Help the Stupid Cappie...

[rachstev]

OK, I read all that stuff that a lot of you post about how our (American) democracy is fake and communism would bring about real domocracy. Of course you know I don't agree with you and in fact believe opposite.

But maybe you can answer this because it's really bugged me. It's in two parts.

1. When it comes to the "path to socialism" that Russia must have been on SOME time during their revolution, like in the early Leninist days, and that China was on in the '50s", and Vietnam could have been on, and East Germany may have begun as, all of them failed, either as an institution (such as Russian and East Germany) or as Socialist states, such as the PRC and Vietnam. Why? Where did they go "wrong". At what point in the road map were they supposed to turn Left and instead turned Right (don't know if the pun was intended.)?

2. WHY has China and Vietnam abandoned socialism for capitalism? Was there a meeting somewhere where one PRC party leader said, "Hey, let's get some cool movies, clothes and cars. And some neat-o cell phones, too." But another person was supposed to say, "Ummm, no. We're the fucken People's Republic of China. We don't do that. That's America you want. Let's talk about health care, and farming communes, and food distribution, and education, and equity." Cause if someone said that last thing, the guy who won was the movies and cell phone guy. Why are these nations presently turning to cappie-style decisions.

RULE FOR ANSWERING #2: You are NOT allowed to say that socialism can only work where THE WHOLE WORLD IS SOCIALIST. China and Vietnam COULD, if they wanted to, remain on the Marxist path. But let's face it, there is in China and Vietnam a growing gap between the classes. They could make internal decisions that would prevent this. Instead, they're encouraging the conduct that is bringing about class division.

Rachstev

[FleasTheLemur]

Hard questions, but deserving of an half-witted answer by myself and a much better answers by more well rehearsed commies.

1) There's a scad of reasons for this, though the primary one I believe in is the fact that the effort was too centralized and controlled by authoritarian figures and not the people themselves. Of course, these governments would desolve and/or reform to the point that they'd serve their own interests, as predicted rather accurately by Leon Trotsky.

2) As answered before, those in power are looking to their own interest more so than the people's interest and by allowing capitalism in, it's more money for themselves. Of course, I'm no expert on the capitalization of China, however.

[top_chat]

socialism has never really been properly implemented, the bolsheviks in russia before the revolution used slogans like "all power to the workers" and "all land to the peasants" and so on but as soon as they got power drop these principles like a brick. the kronstadt rebellion in 1920 demanded that these maxims be implemented and were massacred for their effort, a lucky few managing to escape to finland. in a proper communist state all businesses would be run like cooperative companies so people would be more in control in the economy, combine that with a pr democracy and bobs your uncle. most 'communist' countries were run by dictators and, although they might have started out with good intentions you know what they say, absolute power corrupts absolutly. in addition it wasn't people with the best abilities but those that were most loyal that got to run the economy so when they couldn't beat them they joined them, big mistake.

[Sabocat]

I like this explanation by Blum..

The boys of capital; they chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century-without exception-has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement-from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the EMLN in El Salvador-not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.

-William Blum

[spartafc]

1) ".....Why? Where did they go "wrong". At what point in the road map were they supposed"

The military, political might of each capitalist nation was directed towards the destruction of the early Socialist state. There was little opportunity for Russia to work under these conditions. Marx talks about the need for world communism and so does Lenin/Trotsky. Without the global conditions little could be done - however 'left' or 'right' subsequent leaders may have been.

It's impossible to make generalisations about China, Russia, Cuba without looking at the individual situations in the country concerned.

2) "WHY has China and Vietnam abandoned socialism for capitalism?"

Either the bureaucracy, becoming ever more the organ of the world bourgeoisie in the workers state, will overthrow the new forms of property and plunge the country back to capitalism; or the working class will crush the bureaucracy and open the way to socialism. - Leon Trotsky, 1938

We can quite clearly see which seems most likely to have occurred in China.

[Commie-Pinko]

OK, I read all that stuff that a lot of you post about how our (American) democracy is fake and communism would bring about real domocracy. Of course you know I don't agree with you and in fact believe opposite.

