Results 141 to 160 of 204
There just won't be legal protection of the trade secrets, so people could copy what you do.
And can you guys put those huge pics in spoilers or something? Hard on the eyes
"We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass." Karl Marx
I mean, this once again demonstrates that you are not taking the actual, material situation on the ground into account. Trade secrets are certain documents held by the large business sector, by trade associations and cartels, whose secrecy is the result of violence enforcement. Someone "with an idea in their head" and nothing else can't influence the process of production at all.
Even still we cant assume everyone will know everything. A guy could certainly exploit others with his 30 years of experience in whatever trade.
Ah that makes much more sense.
1.Still though how are you going to prevent people from creating new written laws in the new society?
2.How will you transition to this non-written law system initially?
3.Why are written laws inherently corrupt and undesirable?
4. Could a complex society and economy (that is a globalized and industrial one) be managed without written laws?
1. People are free to write stuff down. But trying to physically enforce it is and would continue to be an attack. Free individuals who become aware of these attacks would be free to defend against it.
2. Stop following written law. Hopefully it would be a peaceful revolution. But to enforce the written law is considered an attack and nobody can morally hold it against anyone who decides to defend themselves physically.
3. Because the second a law is written and a person reads it, they'll ask "or what?" and the answer that follows would require a ruler. That ruler would need funding to rule and the big bang theory has commenced.
4. I think so. Its not complex at all.
Before I reply to you above points in full anti-archy can you just clarify for me whether you believe a contract would constitute a written law under your system?
I think the problem with this is that capitalism is competitive, pitting people against each other. And since competition implies winning and losing, wouldn't hierarchical government inevitably spring from this type of societal organization? Especially this would be so if anarchist capitalism couldn't address social conditions that lead to crime.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
"I will smack your face off of your face"
-Charlie Day
I would say no. Its a contract between two free individuals and they are free to stipulate any kind of agreement between themselves in writing if they like. They could even agree to adress any disputes with a specified neutral private party.
1. Well given your definition then contracts are a form of law and violence. What if the person changes their mind or better yet what if the contract was incomplete or poorly designed, who is going to interpret them, what if the neutral body isn’t as neutral as advertised? Its rather utopian to assume that in this new world everyone will be capable and willing to design such effective contracts and documents.
Additionally going along your definition when does some stop being ‘free’ enough to legitimately enter a contract and in such a case what will happen? On as small scale and in a completely open system this would work fine but outside of a commune like society how could this work? Can you negotiate the terms and conditions on software purchases or with larger companies, what do I do if employers refuse to negotiate or only allow the mediation body of their choosing and I lack the resources to travel to a viable location am I still free?
2. So the solution can only come when a majority of the population (both in numbers and power) becomes enlightened? What of the people who have a vested interest in maintaining a system of written laws, do you think upon hearing your arguments they will just surrender? Communists (the Utopian Socialists) and religionists have been attempting this kind of method for hundreds of years, why will you succeed while they fail?
3. But that doesn’t follow at all, collective and social pressure (ie isolation) can be used to enforce rules, I grant you that some of the rules that are written down are not as intuitive but committing them to writing doesn’t automatically create rulers (unless of course by rulers you mean anything that restrains individual action). Likewise if you dont commit rules (relying on intuition and contract [even though it arguably conflicts with your idea]) to paper and make them accessible how are you going to maintain a sociality with a large amount of social values without stigmatising minority views? How do you prevent contracts from creating a new big bang?
4. I suggest you look into this more, even on a small scale for instance how do you think a an international company could deliver without internal policies and laws? How will you deal with environmental, labour and foreign policy issues? Would it be with a huge amount of contracts thus creating a new law? If a company wanted to plan a new air route would it have to sign contracts or make agreements every single person who’s home is along its route?
I think precedence over what is and isn't anarchism goes not only to its historic use but its common use as well which on both accounts anarchism then is that philosophy and movement that emerged from the workers/socialist movement.
I don't think we have similiar definitions or terminology. Talk of rulers and of tyrants is all very well in some fiery speech but it's not an avenue for analysis. It's why we talk of class society, of racism, of patriarchy etc. We have a different understanding of the world, different methods for affecting the world around us and different aims.
1) Given my definition a written law does not include contracts which Is why when you asked me to specify I did. Ive found the term I needed to use and its Positive Law. That should clear up any confusion. Now a contract Is a written agreement between free individuals and not an agreement of a few or a majority to impose on everyone or a group etc. They both agree to the contract and it only involves them personally.
