Privatizing Roads

[Night Ripper]

The customers pay to contract the private enterprise to build and fix the roads and railways and whatnot? Youre implying the individual is the customer? If the individual is the customer then youre expecting a few to pay for the services of the many, which goes against your argument of ownership as you cant stop people from using the those roads and railways and whatnot.

Each driver will have to pay for their usage. If you drive a heavy truck that's going to wear the roads out faster, you'll probably have to pay more than someone driving a lightweight car. There are several schemes that could be used to exclude non-payers such as radio transponders, security officers, secure entrances and exits, etc.

Some roads will probably be free to drive on too. Someone that owns a department store wants you to come buy their goods so they will most likely provide free access much like they already provide free parking.

Some roads will be included with your house, neighborhood or HOA. Few people are going to buy a house that requires a helicopter. Few people are going to buy a house with a road with fees that could be changed arbitrarily from nothing to a million dollars overnight.

It's really not that difficult to imagine if you're looking for solutions. If you're just being a defeatist, looking for the first objection you can find, I'm sure it's difficult.

[Platonic Sword]

Most roads have already been paid for by tax-payers. Why should they be handed over to private corporations?

[Tim Cornelis]

Why... are you going to a forum that advocates the complete opposite of what you're proposing?

You really think that you are going to convince us revolutionary socialists to abandon our principles because of private roads?

[Ocean Seal]

I've got a great plan Night Ripper, I'm going dig a road surrounding your house and charge you exorbitant fees to come and go, sounds great right.

[Night Ripper]

Most roads have already been paid for by tax-payers. Why should they be handed over to private corporations?

You mean the roads built on land stolen from individuals through eminent domain?


Why... are you going to a forum that advocates the complete opposite of what you're proposing?

You really think that you are going to convince us revolutionary socialists to abandon our principles because of private roads?

No. Maybe you like being in a place where everyone just agrees with you but I like having my beliefs challenged. I was asked to explain how roads could work so that's what I'm doing.


I've got a great plan Night Ripper, I'm going dig a road surrounding your house and charge you exorbitant fees to come and go, sounds great right.

Come on, I refuted this argument in the original post. Did you even bother reading it? Right now when you buy a house there's title insurance that helps prevent you from buying a house from someone that doesn't actually own it. If what you suggest were possible, people would also buy "access insurance" to make sure the roads surrounding their house wouldn't be bought up to blockade someone in.

Would you buy a house where access to it could become blocked at anytime? I hope not.

[citizen of industry]

The little street I live on is privatized. It fucking sucks, because everytime there is something wrong with it we have to pay or it doesn't get fixed. So I work a shitty job and get shitty wages, and have to turn them over to a construction company to pay their workers shitty wages, so some corporate piece of shit gets a nice profit for doig nothing and my road gets repaired.

Meanwhile, it connects to the main road, which is public. At the end of the year the government ministries don't want to return any of the budget they haven't spent, so they spend the money on tearing up and repaving the public road for no reason every year just to get rid of the money. It's capitalist inefficiency at it's finest.

[revhiphop]

Why the hell should someone profit from you needing to use a road? Honestly, that's ridiculous. Capitalism has created the need for money to survive. Roads get us to our jobs where we earn money to survive. We also need oxygen to survive. Should we privatize oxygen too?

[Revolution starts with U]

It's good to know you think people unfortunate enough to be born in Bristolville, Ohio don't deserve a right to transportation. Meh, let them rot. They could have worked on someone else's farm, instead of trying to run their own... right?

[Ocean Seal]

Come on, I refuted this argument in the original post. Did you even bother reading it? Right now when you buy a house there's title insurance that helps prevent you from buying a house from someone that doesn't actually own it. If what you suggest were possible, people would also buy "access insurance" to make sure the roads surrounding their house wouldn't be bought up to blockade someone in.

Kay cool, I'll buy all of the roads surrounding the ones upon which you bought insurance.
But if there is no state, then who is to tell me not to build roads wherever the fuck I want. Its the state that grants legitimacy to private property. It is an absurdity in a stateless society.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Kay cool, I'll buy all of the roads surrounding the ones upon which you bought insurance.
But if there is no state, then who is to tell me not to build roads wherever the fuck I want. Its the state that grants legitimacy to private property. It is an absurdity in a stateless society.
Building on what RedBrother said, it's a state that grants legitimacy to currency and enforces contractual obligations.

The only way, from a libertarian perspective, would be to have an area run by a coalition of capitalists (or a single really, really rich fucker) who own everything, enforce private property rights, enforce contractual obligations, and mediate transactions by providing legitimacy to currency. This could only be done through some kind of private militia. At that point, this singular capitalist, or coalition of capitalists, has created a de facto state, actually a form of military dictatorship, making the society no longer stateless.

[Klaatu]

Each driver will have to pay for their usage.


Hey Einstein: how are poor people going to drive to their jobs if they have to PAY to get there, but cannot afford to?

[Le Rouge]

Hey Einstein: how are poor people going to drive to their jobs if they have to PAY to get there, but cannot afford to?

The worker are just going to live inside their workplace like in China. No need to drive back and forth errday. Moar productivity! Moar profit!


I don't like the libertarian agenda. They are trying to reduce the working people into slavery or something...

[Platonic Sword]

The little street I live on is privatized. It fucking sucks, because everytime there is something wrong with it we have to pay or it doesn't get fixed. So I work a shitty job and get shitty wages, and have to turn them over to a construction company to pay their workers shitty wages, so some corporate piece of shit gets a nice profit for doig nothing and my road gets repaired.

Meanwhile, it connects to the main road, which is public. At the end of the year the government ministries don't want to return any of the budget they haven't spent, so they spend the money on tearing up and repaving the public road for no reason every year just to get rid of the money. It's capitalist inefficiency at it's finest.

Sounds like a garden variety central-planning fail to me. Your road gets fixed when the people who use it need it fixed. The socialized road gets fixed when it doesn't need fixing because of an inept and corrupt government bureaucracy.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Sounds like a garden variety central-planning fail to me. Your road gets fixed when the people who use it need it fixed. The socialized road gets fixed when it doesn't need fixing because of an inept and corrupt government bureaucracy.
The proper terminology is 'nationalized' road. Socialized implies it's maintained directly by the citizens themselves and belongs to no singular entity... not maintained in their proxy by a central government under little direct civilian control.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Someone that owns a department store wants you to come buy their goods so they will most likely provide free access much like they already provide free parking.

Why bother? Food is already expensive enough, this genius plan of yours will make food literally unaffordable due to haulage companies having to fork over billions in extra toll costs. When it comes down to it, you affect operating cost of logistics, you affect the price of everything... you don't need to look any further than current fuel prices, toll cost on top of that would be crippling for ordinary people. It's naive to think that any 'extra' money not going towards taxes would change this.

[RGacky3]

BTW, rugged individualist? Common now, stop patting yourself on the back, Capitalists are not individualists they NEED state protection.

Anyway.


Each driver will have to pay for their usage. If you drive a heavy truck that's going to wear the roads out faster, you'll probably have to pay more than someone driving a lightweight car. There are several schemes that could be used to exclude non-payers such as radio transponders, security officers, secure entrances and exits, etc.


What if road owners want to stop certain people driving?

What if they want to enforce a monopoloy for a different industry?

What if they want to use their power to punish certain communities?

These sort of things ALREADY happen, not with roads but in other aspects of capitalism.


It's really not that difficult to imagine if you're looking for solutions. If you're just being a defeatist, looking for the first objection you can find, I'm sure it's difficult.

Or we can just do it the rational way and have it as common good.

We don't need to set up a stupid irrational system and then try and plug up all the rediculous holes they have when we can just have a rational one.

[RGacky3]

BTW, I don't believe in nationalization, I think things like roads and the such should be common property.

[citizen of industry]

Sounds like a garden variety central-planning fail to me. Your road gets fixed when the people who use it need it fixed. The socialized road gets fixed when it doesn't need fixing because of an inept and corrupt government bureaucracy.

My road doesn't get fixed because we can't afford it and it falls into disrepair. The public road run by a capitalist administration doesn't fall into disrepair, but it is fixed for no reason so capitalist businessmen can reap a profit from their workers and use part of that to pay off capitalist politicians. If it were centrally planned in a socialist society, both would be fixed when they needed to be fixed.

[Aphex]

My road doesn't get fixed because we can't afford it and it falls into disrepair. The public road run by a capitalist administration doesn't fall into disrepair, but it is fixed for no reason so capitalist businessmen can reap a profit from their workers and use part of that to pay off capitalist politicians. If it were centrally planned in a socialist society, both would be fixed when they needed to be fixed.

:laugh: We all saw how wonderful centrally planned economies worked in the 20th century. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it I guess. :rolleyes:

[Night Ripper]

At that point, this singular capitalist, or coalition of capitalists, has created a de facto state, actually a form of military dictatorship, making the society no longer stateless.

As long as this state consists of people that voluntarily joined then I'm not against it. I'm against coercion, not organization.

[RGacky3]

As long as this state consists of people that voluntarily joined then I'm not against it. I'm against coercion, not organization.

We call this somalia, also why would'nt a private security company not use its force to protect what it considers "Its own" property or land, i.e. the history of the middle ages.

[Revolution starts with U]

How many people voluntarily joined the property system?

[citizen of industry]

:laugh: We all saw how wonderful centrally planned economies worked in the 20th century. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it I guess. :rolleyes:

And we see in both the 20th and 21st century how capitalist countries in the third world deny their citizens fundemental rights, preferring instead to commit horrible atrocities and sell away their economies to benefit first-world capitalists, leaving their people to live in squalor. We see how first-world "free markets" develop through protectionism and then force "free-markets" on weaker nations, celebrate election fraud and put dissenters up against the wall, propping up vicious and unpopular governments with millions of dollars and military backing.

We see people in the richest countries in the world without basic medical care dying of starvation and the elements while surrounding by luxury they can't afford, while companies scramble to find buyers for their products while at the same time laying off workers and depressing wages, implementing austerity measures against the majority of the world's population and plunging the economy into repeated crisis.

Those who prefer to regurgitate propaganda instead of actually studying history and the world around them are destined to live their lives as ignorant tools and perpetuate misery. But we'll talk about it again in the breadline in a few years when you are wondering what the fuck happened and why privatizing everything didn't work out as well as you thought it would. Perhaps you'll begin to question the propaganda you've been lapping up when you can no longer deny it doesn't fit so well with reality.

[Revolution starts with U]

Another note on "planned economies:" There were problems. The problems with free market economies were far worse. The problems with mixed economies are about the same, for different reasons.

Note that I am not an advocate of a centrally planned economy. But whatever you were taught about them, is probably way off. Did you know late Soviet thinkers didn't believe Americans when they talked about the homeless problem? The USSR didn't have homelessness. They couldn't fathom how the great US could.

Another note: If the collapse of the USSR is any indication of the "failure" of centralized bureaucracy, we could only be so lucky as to collapse with nary a shot fired.

Note 3: Look at where Russia is now. Seriously, would you argue the economy has gotten better or worse?

[Le Rouge]

Privatizing the roads you say? Ok, i will just buy a portion of a highway and blow it up. Then i will dig a hole and build a fucking castle. So that nobody will be able to pass to the other side. All hail free-marketz!

[Platonic Sword]

Note 3: Look at where Russia is now. Seriously, would you argue the economy has gotten better or worse?

I don't know about him, but I certainly wouldn't say that. Russia has corruption problems that transcend any economic system, imo.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

As long as this state consists of people that voluntarily joined then I'm not against it. I'm against coercion, not organization.
If all the land is owned by private entities (as it is now in the US) and requires payment to inhabit in the form of rent, how exactly is one voluntarily consenting to this system of private property?

