The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: madfoot on February 03, 2011, 12:08:21 AM

Title: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: madfoot on February 03, 2011, 12:08:21 AM
Going down the road of socialism or anarchism currently.

Why join a libertarian forum, then? Well, I started out as a vague anti-Bush Democrat until before the election, like many others, Ron Paul introduced me to libertarianism. I started listening to the FTL podcast around the same time. Since then, I've spent most of the Obama Administration redefining myself as a Goldwater Republican or a classical liberal or whatever else seemed interesting to me. Anyway, even though I haven't listened to the show in years, I thought it'd be educational to join an exclusively libertarian message board and shoot the shit here. I have the feeling people here are generally more intelligent and down to earth than other places I could have signed up on. :D So howdy.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: anarchir on February 03, 2011, 12:23:43 AM
Welcome Good Sir!

May you enjoy your time on our message board here at bbs.freetalklive.com. Beware the trolls, for there are many. Obvious trolls come and go but the most devious ones are at all levels within our domain. Herein you may find small talk about the weather, financial wisdom from our dearest Drifter, sexy threads with many many pages, a page devoted to Chaos, movie reviews, growing discussions, bad talking against the government, discussion of liberty issues, New Hampshire Drama  :shock: , relentless mocking of spammers, etc.

Remember, almost anything goes except for declaring violence against fellow commentators, the most blatant of racism, and the most evil crime of all: SPAMMING. Also, if you make your username into a super long URL instead of an actual username you may expect to be ostracized (I'm looking at you NHA10!).
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: anarchir on February 03, 2011, 12:28:14 AM
Oh yeah btw I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I used to have more left-anarchist leanings. These days its all about the Non-Aggression Principle. If you havent heard of it check it out.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: atomiccat on February 03, 2011, 12:32:18 AM
I used to be a Left libertarian. Then i listened to the market for liberty and Healing our world audio book and soon became a "anarchist" .

you can get the free audio book here http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: davann on February 03, 2011, 07:37:25 PM
Hello.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 03, 2011, 07:45:08 PM
For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to need break down so readily in the real world.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 03, 2011, 07:59:33 PM
For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

The argument is that it just hasnt been tried by the right kind of people yet. People who wont take advantage of others willingness to work harder than themselves, or take more than their fair share out of the common pot.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: hellbilly on February 03, 2011, 08:02:53 PM
Howdy.

Many labels in your intro... so, what is it that prevents you from just skipping all the stages and getting straight to anarchy?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: hellbilly on February 03, 2011, 08:04:55 PM
For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

The argument is that it just hasnt been tried by the right kind of people yet. People who wont take advantage of others willingness to work harder than themselves, or take more than their fair share out of the common pot.

I pledge to work twice as hard as any other, and take less than half than any other. Because I love you.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 03, 2011, 08:07:28 PM
Hey, welcome to the board. Almost anything goes.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 03, 2011, 08:07:48 PM
For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

The argument is that it just hasnt been tried by the right kind of people yet. People who wont take advantage of others willingness to work harder than themselves, or take more than their fair share out of the common pot.

I pledge to work twice as hard as any other, and take less than half than any other. Because I love you.


 :lol:

NICE!!!

Thats more for me!
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 03, 2011, 09:11:33 PM
For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

There are many examples of small-scale socialist communes that have been very successful.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 03, 2011, 10:06:17 PM
For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

There are many examples of small-scale socialist communes that have been very successful.

I admit, the concept of shared property works well among small, tight knit groups who share the same values, like families or close friends. The concept breaks down fairly quickly on any larger scale. Property is the most effective means of solving disagreements about how resources should be utilized and consumed. Nearly every attempt at socialism suffers from the same problems: lack of motivation, exploitation of others, a decline at the top ability levels, an increase in cases of "need", theft, and starvation for some of the more severe failures. When others have a say (partial ownership in every aspect of your life, how can you have liberty?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 03, 2011, 10:20:20 PM
For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

There are many examples of small-scale socialist communes that have been very successful.

I admit, the concept of shared property works well among small, tight knit groups who share the same values, like families or close friends. The concept breaks down fairly quickly on any larger scale. Property is the most effective means of solving disagreements about how resources should be utilized and consumed. Nearly every attempt at socialism suffers from the same problems: lack of motivation, exploitation of others, a decline at the top ability levels, an increase in cases of "need", theft, and starvation for some of the more severe failures. When others have a say (partial ownership in every aspect of your life, how can you have liberty?

You know, I don't see a problem with any of that, so long as its voluntary. A group of people wanna form a commune? Let them, I say, but if someone wants to leave, let them too.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 03, 2011, 10:20:53 PM
For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

There are many examples of small-scale socialist communes that have been very successful.

I admit, the concept of shared property works well among small, tight knit groups who share the same values, like families or close friends. The concept breaks down fairly quickly on any larger scale. Property is the most effective means of solving disagreements about how resources should be utilized and consumed. Nearly every attempt at socialism suffers from the same problems: lack of motivation, exploitation of others, a decline at the top ability levels, an increase in cases of "need", theft, and starvation for some of the more severe failures. When others have a say (partial ownership in every aspect of your life, how can you have liberty?

You know, I don't see a problem with any of that, so long as its voluntary. A group of people wanna form a commune? Let them, I say, but if someone wants to leave, let them too.

agreeing with this

also, if you are alive, and you participate in a society, others already have a say in what you do.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 04, 2011, 01:07:24 AM
Mmmm....fresh mea....err, I mean, greetings and salutations! :wink: Another An-Cap, though I came from a decidedly right-wing background. As the others have said, beware the trolls as they abound here.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 04, 2011, 03:02:17 AM
O.P: Hi. :D
I believe once one is a voluntariest, nothing is incompatible with it. If a group of morons want to voluntarily live in some socialist commune, no other person in the voluntariest society would stop them.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Amazing Richard on February 04, 2011, 03:16:37 AM
Words have no meaning.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: madfoot on February 04, 2011, 04:12:51 AM
Howdy.

Many labels in your intro... so, what is it that prevents you from just skipping all the stages and getting straight to anarchy?

I really should. I think that's where I'm inevitably headed, ideologically, and I guess I'm just trying to grab onto everything I can on the way.  :P
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: madfoot on February 04, 2011, 04:19:51 AM
Oh yeah btw I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I used to have more left-anarchist leanings. These days its all about the Non-Aggression Principle. If you havent heard of it check it out.
Reminds me of Locke's Harm Principle. I think I used to subscribe to NAP in essence, but these days I'm a little skeptical about taking that at face value. Probably because of the unsustainability of it. I don't think theoretical anarchism is unworkable, but if it's governed by non-aggression, I feel like aggression will inevitably arise and then you'll have no tools or organization to fight it.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: anarchir on February 04, 2011, 12:48:39 PM
Oh yeah btw I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I used to have more left-anarchist leanings. These days its all about the Non-Aggression Principle. If you havent heard of it check it out.
Reminds me of Locke's Harm Principle. I think I used to subscribe to NAP in essence, but these days I'm a little skeptical about taking that at face value. Probably because of the unsustainability of it. I don't think theoretical anarchism is unworkable, but if it's governed by non-aggression, I feel like aggression will inevitably arise and then you'll have no tools or organization to fight it.
The (http://www.pets-warehouse.com/pic-s/SZMZM42.jpg)
it has been opened.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: davann on February 04, 2011, 04:03:15 PM
but if it's governed by non-aggression, I feel like aggression will inevitably arise and then you'll have no tools or organization to fight it.