Foremost:

Our American Democracy is not so much fake, rather that it's not a true Democracy as you are probably thinking of it. A Democracy is "rule by the people." The "true" Democracy is one man, one vote. There are no representitives. You are your own representitive and you vote on policy, issues, laws etc.

The United States is what we call a Democratic Federal Republic. It combines aspects of Federalism, Republicanism, and Democracy. The majority of our "people-democracy" characteristics were not originally a part of the American System, rather a product of the 1930-40's; basically, they came about during the Era of Jacksonian Democracy.

Neoterically, we vote on representitives who vote on issues, unless, of course, you live in California, where things are slightly different in some areas. Most Americans don't have one vote for policies and issues.

Secondly:

Not all Communism is Democratic. You do have democratic communism--this is typically small-scale communism based off of Direct Democracy. This type of Communism is most closely associated with a Virtual Democracy. This, however, is nothing at all like what has currently been seen. We have seen authoritarian Communism/extreme socialism.

I have been restricted here, even though I am not an opponent of Communism at all. I don't know why, since I am not against them. I merely hold an altered ideology. I am not a marxist. I like communism (voluntary), just not forced (Communism). What we have seen is a version of Authoritarian Communism (Communism is really just an extreme form of Socialism).

There are many voluntary communes, which are mini-communist societies that work well. The current August version of National Geographic just had several articles on a Virginia Commune that works very well to this day, and most of the people are very happy there.





1. When it comes to the "path to socialism" that Russia must have been on SOME time during their revolution, like in the early Leninist days, and that China was on in the '50s", and Vietnam could have been on, and East Germany may have begun as, all of them failed, either as an institution (such as Russian and East Germany) or as Socialist states, such as the PRC and Vietnam. Why? Where did they go "wrong". At what point in the road map were they supposed to turn Left and instead turned Right (don't know if the pun was intended.)?

WHere they went wrong is that extreme forms of Socialism don't work. Moderate forms do work and are actually ethical imperatives. As well, they were highly authoritarian States with extremely weak, meaningless Constitutions.



2. WHY has China and Vietnam abandoned socialism for capitalism?
Was there a meeting somewhere where one PRC party leader said, "Hey, let's get some cool movies, clothes and cars. And some neat-o cell phones, too." But another person was supposed to say, "Ummm, no. We're the fucken People's Republic of China. We don't do that. That's America you want. Let's talk about health care, and farming communes, and food distribution, and education, and equity." Cause if someone said that last thing, the guy who won was the movies and cell phone guy. Why are these nations presently turning to cappie-style decisions.

Because extreme socialism does not work, and Capitalism mixed with Socialism is far better and ethical. You are creating a bit of a false dilemma. ONe does not have to choose between Socialism and Capitalism. They aren't mutually exclusive. YOu can have one AND the other. ONe does not focus ONLY on cell phones and cars, while the other focuses on health, education, and redistribution. You need both, and mixed, they provide both.

[Forward Union]

Our American Democracy is not so much fake, rather that it's not a true Democracy as you are probably thinking of it. A Democracy is "rule by the people." The "true" Democracy is one man, one vote. There are no representitives. You are your own representitive and you vote on policy, issues, laws etc.

You pretty much explained it, the USA institutes a 'Representative Democracy', which by definition isn't actually a democracy, it's a republic.

To distinguish the bastardised version from the real, Democracy is referred to as 'Direct Democracy' which is as you described it; everyone is their own representative. Everyone rules themselves. A better description of Direct Democracy can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Democracy).

Since Freedom is the absence of arbitrary authority, one cannot be free In a hierarchy, and thus, only with the destruction of the state and hierarchy can one be 'free'. The US therefor does not support Freedom.

We have seen authoritarian Communism/extreme socialism.

Where? Russia? China? They were Authoritarian yes, but I wouldn't call them communist.

[quincunx5]

To distinguish the bastardised version from the real, Democracy is referred to as 'Direct Democracy' which is as you described it; everyone is their own representative. Everyone rules themselves.