The choice between homelessness and "voluntary participation" is not a choice.

[Night Ripper]

Ok, i will just buy a portion of a highway and blow it up. Then i will dig a hole and build a fucking castle. So that nobody will be able to pass to the other side. All hail free-marketz!

If I can't go through the castle then I'll dig under it, build a bridge over it or go around it.


If all the land is owned by private entities (as it is now in the US) and requires payment to inhabit in the form of rent, how exactly is one voluntarily consenting to this system of private property?

A lot of the claims currently allowed wouldn't be recognized under the homesteading principle, especially national forests, parks, etc. There's plenty of land.

[Aphex]

And we see in both the 20th and 21st century how capitalist countries in the third world deny their citizens fundemental rights, preferring instead to commit horrible atrocities and sell away their economies to benefit first-world capitalists, leaving their people to live in squalor. We see how first-world "free markets" develop through protectionism and then force "free-markets" on weaker nations, celebrate election fraud and put dissenters up against the wall, propping up vicious and unpopular governments with millions of dollars and military backing.

We see people in the richest countries in the world without basic medical care dying of starvation and the elements while surrounding by luxury they can't afford, while companies scramble to find buyers for their products while at the same time laying off workers and depressing wages, implementing austerity measures against the majority of the world's population and plunging the economy into repeated crisis.

Those who prefer to regurgitate propaganda instead of actually studying history and the world around them are destined to live their lives as ignorant tools and perpetuate misery. But we'll talk about it again in the breadline in a few years when you are wondering what the fuck happened and why privatizing everything didn't work out as well as you thought it would. Perhaps you'll begin to question the propaganda you've been lapping up when you can no longer deny it doesn't fit so well with reality.

Wow your selective reasoning about history and your botched allocation of cause and effect has to be seen to be believed. In any case if you actually believe the things you say you should put your money where your mouth is and go enjoy the wonderful fruits of a planned economy in a country that uses one.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

If I can't go through the castle then I'll dig under it, build a bridge over it or go around it.



A lot of the claims currently allowed wouldn't be recognized under the homesteading principle, especially national forests, parks, etc. There's plenty of land.
So rich people will buy all of that as well. Again, property rights will have to be enforced with a private militia. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

[Aphex]

Note that I am not an advocate of a centrally planned economy. But whatever you were taught about them, is probably way off. Did you know late Soviet thinkers didn't believe Americans when they talked about the homeless problem? The USSR didn't have homelessness. They couldn't fathom how the great US could.




Wow. It must have been such a lovely place. So weird that people risked scaling barbed wire fences and land mine infested fields and getting shot just for a chance to escape then? Somebody should have been there to remind them about the no homeless! :laugh::laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

If I can't go through the castle then I'll dig under it, build a bridge over it or go around it.



A lot of the claims currently allowed wouldn't be recognized under the homesteading principle, especially national forests, parks, etc. There's plenty of land.

No, I own the title for under it as well. You're stuck. Work for me if you want across.

2) You know most of the national parks aren't really land you can live on... right?


Wow. It must have been such a lovely place. So weird that people risked scaling barbed wire fences and land mine infested fields and getting shot just for a chance to escape then? Somebody should have been there to remind them about the no homeless! :laugh::laugh:

No, like I said; just as bad for different reasons. It depends on who you were before the revolution.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Wow. It must have been such a lovely place. So weird that people risked scaling barbed wire fences and land mine infested fields and getting shot just for a chance to escape then? Somebody should have been there to remind them about the no homeless! :laugh::laugh:
Wow. Mexico must be such a lovely place from capitalism. So weird that people can't sell local produce for less than the subsidized American imports because of neoliberal trade agreements and risk their lives riding on top of freight trains by the hundreds to clamor through a desert for hundreds of miles to get to the US and then be rejected by society and potentially shot by border guards or left to die by a smuggler who took all of their money and then abandoned them. Somebody should go down there to remind them how great capitalism is! :laugh::laugh:

[Aphex]

Wow. Mexico must be such a lovely place from capitalism. So weird that people can't sell local produce for less than the subsidized American imports because of neoliberal trade agreements and risk their lives riding on top of freight trains by the hundreds to clamor through a desert for hundreds of miles to get to the US and then be rejected by society and potentially shot by border guards or left to die by a smuggler who took all of their money and then abandoned them. Somebody should go down there to remind them how great capitalism is! :laugh::laugh:

This analogy would work if the US was a communist country. :rolleyes: Nice try though.

Tell you what, I'll buy your whole argument if you can tell my why Mexico would be better off under communism and name me one communist country that's ever been worth living in?

[Revolution starts with U]

Cuba's not so bad. I could live there. I mean, I'm not bourgiousie or right wing, so I could've probably faired pretty well in the USSR too.

But if you talk to a lot of rightists, the US and all of Europe is communist too, and they're not so bad ;)

[PC LOAD LETTER]

This analogy would work if the US was a communist country. :rolleyes: Nice try though.

Tell you what, I'll buy your whole argument if you can tell my why Mexico would be better off under communism and name me one communist country that's ever been worth living in?
The point is they're running from a capitalist country as well, not just a state-capitalist country like the USSR. And that's if what you said is true. I can't be bothered to check if people risked death to escape the USSR en masse because I explicitly disagree with the USSR's policies.

Second, there's no such thing as a communist country. Typical right-wing logic to assume that advocating against one thing must mean I'm for something equally reactionary, such as the USSR, China, Albania, etc, or that I agree with reactionary figures such as Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, etc. But that wouldn't fit in to your narrow-minded conception of the revolutionary left, now would it?

The Zapatistas seem to be doing quite well in improving the conditions of indigenous Mexicans living in Chiapas. That's under the somewhat broad banner of 'Libertarian Socialism', although for the transition to be complete it has to be worldwide. Or how about the fact that after collectivization, Anarchist Catalonia's agricultural output increased by 20%?

[Ocean Seal]

I lay claim to the land, the air, and the sea. All is mine, and if you take it away from me then it is through coercion, and if you use it without paying the dues which I have made extraordinarily exorbitant then you are a thief who violates my right as John Galt to horribly exploit the fuck out of all of you.

[Ismail]

name me one communist country that's ever been worth living in?Albania went from having a life expectancy of 38, a literacy rate of less than 10-20%, and an economy dominated by feudal-era agricultural relations in 1944 to having illiteracy halved in the 50's and being practically eradicated by the 1980's, to having a life expectancy of around 71 and having over 50% of the national income derive from industrial production in the 80's as well. Albania was the poorest state in Europe from the time of its independence in 1912 to this very day, but it was very much less poorer and its quality of life a lot better. It even went from having basically no electricity in 1944 (anti-communist guerrillas had trouble landing via plane in the early 50's because there was no light anywhere) to achieving complete electrification in 1971 and actually exporting electricity to neighboring countries such as Yugoslavia. The fact that it ensured cradle-to-grave social security, completely free education and health care, free access to cultural pursuits, and a number of other miscellaneous good things (like incredibly low rent in apartments) would make it more attractive to live in than, say, Bolivia or Nigeria or the United Arab Emirates or something as far as quality of life for the common man went.

Today plenty of Albanians are nostalgic for the social services and guarantees of those times.

Obviously going from the USA to Albania during that whole period you'd see a much lower standard of living, but Albania was quite good for what was essentially regarded as a third-world country.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Each driver will have to pay for their usage. Which will be collected with toll booths? Yikes, I can see the traffic stalls now.

If you drive a heavy truck that's going to wear the roads out faster, you'll probably have to pay more than someone driving a lightweight car. Which will naturally drive up the price of commodities transported by such vehicles.

There are several schemes that could be used to exclude non-payers such as radio transponders, security officers, secure entrances and exits, etc. Which will no doubt equate to a nightmare on the road, either by the traffic mayhem of security gates or by the constant interception of traffic offenders. It would be more likely that there would be next to no enforcement of road toll in such a situation (sort of like how there's little enforcement in a public rail) or a steep increase in the cost of road usage to compensate for the massive expenditures that would accompany having guards on hand 24-7.


Some roads will probably be free to drive on too. Someone that owns a department store wants you to come buy their goods so they will most likely provide free access much like they already provide free parking. it's not as if it'll matter, what with the number of tolls one must pay simply to reach the free road.


Some roads will be included with your house, neighborhood or HOA. Few people are going to buy a house that requires a helicopter. Few people are going to buy a house with a road with fees that could be changed arbitrarily from nothing to a million dollars overnight. Seeing as there's not really a method of knowing this apart from explicitly on contract (which is an easy enough clause to obscure), it's not entirely unfeasible.



That aside, I do enjoy being able to plot my route by distance and time, rather than budget.

[Ismail]

Since we're on the subject of roads, Albania actually abolished the private ownership of vehicles and tied them to jobs and workplaces. From the 1974 book Pickaxe and Rifle: The Story of the Albanian People by William Ash, p. 218:

There are no private cars in Albania. Though motor cars and lorries are not yet made there, the export surplus is ample to buy from abroad all the transport needed and there are the skills and factories to service them and supply all the spare parts required. At first cars were made available to individual citizens on a points system, as in the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe, but some owners were charging those who did not possess them yet for lifts and there was keen competition to get one's name higher up on the list. This was seen as generating the kind of selfish bourgeois ethics rooted in private possession. So all cars were withdrawn and gathered into pools from which collectives can take what they need for work or recreation or for the use of foreign guests. The effort and investment which might have gone into supplying individual families with cars has gone instead into developing an excellent system of public transport with fares constantly being reduced toward the point of a completely free system of transport.And Scott Nearing, an American socialist who visited Albania in 1968 (from Monthly Review Vol. 20, issue 1, p. 37): "Talking to a skillful chauffeur who maneuvered us over dozens of hairpin turns on the mountain roads, I called his attention to the small amount of motor traffic that we encountered on the well-built roads. 'By the way,' I asked, 'how many motor vehicles do you have on your highways?' His answer was a classic: 'Just enough for our needs. When we need more we will import more. We keep a large foreign exchange balance in our favor, and we pay cash.'"

[RGacky3]

I don't know about him, but I certainly wouldn't say that. Russia has corruption problems that transcend any economic system, imo.

So does the US (its just way more sophisticated), corruption (of many different kinds) is an integral part of capitalism and always has been.


If I can't go through the castle then I'll dig under it, build a bridge over it or go around it.


You can't go under it (my property), or over it).

And sure you can go around it, and pay a shitload more, but still, great free market system huh.


A lot of the claims currently allowed wouldn't be recognized under the homesteading principle, especially national forests, parks, etc. There's plenty of land.

the homesteading principle is full of self-contradictions and is 100% arbitrary.

Also we already have an ecological disaster, it seams free marketeers tend to forget about externalities (along with every other internal contradiction in capitalism), or juts ignore it.

[Night Ripper]

You can't go under it (my property), or over it).

You don't own the sky or down to the center of the Earth.

[Quail]

I can't believe I'm even reading this thread. The privatisation of roads is by far one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Really, the idea of anyone owning pieces of land that people need to use to get about their daily lives is just absurd and common ownership just makes far more sense in every way.

[Night Ripper]

the homesteading principle is full of self-contradictions and is 100% arbitrary

Prove it. Also, show me a way of dealing with property issues that isn't arbitrary. Handed down from God perhaps?


it seams free marketeers tend to forget about externalities

If all land is privately owned then the victims of negative externalities can sue for damages.

[Night Ripper]

Really, the idea of anyone owning pieces of land that people need to use to get about their daily lives is just absurd and common ownership just makes far more sense in every way.

Why is it absurd? Don't just react. Make some sort of argument. I think common ownership is absurd but that won't convince you of anything.