I got big f'ing crowbar that says otherwise. That and some other tools I don't talk about.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Riddler on February 04, 2011, 04:15:08 PM
hey-o
do yourself a big, fat favor, and >>explore the ignore<<

a feature you will no-doubtedly & eagerly employ for the pink tu-tu wearing freak (''richard'')

you kin thank me later.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 04, 2011, 04:32:59 PM
Words have no meaning.

So if I tell you to play "Hide and Go Fuck Yourself", that doesn't mean anything?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 04, 2011, 06:01:45 PM
Oh yeah btw I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I used to have more left-anarchist leanings. These days its all about the Non-Aggression Principle. If you havent heard of it check it out.
Reminds me of Locke's Harm Principle. I think I used to subscribe to NAP in essence, but these days I'm a little skeptical about taking that at face value. Probably because of the unsustainability of it. I don't think theoretical anarchism is unworkable, but if it's governed by non-aggression, I feel like aggression will inevitably arise and then you'll have no tools or organization to fight it.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/rubber-room-for-trolls-not-safe-for-work/why-the-opposition-to-pacifism/ (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/rubber-room-for-trolls-not-safe-for-work/why-the-opposition-to-pacifism/)
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/don't-initiate-violence/ (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/don't-initiate-violence/)

You come on a libertarian board and question the NAP? That is cute.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 04, 2011, 06:11:15 PM
Oh yeah btw I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I used to have more left-anarchist leanings. These days its all about the Non-Aggression Principle. If you havent heard of it check it out.
Reminds me of Locke's Harm Principle. I think I used to subscribe to NAP in essence, but these days I'm a little skeptical about taking that at face value. Probably because of the unsustainability of it. I don't think theoretical anarchism is unworkable, but if it's governed by non-aggression, I feel like aggression will inevitably arise and then you'll have no tools or organization to fight it.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/rubber-room-for-trolls-not-safe-for-work/why-the-opposition-to-pacifism/ (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/rubber-room-for-trolls-not-safe-for-work/why-the-opposition-to-pacifism/)
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/don't-initiate-violence/ (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/don't-initiate-violence/)

You come on a libertarian board and question the NAP? That is cute.

just because YOU might subscribe to it, doesn't mean that everyone else does or would.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 04, 2011, 07:13:07 PM
No. Most don't.
Subscribing to the NAP is however, many peoples DEFINITION of being a libertarian. We can't have a free society if people believe they can force others to do things. period. People who want to use force on others who are not hurting anybody are evil.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQHCR__-FRA[/youtube]
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: madfoot on February 04, 2011, 09:22:48 PM
I agree, I don't think government is the only threat to freedom though. >_> It's not that I disagree with NAP as much as I'm skeptical of what it implies.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: anarchir on February 04, 2011, 10:07:37 PM
hey-o
do yourself a big, fat favor, and >>explore the ignore<<

a feature you will no-doubtedly & eagerly employ for the pink tu-tu wearing freak (''richard'')

you kin thank me later.

I agree with this suggestion 100%.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Riddler on February 04, 2011, 10:17:37 PM
as an aside:
alaric should note, being a fan of telly s.
part of my reply was from which movie?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 05, 2011, 01:46:03 AM
as an aside:
alaric should note, being a fan of telly s.
part of my reply was from which movie?

"All those burning bridges that have fallen after me, all the lonely feelings and the burning memories....."
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 05, 2011, 08:32:49 AM
as an aside:
alaric should note, being a fan of telly s.
part of my reply was from which movie?

A. My avatar is from the same movie. :D
B. Believe it or not the quote gives the answer if you google it.
C. I honestly thought for almost 2 decades I was the only person who loved that movie.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Riddler on February 05, 2011, 03:56:42 PM
as an aside:
alaric should note, being a fan of telly s.
part of my reply was from which movie?

A. My avatar is from the same movie. :D
B. Believe it or not the quote gives the answer if you google it.
C. I honestly thought for almost 2 decades I was the only person who loved that movie.

A: big joe.....who loves ya?
C: i OWN the motherfucker, hustla

''c'mon hustla, it's all nice n' safe for you now'' (minefield)

also from same scene:

rickles:  '' hey!!!! i found one!'' (mine)
telly: (dripping w/ sarcasm) ''what kind is it?''
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 05, 2011, 05:41:53 PM
rickles:  '' hey!!!! i found one!'' (mine)
telly: (dripping w/ sarcasm) ''what kind is it?''

"The kind that blows up. How the hell should I know?" :P
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 05, 2011, 05:45:46 PM
 :D LOL awesome.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Riddler on February 05, 2011, 06:39:10 PM
officially hijacking this thread

kelley's heroes roundtable now open for business
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 05, 2011, 08:34:46 PM
hey-o
do yourself a big, fat favor, and >>explore the ignore<<

a feature you will no-doubtedly & eagerly employ for the pink tu-tu wearing freak (''richard'')

you kin thank me later.

Weren't you the guy who hit on another dude in here?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Riddler on February 06, 2011, 01:35:34 AM
fuck u talkin bout, willis?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: anarchir on February 06, 2011, 08:08:12 AM
fuck u talkin bout, willis?

It was an accidental mistaken identity, but the guy was still a dude.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: shezmu on February 09, 2011, 12:43:11 PM
I feel like aggression will inevitably arise and then you'll have no tools or organization to fight it.

My colleagues disagree with you.  (http://www.yorkblog.com/record/Guns.jpg)


For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

There are many examples of small-scale socialist communes that have been very successful.
This wouldn't include communes that like to gun down capitalists would it?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 01:26:58 PM
I feel like aggression will inevitably arise and then you'll have no tools or organization to fight it.

My colleagues disagree with you.  (http://www.yorkblog.com/record/Guns.jpg)


For the life of me, I cannot see how socialism can be equated to liberty. I mean, communal property and to each according to ability break down so readily in the real world.

There are many examples of small-scale socialist communes that have been very successful.
This wouldn't include communes that like to gun down capitalists would it?

And then there will be capitalists who will have bigger guns than you.

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 09, 2011, 02:31:10 PM
LOL
I see the irony now. I hope everybody clicks your links Timelady, that was fun.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 03:07:05 PM
LOL
I see the irony now. I hope everybody clicks your links Timelady, that was fun.

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 09, 2011, 03:50:19 PM
Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 09, 2011, 03:59:19 PM
Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?


Because when corporations become governments, the results are always horrible. Look at India under the Dutch East India Company or the Congo Free State.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 09, 2011, 04:05:58 PM
LOL
I see the irony now. I hope everybody clicks your links Timelady, that was fun.

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.
Striking or forcibly and violently taking over and destroying the capitalists' plants and equipment and attacking nonparticipating workers and security? refusing to work and destruction and violence are separate things.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 04:10:10 PM
LOL
I see the irony now. I hope everybody clicks your links Timelady, that was fun.

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.
Striking or forcibly and violently taking over and destroying the capitalists' plants and equipment and attacking nonparticipating workers and security? refusing to work and destruction and violence are separate things.