Direct democracy is not 'Everyone rules themselves'. That would be total lack of democracy. That would be anarcho-capitalism - which IS highly preferable.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:11 AM
Direct democracy is not 'Everyone rules themselves'. That would be total lack of democracy. That would be anarcho-capitalism - which IS highly preferable.
You don't 'rule yourself' in "anarcho" capitalism, your labor is still estranged.

[quincunx5]

You don't 'rule yourself' in "anarcho" capitalism, your labor is still estranged.


Look up anarcho-capitalism. You devote your labour only if you want to. Property rights exist only to those that use the property (ex. I can't own undeveloped land for any significant time unless I develop something on it, otherwise you can claim it for yourself and build something upon it). It is not a 'work' or 'die' situation that you collectivists complain about because there is always a piece of land for you to find and develop for your self. You may choose to work only so that you can acquire some skill or raise funds to obtain a piece of desirable property.

Do you at least agree that direct democracy is not 'everyone rules themselves'?

Please tell me then what kind of system exists where 'everyone rules themselves'?

Please don't tell me communism, I've laughed too much today already.

[rachstev]

Additives Free Wrote:

Since Freedom is the absence of arbitrary authority, one cannot be free In a hierarchy, and thus, only with the destruction of the state and hierarchy can one be 'free'. The US therefor does not support Freedom.

This is, of course, absurd. The United States of America, far more than any nation in history, has supported freedom.

But, as a legal concept, one can't really discuss freedom. It's vague and means too many things to too many different peoples.

It is far better to discuss rights, which our American society does protect, and nearly mean similar things to most people.

But rights aren't total; they are not all plenary, they are limited in scope, and the Supreme Court has defined those limitations.

When it comes to freedom, one could technically find an area more free than areas in the U.S., as long as their is an absence of authority. Here, Additives Free, is where we agree.

But one would be hard pressed to find or create or sustain such a place.

Naturally, it depends upon the resources. If they are plentiful, there will by competition for them, and, eventually, authority. If you go to many places in Africa, where men have mounted guns on trucks, they have created authority. It may not be state sponsored, but it serves as authority. In any construct of anarchy, you will have such men, and the notion that the many come together to defeat such a foe is a fairy tale. The many are exploited by such a minority, and that minority become the only authority that means anything to them.

Only through rule of law, then, can happiness be pursued. This is a universal standard.

Rachstev

[No. 355728]

No police does not necessarly mean, no Laws.

In my understanding anarchists rejects illegitimate authority, such as arbitrary authority, in which you have no say in. That is, in such a way that the authority is not imposed on you arbitrarily, but rather imposed by your own reason. «Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority.» as Bakunin said it. Legitimate authority.

(Don't take my word for it, it's just my personal observation. ;) )

[Freedom Works]

Which is exactly why anarcho-capitalists are the true anarchists.

[No. 355728]

Irrelevant.

[SweatyJerry]

2. Because it's way fuckin' easier to modernize and industrialize when you let the capitalists do it for you. Gets a significant number of your people out of poverty, brings in cash revenue so you can build the public works, and facilities so you have a better way to implement your social plans and ideas. The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were pretty much just giant meat grinders that ate up peasants, so Deng decided to give something else a shot and it appears to have worked. If you can strike a balance between the efficiency and drive of capitalism and the humanitarianism of socialism, more power to ya.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 20 2005, 02:50 PM
Which is exactly why anarcho-capitalists are the true anarchists.
:lol: The true anarchists?


If I remember correctly your bastardized conception of anarchism came far after bakunin or prodhoun started writing.

[quincunx5]

If I remember correctly your bastardized conception of anarchism came far after bakunin or prodhoun started writing.


Anarco-capitalism has been actually practiced before.

Where as every other form of "anarchy" is just non-practical theory.

[Freedom Works]

If I remember correctly your bastardized conception of anarchism came far after bakunin or prodhoun started writing.

I guess that means it's just fake then!

Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

[rachstev]

Disgustapated wrote:

The boys of capital; they chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century-without exception-has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement-from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the EMLN in El Salvador-not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
-William Blum


I cannot agree with you. China is big enough to stand on its own two feet. What ever this Blum citation applies to, it cannot apply in this case. I will explain in a fuller post.