[Quail]

Roads are essential to our every day lives. People have to use roads to get to work, to buy food, to get to the jobcentre to sign on, to take their kids to school, to take their kids to the park, to do pretty much anything and everything. The poorest people don't need to be paying to use fucking roads on top of all the other things that they have to pay for.

What benefits would private roads give? The roads in the student village in my university are owned by the university, but because the university are tight, the roads are full of potholes because they don't want to pay to have them maintained properly. By the way, the property they rent out is also poorly maintained and the rent is extortionate. What would prevent the companies owning the roads from cutting corners to make more profit? That's exactly what happens with other things that are privatised. Public transport in the UK is a fantastic example of the failure of privatisation. It's expensive and competition doesn't drive down fares because the companies running it make deals with each other so that they can have a monopoly on certain routes so they can charge extortionate rates but there's nothing anyone can do about it because it's either use the transport that's there or not be able to go anywhere.

How is common ownership absurd? Roads are used by everybody, and it is in the interests of the community as a whole to manage and maintain them. A private company will never act purely in the interests of the users of its service because the purpose of a private company is to make money.

[Night Ripper]

What benefits would private roads give?

People won't have their land stolen from them under eminent domain and won't have their money stolen from them to maintain roads.

[Quail]

People won't have their land stolen from them under eminent domain and won't have their money stolen from them to maintain roads.
Actually yes, people will have their money stolen from them to maintain roads. You might argue that if people don't want to pay, then they shouldn't use the roads, but people have no choice but to use roads. So either everyone pays for roads to be maintained, or everyone pays a private company to maintain roads and make a profit at the same time. The former makes more sense from the perspective of people who use roads because that way people are only paying money for road maintenance as needed, as opposed to paying for someone to get rich as well as paying the cost of the road.

You might also like to address the rest of my post.

[Night Ripper]

Actually yes, people will have their money stolen from them to maintain roads.

Stolen? No. If you want to drive on a road, you have to pay but that will be your choice. If you don't want to drive on the roads, you don't have to pay. That's not stealing.

[Quail]

Stolen? No. If you want to drive on a road, you have to pay but that will be your choice. If you don't want to drive on the roads, you don't have to pay. That's not stealing.
It isn't a choice to use the roads though. People have to use roads.

[Night Ripper]

It isn't a choice to use the roads though. People have to use roads.

People have to eat too. Food isn't free.

[Quail]

People have to eat too. Food isn't free.
And people starving if they can't afford to buy food is okay? :confused:

Everyone should have access to enough food to survive. More than enough food is produced to feed everyone in the world and yet people still starve to death. Nobody chooses to be born into a situation where they are starving, and it's not as simple as "choosing" to work oneself out of poverty.

Likewise, people have to use roads to get to work to earn money or the jobcentre to sign on or look for a job. People have to use roads to buy food and survive. Denying people the access to things they need to survive doesn't make them very free, does it?

[Night Ripper]

And people starving if they can't afford to buy food is okay? :confused:

Are you starving? Do you want me to make you a sandwich?

No, it's not ok but neither is cheating on your partner and that's not a crime. Not everything that's "not ok" should be a legal issue. People have the right to be selfish jerks even if it's "not ok" that they are.


Denying people the access to things they need to survive doesn't make them very free, does it?

Yes it does. Freedom requires that you fend for yourself. Don't want to work for wage? Farm, hunt, fish, live off the land. If you can't live off the land, that's the real problem.

[feral bro]

Are you starving? Do you want me to make you a sandwich?

No, it's not ok but neither is cheating on your partner and that's not a crime. Not everything that's "not ok" should be a legal issue. People have the right to be selfish jerks even if it's "not ok" that they are.



Yes it does. Freedom requires that you fend for yourself. Don't want to work for wage? Farm, hunt, fish, live off the land. If you can't live off the land, that's the real problem.
:laugh:
the funny thing is that you actually think you are using logic.

[Quail]

No, it's not ok but neither is cheating on your partner and that's not a crime. Not everything that's "not ok" should be legal issue. People have the right to be selfish jerks even if it's not ok that they are.
Sorry, what?
I don't think you can really compare an economic system causing the preventable deaths of millions due to starvation to cheating on your partner. What is the benefit of setting up society in such a way as to deny people their basic needs, especially under the guise of "freedom." How does denying people their basic needs make them free? Why is it preferable to allow some people to suffer and die because they were born into a trap of poverty, rather than build a society where that doesn't happen?

[#FF0000]

Yes it does. Freedom requires that you fend for yourself. Don't want to work for wage? Farm, hunt, fish, live off the land. If you can't live off the land, that's the real problem.

You are telling me that someone who is living off the land in the woods is more free than someone living in a modern social democracy

[Quail]

Yes it does. Freedom requires that you fend for yourself. Don't want to work for wage? Farm, hunt, fish, live off the land. If you can't live off the land, that's the real problem.
That doesn't make sense at all. First of all, I don't have a choice whether or not to work for a wage. I couldn't live off the land because land is private property and I haven't the funds to buy land to live on, so I have to work for a wage. There is no choice there.

I also fail to see how everyone working their individual bits of land will make them more free, when tasks would get done more efficiently if a community of people worked together and made sure they all ate, which would give them more time for leisure and nobody would go hungry.

[Night Ripper]

You are telling me that someone who is living off the land in the woods is more free than someone living in a modern social democracy

Yes, they can do whatever they want. Smoke weed, run around butt naked, marry another person of the same sex, etc. They don't have access to Pizza Hut but that's not a matter of freedom. That's convenience.


That doesn't make sense at all. First of all, I don't have a choice whether or not to work for a wage. I couldn't live off the land because land is private property and I haven't the funds to buy land to live on, so I have to work for a wage. There is no choice there.

There is plenty of unowned land. A lot of current claims are invalid and there are huge swaths of unused land (remember homesteading requires more than barking out "mine!" to own land).


I also fail to see how everyone working their individual bits of land will make them more free, when tasks would get done more efficiently if a community of people worked together and made sure they all ate, which would give them more time for leisure and nobody would go hungry.

Free as in having freedom. Not free as in having leisure time. *smacks forehead*

Also, if someone is living off the land and voluntarily decides to cooperate with someone else, that's perfectly fine. I take issue with being forced to do things. I'm not against cooperation or organization.

[#FF0000]

Yes, they can do whatever they want. Smoke weed, run around butt naked, marry another person of the same sex, etc. They don't have access to Pizza Hut but that's not a matter of freedom. That's convenience

Nah I disagree, I think people in a modern social democracy (let alone a communist society) would have far more choice in their lives, and far more agency thanks to the fact that they don't have to worry about hunting and gathering enough to survive or having to figure out how to make it through the winter.

Your concept of "freedom" or "liberty" is pretty dumb, guy. I don't think you actually know anything about what you're talking about.

[Night Ripper]

Your concept of "freedom" or "liberty" is pretty dumb, guy. I don't think you actually know anything about what you're talking about.

Now you're just being rude. I'll never buy into your ideas when you can't even show basic politeness.

[#FF0000]

Now you're just being rude. I'll never buy into your ideas when you can't even show basic politeness.

My bad, guy. I'm just saying, though, your definition of liberty and freedom are both extremely lacking.

[Quail]

There is plenty of unowned land. A lot of current claims are invalid and there are huge swaths of unused land (remember homesteading requires more than barking out "mine!" to own land).

The point being that regardless of how much unowned land there is, I don't have the money to purchase any.

Free as in having freedom. Not free as in having leisure time. *smacks forehead*

Also, if someone is living off the land and voluntarily decides to cooperate with someone else, that's perfectly fine. I take issue with being forced to do things. I'm not against cooperation or organization.
But being forced to either work for a wage or spend most of your time trying to live off the land isn't freedom. Neither allows someone to develop themselves as a person because they spend all their time trying to make sure their own basic needs are met. The don't have any real choice because society is organised such that most people slave away their lives for the benefit of the few. So a world where people have no choice but to work for a wage can never be "freedom."

My argument is that it makes more sense for people to cooperate for the common good as it's in their own interests, than to privatise everything. Therefore, common ownership of the means of production and of everyday things like roads gives people freedom and control over their lives.

If you're against coercion, it is a contradiction to support a system where most people are coerced into working for a wage.

[Night Ripper]

The point being that regardless of how much unowned land there is, I don't have the money to purchase any.

You don't have to purchase UNOWNED land! Who are you going to purchase it from?! Please don't make my brain hurt before lunch.

[#FF0000]

You don't have to purchase UNOWNED land! Who are you going to purchase it from?! Please don't make my brain hurt before lunch.

If you could point me to even one stretch of land that is actually "unowned" in this day and age, I will give you a shiny new nickel.

[Night Ripper]

If you could point me to even one stretch of land that is actually "unowned" in this day and age, I will give you a shiny new nickel.

Unowned according to who? The US government? A Marxist? A libertarian? Me?

I say that property is only legitimate according to the principle of homesteading and title transfer. In that case every national park is unowned. Large swaths of land are unowned because it's otherwise untouched wilderness with some piece of paper filed somewhere that says its owned. There's plenty of land.

[#FF0000]

Unowned according to who? The US government? A Marxist? A libertarian? Me?

I say that property is only legitimate according to the principle of homesteading and title transfer. In that case every national park is unowned. Large swaths of land are unowned because it's otherwise untouched wilderness with some piece of paper filed somewhere that says its owned. There's plenty of land.

Except that doesn't really fly when the cops are asking you why you're naked and covered in deer blood in the middle of a Yellowstone picnic area.

[Night Ripper]

Except that doesn't really fly when the cops are asking you why you're naked and covered in deer blood in the middle of a Yellowstone picnic area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA3JUpQzOek

[Quail]

You don't have to purchase UNOWNED land! Who are you going to purchase it from?! Please don't make my brain hurt before lunch.
Okay, so I squat some land. I then need money to build shelter, to buy tools, seeds, etc. in order to live off that land. I don't have that money, and neither do the vast majority of working class people. Therefore they don't have the choice not to work for a wage.

It's also interesting how you ignore most of what I write. It suggests that you don't have a response.

[Night Ripper]

I then need money to build shelter, to buy tools, seeds, etc. in order to live off that land. I don't have that money, and neither do the vast majority of working class people. Therefore they don't have the choice not to work for a wage.

You're saying that the vast majority of working class people can afford a flat screen TV but can't afford $100 worth of tools? How much do you think an axe costs?

[danyboy27]

You're saying that the vast majority of working class people can afford a flat screen TV but can't afford $100 worth of tools? How much do you think an axe costs?

Living off the land require more than 100$ worth of tools.

[Night Ripper]

Living off the land require more than 100$ worth of tools.

Somehow humans have done it thousands of years. You'll survive.

[danyboy27]

My dear capitalist, why are you against public road? its after all the most cost-efficient way of doing it.

Its like security. Why would you hire a bunch of overpriced mercenaries to protect your stuff when you could just pay some taxes and have a decent police force doing all that for you?

From my personnal experience, capitalists dont really care about abstract notions like freedom, nonviolence or even personnal responsability, all they care about is well, making money and the current system of statehood and ''monopoly of violence' allow them to thrive. If you are willing to exploit people, to squeeze them like a Lemon, the current system is the way to go.

I dont care if you are a capitalist, but at least be consistent in your ideology.

[Leftsolidarity]

Somehow humans have done it thousands of years. You'll survive.

So we should become primitivists?

Edit: And no, many people won't survive.

[danyboy27]

Somehow humans have done it thousands of years. You'll survive.

The mortality rate was extremely high and they where not alone on an isolated patch of land.

Efficient agriculture require advanced machinery that are worth hundred of thousand of dollars.

[Night Ripper]

why are you against public road?