Because it's okay for industrialists to do it, but not striking workers?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 04:10:50 PM
Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?


Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 09, 2011, 06:04:29 PM
Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?


Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.
You're laughable! No where did I say it was Okay for industrialists to shoot workers who refused to work. In  nearly every case you can use, unions refused to work; industrialists hired new workers; the unions struck out at the new workers and industrialists; industrialists hired private security or asked the government to protect their property. Whenever security managed to remove the unions' means of violence, the strikes fizzled and ended.  which part is immoral?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 06:14:46 PM
Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?


Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.
You're laughable! No where did I say it was Okay for industrialists to shoot workers who refused to work. In  nearly every case you can use, unions refused to work; industrialists hired new workers; the unions struck out at the new workers and industrialists; industrialists hired private security or asked the government to protect their property. Whenever security managed to remove the unions' means of violence, the strikes fizzled and ended.  which part is immoral?

You implied that it was okay of them to do so.

Besides, it was usually the "security" guards that initiated the violence, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: shezmu on February 09, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
I think you skipped my other point, did you agree with my other point?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 09, 2011, 06:32:07 PM
Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?


Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.
You're laughable! No where did I say it was Okay for industrialists to shoot workers who refused to work. In  nearly every case you can use, unions refused to work; industrialists hired new workers; the unions struck out at the new workers and industrialists; industrialists hired private security or asked the government to protect their property. Whenever security managed to remove the unions' means of violence, the strikes fizzled and ended.  which part is immoral?

You implied that it was okay of them to do so.

Besides, it was usually the "security" guards that initiated the violence, not the other way around.

I can cite evidence from your links that this is not the case. Did you even read them?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 06:39:45 PM
Its slightly less hysterical when I bought the bullets my opponent shoots me with.
Lincolns security forces, how did that work out?
Communist killed by police.
U.S. soldiers killing unionist.
I am supposed to be afraid of capitalists, why?


Because they were the tools of the capitalists in order to keep power.
You're laughable! No where did I say it was Okay for industrialists to shoot workers who refused to work. In  nearly every case you can use, unions refused to work; industrialists hired new workers; the unions struck out at the new workers and industrialists; industrialists hired private security or asked the government to protect their property. Whenever security managed to remove the unions' means of violence, the strikes fizzled and ended.  which part is immoral?

You implied that it was okay of them to do so.

Besides, it was usually the "security" guards that initiated the violence, not the other way around.

I can cite evidence from your links that this is not the case. Did you even read them?


OK, like what?

FYI, just striking and protesting is not violence.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 09, 2011, 06:53:42 PM
Pullman:
Quote
On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful gathering to obtain support for the strike from fellow railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois. Afterward groups within the crowd became enraged and set fire to nearby buildings and derailed a locomotive. Elsewhere in the United States, sympathy strikers prevented transportation of goods by walking off the job, obstructing railroad tracks or threatening and attacking strikebreakers. This increased national attention and fueled the demand for federal action.[5]

Homestead:
Quote
Strikers on the steam launch fired a few random shots at the barges, then withdrew
Quote
The Pinkerton agents attempted to disembark, and shots were fired. Conflicting testimony exists as to which side fired the first shot. According to at least one eyewitness, the unionists shot first. John T. McCurry, a boatman on the steamboat Little Bill (which had been hired by the Pinkerton Detective Agency to ferry its agents to the steel mill) and one of the men wounded by the strikers, said: "The armed Pinkerton men commenced to climb up the banks. Then the workmen opened fire on the detectives. The men shot first, and not until three of the Pinkerton men had fallen did they respond to the fire. I am willing to take an oath that the workmen fired first, and that the Pinkerton men did not shoot until some of their number had been wounded.

and just for kicks:
Quote
the Amalgamated was a hindrance to efficiency; furthermore it was not representative of the workers it admitted only a small group of skilled workers. It was in its own way an elitist, discriminatory organization
Carnegie
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
I notice you didn't touch the Ford Hunger March.

Quote
March 7 was a bitterly cold day in Detroit, and a crowd estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 gathered near the Dearborn city limits, about a mile from the Ford plant. The Detroit Times called it "one of the coldest days of the winter, with a frigid gale whooping out of the northwest". Marchers carried banners reading "Give Us Work, "We Want Bread Not Crumbs", and "Tax the Rich and Feed the Poor". Communist leader Albert Goetz gave a speech, asking that the marchers avoid violence. The march proceeded peacefully along the streets of Detroit until it reached the Dearborn city limits. There, the Dearborn police attempted to stop the march by firing tear gas into the crowd, and began hitting marchers with clubs. One officer fired a gun at the marchers. The crowd scattered into a field covered with stones, and then began throwing stones at the police. The angry marchers regrouped and advanced nearly a mile toward the plant. There, two fire engines began spraying cold water onto the marchers from an overpass. The police were joined by Ford security guards, and began shooting into the crowd. Joe York, Coleman Leny and Joe DeBlasio were killed, and at least 22 others were wounded by gunfire.

The leaders decided to call off the march at that point, and began an orderly retreat. Harry Bennett, head of Ford security, drove up in a car, opened a window, and fired a pistol into the crowd. Immediately, the car was pelted with rocks, and Bennett was injured. He then got out of the car, and continued firing at the retreating marchers. Dearborn police and Ford security men then opened fire on the retreating marchers with machine guns. Joe Bussel, 16 years old, was killed, and dozens more were wounded. Bennett was hospitalized.[5]

According to Maurice Sugar, attorney for their families, all four of those killed on March 7 were members of the Young Communist League, USA.[6]

About 25 Dearborn police officers were injured by thrown rocks and other debris, however, none were hit by gunfire.[7]

For Pullman:

Quote
On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful gathering to obtain support for the strike from fellow railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois. Afterward groups within the crowd became enraged and set fire to nearby buildings and derailed a locomotive. Elsewhere in the United States, sympathy strikers prevented transportation of goods by walking off the job, obstructing railroad tracks or threatening and attacking strikebreakers. This increased national attention and fueled the demand for federal action.[5]

It wouldn't surprise me if the railroad itself did it to their locomotive. Secondly, the Pullman company also had US mail cars attached to their cars, directly in order to get the Feds involved.

Quote from: Carnegie
the Amalgamated was a hindrance to efficiency; furthermore it was not representative of the workers it admitted only a small group of skilled workers. It was in its own way an elitist, discriminatory organization

Yes, of course Andrew Carnegie would be against unions.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 09, 2011, 07:22:59 PM
You remain laughable. Of course I didn't mention the hunger march. It was a legitimate case of overuse of force. Never mind the fact that the protesters planned to march on and occupy someone else's property. Asserting that Pullman's destroyed their own property or had a conspiracy without any supporting evidence isn't support of your assertion that capitalism is bad. Finally, your assertion that Carnegie hated unions in general is contrary to fact.  My claim was that he hated this particular union.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 07:35:51 PM
You remain laughable. Of course I didn't mention the hunger march. It was a legitimate case of overuse of force. Never mind the fact that the protesters planned to march on and occupy someone else's property. Asserting that Pullman's destroyed their own property or had a conspiracy without any supporting evidence isn't support of your assertion that capitalism is bad. Finally, your assertion that Carnegie hated unions in general is contrary to fact.  My claim was that he hated this particular union.