[quincunx5]

one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits


The actual demise of the Soviet Union came from within. It was not outside forces
that made it fail, it was outside ideas.

None of these Socialist movements showed any signs of flowing into anarcho-communism as Marx predicted. The Socialists tried to use propaganda to its fullest abilities. Growing up in the USSR, there was practically no way to get outside information from the media that was not first censored and diluted. Luckily, thanks to the black market (anarcho-capitalism), the people finally avoided tyranny. Not to say that Russia is doing all the right things now. Only Estonia is.



And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century-without exception-has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States.


It's funny that the classical liberal ideas which led to the American Revolution was crushed, overthrown, invaded, corrupted, perverted, subverted by the loyal statists among the people.



not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.


Social Experimenters need a monopoly on land? They should uneconomically impoverish their land and resources, without allowing others to overtake them to use the natural resources in a rational way?

There is no 'nation' without some kind of guard. You can't just arbitrarily create borders, without enforcing them.

[Morpheus]

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Anarchism means no hierarchy, a system where everyone rules themselves. In capitalism your'e ruled by a boss. That's a hierarchy, so it's not anarchy. Plus, capitalism requires a state to enforce private property. Some capitalists want "private defense agencies" or something along those lines to enforce private property, but these are just privately owned states.

See The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand (http://mutualist.org/id4.html) for more on how capitalism is statist.

[Freedom Works]

"Anarcho"-collectivism is a contradiction in terms. Anarchy means no government (governing defined as enforcing will) thus if "anarcho"-communists are taking my stuff, they are enforcing their will, and it is not anarchy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 25 2005, 04:29 PM
"Anarcho"-collectivism is a contradiction in terms. Anarchy means no government (governing defined as enforcing will) thus if "anarcho"-communists are taking my stuff, they are enforcing their will, and it is not anarchy.
That's an overly simplistic definition of government. Besides, anarchists are against the State (And hierarchy) not government, which is a form of organisation.

[Freedom Works]

Anarchists are against forced hierarchy.

And it is not an overly simplistic definition, is it the correct one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 25 2005, 04:51 PM
Anarchists are against forced hierarchy.

Forced or not, Hierarchy is inherently oppressive.


And it is not an overly simplistic definition, is it the correct one.

No it isn't. By giving such a simplistic definition, any enforcement of will becomes a government. If I threaten you with murder if you don't do something I tell you, does that make me a government?

[Freedom Works]

Forced or not, Hierarchy is inherently oppressive.
ONLY if it is involuntary.


No it isn't. By giving such a simplistic definition, any enforcement of will becomes a government. If I threaten you with murder if you don't do something I tell you, does that make me a government?
Yes. Not one that proclaims to be legitimate, but still government.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom Works+Sep 25 2005, 12:37 PM--> (Freedom Works @ Sep 25 2005, 12:37 PM)
Forced or not, Hierarchy is inherently oppressive.
ONLY if it is involuntary. [/b]
Bullshit; you can be brainwashed and oppressed. Just because people don't know how to fight back or are confused, doesn’t mean they are not oppressed.



No it isn't. By giving such a simplistic definition, any enforcement of will becomes a government. If I threaten you with murder if you don't do something I tell you, does that make me a government?
Yes. Not one that proclaims to be legitimate, but still government.

This is getting absurd. Definitions aren't toys for argument convenience; stop being intellectually dishonest.


The definition
gov•ern•ment (gŭv'ərn-mənt)
n.

1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
1. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
2. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
3. The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.

NoXion is not a government; you might argue that he is part of a governing body on this board, as I, but that is completely disconnected to the topic of discussion anyway!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes. Not one that proclaims to be legitimate, but still government.

Why do you feel the need to fuck about with definitions to support your argument?

