Hierarchy and anarcho-capitalism

Um, thanks I'm aware of that. JK, as a bit of a victim junkie yourself, perhaps you can explain the connection between sacrifice and communism. Put another way, what’s in it for the strong and capable other than a warm glow?

They don’t expect cooperation beyond others’ inclination to free ride. Contrary to your assertion that strength is a value judgement, it exists objectively in the capacity to generate outcomes in the sphere of action. As you say, truth is whatever helps you accumulate.

Every conversation on Libcom is value laden. We value human life, we object to human suffering and exploitation, we seek to ensure sustainability on earth; these are all values. I never said cosmetics were "sinful" (why a religious reference, btw?), I only suggested that my value system and the value system of most Libcommers would not support animal testing of cosmetic products. Finally, I do think there is a critique to be made of 'cosmetic culture.' Now is not the time to offer it, but the values of beauty society holds are based on all sorts of oppressive relationships; patriarchy and the advertising industry, just to name two.

All that separates moral law from supernatural belief is a little ectoplasm.

I’m sure you do. Whereas "normal" people aren't averse to taking advantage of others’ weakness. They don’t share the psychological predilection, the slave morality, of the communist. The left’s capacity to generate action is wrecked on the shore of selective incentive.

“The marginalised psychology of communism”

All together now…Oh yes it is.

Why is our degree of control important? It’s like the difference between being lazy and disabled, a mere matter of middle class morality.

Hmm,

I'd just like to throw out the point that claims anarcho-capitalism offers less freedom than classical anarchism can't be supported by the simple point that the quantity of freedom involved can't be measured.

Any system involves a certain amount of freedom and certain amount limitation. A libertarian thinks the ability to dispose of "their" stuff in absolutely, exactly as they want is more important than the ability to live in what a communist or anarchist would consider a free society.

While a quantitative argument fails, I think we can make qualitative argument in favor of a communist society - that quality of life and community would be fundamentally different in the sort of society we imagine. Basically, the community which decide how resources would be allocated would itself be the most important "product" of our new society. Like any other institution, it would take some "freedoms" and give some "freedoms" - it is simply that these the desirable, human and sane freedoms to give and take (for example, taking the freedom of any minority to destroy the atmosphere).

Red

Why would they create this product without the threat of oncoming economic collapse? Outside of that scenario the only beneficiaries would be the inept, those who are demonstrably incapable of bringing it about.

The Tragedy of the Commons.

Carousel - do you ever find what you do to be 'too easy'?

I am forwarding this to the Barack Obama election campaign for use in a future speech.

To be fair, if I do not feed/clothe/etc my children, then they will be taken from me and put in group homes where they'll most likely be abused or neglected or whatever. Or I will be put in prison. Or maybe nothing will happen and my kids will fend for themselves in a shitty situation. There seems to be numerous advantages to taking care of children that far outweigh not doing it, which makes abusive and neglecting behavior to children all the more disturbing. People act against their immediate interests in order to abuse children. Do "we" really take care of the sick and aged? Or do we put them in shitty hospitals and nursing homes and shit like that?

I've already said that i don't.

I was trying to come up with anything else to say, but it's a ridiculous even as a thought experiment.

I wouldn't mind a community agreeing through the consensus to submit to the vote of the majority, when (for example) the integrity of the community is valued by all, and when the issue isn't that important to them.

Well, for me when the majority attempts to push its views on the minority, the revolution is most definitely not over. In any way i've always been an advocate of the revolution within revolution.

I think that it's a lesser of two evils, because otherwise those 40% will be just sitting in the "non-hierarchical committees/soviets/councils/etc" arguing their lungs out, while accomplishing nothing.

Interesting rule. You’re presumably aware it exists only in the imagination.

The collective action required to establish such practice fails to materialise unless as a by-product of the provision of private goods or through “lobbying” by special interest groups.

Occasionally. In which case it’s leisure.

The moral affront exists only in your mind. I apologise for offending or disrupting.

The Logic of Collective Action stands against laissez-faire capitalist economic practices. The argument was used by Lloyd to dispute Adam Smith's idea of the "invisible hand". The above article is not really contentious, and ends with typical cop-out word-games around the meaning of private and personal property and the state.

Let me address this...

An argument with an anarcho-capitalist about hierarchy is a metaphysical dialog about an imaginary system. Social anarchists' “opposition” to hierarchy takes place well away from the sphere of action, consequently they have no case to answer. Your anarcho-capitalist friends are accusing you of something you are not morally responsible for.

Why not give animals the vote? They all abstain due to their inability to speak.