OK.

Let's say I have a big corporation and I can afford to have a large "private security force." Let's say you're occupying a tract of land that I want. What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say that I think it'd be more profitable to initiate violence against you and take your land then conduct any kind of peaceful settlement with you. What is stopping me from doing it in an anarcho-capitalist society?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 09, 2011, 07:39:49 PM
You remain laughable. Of course I didn't mention the hunger march. It was a legitimate case of overuse of force. Never mind the fact that the protesters planned to march on and occupy someone else's property. Asserting that Pullman's destroyed their own property or had a conspiracy without any supporting evidence isn't support of your assertion that capitalism is bad. Finally, your assertion that Carnegie hated unions in general is contrary to fact.  My claim was that he hated this particular union.

OK.

Let's say I have a big corporation and I can afford to have a large "private security force." Let's say you're occupying a tract of land that I want. What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say that I think it'd be more profitable to initiate violence against you and take your land then conduct any kind of peaceful settlement with you. What is stopping me from doing it in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Hurp durp, that's not how I envision it!
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 07:40:56 PM
You remain laughable. Of course I didn't mention the hunger march. It was a legitimate case of overuse of force. Never mind the fact that the protesters planned to march on and occupy someone else's property. Asserting that Pullman's destroyed their own property or had a conspiracy without any supporting evidence isn't support of your assertion that capitalism is bad. Finally, your assertion that Carnegie hated unions in general is contrary to fact.  My claim was that he hated this particular union.

OK.

Let's say I have a big corporation and I can afford to have a large "private security force." Let's say you're occupying a tract of land that I want. What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say that I think it'd be more profitable to initiate violence against you and take your land then conduct any kind of peaceful settlement with you. What is stopping me from doing it in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Hurp durp, that's not how I envision it!

Surprisingly, I've never been able to get a good answer to this question.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 09, 2011, 07:52:14 PM


OK.

Let's say I have a big corporation and I can afford to have a large "private security force." Let's say you're occupying a tract of land that I want. What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

And, for the sake of argument, let's say that I think it'd be more profitable to initiate violence against you and take your land then conduct any kind of peaceful settlement with you. What is stopping me from doing it in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Hurp durp, that's not how I envision it!

Surprisingly, I've never been able to get a good answer to this question.

Its sacrilegious for you to think it!
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 09, 2011, 08:37:45 PM
Your little fantasy there is exactly the behavior demonstrated by the unions against the capitalists. Besides, I'm not an anarchist, and didn't advocate anarchy, but a good anarchist would tell you that corporations are products of the state and that its very difficult to put together the position of power without such instruments of the state...without the state.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 08:51:26 PM
Your little fantasy there is exactly the behavior demonstrated by the unions against the capitalists. Besides, I'm not an anarchist, and didn't advocate anarchy, but a good anarchist would tell you that corporations are products of the state and that its very difficult to put together the position of power without such instruments of the state...without the state.

That's not answering my question.

There are also many organizations similiar to corporations in Somalia, which has no effective state. (The best example I have are that of the telecoms in Somalia.)
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 09, 2011, 09:02:09 PM
Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

I see no examples of Capitalists in those links. I see Mercantilists/Corporatists, not Capitalists. Try again.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 09:16:09 PM
Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

I see no examples of Capitalists in those links. I see Mercantilists/Corporatists, not Capitalists. Try again.

Does your Scotsman eat porridge or kidney?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 09, 2011, 09:17:25 PM
Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

I see no examples of Capitalists in those links. I see Mercantilists/Corporatists, not Capitalists. Try again.

Does your Scotsman eat porridge or kidney?

No true Scotsman eats kidney porridge, oh wait. what were we talking about?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 09, 2011, 10:50:52 PM
Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

I see no examples of Capitalists in those links. I see Mercantilists/Corporatists, not Capitalists. Try again.
That's what capitalism is. A socioeconomic system where dominant power lies in the owners of capital.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 09, 2011, 10:54:53 PM
Does your Scotsman eat porridge or kidney?

Cute. Again, there is a difference between Capitalism and Mercantilism/Corporatism. Do not confuse/conflate one with the other.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 09, 2011, 10:56:05 PM
That's what capitalism is. A socioeconomic system where dominant power lies in the owners of capital.

Except those links are describing situations that wedded corporations and government. That ISN'T Capitalism.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 09, 2011, 11:01:52 PM
That's what capitalism is. A socioeconomic system where dominant power lies in the owners of capital.

Except those links are describing situations that wedded corporations and government. That ISN'T Capitalism.
Yes it is, political power is a form of power. And stop capitalizing capitalism, it's not a proper noun the way you're using it.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: dalebert on February 09, 2011, 11:17:12 PM
What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

It's a valid question, but what's stopping the powerful from taking advantage of the weak in any society?  I don't think there's an answer to this very difficult question.  We don't have solutions to a lot of problems (death, for instance) but we'll keep trying crazy shit in the meantime (like making up after lives).  Most of the attempts at solving this particular one are some flavor of "Use greater violence in the flavor of <blank> to counter the other violence (the bad violence)".  And of course, that's just right back to the powerful overcoming the weak, which was the stated problem in the first place.  Societies just go sideways back and forth with different groups attaining the positions of power and imposing their way and they never progress toward something more civilized.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 09, 2011, 11:37:35 PM
The Somali example is also laughable for two reasons. First, to say that Somalia is "stateless" is ludicrous. There are several states within Somalia. There is Puntland, the Transition government, and several others. These are governments that each hold a monopoly of force within their territory. The telecommunications companies and other private sector businesses do NOT hold this power.
Now, for the interesting part: while Somalia has no internationally recognized government due to the collapse of its socialist military dictatorship, it has not really collapsed into complete chaos without a central governor. What's interesting is that there are indications that the Somali private sector is flourishing under the lack of central control, especially areas that still adhere closely to  the system of common law, Xeer, which seems pretty close to voluntary arbitration to me.  
Still, I have no need to answer your question, as I am not an anarchist and do no believe the purist anarchist vision is a viable state of existence.
Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.



Sources:
Excellent Source on Xeer and Somali in General (http://mises.org/daily/2701)
Isaac DiIanni, economist
and of course...Wikipedia
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 09, 2011, 11:44:40 PM
It is the power of coercion if you have the power to deny someone something they need if they don't do what you want,.

Secondly, like it or not, Somalia is in the state (ahem) of de facto anarchy. Just because it's not the kind of anarchy you might want doesn't stop it from being anarchic.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 09, 2011, 11:55:36 PM
Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.
Sure it is. Power is exchangable and convertible. Offer goods and services, make money, use money to hire coercive people, or use money to woo and influence politicians, or use money to influence culture in ways that you want, power to do anything can be converted into power to do pretty much anything else that anyone else has power to do if you want it.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 09, 2011, 11:57:20 PM
It is the power of coercion if you have the power to deny someone something they need if they don't do what you want,.

