Gang Control

[The Adrian Empire]

I imagine it's been said already, but the reason why the mafia is bad is because they violate the social contract, whereas the state(typically) does not.

And I'm inclined to believe that they do, respectfully, in that, they have greatly restricted our rights in many cases without due cause, more often then not to the greater detriment of society. (see; gun control, a great deal of "regulation", drug prohibition, sex prohibition etc.). The state may exist only with the consent of it's governed, though we are indeed consenting, I find this is more and more because of a drug-like dependency then any real consent.

The problem I have with anarcho-communism/socialism is that ultimately it can't be anarchic, though it could be a fully democratic society, however it would not lack a state, a state is necessary to organize the resources in the absence of property, except in the case of primitivism.

Why is there a requirement of a state? Does Wal-Mart require a state to distribute resources through the company?

You misunderstand then, Walmart distributes resources through the company as a state by-proxy, that is a decision making body, a central authority. Which an anarcho-collective would still have. The executives and other managers organize the resources in order to create a profit (similar though woefully inadequate goals exist in a collective). Similarly an anarcho-communist collective must have such a central authority, these would be the worker's councils, the soviets, or another theoretically democratic body, however even as a democratic authority it still is an authority that would organize the distribution of resources. A state.
Only an anarcho-capitalist nation would lack a central state authority, though it too would not lack states, simply that every property-owner would be a state unto his/herself under his/her property under his/her authority and no other.

It can't allow full freedom because it does not allow property, and property is necessary for true individual freedom.

Whether or not this is true or not, you should be aware that personal property is different than private property. It's a given that private property would be banned, but most likely not personal property.

Yes, I realize. The ability to hold private property including and most importantly the means or production are a requirement for real individual liberty, personal property is only yours under a anarcho-communist nation at the discretion of the authority, whomever/whatever said authority is made up of, they vote you have shall have no toothbrush, they can take your toothbrush. It is not sovereign to you but to the collective, and the collective decision must affect you. Personal property would only be your own at the discretion of others, therefore would not be property, since you could not deny another it's use or seizure. How free are you really if your printing press may be taken from you at any time?

[Sith Korriban]

Don't tell him that the government has the ego to put their own NAME on the money, like they made it and own it or something!

But but but it's MY MONEY! Taking it away is so totally like chaining me up and turning my life to misery and violation!

I mean, it's not like I can just leave and go somewhere else unlike with slavery - Oh wait, I can!

[Vandengaarde]

Don't tell him that the government has the ego to put their own NAME on the money, like they made it and own it or something!

But but but it's MY MONEY! Taking it away is so totally like chaining me up and turning my life to misery and violation!

I mean, it's not like I can just leave and go somewhere else unlike with slavery - Oh wait, I can!

The obvious solution is for every person to have their own currency. And for their house to be their own country.

I can imagine all the trade agreements.

[The Adrian Empire]

But but but it's MY MONEY! Taking it away is so totally like chaining me up and turning my life to misery and violation!

I mean, it's not like I can just leave and go somewhere else unlike with slavery - Oh wait, I can!

The obvious solution is for every person to have their own currency. And for their house to be their own country.

I can imagine all the trade agreements.

As it happens, you aren't far off from my personal belief on the issue. Though every person printing their own currency is unnecessary, but if they can back it then sure.

[Sith Korriban]

The obvious solution is for every person to have their own currency. And for their house to be their own country.

I can imagine all the trade agreements.

I remember in primary school we set up our own currency, the kids in the playground. We used gumnuts; small ones were worth less than big ones, and really big ones were worth even more. We gathered sticks and bought and sold them to build cubbies, ranging from the ever-popular 'five sticks leaning against a tree' to 'intricate structure that can fit ten kids in it.'

We paid each other to do stuff like carting sticks, we gathered more gumnuts off the ground...
And even in those 'innocent' days people would try to steal big sticks or take over cubbies, leading to the original owners running to a teacher to make them stop.

Kinda like having a government, really.