I'm not against public roads. I'm against theft and coercion. If you and 1,000 of your friends want to join forces and build a public road, go for it. I wish you all the very best. My issue is when you come knocking on my door telling me I owe you money. It shouldn't be forced.

[Le Rouge]

The mortality rate was extremely high and they where not alone on an isolated patch of land.

Efficient agriculture require advanced machinery that are worth millions of dollars.

Fixed

My little familial farm is worth 1 000 000$ today. 60 cows, a few tractors, etc.

[Night Ripper]

So we should become primitivists?

Edit: And no, many people won't survive.

Remember how this all started? Someone claimed they were a wage slave with no choices and I pointed out that there are choices, they just aren't comfortable ones.

Imagine a slave owner sets his slaves free and then they start complaining about having to find their own food, their own shelter, etc. You can't have it both ways, either you become a slave and live in comfort or you fend for yourselves without demanding, forcing by threat of violence, to have things handed to you.

[danyboy27]

I'm not against public roads. I'm against theft and coercion. If you and 1,000 of your friends want to join forces and build a public road, go for it. I wish you all the very best. My issue is when you come knocking on my door telling me I owe you money. It shouldn't be forced.

But why are you against theft and coercion?
You couldnt have capitalism without those two attributes.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm not against public roads. I'm against theft and coercion. If you and 1,000 of your friends want to join forces and build a public road, go for it. I wish you all the very best. My issue is when you come knocking on my door telling me I owe you money. It shouldn't be forced.

Maybe you should either go off into the Alaskan Wilderness or off yourself. Then maybe you could actually escape and be isolated from society. Until then, you are in this society. Now grow up and deal with it.

[Night Ripper]

Maybe you should either go off into the Alaskan Wilderness or off yourself. Then maybe you could actually escape and be isolated from society. Until then, you are in this society. Now grow up and deal with it.

That's ironic. I'm in another thread telling people they don't have to be a wage slave, they can go live in the wilderness and they are coming up with all these objections. Now what am I told? Go live in the wilderness. Haha! I would do that but I already own a house and land here. Stay off my land and there will be no problems.

[Le Rouge]

That's ironic. I'm in another thread telling people they don't have to be a wage slave, they can go live in the wilderness and they are coming up with all these objections. Now what am I told? Go live in the wilderness. Haha! I would do that but I already own a house and land here. Stay off my land and there will be no problems.

Your land? lol

[Night Ripper]

But why are you against theft and coercion?
You couldnt have capitalism without those two attributes.

Then you don't understand capitalism. It's free trade.

Let's say I want your watch. There are two ways I can get it. I can point a gun at you and take it. Likewise, I can get a bunch of my friends together to take a vote, maybe the watch looks better on me, or maybe I need it more, and then we all point our guns at you and take it.

The other way is that I can make you an offer. I can say I'll give you $50 for it, I'll be your friend, I'll give you my blessing to date my sister, whatever. But if you don't like any of my offers, you keep the watch. That's capitalism. That's the free market. Somehow letting you keep your watch is coercion? Welcome to 1984.

[Night Ripper]

Your land? lol

Who's land is it? Yours? The government? Why? I was here first.

[danyboy27]

Remember how this all started? Someone claimed they were a wage slave with no choices and I pointed out that there are choices, they just aren't comfortable ones.

Work or starve on a patch of land somewhere
that called coercion.



Imagine a slave owner sets his slaves free and then they start complaining about having to find their own food, their own shelter, etc. You can't have it both ways, either you become a slave and live in comfort or you fend for yourselves without demanding, forcing by threat of violence, to have things handed to you.
You know what those slaveowner did all those year? they racked a shitload of money from the labor of these folks. why should they run away from a farm that exist solely beccause of their labor?
That called theft.

[Le Rouge]

Who's land is it? Yours? The government? Why? I was here first.

:lol: The humans land.

And just don't try that childish philosophy of : I was there first, therefore it's mine.

Have you any justification that your land is YOUR land? (Exept "I paid for it.")

[Night Ripper]

Work or starve on a patch of land somewhere
that called coercion.

No, it's not. I don't owe you anything so by denying you my belongings, that's not coercion. It would be coercion to force me to feed you.


You know what those slaveowner did all those year? they racked a shitload of money from the labor of these folks. why should they run away from a farm that exist solely beccause of their labor?
That called theft.

You didn't address my point. You aren't forced to work. You are offered a wage for your labor. If you accept, that's all you are owed. It doesn't matter if I pay you $1 an hour to mine gold. The gold isn't yours. It's mine. If you don't like that then don't take the $1 an hour job.

[danyboy27]

Then you don't understand capitalism. It's free trade.

Let's say I want your watch. There are two ways I can get it. I can point a gun at you and take it. Likewise, I can get a bunch of my friends together to take a vote, maybe the watch looks better on me, or maybe I need it more, and then we all point our guns at you and take it.

The other way is that I can make you an offer. I can say I'll give you $50 for it, I'll be your friend, I'll give you my blessing to date my sister, whatever. But if you don't like any of my offers, you keep the watch. That's capitalism. That's the free market. Somehow letting you keep your watch is coercion? Welcome to 1984.
You cant generate an infinite amount of money with that watch, with a patch of land or a factory you cant.
Marxist dont disagree with the notion that an invididual should have individual proprety, they argues that the mean of production should be collectively owned.

[Night Ripper]

You cant generate an infinite amount of money with that watch, with a patch of land or a factory you cant.
Marxist dont disagree with the notion that an invididual should have individual proprety, they argues that the mean of production should be collectively owned.

A watch or a factory is still property. At no point are you suddenly owed anything.

[danyboy27]

No, it's not. I don't owe you anything so by denying you my belongings, that's not coercion. It would be coercion to force me to feed you.

If i hold all the water in town and i ask everyone to pay a toll to have some, how free these invididual are from me? the alternative would be to leave the place all together for an uncertain future somewhere if they make it.

Its like saying to someone he have to choice between getting raped or die.
Its plain old coercion.



You didn't address my point. You aren't forced to work. You are offered a wage for your labor. If you accept, that's all you are owed. It doesn't matter if I pay you $1 an hour to mine gold. The gold isn't yours. It's mine. If you don't like that then don't take the $1 an hour job.
Why would it be your gold if i do all the fucking work while you sit on your fucking arse? You do know that without a state, a scheme like that would eventually be overrun by an angry mob, no matter how tough your mercenaries are??

[Le Rouge]

The other way is that I can make you an offer. I can say I'll give you $50 for it, I'll be your friend, I'll give you my blessing to date my sister, whatever. But if you don't like any of my offers, you keep the watch. That's capitalism. That's the free market. Somehow letting you keep your watch is coercion? Welcome to 1984.

Let's say i'm a wealthy person. My computer company is directly into competition with another. This competition affected my profits in a such way that i'm currently into deficit. What to do in a free-market? I'll just employ some terrorists to blow my competitors factory(ies).

I just don't buy capitalist-liberty.

[Le Rouge]

No, it's not. I don't owe you anything so by denying you my belongings, that's not coercion. It would be coercion to force me to feed you.


Then coercion isn't that bad.

[Night Ripper]

Its like saying to someone he have to choice between getting raped or die.

Someone holding a gun to your head isn't the same thing as someone saying you can't have any of their water.


Why would it be your gold if i do all the fucking work while you sit on your fucking arse?

Because you agreed to it. The alternative is that you get nothing at all.

[danyboy27]

A watch or a factory is still property. At no point are you suddenly owed anything.

Proprety right are determined by the society in wich we live in.
Marxist dont want people to be deprived from a tv or a playstation, we think that the mean of production should be democratized so we would have our fair share of the surplus produced, that all.

The notion of what is property and what not is something that is constantly moving trought history.

[danyboy27]

Someone holding a gun to your head isn't the same thing as someone saying you can't have any of their water.
.
someone with no water, die.




Because you agreed to it. The alternative is that you get nothing at all.
Or i could also get it from your cold dead hand.

[Night Ripper]

Let's say i'm a wealthy person. My computer company is directly into competition with another. This competition affected my profits in a such way that i'm currently into deficit. What to do in a free-market? I'll just employ some terrorists to blow my competitors factory(ies).

Then you'll be hunted down by a private security firm and forced to pay.

[Le Rouge]

Then you'll be hunted down by a private security firm and forced to pay.

And if nobody knows it's me?


Edit : Also, It's coercion to force me to pay for what i did.

[Night Ripper]

Then coercion isn't that bad.

If you don't care about morality there's not much else I can say. The attempt to reduce all of the free market to a "work or starve" lifeboat situation isn't realistic. What you really demand is luxury.

[danyboy27]

Then you'll be hunted down by a private security firm and forced to pay.

1 word: Somalia.

[PhoenixAsh]

A watch or a factory is still property. At no point are you suddenly owed anything.

You fail to understand.

Your watch is made by somebody who sold the fruits of his labour to you. Land however...was there. There is no justification for owning land. In the end we will come right back to the fact that before your land was owned it was already there. And the sole claim to ownership is that somebody said "this is mine and I will kill or force anybody who disgrees."

Now...by that very same rationale...your land belongs to whom ever is stronger and can take it away from you. By and large that is no different from claiming something and denying acces to it to others....in fact it is the king of the hill principle.

Now...to avoid that wanton situation to happen to the first person who claimed your land by doing exactly the same....laws were created and enforced.

In otherwords....your land is simply stolen property guarded by the legal system.

You have no justification whatsoever to claim ownership other than after the fact created laws to make it so.

[Night Ripper]

And if nobody knows it's me?

The same thing that would happen under any system.

[Night Ripper]

There is no justification for owning land.

Alright, fine. You now own no land. Wherever you try to plant something, I'll be there to stomp and piss all over it. Wherever you try to sleep, I'll be there to take a steaming dump right next to you while playing loud rap music. Welcome to your new life.

[danyboy27]

The same thing that would happen under any system.

Without governement to enforce law its gonna be somehow difficult.

[Night Ripper]

Without governement to enforce law its gonna be somehow difficult.

There would still be private courts. Theft, murder and fraud is never going to be simply ignored.

[PhoenixAsh]

Alright, fine. You now own no land. Wherever you try to plant something, I'll be there to stomp and piss all over it. Wherever you try to sleep, I'll be there to take a steaming dump right next to you while playing loud rap music. Welcome to your new life.

You could do that and you would be sucking your dinner through a straw for the rest of your life.

But in all seriousness.

You have no freaking clue what anarchism really is right?

[Revolution starts with U]

"I'll never buy into your argument if you can't show politeness..."

That's logical :lol:

[Night Ripper]

You could do that and you would be sucking your dinner through a straw for the rest of your life.

Whatever you say, Internet tough guy.

[Le Rouge]

There would still be private courts. Theft, murder and fraud is never going to be simply ignored.

Private courts? WHAT THE FUCK? The one who is the most wealthy will win every process. You'll just have to give some money to the judge and Ho! You won!

[Night Ripper]

Private courts? WHAT THE FUCK? The one who is the most wealthy will win every process. You'll just have to give some money to the judge and Ho! You won!

Nobody would ever do business with a court like that. Would you?

[danyboy27]

There would still be private courts. Theft, murder and fraud is never going to be simply ignored.

Unless those who pay the court make some backdoor deal to have it legally authorised under certain circumstances.

Somalia man, land of the free and the brave..verry brave.
Full of rugged individualist out there.

[Le Rouge]

Nobody would ever do business with a court like that. Would you?

Who would know that the court is corrupt anyway? When you got money, you got the power to shut anyone's mouth.

[danyboy27]

Nobody would ever do business with a court like that. Would you?

would you have a choice?

[Night Ripper]

Unless those who pay the court make some backdoor deal to have it legally authorised under certain circumstances.

Somalia man, land of the free and the brave..verry brave.
Full of rugged individualist out there.