Secondly, like it or not, Somalia is in the state (ahem) of de facto anarchy. Just because it's not the kind of anarchy you might want doesn't stop it from being anarchic.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you not read?! While I clearly show that i believe some form of government will always exist, I clearly demonstrated that despite having no central government (your point!), Somalia is actually doing JUST FINE and have actually formed a rule of law without need of a central government. Also you are equivocating. If I truly own property, i have the right of exclusion. I cannot be morally forced to provide for others with my property.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 12:02:39 AM
Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.
Sure it is. Power is exchangeable and convertible. Offer goods and services, make money, use money to hire coercive people, or use money to woo and influence politicians, or use money to influence culture in ways that you want, power to do anything can be converted into power to do pretty much anything else that anyone else has power to do if you want it.

The fact that a conversion must take place indicates that they are NOT the same thing. Choosing to initiate force and hiring someone else to initiate force on that person are the same. Now, initiating force is not the same thing as offering that person some of your productive capacity or property in exchange for theirs. I've written a whole paper on this subject if you'd like to read it sometime.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 10, 2011, 12:07:10 AM
It is the power of coercion if you have the power to deny someone something they need if they don't do what you want,.

Secondly, like it or not, Somalia is in the state (ahem) of de facto anarchy. Just because it's not the kind of anarchy you might want doesn't stop it from being anarchic.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you not read?! While I clearly show that i believe some form of government will always exist, I clearly demonstrated that despite having no central government (your point!), Somalia is actually doing JUST FINE and have actually formed a rule of law without need of a central government. Also you are equivocating. If I truly own property, i have the right of exclusion. I cannot be morally forced to provide for others with my property.

Let's say you have the only well for a hundred miles around in a desert.

Let's also say that you employ people, and only give them a small amount of water in exchange for their services.

As you exchange more goods for the use of their services by others, they are going to get angry at you if you don't increase the amount of water you give them. Very angry.

And if you suddenly take away their water, you would probably get killed and they will take it from you anyway.

And when it comes to that, if you're really that much of a jerk about it, you probably deserve it and I see nothing morally wrong with what would happen to you if you did that.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 12:10:44 AM
Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.
Sure it is. Power is exchangeable and convertible. Offer goods and services, make money, use money to hire coercive people, or use money to woo and influence politicians, or use money to influence culture in ways that you want, power to do anything can be converted into power to do pretty much anything else that anyone else has power to do if you want it.

The fact that a conversion must take place indicates that they are NOT the same thing. Choosing to initiate force and hiring someone else to initiate force on that person are the same. Now, initiating force is not the same thing as offering that person some of your productive capacity or property in exchange for theirs. I've written a whole paper on this subject if you'd like to read it sometime.
Nickels and quarters are both US currency. You can readily convert nickels to quarters and quarters to nickels. Economic power and coercive power are the same thing, power. You can readily buy coercive power with economic power, and extract economic power from people using coercive power.

Quote
Now, initiating force is not the same thing as offering that person some of your productive capacity or property in exchange for theirs. I've written a whole paper on this subject if you'd like to read it sometime.
I wasn't talking about that and I don't see how this is relevant.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 12:13:44 AM
Yeah, that example fails on many levels,
First off, 100 miles isn't so far to travel for a better life. Let's say the next well owner over offers 2L of water instead of your measly 1L. Would you travel 100 miles for a better life? i would. Also, as history shows (AKA, fact and reality), scant resources have a way of being more efficiently and fairly distributed in systems of ownership. Rarely does a governing body that would have the power to take over well distribute water evenly to all.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 12:23:05 AM
Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.
Sure it is. Power is exchangeable and convertible. Offer goods and services, make money, use money to hire coercive people, or use money to woo and influence politicians, or use money to influence culture in ways that you want, power to do anything can be converted into power to do pretty much anything else that anyone else has power to do if you want it.

The fact that a conversion must take place indicates that they are NOT the same thing. Choosing to initiate force and hiring someone else to initiate force on that person are the same. Now, initiating force is not the same thing as offering that person some of your productive capacity or property in exchange for theirs. I've written a whole paper on this subject if you'd like to read it sometime.
Nickels and quarters are both US currency. You can readily convert nickels to quarters and quarters to nickels. Economic power and coercive power are the same thing, power. You can readily buy coercive power with economic power, and extract economic power from people using coercive power.

Quote
Now, initiating force is not the same thing as offering that person some of your productive capacity or property in exchange for theirs. I've written a whole paper on this subject if you'd like to read it sometime.
I wasn't talking about that and I don't see how this is relevant.

I can trade flour for sugar. Does that mean flour=sugar? Come on, they're both food and both are are white. I can also combine them to make a tasty snack. The answer is still no. Trade and Coercion are NOT the same no matter how ou dice it.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 10, 2011, 12:34:12 AM
Yeah, that example fails on many levels,
First off, 100 miles isn't so far to travel for a better life. Let's say the next well owner over offers 2L of water instead of your measly 1L. Would you travel 100 miles for a better life? i would. Also, as history shows (AKA, fact and reality), scant resources have a way of being more efficiently and fairly distributed in systems of ownership. Rarely does a governing body that would have the power to take over well distribute water evenly to all.

It is very far to travel if you don't have any money and you don't have a car.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 12:42:24 AM
Yeah, that example fails on many levels,
First off, 100 miles isn't so far to travel for a better life. Let's say the next well owner over offers 2L of water instead of your measly 1L. Would you travel 100 miles for a better life? i would. Also, as history shows (AKA, fact and reality), scant resources have a way of being more efficiently and fairly distributed in systems of ownership. Rarely does a governing body that would have the power to take over well distribute water evenly to all.

It is very far to travel if you don't have any money and you don't have a car.
Hasn't stopped billions of people throughout history from fleeing communist/totalitarian regimes...Still, you only weakly addressed one point...
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 01:30:42 AM
Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.
Sure it is. Power is exchangeable and convertible. Offer goods and services, make money, use money to hire coercive people, or use money to woo and influence politicians, or use money to influence culture in ways that you want, power to do anything can be converted into power to do pretty much anything else that anyone else has power to do if you want it.

The fact that a conversion must take place indicates that they are NOT the same thing. Choosing to initiate force and hiring someone else to initiate force on that person are the same. Now, initiating force is not the same thing as offering that person some of your productive capacity or property in exchange for theirs. I've written a whole paper on this subject if you'd like to read it sometime.
Nickels and quarters are both US currency. You can readily convert nickels to quarters and quarters to nickels. Economic power and coercive power are the same thing, power. You can readily buy coercive power with economic power, and extract economic power from people using coercive power.

Quote
Now, initiating force is not the same thing as offering that person some of your productive capacity or property in exchange for theirs. I've written a whole paper on this subject if you'd like to read it sometime.
I wasn't talking about that and I don't see how this is relevant.

I can trade flour for sugar. Does that mean flour=sugar? Come on, they're both food and both are are white. I can also combine them to make a tasty snack. The answer is still no. Trade and Coercion are NOT the same no matter how ou dice it.
I'm not talking about trade and coercion, I'm talking about economic power and coercive power. You can hire forces, and you can use them to rob people. Government is the perfect example of what I am attempting to say.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 10, 2011, 03:09:00 AM
Zhwazi: You can't be a anarcho socialist. It's a simple contradiction in terms.
TLV. Why do you put forth stupid arguments with contradicting links? I understand you are fearful of freedom. So live the high life and leave the people who love liberty alone. If you like to have others tell you how to live, fine. Your adolescent fantasy land arguments forcing us to try and repeat shit from Liberty 101 again and again is just annoying.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 10, 2011, 07:34:04 AM
Yes it is, political power is a form of power.