[Vandengaarde]

As it happens, you aren't far off from my personal belief on the issue. Though every person printing their own currency is unnecessary, but if they can back it then sure.

I'm guessing your an anarchist then?

The obvious solution is for every person to have their own currency. And for their house to be their own country.

I can imagine all the trade agreements.

I remember in primary school we set up our own currency, the kids in the playground. We used gumnuts; small ones were worth less than big ones, and really big ones were worth even more. We gathered sticks and bought and sold them to build cubbies, ranging from the ever-popular 'five sticks leaning against a tree' to 'intricate structure that can fit ten kids in it.'

We paid each other to do stuff like carting sticks, we gathered more gumnuts off the ground...
And even in those 'innocent' days people would try to steal big sticks or take over cubbies, leading to the original owners running to a teacher to make them stop.

Kinda like having a government, really.

I've always noticed that children unknowingly play government or society, and it's always hilarious, until you realize it's the same stupid things people fight about every day in adult life.

[Jello Biafra]

I imagine it's been said already, but the reason why the mafia is bad is because they violate the social contract, whereas the state(typically) does not.

And I'm inclined to believe that they do, respectfully, in that, they have greatly restricted our rights in many cases without due cause, more often then not to the greater detriment of society. (see; gun control, a great deal of "regulation", drug prohibition, sex prohibition etc.). The state may exist only with the consent of it's governed, though we are indeed consenting, I find this is more and more because of a drug-like dependency then any real consent.

Gun control, regulation, etc., are done by appealing to the social contract. While there is disagreement as to what the social contract actually says, nobody advocation gun control does so by arguing that it violates the Constitution, but that we should do it anyway.

Why is there a requirement of a state? Does Wal-Mart require a state to distribute resources through the company?

You misunderstand then, Walmart distributes resources through the company as a state by-proxy, that is a decision making body, a central authority. Which an anarcho-collective would still have. The executives and other managers organize the resources in order to create a profit (similar though woefully inadequate goals exist in a collective). Similarly an anarcho-communist collective must have such a central authority, these would be the worker's councils, the soviets, or another theoretically democratic body, however even as a democratic authority it still is an authority that would organize the distribution of resources. A state.

That's not what a state is. A state is the body that monopolizes legitimate violence; while it can be the body that distributes resources, that is not its defining charactertistic. It's possible for a body to distribute resources without being a state, which is the point I was making.

Only an anarcho-capitalist nation would lack a central state authority, though it too would not lack states, simply that every property-owner would be a state unto his/herself under his/her property under his/her authority and no other.

It's nice to see an ancap (or at least a supporter) acknowledge that ancaps seek to privatize the state, rather than abolishing it.

Whether or not this is true or not, you should be aware that personal property is different than private property. It's a given that private property would be banned, but most likely not personal property.

Yes, I realize. The ability to hold private property including and most importantly the means or production are a requirement for real individual liberty, personal property is only yours under a anarcho-communist nation at the discretion of the authority, whomever/whatever said authority is made up of, they vote you have shall have no toothbrush, they can take your toothbrush. It is not sovereign to you but to the collective, and the collective decision must affect you. Personal property would only be your own at the discretion of others, therefore would not be property, since you could not deny another it's use or seizure. How free are you really if your printing press may be taken from you at any time?

Rights are by definition created at the discretion of others; if people did not agree to include it in the social contract (and by necessity, the protection of said right - there are no rights without protections, as protection is what makes something a right in the first place) then it is not a right. Therefore, if the right to personal property is included in the social contract, then it cannot be overturned with a mere vote, though of course it could conceivably be violated, as with rights in all other systems.

[Sith Korriban]

I've always noticed that children unknowingly play government or society, and it's always hilarious, until you realize it's the same stupid things people fight about every day in adult life.

And then depending upon your sense of irony it can get even funnier. Nothing quite like kids inadvertently proving human nature.

Still, the Gumnut Economy survived despite people bringing in gumnuts from elsewhere - there was even a playground section we weren't supposed to go in, but people would sneak in anyway to get better sticks for building.