[Freedom Works]

Bullshit; you can be brainwashed and oppressed. Just because people don't know how to fight back or are confused, doesn’t mean they are not oppressed.
Oppression is not an absolute.



gov·ern (gŭv'ərn) pronunciation
v., -erned, -ern·ing, -erns.
v.tr.
1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.
2. To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake.
3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people.
4. To keep under control; restrain: a student who could not govern his impulses.
5. To exercise a deciding or determining influence on: Chance usually governs the outcome of the game.
6. Grammar. To require (a specific morphological form) of accompanying words.

Soley because it is a radical theory does not discredit it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 25 2005, 01:41 PM

Bullshit; you can be brainwashed and oppressed. Just because people don't know how to fight back or are confused, doesn’t mean they are not oppressed.
Oppression is not an absolute.
Absolute in what sense? I don't even see how this is relevant...


Soley because it is a radical theory does not discredit it.

I never said it did; you are just changing the subject. The discussion was about anarchism and you are rambling.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 25 2005, 04:29 PM
"Anarcho"-collectivism is a contradiction in terms. Anarchy means no government (governing defined as enforcing will) thus if "anarcho"-communists are taking my stuff, they are enforcing their will, and it is not anarchy.
Taking "your" stuff is not enforcing our will on you. It is refusing to obey an imaginary "right" capitalists made up. And even if it were, that wouldn't make it government. A kidnapper may force his will upon his victim, that doesn't make him a government.

[Freedom Works]

Taking "your" stuff is not enforcing our will on you.
If I mix my labor with unclaimed or abandoned property, and homestead it, it is mine. Thus you would be enforcing your will even if you reject the philosophy.


It is refusing to obey an imaginary "right" capitalists made up.
No, it is using force against my just property.


A kidnapper may force his will upon his victim, that doesn't make him a government.
If a kidnapper is governing the victim, how is that not government?

[TheReadMenace]

Wow, this got kind of off-topic.

Rachstev:

You said that China is big enough to stand on its own two feet. That's only true to a certain extent. Yes, every country can be self-sustained, but at some point it needs other countries. America is big enough to stand on its own two feet, but it needs trade to survive. How it trades, though, is a problem, but that's a different topic entirely...


The United States of America, far more than any nation in history, has supported freedom

I take issue with that. Look at American Military involvement in Latin America in the 80s, as well as its involvement in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and pretty much all of southeast Asia.

I don't know how much time you have to read books, but read A People'e History of the Vietnam War.

America supports freedom - but only the freedom of those who call the shots.

I live three hours from the US-Mexico border. I quick trip across the border shows the extent to which America supports freedom. Yeah, you could argue that it's the Mexican government's fault, but how is the blame placed solely on Mexico if a good portion of the industries are foreign-owned, and many of them sweatshops? NAFTA and FTAA are facades; I know, because I've seen first-hand the 'benefits' they create.

The thing is, there have been nations that try to follow socialism and fall apart. Usually, the collapse is caused by leadership being too centralised and estranged from the people, and/or by outside intervention. This outside intervention doesn't necessarily need to be military, but can take the form of economic sanctions, embargoes, and even propoganda.

People look at Cuba and say: "See! It will never work! He's a dictator!" and then talk about the Cuban missle crisis, or whatever. But they don't realise that the whole thing could have been avoided if the American government really supported freedom and left the country to make its own decisions. But instead, they imposed embargoes on the country, cutting off trade and medicine and the likes. And we wonder why the Cuban economy is suffering.

In my opinion, we can't look to Russia or China or Vietnam for examples of how socialism could work. Yeah, we need to critique them, but if you really want inspiration, look at Latin America right now.

Hope that helps a bit. I felt like I was rambling, but oh well, hah.

Andrew

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If a kidnapper is governing the victim, how is that not government?

Kidnappers don't govern their victims, they coerce them.

Government may involve coercion, but not all coercion is government. To claim otherwise is to make the term meaningless.

[No. 355728]

No, it is using force against my just property.

There is no such thing as a 'natural right', it's a subjective ethical code, they ought to have those rights.


ONLY if it is involuntary.
... and with that notion you can ethically justify state socialism, as long as it is voluntary. If i convince you of something, whatever it is, and you 'freely' agree, then it's ok. In other words the amount of individual liberty is just a variable.