I don't even know what your first sentence is trying to say. You haven't ever thought about how private courts would work, have you?

So you refuse to become a farmer rather than be a wage slave but you expect me to go to Somalia? Talk about a double standard.

[Night Ripper]

would you have a choice?

Do you have a choice between Wal-Mart, Target, Fred's, etc? What would happen if Wal-Mart pissed off their customers? I think Target might see some increased business.

[Le Rouge]

Do you have a choice between Wal-Mart, Target, Fred's, etc? What would happen if Wal-Mart pissed off their customers? I think Target might see some increased business.

We're not talking about the same thing. There's a big difference here.

[Leftsolidarity]

This is such a routine argument. I think there should be a page that says "If you're an annoying Libertarian read this" and then we could just basically post up this type of argument. Then we don't have to go through the same stupidity over and over again.

[danyboy27]

I don't even know what your first sentence is trying to say. You haven't ever thought about how private courts would work, have you?

So you refuse to become a farmer rather than be a wage slave but you expect me to go to Somalia? Talk about a double standard.

hey, all i am saying is that your dream of a civilisation without ''BIg gov'' is real, its there, the free market, the women/men, the gun, they have it all!

Believe me, if there was a communist country out there i would go there ASAP.

[Night Ripper]

This is such a routine argument.

Unlike all the brilliant original thoughts your side has put forth? When you can't defeat the argument, say that it's old.

[Night Ripper]

Believe me, if there was a communist country out there i would go there ASAP.

If you move to China, I'll move to Somalia.

[Le Rouge]

If you move to China, I'll move to Somalia.

How is Somalia not right libertarian?

[danyboy27]

Do you have a choice between Wal-Mart, Target, Fred's, etc? What would happen if Wal-Mart pissed off their customers? I think Target might see some increased business.

if someone commit a murder in x wallmart administred sector, and there is only 1 private court operated by them where they hang people to a pole, where is his choice? can he go online and select a private court of his choosing, or is it the family of the murdered people who decide?

You see how insane something like a private court system look like?

[danyboy27]

If you move to China, I'll move to Somalia.

China is not communist, its not even socialist.

[Night Ripper]

can he go online and select a private court of his choosing, or is it the family of the murdered people who decide?

Each side picks which court they want. The courts then reach an agreement between them or if not, they go to a higher third part that they agreed to in advance.

[Le Rouge]

Each side picks which court they want. The courts then reach an agreement between them or if not, they go to a higher third part that they agreed to in advance.

Da fok?

Anyway, i got to go, i'm so hungry :P

[Night Ripper]

How is Somalia not right libertarian?

I don't know, let me ask their federal government.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nobody would ever do business with a court like that. Would you?

If I was very rich... yes! Yes I would!


It's funny that the same people who say our system won't work because of human greed (even tho to be a commy as a prole is greedy self-interest) give us this fairy tale land where no really rich people have the urge to just start a state and create barriers to entry :confused:

More doublethink from the right... nothing new here.

[Night Ripper]

If I was very rich... yes! Yes I would!

Then you'll be the only one (aside from other rich people) and nobody will care what your court says.

[Revolution starts with U]

Then you'll be the only one (aside from other rich people) and nobody will care what your court says.

Except for, you know, other rich people. You know, those guys who dinner with the judges and golf with the lawyers, and who's kids all go to the same schools; iron law of oligarchy.

Who do you think the third party arbitrator is going to side with; the dirty guy who lives in a 2 room apartment (living/bedroom and kitchen) and just read some books, or the well dressed guy who went to law school and got a degree?

[Night Ripper]

Who do you think the third party arbitrator is going to side with; the dirty guy who lives in a 2 room apartment (living/bedroom and kitchen) and just read some books, or the well dressed guy who went to law school and got a degree?

They will side with whoever is legally right. If they don't then they are going to go out of business fast. You open your court that nobody will do business with but caters to the rich and I'll open my court that 60 million people will do business with and we'll see who lasts longer.

[Revolution starts with U]

Do business with how? Good looks? Debt labor?

I'll continue doing business with people that can actually pay me. You keep doing favors for people with nothing to offer.

[Revolution starts with U]

They will side with whoever is legally right. .

Oh, I love your naive idealism :tt1:

[Night Ripper]

Do business with how? Good looks? Debt labor?

Free market money?

[Night Ripper]

Oh, I love your naive idealism :tt1:

Oh I'm an idealist now? I thought I was a bitter and angry slave master.

[Revolution starts with U]

Free market money?

God does or doesn't exist.

See I can say sentences devoid of any real world meaning too.


Oh I'm an idealist now? I thought I was a bitter and angry slave master.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Have you ever read the Decleration of Independance? You know that was written by a slave master?

[o well this is ok I guess]

You don't own the sky or down to the center of the Earth. I should hope i have some jurisdiction over the ground beneath a building I own, as a tunnel collapsing underneath it would simply do me no good.

[danyboy27]

Each side picks which court they want. The courts then reach an agreement between them or if not, they go to a higher third part that they agreed to in advance.

Sound like a big administrative clusterfuck that only rich people can sort out.
And what if i dont have any money to give to a court? would it mean i would be at the mercy of the other side court?

The private court system was abolished long time ago beccause it was getting ridiculous, children where executed by the east india company for stealing a loaf of bread, that just how crazy it was.

One time or another, all those private courts will be owned by 2 or 3 of the most powerful guy around and they will make the law.

Beccause without a state, you can kiss competition goodbye in all its shape and form.

[Night Ripper]

I should hope i have some jurisdiction over the ground beneath a building I own, as a tunnel collapsing underneath it would simply do me no good.

Exactly. That's how far I have to dig down, far enough so I don't cave you in.

[Revolution starts with U]

Too bad I already bought the title for all the land beneath it, all the way down to the mantle. I bought a title to air rights too.

[Night Ripper]

Too bad I already bought the title for all the land beneath it, all the way down to the mantle. I bought a title to air rights too.

That's not how it works.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Exactly. That's how far I have to dig down, far enough so I don't cave you in. That's pretty far, bro. Farther down than most subway lines
But hey if you've got enough for an evil subterranean lair under my orphanage cool I guess

[Leftsolidarity]

I was gone. Was there really an argument put forth for a private court system?? Oh my Lenin, how ridiculous. Fucking halarious actually. Stupidity at its finest.

[Le Rouge]

I was gone. Was there really an argument put forth for a private court system?? Oh my Lenin, how ridiculous. Fucking halarious actually. Stupidity at its finest.

Yeah, and i almost cried.

[danyboy27]

That's not how it works.

Well if you think its unfair you could just call the pol...
Haa right! no more police! guess you gonna have to send a bunch of militia guys blow the shit out of the other dude militia then or appeal to one of those phony private court with all those extra fee and administrative blunders.

In a capitalist environnement with a state you could have just asked to the Governement goon to have your'' property right'' respected, but too bad.

Has i said, i dont give a shit about your ideology, but if you are gonna be a capitalist, be coherent.

This economical system cannot exist without violence and theft. If the state is not gonna do it for you, you are gonna have to do it yourself.

[Rafiq]

This is how trolls work: Night Ripper, being destroyed in his first thread, moves on to another subject, only to be destroyed once more. Afterwords, he makes another thread. It's an endless cycle.

[Le Rouge]

This is how trolls work: Night Ripper, being destroyed in his first thread, moves on to another subject, only to be destroyed once more. Afterwords, he makes another thread. It's an endless cycle.

Easy to say. It's not easy to resist the temptation of responding to a troll.
They are like ninja's, you know there are here but you can't see them.

[Aphex]

Way to go blow my mind. I challenged communists to give me an example of communism working out well for the people and I get Albania and some peasant communes. Think I'll pass. If you communists really want to live in some disgusting set up like that you should all chip in and buy an island ( you can buy them on the internet planet pads dot com ) and go for it. I'd even be happy to contribute a few dollars to get you all over there. Out of sight out of mind :lol:

[Le Rouge]

Way to go blow my mind. I challenged communists to give me an example of communism working out well for the people and I get Albania and some peasant communes. Think I'll pass. If you communists really want to live in some disgusting set up like that you should all chip in and buy an island ( you can buy them on the internet planet pads dot com ) and go for it. I'd even be happy to contribute a few dollars to get you all over there. Out of sight out of mind :lol:

Ciao then!

Paris commune someone? Anarchist spain?

[Night Ripper]

Well if you think its unfair you could just call the pol...
Haa right! no more police! guess you gonna have to send a bunch of militia guys blow the shit out of the other dude militia then or appeal to one of those phony private court with all those extra fee and administrative blunders.

In a capitalist environnement with a state you could have just asked to the Governement goon to have your'' property right'' respected, but too bad.

Has i said, i dont give a shit about your ideology, but if you are gonna be a capitalist, be coherent.

This economical system cannot exist without violence and theft. If the state is not gonna do it for you, you are gonna have to do it yourself.

I have no problem with that.

[Night Ripper]

Easy to say. It's not easy to resist the temptation of responding to a troll.
They are like ninja's, you know there are here but you can't see them.

Ignore Rafiq. I am.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's not how it works.

That's not how it works now. There's no reason it couldn't work in your society provided a find a PDA and a court willing to insure my claim. You got a problem? Tough luck; take it up with my lawyers.

[Ismail]

Way to go blow my mind. I challenged communists to give me an example of communism working out well for the people and I get Albania and some peasant communes.Well gee, when communist movements were on the rise in the 1910's, 20's and 30's in Western Europe fascism came along and did a pretty good job putting an end to that with the consent of the "democracies" such as Britain (not to mention the treacherous social-democratic parties which in Germany tacitly endorsed the murder of militant workers and the murderers of Rosa Luxemburg and Co.), who were more afraid of communists than fascists. Wonderful capitalist freedom-lover Von Mises had some nice words to say 'bout fascism at the time and also understood its value in crushing workers' movements when bourgeois-democratic governments had failed to do so:

“Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. . . . Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. . . . It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.”
(Ludwig Von Mises. Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition. Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews and McMeel. 1978. pp. 49-51.)

Also do you deny that living standards were significantly raised for all Albanians in the 1940's-80's? Do you deny that a significant amount of Albanians want a return to the social system of those times?

See for instance: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p10s01-woeu.html

[Aphex]

Well gee, when communist movements were on the rise in the 1910's, 20's and 30's in Western Europe fascism came along and did a pretty good job putting an end to that with the consent of the "democracies" such as Britain (not to mention the treacherous social-democratic parties which in Germany tacitly endorsed the murder of militant workers and the murderers of Rosa Luxemburg and Co.), who were more afraid of communists than fascists. Wonderful capitalist freedom-lover Von Mises had some nice words to say 'bout fascism at the time and also understood its value in crushing workers' movements when bourgeois-democratic governments had failed to do so:

“Against the weapons of the Bolsheviks, weapons must be used in reprisal, and it would be a mistake to display weakness before murderers. . . . Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. . . . It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.”
(Ludwig Von Mises. Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition. Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews and McMeel. 1978. pp. 49-51.)

Also do you deny that living standards were significantly raised for all Albanians in the 1940's-80's? Do you deny that a significant amount of Albanians want a return to the social system of those times?



To be honest I haven't done the research into Albania but if that is the best thing you can show to demonstrate the benefits of communism I'll consider my point proven for me. This Mises quote is interesting but he's not the voice of capitalism so i don't know why you expect me to give a fuck. And all the shit about fascism crushing your poor communes just reeks of excuses and blame. There were hippy communes in America all through the 60's. Fascists didn't crush them, nobody gave a fuck about them. There's no reason why you guys couldn't set up something like kibbutzim in Israel.

