Hierarchy and anarcho-capitalism

Indeed. There is a definite psycho-emotional theme of inequality aversion and the ethic of reciprocity at the core of communist values. Supernatural belief.

The violation of a moral or religious law is a sin. Where else do these values come from?

Ha ha. As if I’d try to hide it.

you're not actually banned btw LR

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.

a religious law, but not a moral law.

says 'Carousel'

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.

"Anarcho"-capitalism really confuses me. Just in the sense of WHY did they decide to pick that name? It's not like anarchism's a big credible movement that they could latch onto. whereas Hitler (no, i'm not comparing them before any individualist prick tries jumping down my throat) chose 'national SOCIALIST WORKERs party' to give a particular rallying point. randomly picking the name of a small movement you don't agree with is just weird.

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

well trying to argue 'freedom' as a measurement is of course absurd, as it's not an actual value that exists. talking about 'freedom' in the way someone like say bush does is clearly nothing but empty rhetoric (even if we ignore his actual actions) as long as 'freedom to' and 'freedom from' both exist.

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.

I find you to be morally reprehensible, not to mention wholly illogical. Social consciousness is a slave morality? Realizing the social nature of the economy (as so aptly described by Sam a few posts back) is a slave mentality? People act in a socially responsible manner the vast majority of their lives: we have friends and family over for dinner, we take care of the sick and the aged, the majority of Americans support universal healthcare, parents raise children for the love of God. Did your mother get paid to raise you? I'm pretty sure as a child you were pretty 'weak.' Did your mother abandon you in the street? "Normal" people do all these things, you sick fuck ,and they do them without recourse to advantage, financial, psychological or otherwise. Fuck you, I'm through trying to reason with you, you shallow, immoral, right-wing, self-serving prick.

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?

Uh, I didn't read long enough into this thread long enough to notice carousel trolling it.

Here's some counter-trolls:

- "If you think you are stronger and more capable, what are you doing debating with 'the weak' - in actuality, you look even weaker than your enemies".

- "A communist society would certainly honor the strong and capable. Since people would do what they want, the strong wouldn't have put up with idiotic questions of the weak - like your's, say (doing what you wish with your person is quite different from doing what you want with "your" property). The fact that the weak would also get along better is an important side-effect. It's like giving your annoying nephew a car so he'll stop bugging you for rides to the store. The fake "strong type" would never help the nephew for fear of seeming to make concessions, an actually strong person would be more interested in having free time."

- "Do you think that the ruling class of capitalism qualifies as the strong or competent types of this society. If so, bite me"

- Read Oscar Wilde's "The Soul Of Man Under Socialism".

Red

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.

Is only a tragedy if it's an unmanaged common. If norms and social practice have been developed by the community using the commons it's a comedy.

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.

Are you talking about this:

I agree with most of what was said there. So i didn't see the need to split hairs. If you remove the word "federated" and substitute it for "community" your words could have come from me.

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.

nice.

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

Same thing Hitler did with the communists you naughty boy.

i recently came across an interesting (albeit ridiculous) argument from an anarcho-capitalist.

he stated that we should look at employees as businesses that are providing services to other businesses when being employed, and so employment is, then, a mutual agreement on equal standing and, hence, not in any way hierarchical. he then drew a parallel (i would say rightfully so) between an employee of a business and an independent contractor that rents his labor to individuals to, for example, paint their houses.

i stated that i was opposed as well to that transactional relationship as it too is hierarchical and so i would personally prefer such a transaction be mediated by a neutral third party, for example, a mutual aid bank and a trade union.

anyone else have an opinion on this matter?

no takers?

No, this is idealised mutualist nonsense, industrial capitalism is not like an 'independent' painter and decorater at all

This is the face of a capitalist economy

communism wouldn;t have wages or employer/employee relationships, so we wouldn;t need 'neutral third partes'

you don't seem to understand what i mean. maybe i didn't make it clear. what i meant was that there is no difference between the boss of a business and the home-owner that hires a painter to paint his house: they are both bosses exploiting an individual's labor.

here's my point: i do not hold to the post-scarcity anarchist delusion, so i do not accept the assertion that when the revolution occurs, there will be no need for currency. because currency will exist, there will be the possibility that, for example, an individual will hire another individual to be their personal trainer. i am implying that such an economic relationship is no different than an employer/employee relationship. to stop this from occurring while at the same time allowing independent contractors to still exist, we would have to create a system in which individuals could do their business through a third party such as a mutual aid bank or a system of producer and consumer councils in which the individual providing the service would get paid for the labor they put in and not how much the consumer pays for that service.