I sort of drifted from cubby to cubby. Sometimes I made my own, sometimes I bought my way into new ones with sticks and gumnuts; you could gather gumnuts for your little group to give it more buying power. And sometimes I was a nomadic distracter. I recall being drafted to play with a younger boy, at which point I spun make-believe 'let's pretend' things about wizards and dragons, and that kept him away from the cubbies because the people there thought he was a nuisance.

[The Grand World Order]

(I'm assuming you're in your early teens, based on my own similar philosophy I had at that age)

lol yeah, even I was like this (except Socialistic) when I was a preteen.

Just a quick question, Bendira, what happens if someone murders someone? Just curious, seeing as you advocate the absence of government.

[Jello Biafra]

I've always noticed that children unknowingly play government or society, and it's always hilarious, until you realize it's the same stupid things people fight about every day in adult life.

And then depending upon your sense of irony it can get even funnier. Nothing quite like kids inadvertently proving human nature.

It's a bit silly to say that children imitating their elders somehow means that the imitation is of something inherent to humans. Children aren't raised in a vacuum, you know.

[The Adrian Empire]

As it happens, you aren't far off from my personal belief on the issue. Though every person printing their own currency is unnecessary, but if they can back it then sure.

I'm guessing your an anarchist then?

I drift between that and extreme minarchism, I prefer the term voluntarist.

I remember in primary school we set up our own currency, the kids in the playground. We used gumnuts; small ones were worth less than big ones, and really big ones were worth even more. We gathered sticks and bought and sold them to build cubbies, ranging from the ever-popular 'five sticks leaning against a tree' to 'intricate structure that can fit ten kids in it.'

We paid each other to do stuff like carting sticks, we gathered more gumnuts off the ground...
And even in those 'innocent' days people would try to steal big sticks or take over cubbies, leading to the original owners running to a teacher to make them stop.

Kinda like having a government, really.

I've always noticed that children unknowingly play government or society, and it's always hilarious, until you realize it's the same stupid things people fight about every day in adult life.

[/quote]
Really quite an amazing little society, one wonders what the kids would have done without the teachers to provide a proxy-justice/government? A little capitalist society choosing it's own money based on a hard good, market enterprise and home-steading. I would have loved to write a report on it.

[Vandengaarde]

And then depending upon your sense of irony it can get even funnier. Nothing quite like kids inadvertently proving human nature.

It's a bit silly to say that children imitating their elders somehow means that the imitation is of something inherent to humans. Children aren't raised in a vacuum, you know.

It's not usually imitation, though. It's more collecting interesting objects and trading them, which is how the idea of an economy formed; bartering was used, and then people started trading gold and other materials more than others, which made them useful to have.

[Jello Biafra]

It's a bit silly to say that children imitating their elders somehow means that the imitation is of something inherent to humans. Children aren't raised in a vacuum, you know.

It's not usually imitation, though. It's more collecting interesting objects and trading them, which is how the idea of an economy formed; bartering was used, and then people started trading gold and other materials more than others, which made them useful to have.

So the children invented the concept of money without having ever heard of it before? And nobody ever told them that when they have a problem, they should appeal to some sort of authority figure?

[Vandengaarde]

It's not usually imitation, though. It's more collecting interesting objects and trading them, which is how the idea of an economy formed; bartering was used, and then people started trading gold and other materials more than others, which made them useful to have.

So the children invented the concept of money without having ever heard of it before? And nobody ever told them that when they have a problem, they should appeal to some sort of authority figure?

That's not what I was saying, but whatever. Trying to explain what I say on here can be like yelling in to a black hole.

[Jello Biafra]

So the children invented the concept of money without having ever heard of it before? And nobody ever told them that when they have a problem, they should appeal to some sort of authority figure?

That's not what I was saying, but whatever. Trying to explain what I say on here can be like yelling in to a black hole.

It seemed to be what Sith Korriban was saying, which is what my original response was to.
It seemed like you were agreeing. Since I realize now that you aren't, could you try to rephrase what you're saying? I'll try to remove the association I have between you and Sith Korriban's statement.