[Ismail]

Back in 2008 a user of this forum, Prairie Fire, made a great blog post on the folly of creating communes within the context of capitalism. Here it is:

Okay, let’s say that some of these social-escapists did band together, and do what they are keen on doing: going out to the rural areas, getting some land with dwellings, and starting to grow their own food. Perhaps they also raised their own bees for honey, (an idea from a Victorian social-escapist) and possibly livestock. As for electricity, solar panels for all! A form of anarchist councilism somehow prevailed as the organizational/legislative model, and the people are blissful.

This is the vision. Now, here are the stumbling blocks of reality, to pop the bubble.

First of all, under a system of capitalism, it is not possible for an individual, or even for a collective of individuals, to purchase a single plot of land in perpetuity. Even if this group of Utopians “owned the land” that they were cultivating and living on, they would still have to pay property taxes.

Now, this insight throws a giant stick into the spokes of this Utopian theory by itself. The taxation levied by the capitalist government on these social-escapists, you would think, should be enough to jar them back to reality, a reminder that they have not “severed” themselves from capitalism, no matter how rural their surroundings.

Although property taxes can be quite low (especially for uncultivated land,), this introduces a new variable into the lives of those who are trying to avoid “participating” in the capitalist system: expenses.

Now, these expenses give rise to a necessity for currency, in order to continue the upkeep and operation of the commune and farmlands. Now, the social-escapists may deal with this problem in many ways. In the event that some (or all) of their membership have to resume wage labour employment to raise funds, well then I think that their whole attempt at ”waling away” from capitalism becomes moot. If this does become the case, the commune dwellers are as dependent on selling their wage labour as ever, and still firmly tied to the capitalist world and system.

More likely, as I have been told by social-escapist ideologues, the commune dwellers would sell part of the fruits of their labour. For the sake of argument, lets say that these fruits would include vegetables, honey, unique crafts, fresh bakery products…

Now we see, in reaction to the taxes levied by the capitalist system, the rise of another fatal error on the commune: commodity production. All of the sudden, rather than selling their surplus at their own leisure and discretion, the social-escapists start to produce products and designate entire sections of their garden produce as commodities, to be sold for profit (supposedly to help keep the commune going.).

So, now the commune-dwellers sell some of their fruits, perhaps at local farmers markets and whatnot. Now they have acquired a limited income for the commune.
Well, with income comes income tax; More taxes. Once again, the capitalist class (whom the social-escapists didn’t think it was necessary to defeat,) levies taxes from the commune dwellers.

More taxes become more expenses. More expenses lead to the commune-dwellers being forced to sell more of their produce (which was formerly geared towards the needs of the commune,) to continue the upkeep of the commune. Perhaps to accomplish this, the commune dwellers purchase advanced machinery to help increase the harvest (which turns out to be yet another expense, especially when fuel and insurance are concerned.). The commune dwellers are forced to expand gardens, and produce more home-made products( the materials needed to produce these, may bring another expense), solely for the purpose of commodity production. They also are forced to find more outlets to sell their wares. Ah, the increase in commodity production, and the beginning of their expansion into as many markets as possible. More and more, the commune acquires symptoms of capitalism, from the ground up.

Of course, it is also reasonable to assume that the commune would have a vehicle of some sort, almost definitely gas powered. Even though social-escapists are typically life-stylists, who prefer bicycles (and other emission free modes of conveyance,) , bicycles are impractical for long range travel (remember,they are living in a rural area), for transportation of goods, and especially impractical in the winter, in most of the northern hemisphere. Because of these factors, they are most likely to have a vehicle to start with, or the commune will purchase one when the necessity of commodity production forces them to adopt one (The very act of purchasing a vehicle may place more weight on the budget of the commune.).

Vehicle ownership leads to (you guessed it,)…Expenses! Fuel, repairs, and of course Insurance! The commune dwellers will require a street-legal vehicle to use (even if they only have one,), so they will accept all of the costs that go with it. More costs, more expenses. The strain on the commune may force a member to have to take a job, in which case it is quite clear that they have not escaped capitalism. At this point, they also need to do things for the capitalist authorities, like possess a valid driver license ( How can any person claim to not be reliant on the system ,when you are subject to it’s rules and regulations?).

I know from experience, it is very difficult to feed a whole family on only what you produce, let alone a group of people, big or small. Now, by this point in time, the commune is producing largely for profit, trying to juggle the needs of the membership, with the demands for currency. During this time, the availability of food becomes more and more scarce, as it has to be sold to pay for upkeep;this leaves commune members hungry. How are they going to feed their members? Well, I guess they could buy groceries… another expense!

Take into consideration also that people get sick. What are these social-escapists going to do if one of their number gets sick or injured, especially seriously so? Herbal teas and home remedies only go so far; if you have appendicitis, you need surgery. Now, assuming that everyone on the commune has the possibility to get sick or injured, that would mean that every person would require a health care card, which is yet another monthly expense! If they didn’t live in a country that had socialized-medicine, it would be even worse, because they would have to pay even more for an HMO or insurance. More expenses, more demands for currency ( health-care for upwards of ten people can really add up,), and yet another bond forged to the very world and social system that they are trying to “ween themselves off of”.

In actuality, the sheer weight of the contradictions and financial demands on the commune would have forced the social-escapists to either become wage-slaves (and defeat the whole purpose of the commune), or devote the overwhelming majority of their productive forces to commodity production, for profit.

Now, even if hypothetically they are able to maintain a level of commodity production, in exchange for currency, and cover their operating costs, by that time capitalism has triumphed. The goal of the commune has shifted overwhelming from self sustenance to profit, and the commune members are not only completely subject to all of the rules and regulations of the capitalist state, but they are tax-paying citizens of it. What began as a self-sustaining commune has become a commercial farm; the social-escapists, in the eyes of the capitalist state that they reside in, are simply farmers, economically indistinguishable from other farmers enthralled by the system.

Now, keep in mind that this is a very austere estimate; I didn’t factor in any miscellaneous expenses, or ”habits” that the commune members may nurse, all of which lead to miscellaneous demands upon the commune for currency. My estimate assumes that the social-escapists do not smoke, drink, or engage in any other form of leisure that would require repeat purchases of commodities ( a cigarette habit alone consumes ten dollars a day from most smokers. If the commune has ten smokers out of the whole, that’s one hundred dollars a day. That’s a lot of potatoes that they have to sell!). Even assuming that these social-escapists live a minimalistic, utilitarian lifestyle, they are still doomed.

In the event that the social escapists abandon the law-abiding road, they may prolong their existence in a valiant “robin hood” style, but they are still doomed. Whether they evade taxes, poach wild-life, squat on property, grow illegal crops like Marijuana (for profit and/or personal use), or engage in any other type of illegal activity, they guarantee that their commune will be stamped out by force, and that their membership will be arrested. Even if they initially manage to evade notice of the illegal activities committed by their commune, it makes little difference; the longer that they continue the existence of the commune (and these illegal activities along with it,), the more certain the reality that they will be caught, and eventually the day will come when capitalist police forces will ”remind” these Utopians who is really in charge; capitalists don’t fuck around when it comes to tax evasion. Anyways, even being a bandit upon the system is still a form of reliance and dependency.

Well, there you have it; from the best of intentions to probable dissolution within less than a decade. the commune is doomed to failure (not a single one of these communal social-experiments attempted in the past have survived.).

See, the most important point to expose about the flawed nature of this social-escapism is that it actually doesn’t aim to “escape” capitalism; it aims to co-exist with it. Perhaps this is the fundamental flaw of the whole notion.

See, it is not true escapism, as escape from global capitalism would require nothing less than a space faring vehicle (and given that there are no known inhabitable planets other than earth in this system, you would actually still be dependent on earth for the import of vital commodities.). What the social-escapists aim to do is occupy a plot of land/geographical area (which is already claimed by capitalists,), and try and survive there, without being bothered by any of the forces of capitalism. For their part, the self stated ambition of the social-escapists is not to make any effort to defeat capitalism, so therefore the true aspiration of the social-escapists is hermit-like co-existence of their own socio-economic system with that of the global capitalism.

Now, this is a large part of where the theory falls flat, as historically speaking , at no point in history has capitalism ever co-existed with a separate economic system. Capitalism brought about the defeat of feudalism in the advanced colonial countries (the American revolution ,the French revolution, etc), swept away tribalism in colonial nations, and fiercely sabotaged all past experiments in the building of socialism. By their very nature, with their lust for new markets to expand to, as well as new sources of capital and resources to exploit, capitalism can never co-exist, side-by-side with any other system, and from it’s place of global dominance, it will allow no up-starts. If there is only one lesson to heed from the revisionist Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, it is the fallacy of his attempts at “peaceful co-existence”, which majorly contributed to the ruin and defeat of socialist countries/organizations everywhere.

In addition to this naive and erroneous desire to co-exist, and be left in seclusion as social hermits of this earth, among all left-wing political tendencies, this social-escapism is a current that is the bringer of revolutionary defeatism: ” We will never win against capitalism, things will never change; fuck it. Get the kids, an axe, and some camping supplies, we are going to live in the woods.”

Now, don’t misinterpret what I’m saying. I am not suggesting that the commune system is inherently reactionary and doomed to failure (peoples communes actually functioned quite well in the PR China, as part of their grand efforts to build socialism and self-sufficiency.); what I am saying is, quite simply, you can not “escape”, “walk away from”, “ween yourself off”, nor co-exist with the likes of capitalism.

The only way to end the tyranny of this capitalist system is to cast it down from it’s perch, and the only way to that is, and always has been, by awakening the masses to assume political power in their own interest. Utopian escapism and naive, hermit individualism will only lead in circles, back on your knees to the very system you boasted of “escaping”.And a reply by another RevLeft user:

Excellent article. I could have used this about a year and a half ago in a rather long-winded debate. Another thing these people fail to realize is that their plan will only appeal to a very small, idealistic number of people. This is because even if you accept their ideal view of the commune, it would entail a drastic lowering of the living standard for people in places like Canada or the US. In reality, taking into account your analysis, it would lead to a sad, impoverished hamlet not unlike something out of Democratic Kampuchea, though the Khmer Rouge would look like great statesmen in comparison.

Also notable(especially when considering what you mentioned about cigarettes) is the fact that the commodities these guys would be producing would not fetch a lot of money on the free market. They would probably be limited to farmers’ markets, because virtually anything they grow is most likely cheaper when imported from abroad. This means they would have to grow an ass load of stuff, or more likely, try growing crops that fetch a better price, assuming they could even do this(good luck growing sugar cane or coffee in a place like Canada, or anarkiddies!). The result would be less crops grown for food.

Essentially, not only would they fail according to your analysis, but they would fail miserably, impoverishing themselves just like in a third world country.
This Mises quote is interesting but he's not the voice of capitalism so i don't know why you expect me to give a fuck.Because it demonstrates the fact that, when faced with the prospect of proletarian revolution, even the most "libertarian" capitalists will cast aside said "libertarianism" for the continued existence of capitalism.

[Aphex]

Back in 2008 a user of this forum, Prairie Fire, made a great blog post on the folly of creating communes within the context of capitalism. Here it is:
And a reply by another RevLeft user:
Because it demonstrates the fact that, when faced with the prospect of proletarian revolution, even the most "libertarian" capitalists will cast aside said "libertarianism" for the continued existence of capitalism.

i love the little logical tangle this poster has got him/herself into - on the one hand capitalism is evil, on the other hand they can't live without it. i wish i could say I was surprised. Currency? You would need a currency? Well, yes... no shit! Even Marx suggested 'labor vouchers', which would take ON the virtual properties of currency. These problems are going to have to be worked out wherever you build a communist society. Basically you have talked yourself out of being able to do it. Study kibbutzim. They do work, and their existence refutes that entire post. I wouldn't want to live there, but they've achieved the things you're after on a small scale. If you really tried you could probably build something interesting. It's a shame you all are too busy talking about destroying the current system rather than positive things like setting up your own.