:roll:

Quote
And stop capitalizing capitalism, it's not a proper noun the way you're using it.

What the fuck?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 01:39:14 PM
Zhwazi: You can't be a anarcho socialist. It's a simple contradiction in terms.
TLV. Why do you put forth stupid arguments with contradicting links? I understand you are fearful of freedom. So live the high life and leave the people who love liberty alone. If you like to have others tell you how to live, fine. Your adolescent fantasy land arguments forcing us to try and repeat shit from Liberty 101 again and again is just annoying.
Thank you for saying that better than I ever could.

Now, Zhwazi. The power to make goons hurt people for you is still coercive power. It is NOT economic power. All too often, people use cases that are clearly economic power (i.e. a company makes and sells a product more cheaply and efficiently than their competitors) as examples of dangerous coercive abilities.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 03:00:45 PM
Zhwazi: You can't be a anarcho socialist. It's a simple contradiction in terms.
No it's not. Socialism isnt about government.

Quote
And stop capitalizing capitalism, it's not a proper noun the way you're using it.

What the fuck?
Do you want to explain why you are consistently violating the rules of capitalization of the english language?
Zhwazi: You can't be a anarcho socialist. It's a simple contradiction in terms.
Thank you for saying that better than I ever could.

Now, Zhwazi. The power to make goons hurt people for you is still coercive power. It is NOT economic power. All too often, people use cases that are clearly economic power (i.e. a company makes and sells a product more cheaply and efficiently than their competitors) as examples of dangerous coercive abilities.
Economic power is so easily converted into coercive power that the extent of distinction you attempt to make is useless in predicting or explaining what power is and how it works and what it does.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 10, 2011, 03:19:32 PM
I would think that if you had socialist society where people could freely opt out, the productive ones eventually would. I can't see how a socialist society would ever work peacefully for any length of time without some sort of body with a monopoly on force.
How would a society of anarchist without free trade determine what to build or how to do it?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 03:56:18 PM
I would think that if you had socialist society where people could freely opt out, the productive ones eventually would. I can't see how a socialist society would ever work peacefully for any length of time without some sort of body with a monopoly on force.
How would a society of anarchist without free trade determine what to build or how to do it?
It's not an imposed system that one can opt out of, it's more like what it would be if it made any sense to say one could opt out of a world where corporations had such dominant power. Productive people wouldn't opt out because I don't want to punish the prodictive and reward the lazy, just the opposite. I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers. I like free markets, but what we have now is capitalism, not free markets. A monopoly of force is not needed, an oligopoly of power that abuses a monopoly of force is the actual problem.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 10, 2011, 04:26:28 PM
I would think that if you had socialist society where people could freely opt out, the productive ones eventually would. I can't see how a socialist society would ever work peacefully for any length of time without some sort of body with a monopoly on force.
How would a society of anarchist without free trade determine what to build or how to do it?
It's not an imposed system that one can opt out of, it's more like what it would be if it made any sense to say one could opt out of a world where corporations had such dominant power. Productive people wouldn't opt out because I don't want to punish the prodictive and reward the lazy, just the opposite. I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers. I like free markets, but what we have now is capitalism, not free markets. A monopoly of force is not needed, an oligopoly of power that abuses a monopoly of force is the actual problem.
8) I am sure you would be a fine king, but what we lived in wouldn't be anarchy.  :lol:
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: dalebert on February 10, 2011, 04:27:13 PM
It seems to me that the labels applied to libertarian or anarchist like left, right, capitalist, etc. have to do with what people predict a world without a state would be like.  I heard a good explanation from another guy who refused to apply labels.  He said he just wants the state gone and described himself as agnostic with respect to what a world without an aggressive state would be like.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 04:44:51 PM
8) I am sure you would be a fine king, but what we lived in wouldn't be anarchy.  :lol:
I don't want to be a king, I expect this will all happen eventually without need of one. I did say that this didn't need to be imposed. Socialism is throwing off the impositions of capitalism.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 10, 2011, 05:00:50 PM
When you say "capitalism" do you mean free market freedom to do what one likes with the fruits of ones labor or do you mean what most on this board refer to as "corporatism"?
I know many socialist, believe you me, they are quite capable of greed, and they are better at petty jealousy than any group I have ever seen.
Hvis du lurer hvorfor bare click på profilen mitt. :)
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 05:08:39 PM
When you say "capitalism" do you mean free market freedom to do what one likes with the fruits of ones labor or do you mean what most on this board refer to as "corporatism"?
I mean capitalism as the colloquial understanding of mainstream society that has no particular affinity for the word, similar but not identically to what you would call corporatism because calling it corporatism is narrowing the scope of the problem too far. I do not use capitalism to mean genuinely free markets but may occasionally use it to refer to ostensibly free markets or to domination of markets in the name of free market.

Quote
I know many socialist, believe you me, they are quite capable of greed, and they are better at petty jealousy than any group I have ever seen.
I don't care about greed and jealousy. It's a fact of humanity that doesn't have any bearing on why socialism is better than capitalism.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 05:43:44 PM
It seems to me that the labels applied to libertarian or anarchist like left, right, capitalist, etc. have to do with what people predict a world without a state would be like.  I heard a good explanation from another guy who refused to apply labels.  He said he just wants the state gone and described himself as agnostic with respect to what a world without an aggressive state would be like.

It's sort of like that but the reasonings and motivations differ. The state is a symptom of the problem I want to solve, not the problem itself. I want to eliminate perpetual power classes (i.e. Rich vs everyone else, bosses vs employees, cops vs everyone else, politicians vs everyone else). Inequality of a power of 10 I can understand ($10,000 vs $100,000/yr incomes), though smaller is better, anything bigger than that should immediately invite questioning as to why and how, not explanations about how some people are just plain 10 times better as people than others as I get from ancaps sometimes. I don't just predict something different, I also predict the way it will happen is different, the values of the opposing sides will be different. A lot of the values of anarchocapitalists are destructive to the goals of other anarchists. Defending power disparity that is cause and consequence of the state doesn't further libertarianism at all, and sets it back drastically. Socialists at least acknowledge the non-state aspects of the problem, and while many use the state to try to solve these problems out of seeing no other means available to them and an opportunity available to take control of capitalism's biggest tool, some see the state as part of the problem as well.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 10, 2011, 05:59:20 PM
Zhwazi, as long as you're willing to let us Anarcho-CAPITALISTS do our own thing and not be imposed upon, we will leave you alone. Live and let live.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 06:39:23 PM
Zhwazi, as long as you're willing to let us Anarcho-CAPITALISTS do our own thing and not be imposed upon, we will leave you alone. Live and let live.
You whatever-capitalists can't be tolerated if you create systems that acrete power to those inside at the expense of those outside. Separation is impossible, it's all one world and one society. You're trying to put an idea very different from your own into the framework of your own, and it does not fit.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 10, 2011, 06:53:05 PM
You whatever-capitalists can't be tolerated if you create systems that acrete power to those inside at the expense of those outside. Separation is impossible, it's all one world and one society.