[Sith Korriban]

Really quite an amazing little society, one wonders what the kids would have done without the teachers to provide a proxy-justice/government? A little capitalist society choosing it's own money based on a hard good, market enterprise and home-steading. I would have loved to write a report on it.

Oh, it gets better. People used to get their gumnuts sprayed or painted silver or gold and try to convince others they were worth more on account of the shiny factor.

[Vandengaarde]

That's not what I was saying, but whatever. Trying to explain what I say on here can be like yelling in to a black hole.

It seemed to be what Sith Korriban was saying, which is what my original response was to.
It seemed like you were agreeing. Since I realize now that you aren't, could you try to rephrase what you're saying? I'll try to remove the association I have between you and Sith Korriban's statement.

Ach, I was agreeing. However, my assertion was more that a basic system of bartering is passed down in human nature, rather than being learned from experience.

No, I do not have sources. It's just an inference.

[Sith Korriban]

It seemed to be what Sith Korriban was saying, which is what my original response was to.
It seemed like you were agreeing. Since I realize now that you aren't, could you try to rephrase what you're saying? I'll try to remove the association I have between you and Sith Korriban's statement.

And even as it is I amend my statement; some things are human nature, but others merely demonstrate that society's impact happens early and children aren't nearly as innocent about it as people think.

[Xomic]

Really quite an amazing little society, one wonders what the kids would have done without the teachers to provide a proxy-justice/government? A little capitalist society choosing it's own money based on a hard good, market enterprise and home-steading. I would have loved to write a report on it.

Piggy wold die.

[Xomic]

And I'm inclined to believe that they do, respectfully, in that, they have greatly restricted our rights in many cases without due cause, more often then not to the greater detriment of society. (see; gun control, a great deal of "regulation", drug prohibition, sex prohibition etc.). The state may exist only with the consent of it's governed, though we are indeed consenting, I find this is more and more because of a drug-like dependency then any real consent.

I believe Hobbes allows the state to act in a manner that might be considered against the social contract, simply because a poorly acting government is preferable to a state of nature. In other words, Governments can get away with this because they're preferable to anarchy.

[Jello Biafra]

It seemed to be what Sith Korriban was saying, which is what my original response was to.
It seemed like you were agreeing. Since I realize now that you aren't, could you try to rephrase what you're saying? I'll try to remove the association I have between you and Sith Korriban's statement.

Ach, I was agreeing. However, my assertion was more that a basic system of bartering is passed down in human nature, rather than being learned from experience.

No, I do not have sources. It's just an inference.

If people had access to everything they needed, would they still need to barter?

It seemed to be what Sith Korriban was saying, which is what my original response was to.
It seemed like you were agreeing. Since I realize now that you aren't, could you try to rephrase what you're saying? I'll try to remove the association I have between you and Sith Korriban's statement.

And even as it is I amend my statement; some things are human nature, but others merely demonstrate that society's impact happens early and children aren't nearly as innocent about it as people think.

I'm not certain to what extent things are human nature, and I certainly agree that society's impact happens early.

And I'm inclined to believe that they do, respectfully, in that, they have greatly restricted our rights in many cases without due cause, more often then not to the greater detriment of society. (see; gun control, a great deal of "regulation", drug prohibition, sex prohibition etc.). The state may exist only with the consent of it's governed, though we are indeed consenting, I find this is more and more because of a drug-like dependency then any real consent.

I believe Hobbes allows the state to act in a manner that might be considered against the social contract, simply because a poorly acting government is preferable to a state of nature. In other words, Governments can get away with this because they're preferable to anarchy.

Hobbes would certainly make this argument, yes.

[The Adrian Empire]

And I'm inclined to believe that they do, respectfully, in that, they have greatly restricted our rights in many cases without due cause, more often then not to the greater detriment of society. (see; gun control, a great deal of "regulation", drug prohibition, sex prohibition etc.). The state may exist only with the consent of it's governed, though we are indeed consenting, I find this is more and more because of a drug-like dependency then any real consent.

