Topic: Cross post: Petition to form an indepentent Objectivist State - page 2. (Read 6309 times)

Good point. I retract my previous statement.

One proudhonite. When libertarians disagree on the right to sell yourself into slavery, conservatives disagree on the military and the importance and implementation of family values, anarchists disagree on whether the anarchy should be capitalist or socialist, don't you think it's a bit unreasonable to define an ideology by what one adherent of it happens to support?

I've talked to a proudhounite... They don't even acknowledge self-ownership. You don't own you. No, thank you.

They distinguish between different kinds of property:


(In reality the transition is probably smoother though).

Thus, no one will rob you off your toothbrush, your flat screen TV, your house, your garden. But if you claim a whole continent as your own, you'll probably run into disagreements.

Can a woman force her individual perspective of not wanting to have sex with a particular man (or all man for that matter) on him?

If my individual perspective is leave me the hell alone, I sure can.

Again, don't tell me, tell them.

My message is not to tell you you're right or you're wrong, my message is that people think different, feel different, are different, and you can't force your individual perspective on everyone.

I've read that piece of drivel, and well, I think I've made my opinion of it sufficiently clear.

If someone considers Property to be theft, and tries to take my stuff, there will be force used. Defensive force. However, note that the use of that force does not change the nature of the society.

Let's take two societies as examples. One is non-propertarian anarchism, the other is AnCap.

In the non-propertarian society, everyone believes that nothing is owned personally, everything is the property of the community, and all is well. But one person decides to keep his TV for a while, or his car, or what have you. At this point, the rest of the population enforces its will upon him and takes back the stuff. The non-propertarian society has violated its anarchic principles to maintain its non-propertarian principles.

In the AnCap society, everyone believes that their stuff is theirs, and your stuff is yours, and nobody tries to steal, and all is well. But one person decides that property is theft, and divests himself of all property. All is still well, and as long as Mr. non-propertarian doesn't decide to use someone else's stuff without their permission, it remains so. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that he doesn't. He decides that he will use someone's stuff, since they're not using it right now. Well, this person is understandably not pleased, especially since he had to come into their house to get that stuff. The AnCap, in defense of his property, shoots and kills the non-propertarian. The AnCap society did not have to relinquish its anarchic principles to maintain its capitalistic principles, nor its capitalistic principles to maintain its anarchic principles.

I don't necessarily share this view but:

Property is theft!

Look I won't argue with you, but the very fact alone that many folks do view things differently from you is hint enough that you can't implement your AnCap as straightforwardly as you'd like to believe, i.e. without force.

..except you can. It's not coercion to defend yourself, or your stuff. It is coercion to try and remove someone's stuff by force.

Put differently: My having a house does not make you worse off. You taking my house does make me worse off.

yup, but that goes similarly for an anarcho-"capitalist" society, you can't expect anyone to accept and respect your concept of private property. That's why I say there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism, there is only anarchism.

Maybe like-minded people with similar views would form communities, but probably these communities will be fighting for resources sooner or later.   

I'm aware of such "ideas". In my opinion they are something like oxymorons.
Because the moment some of the members of such "libertarian socialist" society choose to disagree with that society's views on private property, one of the two things will happen: either this society will cease to exist (cease to be classified as "libertatian socialist") or it will resort to coercion to enforce its "societal principles".
Also, try thinking about it this way: imagine you were born in such society but you disagree with its views. Let's say you want to own more kinds of private property than its principles allow. What are your options? Will you be allowed to do so? If not, can you really call this society libertarian? If yes, can you call it socialist anymore?

Sigh.

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

No, the whole point is that you still have to pay taxes, even if you use Bitcoin. The petition will allow us not to pay income tax -- we will just stick to a small geographic area, and would interact with the rest of the country in fair way.

We could just do it in our houses, like a virtual collective or state, resisting government intrusion on to our lands, protesting by simply not doing anything, using only Bitcoin for our needs sort of like Mahatma Bitcoin?

Rather than forming an easy target, those of us lucky enough to own property could take advantage of that sort of like Occupy for the landed gentry?

Anarcho-syndicalism is socialist anarchy.

And this related to socialism how?

The Anarchism in Spain wasn't coercive.

Any form of socialism requires coercion for its implementation. Whether this coercion goes hand in hand with authoritarianism does not really matter. It is wrong regardless.

I would like to personally commend you for being so willing to admit that it's not a fair trial. In return, I'll admit that the USSR is not valid empirical evidence against any non-authoritarian stream of socialism.