[rachstev]

TheReadMenace,

Yes, you got off topic, but nearly everyone else has. I asked people to tell me why communist nations (I know, there are none) are turning to free enterprise. The discussion got on to tangets of which I have no interests.

RE: your taking issue w/ my American freedom comments, I, too, live 2 1/2 hours from Mexico. (Are you in the San Fernando Valley? That's 3 hours.) As thousands of Mexicans try to get to the United States daily, and hardly any at all try the reverse, I'll let that answer any issue there.

Mexican people are the best. I had a gf from Mexico and speak some of the language. I know many who are Mexican and Mexican American. But all of them hate the corruption at every level of their society.

I have realized after beginning this thread that the answer to my question is that people, by nature, hate oppression, and are therefore, bound to hate the Chinese and Vietnamese govt if they deny them feedoms, including freedom of commerce.

So the Party in these areas has become a joke. As should be expected. That's now my view.

Rachstev

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 25 2005, 10:58 PM
If I mix my labor with unclaimed or abandoned property, and homestead it, it is mine. Thus you would be enforcing your will even if you reject the philosophy.
Just because you say that is true doesn't mean it is true. All your'e doing is repeating your original claim. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.


If a kidnapper is governing the victim, how is that not government?

A kidnapper doesn't "govern" the victim, s/he has established a hierarchy with him/herself over the victim. Government is a specific kind of hierarchy. It's a hierarchical organization that maintains a monopoly or near-monopoly of legitimate violence over particular area(s). Even Ayn Rand could grasp this in its basics. In other words, political hierarchy. There are other kinds of hierarchy: gender hierarchy, economic hierarchy, etc.

[Freedom Works]

Just because you say that is true doesn't mean it is true.
Duh. But just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it's not.


Government is a specific kind of hierarchy.
Government is forced hierarchy. Forced hierarchy is government.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 27 2005, 12:50 PM

Government is a specific kind of hierarchy.
Government is forced hierarchy. Forced hierarchy is government.
Not according to the definition you posted; why don't you follow the topic and make a coherent point? Stop making wild assertions and prove proof, if you have any :rolleyes:

[quincunx5]

There is no such thing as a 'natural right', it's a subjective ethical code, they ought to have those rights.


Those rights are normative. You have the right to do whatever the fuck you want, aside from limiting someone else's freedom.

Leftist/Socialist/Communist rights essentially enslave the productive people to take care of the non-productive.

So really, if one is going to have rights, which make sense? I have to vote in opposition to slavery.

[No. 355728]

Originally posted by quincunx5
Those rights are normative. You have the right to do whatever the fuck you want, aside from limiting someone else's freedom.

It's nothing but an Aristotelian analysis based on a subjective axiom, which i could simply disagree with. In this respect the Hobbesian rights are the antonym to the Lockean rights. It's a subjective ethical code, they ought to have those rights.


I have to vote in opposition to slavery.

As far as i know Nozick used the term (referring to taxation) 'forced labor', but i know that 'slavery' has been used in other libertarian texts. I would think that anyone with a clue of economics would see through this bullshit. And I would again refer to the political theory of John Rawls.


So really, if one is going to have rights, which make sense?
Rights that actually are rights.

Locke's analysis of the 'state of nature' was to a large extent of egalitarian societies, far from what a libertarian society would look like. This gives the Hobbesian rights an interesting role.

[quincunx5]

It's nothing but an Aristotelian analysis based on a subjective axiom, which i could simply disagree with.


Of course you can disagree if the axiom is subjective. Duh.

But don't confuse an axiom of subjectivism with a subjective axiom.



It's a subjective ethical code, they ought to have those rights.


It has no basis, if it is subjective. Subjective would mean they personally think they have those rights. That is not the case. It is a natural right for humans to ACT.



As far as i know Nozick used the term (referring to taxation) 'forced labor', but i know that 'slavery' has been used in other libertarian texts. I would think that anyone with a clue of economics would see through this bullshit.


