wood, grow food, and live off grid, I am stealing? I just want to be left alone. I make what I need and want. I dont want other peoples things, and if I do, I peacefully trade.

How am I harming anyone else?

[Maqo]

But his "authroity" are inherently related to the validity of his ideas.

A well known and widely discredited form of logic.

Appeals to authority is only a fallacy if the person is not an authority on the subject in question.
It is invalid to invoke anything the Pope may have said on the subject of space travel. He is an authority in some sense, but not where it counts.
However invoking something that Buzz Aldrin said on space travel is a valid argument.

Thats how science and research is done.

[Ripoll]

So those dudes watson and crick didn't recieve the nobel prize for discovering DNA, and discovering DNA does not make them valid authorities on the topic of genetics?

It does not make their arguments about genetics more or less valid.

Would you trust a heroin addict with a few highschool classes in biology over a PHD Nobel Prize winner who basically founded the crucial components of the study of biology?

Professionals deserve more credibility than non-professionals, that doesn't mean other positions are worthless or people don't have the right to their opinion. Nor does it mean that any opposing opinion is wrong. But there is a reason they received a Nobel prize.

[The New Sea Territory]

Stating something hasn't historically existed or workers does not make it less valid.

Of course, I understand that- I was just making a comparison. Although I understand that anarchism has never been used in the real world, it is easy to compare to communism to anarchism and see how good they both look on paper, and see how horribly communism works when played out.

Nothing more than a masked and inverted appeals to tradition.

We have been doing X for generations.

Therefore, we should keep doing X.

Our ancestors thought X was right.

Therefore, X is right.

I'm not appealing to tradition. There's many more... logical political ideologies that haven't been tried, or set into motion.

First, communism is anarchism, you're thinking of the failures of Marxism. Secondly, note the word "inverted" when I said appeal to tradition. "We haven't done X before, thus we shouldn't do it". Lastly, stating that something looks good on paper does not mean we should be wary of it. If anything, we should be wary of nonsense that doesn't look good on paper or in practice. For example, statism.

[Natapoc]

Because your idea of "voluntarism" involves theft and extortion. The means of production are socially owned and democratically administrated. By trying to take them as your own and declaring that no one else may have them unless you allow them to, you are stealing from society and extorting them for what is rightfully theirs. You aren't being forced to do anything except for act peacefully and respect the property of others, which in this case is also your property, so you have mutual interest in these rules being enforced.

So if I go live in the woods and chop wood, grow food, and live off grid, I am stealing? I just want to be left alone. I make what I need and want. I dont want other peoples things, and if I do, I peacefully trade.

How am I harming anyone else?

Anarcho communists would not prevent you from doing this.