In other words, you advocate turning your guns on us? Well, fuck you and the white horse you rode in on.  

Quote
You're trying to put an idea very different from your own into the framework of your own, and it does not fit.

:roll:

Oh, please, by all means TELL me what I believe.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 07:20:11 PM
Quote
It's not an imposed system that one can opt out of, it's more like what it would be if it made any sense to say one could opt out of a world where corporations had such dominant power. Productive people wouldn't opt out because I don't want to punish the prodictive and reward the lazy, just the opposite. I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers. I like free markets, but what we have now is capitalism, not free markets. A monopoly of force is not needed, an oligopoly of power that abuses a monopoly of force is the actual problem.

First, you are full of aggression. "Will not be tolerated", " I want to punish...[and]...reward", etc... You support yourself with fallacies like the Labor Theory of Value and equivocations of power and freedom. Its as if you're saying that money is power simply because it might be used to obtain coercive power. You also set artificial limits at 10x the "inequality" between individuals, when you don't realize that income is simply a reflection of the value placed on a person's contributions to others. God, I can't believe you're still using the Labor Theory of Value! laughable.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 07:35:25 PM
You whatever-capitalists can't be tolerated if you create systems that acrete power to those inside at the expense of those outside. Separation is impossible, it's all one world and one society.

In other words, you advocate turning your guns on us? Well, fuck you and the white horse you rode in on.
As a response to aggression. Not all aggression is as direct as you would like to believe. Concetrated power is aggressive.


Quote
Oh, please, by all means TELL me what I believe.
I know what you believe, anarchocapitalist. I used to be one. I know the thought patterns inside and out. If you think you can fit all beliefs in their own little compartments and as long as these compatments dont interfere with each other everything is kosher, that's a prime example of the anarchocapitalist thinking I gave up on, because it grossly misses the problem at hand ajd provides a solution that is only useful in debates and has zero efficacy or usefulness in the real world. The ancap circlejerk comes up with ideas that are useful for debating, not ideas useful in the real world. Exhibiting these useless thought patterns only reinforces my confidence that I do know what you believe, and can probably tell you things about what you believe that you don't even realize.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 07:44:03 PM
Quote
It's not an imposed system that one can opt out of, it's more like what it would be if it made any sense to say one could opt out of a world where corporations had such dominant power. Productive people wouldn't opt out because I don't want to punish the prodictive and reward the lazy, just the opposite. I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers. I like free markets, but what we have now is capitalism, not free markets. A monopoly of force is not needed, an oligopoly of power that abuses a monopoly of force is the actual problem.

First, you are full of aggression. "Will not be tolerated", " I want to punish...[and]...reward", etc... You support yourself with fallacies like the Labor Theory of Value and equivocations of power and freedom. Its as if you're saying that money is power simply because it might be used to obtain coercive power. You also set artificial limits at 10x the "inequality" between individuals, when you don't realize that income is simply a reflection of the value placed on a person's contributions to others. God, I can't believe you're still using the Labor Theory of Value! laughable.
Drop the mocking tone, until you make a legitimate effort at understanding me. The use of force is not as simple as aggressive and defensive, convenient as that might make it to judge the world. The 10x limit is not arbitrary and not a hard limit. Even putting it a 10x is being generous. And the Labor Theory of Value is just like the STV that you almost certainly subscribe to, both contain a kernel of truth that members of the other side completely ignore because it would impede their moral indignance to admit that the other side has a point in any sense. Enjoy your ignorance and wallow in it, you're way better than me after all because you're better at misunderstanding and dismissing ideas that you only think you understand.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: davann on February 10, 2011, 07:45:01 PM
I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers.

Just to let you know, you start taking my profit and I close up shop. Simple as that. Now what?

You fail to appreciate human motivation and attempt to inject your feelings of right and wrong into business. Suffice it to say, the system you propose will fail even with force involved.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 10, 2011, 07:52:54 PM
I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers.

Just to let you know, you start taking my profit and I close up shop. Simple as that. Now what?

You fail to appreciate human motivation and attempt to inject your feelings of right and wrong into business. Suffice it to say, the system you propose will fail even with force involved.

And if enough people refuse to work for you, you won't have a shop at all.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 10, 2011, 08:04:03 PM
As a response to aggression. Not all aggression is as direct as you would like to believe. Concetrated power is aggressive.

Whatever. Live your life as you wish, let me and mine live as we wish.

Quote
I know what you believe, anarchocapitalist. I used to be one. I know the thought patterns inside and out.

I somehow find that very hard to believe.  

Quote
The ancap circlejerk comes up with ideas that are useful for debating, not ideas useful in the real world. Exhibiting these useless thought patterns only reinforces my confidence that I do know what you believe, and can probably tell you things about what you believe that you don't even realize.

Ya know what, motherfucker, you get the privilege of being the first person to go on my ignore list.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 08:05:28 PM
I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers.

Just to let you know, you start taking my profit and I close up shop. Simple as that. Now what?
Do the work yourself and nobody has any claim to it except you. Not to be taken away and given to anybody. When you start hiring people things get complicated, but as long as you pay fairly there's little foul to complain about. Small businesses are not a threat to socialism.

Quote
You fail to appreciate human motivation and attempt to inject your feelings of right and wrong into business. Suffice it to say, the system you propose will fail even with force involved.
I havent even said what I propose. I've described aspects of it in the ways that it differs from yours and others'. You cannot justifiably say that my system will fail without even knowing what it is and why it is that way.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 08:10:52 PM
I know what you believe, anarchocapitalist. I used to be one. I know the thought patterns inside and out.

I somehow find that very hard to believe.
Timelady Victorious can vouch for me if that is who I think it is. I've got almost 3000 posts on this board.

Quote
Ya know what, motherfucker, you get the privilege of being the first person to go on my ignore list.
War, peace. Freedom, slavery.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 08:19:36 PM
Quote
It's not an imposed system that one can opt out of, it's more like what it would be if it made any sense to say one could opt out of a world where corporations had such dominant power. Productive people wouldn't opt out because I don't want to punish the prodictive and reward the lazy, just the opposite. I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers. I like free markets, but what we have now is capitalism, not free markets. A monopoly of force is not needed, an oligopoly of power that abuses a monopoly of force is the actual problem.

First, you are full of aggression. "Will not be tolerated", " I want to punish...[and]...reward", etc... You support yourself with fallacies like the Labor Theory of Value and equivocations of power and freedom. Its as if you're saying that money is power simply because it might be used to obtain coercive power. You also set artificial limits at 10x the "inequality" between individuals, when you don't realize that income is simply a reflection of the value placed on a person's contributions to others. God, I can't believe you're still using the Labor Theory of Value! laughable.
Drop the mocking tone, until you make a legitimate effort at understanding me. The use of force is not as simple as aggressive and defensive, convenient as that might make it to judge the world. The 10x limit is not arbitrary and not a hard limit. Even putting it a 10x is being generous. And the Labor Theory of Value is just like the STV that you almost certainly subscribe to, both contain a kernel of truth that members of the other side completely ignore because it would impede their moral indignance to admit that the other side has a point in any sense. Enjoy your ignorance and wallow in it, you're way better than me after all because you're better at misunderstanding and dismissing ideas that you only think you understand.