Overall the most alarming thing for me is your unwilllingness to share the world with any other system than your own. A self contained society is not enough for you, you want to impose your ideals on every inch of the earth, on all cultures and all religions. Isn't communism about sharing and tolerance?

[Ismail]

Well yes evidently communes in the middle of industrialized capitalist countries "can't live without it." There's a big difference between growing fruit and actually having a communist society which, you know, isn't about reverting to growing organic food or whatever. Marx and every other communist stressed that the working-class must seize control of the means of production. He didn't have orchards in mind when he wrote that. He had factories in mind, he had whole economies being seized by the workers and thus the managing of entire societies on an all-encompassing basis, not just "oh hey let's grow some tomatoes."

Also the point of Prairie Fire's blog post was that capitalism does not allow competing socio-economic systems. Whenever they exist the utmost effort is made to undermine them. The early bourgeoisie didn't flinch in their struggle against feudalism (since back then capitalism was a revolutionary ideology), why should the proletariat "share" with the bourgeoisie of today when, just as feudalism became hostile to capitalist interests, capitalism becomes hostile to the interests of the working-class?

[Rafiq]

Ignore Rafiq. I am.

She/He or whatever was talking about you.

Ignoring me isn't going to change the fact that you have a shit conception of reality.

[danyboy27]

I have no problem with that.
How could you claim the moral high ground if at the end if you are also willing to act like a thug?

No offense but you are probably one of the most sociopathic individual i ever met on revleft.

I wont be talking to you anymore and i would strongly suggest everyone to do the same.

[Night Ripper]

How could you claim the moral high ground if at the end if you are also willing to act like a thug?

Protecting my property is not acting like a thug.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, it sure is. It's like acting like a thug in the ghetto; not really that out of line. Even the non-thugs act like thugs. Or have you actually never lived in a ghetto?

[danyboy27]

Protecting my property is not acting like a thug.

would you have a problem if a proprety owner would restrict black or muslim people from entering into a restaurant?

[Night Ripper]

would you have a problem if a proprety owner would restrict black or muslim people from entering into a restaurant?

Yes, I would have a problem. It's ignorant and pointless. However, I have no right to force the property owner to see things the way I do. Using violence is not a solution. I would just boycott that business.

[danyboy27]

Yes, I would have a problem. It's ignorant and pointless. However, I have no right to force the property owner to see things the way I do. Using violence is not a solution. I would just boycott that business.

But you just said a fews post ago that it was okay to use violence against a group or an individual to resolve propety issues, why would it be different regarding social issues?

Regardless of what you think, the use of this so called ''private'' property will most of the time become a social/moral issue.

Do you think the factories in india that are polluting the neighboring communities are getting shut down beccause nobody in this particular area want to buy their product? i dont think so.

So no, just beccause a company have bad track record of human right or is racist in it core wont stop people from buying their products beccause there is always be a way for corporatist to export the goods far enough or to confuse the customer enough so they dont know what they did anyway.

[pastradamus]

Yes, I would have a problem. It's ignorant and pointless. However, I have no right to force the property owner to see things the way I do. Using violence is not a solution. I would just boycott that business.

You cant boycott racism.

[danyboy27]

Boycott at 99% never work anyway, its a fantasy that has customer we can actually do something against the corporate juggernaut.

[maskerade]

Does this idiot actually claim that all property was stolen from individuals? No, it wasn't. A lot of places did not have this stupid ass idea of ownership to begin with, yet racists came and claimed it, killed off the people and built shit on it using slavery.

Tell me - what is the metaphysical connection between you and anything you own? Does it exist? Or is it an idea that has been perpetuated by those who conquered others through violence in order to perpetuate their advantage?

Grow up.

[Night Ripper]

But you just said a fews post ago that it was okay to use violence against a group or an individual to resolve propety issues, why would it be different regarding social issues?

I said it's ok to use violence in self-defense not to "resolve property issues". That's a big difference.


Do you think the factories in india that are polluting the neighboring communities are getting shut down beccause nobody in this particular area want to buy their product?

So they will be shut down because they are polluting someone else's property. There is no boycott needed.

[danyboy27]

I said it's ok to use violence in self-defense not to "resolve property issues". That's a big difference.

If someone claim the control over a vital ressource in my region and start opressing everyone with that control, wouldnt you agree it would be ok to use violence in self-defense against this industrialist who is making the life of thousand of people miserable?



So they will be shut down because they are polluting someone else's property. There is no boycott needed.
I dont see why it would be the case, it certainly isnt the case right now in many countries where the free market thrive, what make you think its gonna be different in a situation where the governement is nonexistent?

[Leftsolidarity]

So they will be shut down because they are polluting someone else's property. There is no boycott needed.

Oh yes? And who would do this? And oh please tell me about this magical force that will fix all the negative externalities from the capitalist mode of production. Is it going to be your private courts for the rich? Is it going to be your privately owned armies? :rolleyes:

[Night Ripper]

Oh yes? And who would do this? And oh please tell me about this magical force that will fix all the negative externalities from the capitalist mode of production. Is it going to be your private courts for the rich? Is it going to be your privately owned armies? :rolleyes:

Private courts will not be for the rich. They will be for the consumers.

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you just not listenting to people, or dismissing them because, even tho they countered your argument, they are leftists, so they MUST be wrong... even if you don't know how they are wrong?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Private roads will immedietly drive the cost of everything that is transported by way of these roads up.

Privately owned roads can be regulated by their owners in such a way in which they may restrict who uses them. If I build a road I can decide nobody who lives in a certain area may use it, or nobody who drives a certain car can use it, or nobody of a certain race can use it.

By making these private roadways you can completely cut off the "unwanted" parts of the society. You can cut off the poor minority neighborhoods because they aren't worth the investment. Nobody wants to go into the Ghetto, and those people don't have enough money to make the investment worthwhile.

With a private road, a well off person can effectively put a stranglehold on an entire population by forcing them to use their roads, or be completely isolated. I can build the roads connecting a neighborhood/small suburb to the city, and I can charge as much as I see fit for people to use these roads of mine. All of these people MUST use these roads to take them here or there. If they don't? Fine then, but they aren't getting to work/school/the hospital/etc. You need medical assistance? Fuck you, pay me. Need groceries? Fuck you, pay me. Want to visit your relatives? Fuck you, pay me.



The fact that you are even considering this as a good idea tells me that either you are in a posistion where you can afford to build roads and thinks it would be awesome to suck the profit out of the people who have to use these roads, or you are trolling. There is no third possibility, short of being completely ignorant about the situation that most people live in.


Also, private courts? What the fuck...

[Thirsty Crow]

Why are you even engaging the attention hungry troll who spouts ideological bullshit which originated among the frontier population of the 18th/19th century USA?
It's just ridiculous how commies find this fantasy siren song so irresistable. Juts post pics of animals.

http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/turtle-freek-896.jpg
http://glittermethis.blogspot.com/2011/05/mama-llama.html

[Night Ripper]

If I build a road I can decide nobody who lives in a certain area may use it, or nobody who drives a certain car can use it, or nobody of a certain race can use it.

You won't make a lot of money building roads for nobody or just racists. You'll be out of business soon enough and someone that's trying to make money will come along.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why won't I make a lot of money? What about stopping people who couldn't pay anyway will make me less money? In what fantasy land do you live where people who could or could not be racist, but have the money to pay, will not continue to use the road out of convenience?

Do you expect boycotts to fix the problem? That might work if rightists like you didn't shit on boycotts, calling the boycotters "just jealous freeloaders." Wait, no. It wouldn't work even if you didn't do that.

[Night Ripper]

What about stopping people who couldn't pay anyway will make me less money?

Who said they couldn't pay?



In what fantasy land do you live where people who could or could not be racist, but have the money to pay, will not continue to use the road out of convenience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott


Do you expect boycotts to fix the problem?

It's possible. I think people that boycott are doing the right thing by holding businesses accountable to their preferences. It's the only way the free markets give us the best stuff.

[Le Rouge]

You won't make a lot of money building roads for nobody or just racists. You'll be out of business soon enough and someone that's trying to make money will come along.

Next time, please answer whole posts instead of parts of them.
Also, we got an awfull strawman here. Valter didn't say that. He said that if i buy a road, i can refuse anyone to pass. This could lead to many problems, like Valter said.

I just have to buy some guns and build a road barrage. Then i'll just wait until someone pass and make him pay because he is a black man/middle eastern/jew/asian/rich/poor/etc.


On an unrelated topic, i don't remember BP being near out of business because of the mexican gulf accident. The boycotting theory seems BS. It never worked out.

[Revolution starts with U]

Who said they couldn't pay?


You have no idea what it's like to be poor, do you?





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott


Oh it was the bus boycott that ended segregation? I thought it was the millions of socialists, other leftists, and black people demanding their rights, aggressing against property owners, and using government fiat to enforce their worldview.

[pastradamus]

Still cant believe people here are still seriously entertaining this bullshit.

[Night Ripper]

You have no idea what it's like to be poor, do you?



Oh it was the bus boycott that ended segregation? I thought it was the millions of socialists, other leftists, and black people demanding their rights, aggressing against property owners, and using government fiat to enforce their worldview.

Jim Crow laws. The only reason the government had to get involved, to undo the damage it caused.

[Revolution starts with U]

The Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) enacted between 1876 and 1965. They mandated de jure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure) racial segregation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States) in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America), with a supposedly "separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal)" status for black Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American). The separation led to treatment, financial support and accommodations that were usually inferior to those provided for white Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American), systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States). Northern segregation was generally de facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto), with patterns of segregation in housing enforced by covenants, bank lending practices, and job discrimination, including discriminatory union practices for decades.
Some examples of Jim Crow laws are the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks. The U.S. military was also segregated. These Jim Crow Laws were separate from the 1800–1866 Black Codes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_in_the_USA), which had previously restricted the civil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) and civil liberties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties) of African Americans. State-sponsored school segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education). Generally, the remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#cite_note-cra64-0) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965).


Jim Crow was a policy made to reflect the practices found commonly in society at large.

[Night Ripper]

Jim Crow was a policy made to reflect the practices found commonly in society at large.

Not in all cases and not in the case I mentioned earlier...


Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and early 20th century and the private owners of these systems had absolutely no incentive to segregate the races. Again, in all fairness to all concern, these owners may have been racist themselves, but above-all they were in business to make a profit. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow laws in seating or standing on municipal transit to bring it about.

It was politics that segregated the races because the motivations of the political process are worlds apart from the motivations of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black votes in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process. It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others did not care, that was sufficient politically, because what the blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote. The incentives of the political system and the incentives of the economic system were not only different they caused conflict with each other. Private owners of streetcars, buses and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws as they were being written, the citizens then challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing them.

None of this resistance was based on any desire for civil-rights for blacks. It was based on the fear of losing money if racial segregation caused black customers to use public transportation less often because of this disrespect and offensive behavior of the governmental political process. People who criticize the fact that businesses are in business "just to make money” seldom understand the insinuations of what they are saying. Businesses make money by doing precisely what many or most people want, not at all what they so wish or want. Black people's money was just as good and desirable as white people's money, even though that was not the case when it came to votes.

--Richard Kay, "When Black and White Become Gray"

[RGacky3]

You don't own the sky or down to the center of the Earth.

You actually don't own shit without a state to back it up, but I have as much claim over the space ABOVE my land or below it as I do on the land, its totally arbitrary.


Prove it. Also, show me a way of dealing with property issues that isn't arbitrary. Handed down from God perhaps?