Nozick? Why the hell would you pick him? He's nothing but a short-term compromising libertarian. Why don't you pick Rothbard or Hoppe, and then get back to me.

Economics does not really apply. The TAX is not set by economists, but by politicans and bureaucrats. Economics only aims to solve the problem of getting around them.

And how is it that a government whose only essense should be to protect private property rights, today extracts on average 40% (in the US) of the wealth of individual private property?
That seems like an absurd payment for something that one could have done been done with one's close neighbors.



Locke's analysis of the 'state of nature' was to a large extent of egalitarian societies, far from what a libertarian society would look like. This gives the Hobbesian rights an interesting role.


Hobbesian rights? You mean like "man is another man's wolf". That's the kind of rights you like?

---

Thanks for dancing around the simple question.

Are you for negative or positive rights?

How do you justify the right of a man to be served by another man?

[No. 355728]

It has no basis, if it is subjective. Subjective would mean they personally think they have those rights. That is not the case.

That’s exactly the case. You say you (ought to) have a right to your private property and when i disagree with the axiom, these 'rights' makes no sense. You could explain why tribes had no problem with taking the property, through physical coercion, of other tribes, something Locke neglected. (And don't give med this randian dogmatic, 'they gave them freedom', nonsense).


Nozick? Why the hell would you pick him? He's nothing but a short-term compromising libertarian. Why don't you pick Rothbard or Hoppe, and then get back to me.
Economics does not really apply. The TAX is not set by economists, but by politicians and bureaucrats. Economics only aims to solve the problem of getting around them

I've read Murray Rotherbard, but i have to say I'm rather unfamiliar with Hoppe. I'm criticizing the use of those concepts, what you said have nothing to do with that.


Hobbesian rights? You mean like "man is another man's wolf". That's the kind of rights you like?

You are referring to a general statement of Locke's analysis and the libertarian use of the lockean rights. What i like is irrelevant to that statement.

[quincunx5]

You could explain why tribes had no problem with taking the property, through physical coercion, of other tribes, something Locke neglected. (And don't give med this randian dogmatic, 'they gave them freedom', nonsense).


I detest Rand, so please don't bring her in.

Just because private property exists and is recognized by a given tribe, does not mean that it must be respected by anothe tribe.

People in their respective regions have recognized that the best way to serve each other is to respect each other's property and trade instead.

Government then came in to extract this wealth and impose it's own disrespect agains other governments.

Please address this:

Are you for negative or positive rights?

How do you justify the right of a man to be served by another man?

Don't bring Locke, Hobbes, or Rand, or any author into this unless it directly answered these questions.

[No. 355728]

Just because private property exists and is recognized by a given tribe, does not mean that it must be respected by another tribe.


I'm referring to a situation where both tribes respect private property. This is the current case in Indonesian tribes, which to some extent respect private property.


People in their respective regions have recognized that the best way to serve each other is to respect each other's property and trade instead.
Government then came in to extract this wealth and impose it's own disrespect agains other governments

Governments were voluntarily structured, in negation of individual liberty, to protect a given society from others. Realized in order to survive.


Please address this: .......

Irrelevant. I don't have time to enter this digression, however it would be interesting to follow up on this if I have time, maybe after two, three months.

[Freedom Works]

Governments were voluntarily structured, in negation of individual liberty, to protect a given society from others.
A 'voluntary government' is not "government" at all, it is a club.

[No. 355728]

It's a social structure.

[Freedom Works]

Not a voluntary one, so it is illegitimate.

[No. 355728]

Irrelevant. It's still a social structure.

[Freedom Works]

Sure, if you call a club a social structure.

[No. 355728]

A state is a state, it has the same social structure, regardless of if it's voluntary or not.


Sure, if you call a club a social structure.

Obviously you don't. "Not a voluntary one...."

[Freedom Works]

State: compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent

[KC]

The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule.


Originally posted by The State And Revolution
The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

[No. 355728]

State: compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent [and with unanimuous consent].

A society could voluntarily agree that a social structure in the given society should have that 'power', the state.

Edit: I'm going away to a military camp, so I won't be able to reply. (Perhaps after four months).