I do not believe that my world would be a Coca-Cola commercial where the whole world is holding hands. Thats a socialists idea. You assume in my world everyone will still live equally happy lives. Thats not the case. If you're a total idiot then you'll probably be less successful in life. You are free to learn and become successful but its kind of up to you and those in your community who care about you. So now your thinking "OMG HE WANTS TO DESTROY THE UNIVERSE", because I just said the exact opposite of what communism intends to accomplish.
2) Ive list context for this one now. I cant remember what I wrote and cant view it from here.
3) Yes I believe that anything that restrains individual action is a ruler. I dont see how anyone could see it differently. I want to do something and you are stopping me. That makes you my ruler, assuming the person restraining you isn't stopping you from infringing on anothers inalienable right. You're free to do anything that doesn't infringe on anothers inalienable rights.
4) Im not sure of the exact question but I am certainly still researching and trying to nail down everything I believe. I certainly don't have all the answers. Some guys get a book outlining what to do. Others see flaw in all ideologies and have to figure it out on their own. lol
1) There's a whole lot wrong with everything you're saying but one of the most glaring issues is the assumption that "free individual's" contracts don't affect those not in that contract. That labor, production, culture, etc. are not all produced in a socialized way. They might be "owned" by an individual but everything is a product of laborers that might be separated by a few inches on an assembly line or oceans apart from each other making different parts, transporting, sorting, etc. Capitalism, particularly the industrial revolution, socialized production on a scale never seen before. Even capitalist theory recognizes that there is almost always a third party affected by others action. What if your neighbor agreed to let toxic waste be dumped in his yard for money? It's their choice as a "free individual" but it will probably affect you very poorly. Are you going to become his (quoting your term) "ruler" or are you just going to move?
3) There's never just a "ruler" or laws. There's class rule and laws created by a certain class. Along with that is also what is viewed as a right or not. Capitalists view property and exploitation as a right. I view self-determination as a right. They uphold the so-called "free" press/speech as a right (though we know the workers&oppressed don't have that) but I strongly disagree and don't think fascists and capitalists have those rights. The state is always set up by and for a certain ruling class, never a classless or class neutral state.
4) In case you want that book, though: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/
But seriously, everyone fits into some ideology even if they're uncertain or blind to it themselves. Learning and development is a constant process but that doesn't mean you aren't definable. Also, if there are people who spent their entire lives studying the movement's history, guiding revolutions, and building socialist countries I don't see why it would be foolish to think that they might have a damn good analysis and mode of operating.
Freedom before Peace
1.Yes but the fact remains how free does a person have to be before they can enter into positive law? Likewise it doesn’t really handle the question of externalities (those people affected by decisions in the contract but are not actually parties of it).
1.1 I make no assumptions about your world hence all the questions. When I say utopian, I was clearly referring to the means you wish to take to achieve this change not the society you envision. You cant just hand-wave the criticism of your methods by accusing me being “the real utopian”. The points I raised in that second paragraph are serious issues and I would appreciate it if you responded to them as being able to respond to such foundational issues can only benefit your own understanding of your position.
2.Is it somewhere on this site?
3.Good, now this has been established the next question has to be are all rulers equal?
4. In this point I was questioning the truthfulness of how simply you dismissed the need for written laws for a complex and large society to function
4.1 No one here has all the answers (well aside from one user in relation to questions on Socialist Albania) we are all trying to figure it out and the only people who dont have to are religionists. Everyone here (and probably even moreso given the way socialism of all steaks is viewed in society) realises that when you challenge the status quo you have the greater burden when it comes to explaining problems and their solutions.
What you need to understand is there is a difference between nitpicking on minor issues and questions of foundational issues. You can reasonably avoid one, but to avoid the other is to be intellectually dishonest.
KingFish I will reply to your post a little later. Its drives me NUTS that I have to communicate by phone. Im currently enjoying adult beverages and I want to give you my best reply because you deserve it as well as myself.
Then use your computer to go to revleft.com. BTW, did you notice my message that you are able to create new threads anywhere within the Opposing Ideologies forum and its subforums?
I don't have access to a computer. Yes I did notice that post. Thank you.
Well I went out of my way to use a computer to reply and the website says thanks for logging in but then shows that im not logged in. Not sure if additional restrictions have been imposed on me or what but i give up. If the restrictions or problem gets corrected let me know.
If you'd like me to respond by tapatalk I need each numbered question individually posted so I can quote and reply.
I can describe using tapatalk for this in depth a discussion as trying to take a panoramic picture through a drain pipe.
Probably a problem with your browser's cookies.