Dealing with it democratically is not arbitrary,

Alos prove the self contradictions? Ok, the principle is first that mixing labor with the land makes it yours, which undoes itself when your talking about wage labor, its a self contradiction, also anything could be considered labor, also if mixing labor with the land makes it yours why? Why do yo uhave to mix labor with it? Also why does that not apply to wage labor?


If all land is privately owned then the victims of negative externalities can sue for damages.

How? You can't do it now,

Anyway, privitizing roads (obviously) is extremely irrational given all the rediculous problems and things that can and WILL go wrong, the only reason you'd want to do it is ideological, its a dumb idea.

[Night Ripper]

You actually don't own shit without a state to back it up, but I have as much claim over the space ABOVE my land or below it as I do on the land, its totally arbitrary.

Then you aren't arguing against my position which is the non-agression principle along with private property rights based on homesteading and legitimate title transfer. I'm not advocating that people be able to own land in the center of the Earth where they've never even been.

You're making a strawman that even I am against.


How? You can't do it now.

You can't sue because private property rights aren't being respected. The government currently gives out permits to pollute and if you are a victim of that pollution, there's nothing you can do in the court.

[RGacky3]

Then you aren't arguing against my position which is the non-agression principle along with private property rights based on homesteading and legitimate title transfer. I'm not advocating that people be able to own land in the center of the Earth where they've never even been.


The homestead principle is'nt even logically coherent, nor has property ever been enforced on that principle.

Also how far down and how far above does the property extend? Or is that just arbitrary?


You can't sue because private property rights aren't being respected. The government currently gives out permits to pollute and if you are a victim of that pollution, there's nothing you can do in the court.

A: People that suffer from pollution can't sue anyone becuase its culmunative.

B: Why would they be able to sue for polution? What principle would that follow? I mean can one store sue a company for laying off workers because it destroys their customer base (an economic externality).

C: Who decides what externality is sueable ... if any?

[danyboy27]

Forget it gacky you are wasting your time, he is doing the good old bud struggle routine of ignoring your point and changing the subject.
There is no dialogue anymore.

[RGacky3]

Your right, Night Ripper, I know your a "rugged individualist," but if we are gonna have a coherent dialog you gotta follow along the same subject and address what is brought up.

[Thirsty Crow]

Your right, Night Ripper, I know your a "rugged individualist," but if we are gonna have a coherent dialog you gotta follow along the same subject and address what is brought up.
A rugged individualist is not bound by conventions of debate, d'oh. It's a glorious monologue in fact, where the "opponent" appears as echo of a rugged individualist's own inner demons trying to seduce him down the path of damned collectivism and herd thinking.

[Night Ripper]

The homestead principle is'nt even logically coherent, nor has property ever been enforced on that principle.

Also how far down and how far above does the property extend? Or is that just arbitrary?

Why isn't it logically coherent? If you're going to make assertions, at least back them up with some kind of argument. Your property extends as far above and below as you have homesteaded. If you build a skyscraper on your property it's quite a bitter farther above than if you just built a barn.


A: People that suffer from pollution can't sue anyone becuase its culmunative.

Each person is responsible for their share. It doesn't matter if it's just 1 person or 1,000.


B: Why would they be able to sue for polution? What principle would that follow?

You're damaging my property.


C: Who decides what externality is sueable ... if any?

Property rights decide that. If you dump garbage on my land, if you leech chemicals into my water supply, etc, etc etc.

By the way, these are very good questions but they aren't arguments.


A rugged individualist is not bound by conventions of debate, d'oh. It's a glorious monologue in fact, where the "opponent" appears as echo of a rugged individualist's own inner demons trying to seduce him down the path of damned collectivism and herd thinking.

Please stop with the pointless commentary. If you're bored, go play a video game. This isn't creative writing class.

[Thirsty Crow]

Please stop with the pointless commentary. If you're bored, go play a video game. This isn't creative writing class.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/015/orly.jpg

[danyboy27]

You do know money is a creation of the state, right?

[Leftsolidarity]

http://ashr.net/fbimages/TROLOLOL.jpg

[Liberalis]

The homestead principle is'nt even logically coherent, nor has property ever been enforced on that principle.

Also how far down and how far above does the property extend? Or is that just arbitrary?
Actually, one example of homesteading in practice that easily comes to mind is the way property was obtained during the California Gold Rush and virtually the entire "wild" west. You do not see homesteading anymore today because virtually all of the land is already owned. That does not mean, however, that it has never existed before.



A: People that suffer from pollution can't sue anyone becuase its culmunative.
It doesn't matter if it is culminative or not. The affects of asbestos are culminative, yet people exposed to asbestos still have the ability to sue. The commercial are constantly on the television.


B: Why would they be able to sue for polution? What principle would that follow? I mean can one store sue a company for laying off workers because it destroys their customer base (an economic externality).
Because pollution violates property rights. Somebody is dumping unwanted material on your land, or in your lungs. It violates both your life and your property. And people have and do sue companies for polluting their land.


C: Who decides what externality is sueable ... if any?
If that externality violates the property rights or life of someone else, it is sueable.

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually, one example of homesteading in practice that easily comes to mind is the way property was obtained during the California Gold Rush and virtually the entire "wild" west. You do not see homesteading anymore today because virtually all of the land is already owned. That does not mean, however, that it has never existed before.

I'm not sure shooting natives in the head counts as a good example of non-aggression.




It doesn't matter if it is culminative or not. The affects of asbestos are culminative, yet people exposed to asbestos still have the ability to sue. The commercial are constantly on the television.


Because pollution violates property rights. Somebody is dumping unwanted material on your land, or in your lungs. It violates both your life and your property. And people have and do sue companies for polluting their land.

My question is; if the polluter just pays off the sue-er and makes them sign a non-disclosure agreement; how is that any better than just polluting and getting away with it?

[Night Ripper]

My question is; if the polluter just pays off the sue-er and makes them sign a non-disclosure agreement; how is that any better than just polluting and getting away with it?

It eliminates the externality. The polluter now has to factor that into their costs. Other firms producing the same thing that can avoid paying those costs will drive polluters out of business through competition and market forces.

[Leftsolidarity]

It eliminates the externality. The polluter now has to factor that into their costs. Other firms producing the same thing that can avoid paying those costs will drive polluters out of business through competition and market forces.

Not only is that just not true but how would this be done again?

Oh yeah, through the private court system that benefits the wealthy. The wealthy (in case you didn't know) would be the people who own large companies that might be causing pollution. I bet that a poor peasant could really sue them. :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

It eliminates the externality. The polluter now has to factor that into their costs. Other firms producing the same thing that can avoid paying those costs will drive polluters out of business through competition and market forces.

That's what they do right now. It doesn't drive them out of business. You rightists sure do think "competition and market forces" are magic, don't you?

[RGacky3]

Actually, one example of homesteading in practice that easily comes to mind is the way property was obtained during the California Gold Rush and virtually the entire "wild" west. You do not see homesteading anymore today because virtually all of the land is already owned. That does not mean, however, that it has never existed before.


Bullshit, these were mostly government grants given by the state. They meant nothing without the government grants.


Each person is responsible for their share. It doesn't matter if it's just 1 person or 1,000.


Who enforces that?


You're damaging my property.


And what? How would you enforce that?

Also he's not directly damaging your property at all.


Property rights decide that. If you dump garbage on my land, if you leech chemicals into my water supply, etc, etc etc.

By the way, these are very good questions but they aren't arguments.


If chemicals get into your water supply does'nt mean shit, because its not YOUR water supply, you'd be limiting MY right to do what I want with MY property.

They are arguments in hte sense that they show the unworkability of what your proposing.

btw, what about economic esternalities (something you totally ignored).


It doesn't matter if it is culminative or not. The affects of asbestos are culminative, yet people exposed to asbestos still have the ability to sue. The commercial are constantly on the television.


ONLY if it was directly an employment issue.


Because pollution violates property rights. Somebody is dumping unwanted material on your land, or in your lungs. It violates both your life and your property. And people have and do sue companies for polluting their land.


Sue who? Who are you going to sue? How?

Who do you sue for acid rain? I mean this is totally rediculous.


It eliminates the externality. The polluter now has to factor that into their costs. Other firms producing the same thing that can avoid paying those costs will drive polluters out of business through competition and market forces.

No he does'nt, because its impossible to enforce anything like that just through civil suits, not to mention that most people could'nt afford that, not to mention that most of it is culmunative with many different companies, not to mention that its impossible to prove direct connections in these cases, not to mention you'd be limiting what people can do ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. Not to mention your basically giving justice only to those who can afford it.

Not to mention your TOTALLY IGNORING economic externalities.

[danyboy27]

you do know ripper that money is issued by the state, right?

[Revolution starts with U]

It doesn't have to be.

... but when it's not it usually just leads to all kinds of competing currencies, and accompyaning competing fraud. It gets to the point, this is historically verified, where Chase money doesn't work with Sears, because Sears using Huntington Bank monies. And HB monies don't work at Wal Mart, because Wal Mart uses CitiBank monies. So now you have another middle man pilfering money off you, the money changer.

Sounds like an awesome system.

[danyboy27]

It doesn't have to be.

... but when it's not it usually just leads to all kinds of competing currencies, and accompyaning competing fraud. It gets to the point, this is historically verified, where Chase money doesn't work with Sears, because Sears using Huntington Bank monies. And HB monies don't work at Wal Mart, because Wal Mart uses CitiBank monies. So now you have another middle man pilfering money off you, the money changer.

Sounds like an awesome system.

Its the free market yo.

[Leftsolidarity]

It doesn't have to be.

... but when it's not it usually just leads to all kinds of competing currencies, and accompyaning competing fraud. It gets to the point, this is historically verified, where Chase money doesn't work with Sears, because Sears using Huntington Bank monies. And HB monies don't work at Wal Mart, because Wal Mart uses CitiBank monies. So now you have another middle man pilfering money off you, the money changer.

Sounds like an awesome system.

Sounds like liberation to me. THE FREER THE MARKET THE FREER THE PEOPLE!!!!

lulz

[Night Ripper]

It doesn't have to be.

... but when it's not it usually just leads to all kinds of competing currencies, and accompyaning competing fraud. It gets to the point, this is historically verified, where Chase money doesn't work with Sears, because Sears using Huntington Bank monies. And HB monies don't work at Wal Mart, because Wal Mart uses CitiBank monies. So now you have another middle man pilfering money off you, the money changer.

Sounds like an awesome system.

Sounds like BS to me.

[Conscript]

Private property pretty much is in general.

[Night Ripper]

Private property pretty much is in general.

Why?

[danyboy27]

Sounds like BS to me.

It used to be like that.

[Conscript]

Why?

Scarcity is a terrible thing. The solution to it isn't the accumulation of what is there for its ability to be exchanged profitably, or produce such things. The inevitable conclusion is a dispossessed class of wage laborers and the widespread rule of capital, which has no interest in abundance.

Plus with capital, comes its state, which enforces the interests and ruling ideas of the bourgeoisie. Different states compete for resources to turn into national capital and eventually becoming warring assholes that send workers to their deaths in blind nationalist vigor.

[The Teacher]

As long as this state consists of people that voluntarily joined then I'm not against it. I'm against coercion, not organization.

What part of heavily armed dictatorship don't you get. States are NOT voluntary.

[Night Ripper]

What part of heavily armed dictatorship don't you get. States are NOT voluntary.

Let's not split hairs. I'm not against voluntary organizations, chess clubs, unions, etc.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Those are components of civil society, not the state.

[RGacky3]

Let's not split hairs. I'm not against voluntary organizations, chess clubs, unions, etc.

What prevents private "states" from forming and strong arming people? Other than "you" being against it.


Sounds like BS to me.

Read it again.