Gun control, regulation, etc., are done by appealing to the social contract. While there is disagreement as to what the social contract actually says, nobody advocation gun control does so by arguing that it violates the Constitution, but that we should do it anyway.

Quite a few do, however I am a Canadian and hold no such rights. What I am upset about as I have said before is that I am forced into this contract by birth. Jean Jacques Rousseau himself said that we were born free.

You misunderstand then, Walmart distributes resources through the company as a state by-proxy, that is a decision making body, a central authority. Which an anarcho-collective would still have. The executives and other managers organize the resources in order to create a profit (similar though woefully inadequate goals exist in a collective). Similarly an anarcho-communist collective must have such a central authority, these would be the worker's councils, the soviets, or another theoretically democratic body, however even as a democratic authority it still is an authority that would organize the distribution of resources. A state.

That's not what a state is. A state is the body that monopolizes legitimate violence; while it can be the body that distributes resources, that is not its defining charactertistic. It's possible for a body to distribute resources without being a state, which is the point I was making.

Then I concede your point, however most conventional an-collectivist opinions conclude that an collectivist decision body would hold the power of legitimate violence, so far as I understand.

Only an anarcho-capitalist nation would lack a central state authority, though it too would not lack states, simply that every property-owner would be a state unto his/herself under his/her property under his/her authority and no other.

It's nice to see an ancap (or at least a supporter) acknowledge that ancaps seek to privatize the state, rather than abolishing it.

If Rothbard himself recognizes it. Why wouldn't I. No political philosophy on Earth can ever truly claim to "abolish the state", it is a necessary aspect of civilization, in both your (correct) definition and mine, as society must have an authority for the distribution of resources and a entity capable of legitimate violence, I believe ultimately, this should be the individual, first.

Yes, I realize. The ability to hold private property including and most importantly the means or production are a requirement for real individual liberty, personal property is only yours under a anarcho-communist nation at the discretion of the authority, whomever/whatever said authority is made up of, they vote you have shall have no toothbrush, they can take your toothbrush. It is not sovereign to you but to the collective, and the collective decision must affect you. Personal property would only be your own at the discretion of others, therefore would not be property, since you could not deny another it's use or seizure. How free are you really if your printing press may be taken from you at any time?

Rights are by definition created at the discretion of others; if people did not agree to include it in the social contract (and by necessity, the protection of said right - there are no rights without protections, as protection is what makes something a right in the first place) then it is not a right. Therefore, if the right to personal property is included in the social contract, then it cannot be overturned with a mere vote, though of course it could conceivably be violated, as with rights in all other systems.

Fair enough, but an An-Collectivist society would not, would you not admit; by definition, include such an inviolable right, since it would defy collectivist objectives. Similarly anarcho-capitalist society by definition must include this or otherwise not fit the proper description of capitalist or achieve an-cap goals. Though otherwise you are correct.

[Sith Korriban]

If people had access to everything they needed, would they still need to barter?

Yes. Because if you have the yellow fruits and he has the red ones, you'll want red ones too, not just yellow ones, no matter whether or not you're fed to the degree you need by the yellow ones.

[Vandengaarde]

If people had access to everything they needed, would they still need to barter?

Yes. Because if you have the yellow fruits and he has the red ones, you'll want red ones too, not just yellow ones, no matter whether or not you're fed to the degree you need by the yellow ones.

So you trade a few yellow for a few red.

Then you meet George. He wants both, but only has green fruits, which you want as well. You then must decide the worth of the objects in your property.

[Sith Korriban]

Yes. Because if you have the yellow fruits and he has the red ones, you'll want red ones too, not just yellow ones, no matter whether or not you're fed to the degree you need by the yellow ones.

So you trade a few yellow for a few red.

Then you meet George. He wants both, but only has green fruits, which you want as well. You then must decide the worth of the objects in your property.

Obviously you'll trade the yellow ones for green more willingly because you can get more of them at any time without having to trade with your neighbour again. So you'll want more green for each red because you have less of them.