The reason I have dismissed the idea is because it useless in modern economics.  Supply and demand are much more complete indicators of value.  Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and  Hayek all effectively de-legitimized  Marx as an economic theorist. Ayn Rand, however nutty she was about sex, thoroughly and utterly refuted collectivism in work such as We the Living, Atlas Shrugged, and her many nonfiction works. The Twentieth Century Motor Company is as distilled an example of the fallacies of socialism as you'll find.  That picture is as accurate a portrayal of reality as you'll find. Examples include: Jamestown, New Harmony, Soviet Russia, and many other failures. I think one of us has dogmatic, fantasy-based beliefs...and it's not me.

Also, my view of force is not as simplistic as you may think. The word coercion itself is a general term used to describe many degrees of force.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 10, 2011, 08:26:57 PM
Quote
It's not an imposed system that one can opt out of, it's more like what it would be if it made any sense to say one could opt out of a world where corporations had such dominant power. Productive people wouldn't opt out because I don't want to punish the prodictive and reward the lazy, just the opposite. I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers. I like free markets, but what we have now is capitalism, not free markets. A monopoly of force is not needed, an oligopoly of power that abuses a monopoly of force is the actual problem.

First, you are full of aggression. "Will not be tolerated", " I want to punish...[and]...reward", etc... You support yourself with fallacies like the Labor Theory of Value and equivocations of power and freedom. Its as if you're saying that money is power simply because it might be used to obtain coercive power. You also set artificial limits at 10x the "inequality" between individuals, when you don't realize that income is simply a reflection of the value placed on a person's contributions to others. God, I can't believe you're still using the Labor Theory of Value! laughable.
Drop the mocking tone, until you make a legitimate effort at understanding me. The use of force is not as simple as aggressive and defensive, convenient as that might make it to judge the world. The 10x limit is not arbitrary and not a hard limit. Even putting it a 10x is being generous. And the Labor Theory of Value is just like the STV that you almost certainly subscribe to, both contain a kernel of truth that members of the other side completely ignore because it would impede their moral indignance to admit that the other side has a point in any sense. Enjoy your ignorance and wallow in it, you're way better than me after all because you're better at misunderstanding and dismissing ideas that you only think you understand.

The reason I have dismissed the idea is because it useless in modern economics.  Supply and demand are much more complete indicators of value.  Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and  Hayek all effectively de-legitimized  Marx as an economic theorist. Ayn Rand, however nutty she was about sex, thoroughly and utterly refuted collectivism in work such as We the Living, Atlas Shrugged, and her many nonfiction works. The Twentieth Century Motor Company is as distilled an example of the fallacies of socialism as you'll find.  That picture is as accurate a portrayal of reality as you'll find. Examples include: Jamestown, New Harmony, Soviet Russia, and many other failures. I think one of us has dogmatic, fantasy-based beliefs...and it's not me.

Also, my view of force is not as simplistic as you may think. The word coercion itself is a general term used to describe many degrees of force.

Yes, and successful examples include: the Tolstoyist communes in pre-Revolutionary Russia, the Israeli Kibbutzim,  the anarcho-syndacalist factories in Spain, the Christian Hutterites, the well-field system in China that lasted for more than 1000 years, the Mexican ejidos...
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 10, 2011, 08:47:40 PM
Quote
It's not an imposed system that one can opt out of, it's more like what it would be if it made any sense to say one could opt out of a world where corporations had such dominant power. Productive people wouldn't opt out because I don't want to punish the prodictive and reward the lazy, just the opposite. I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers. I like free markets, but what we have now is capitalism, not free markets. A monopoly of force is not needed, an oligopoly of power that abuses a monopoly of force is the actual problem.

First, you are full of aggression. "Will not be tolerated", " I want to punish...[and]...reward", etc... You support yourself with fallacies like the Labor Theory of Value and equivocations of power and freedom. Its as if you're saying that money is power simply because it might be used to obtain coercive power. You also set artificial limits at 10x the "inequality" between individuals, when you don't realize that income is simply a reflection of the value placed on a person's contributions to others. God, I can't believe you're still using the Labor Theory of Value! laughable.
Drop the mocking tone, until you make a legitimate effort at understanding me. The use of force is not as simple as aggressive and defensive, convenient as that might make it to judge the world. The 10x limit is not arbitrary and not a hard limit. Even putting it a 10x is being generous. And the Labor Theory of Value is just like the STV that you almost certainly subscribe to, both contain a kernel of truth that members of the other side completely ignore because it would impede their moral indignance to admit that the other side has a point in any sense. Enjoy your ignorance and wallow in it, you're way better than me after all because you're better at misunderstanding and dismissing ideas that you only think you understand.

The reason I have dismissed the idea is because it useless in modern economics.  Supply and demand are much more complete indicators of value.  Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and  Hayek all effectively de-legitimized  Marx as an economic theorist. Ayn Rand, however nutty she was about sex, thoroughly and utterly refuted collectivism in work such as We the Living, Atlas Shrugged, and her many nonfiction works. The Twentieth Century Motor Company is as distilled an example of the fallacies of socialism as you'll find.  That picture is as accurate a portrayal of reality as you'll find. Examples include: Jamestown, New Harmony, Soviet Russia, and many other failures. I think one of us has dogmatic, fantasy-based beliefs...and it's not me.

Also, my view of force is not as simplistic as you may think. The word coercion itself is a general term used to describe many degrees of force.
Good to hear that you have a more in-depth understanding of force. You're handling criticism a lot better than somebody else that has been participating in this thread.

Regarding the LTV, it's a different understanding that is easily misunderstood and has a lot of different versions. I see it as you own what you make, and those things that you make are valuable otherwise you would not have made them. Their price does fluctuate depending on changing conditions, but the amount of labor required to create something gives you a generally accurate view of the real-world value that price tends toward when not bumped around by the phenomena that STV is more concerned with. They're mostly complementary and not as incompatible as most people think. I'm not in a position to rigorously refute or dismiss the big name economists, but I do think they can overstate their differences and demonize each other unjustly, there's certainly an interest in doing so.

I don't think either of us have fantasy-based beliefs, both are likely based on a kernel of truth, a bundle of insights, a couple of misinderstandings, and a lot of community folk knowledge thrown on top. I think I have insights that may be valuable to you, and while I think I've taken everything genuinely valuable out of anarchocapitalism and associated forms of libertarianism, I'm open to being shown wrong and learning something else.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 08:53:30 PM
Quote
It's not an imposed system that one can opt out of, it's more like what it would be if it made any sense to say one could opt out of a world where corporations had such dominant power. Productive people wouldn't opt out because I don't want to punish the prodictive and reward the lazy, just the opposite. I want to reward the workers and take from the inordinate value of the labor taken by owners of capital as profit and give it back to the workers. I like free markets, but what we have now is capitalism, not free markets. A monopoly of force is not needed, an oligopoly of power that abuses a monopoly of force is the actual problem.

First, you are full of aggression. "Will not be tolerated", " I want to punish...[and]...reward", etc... You support yourself with fallacies like the Labor Theory of Value and equivocations of power and freedom. Its as if you're saying that money is power simply because it might be used to obtain coercive power. You also set artificial limits at 10x the "inequality" between individuals, when you don't realize that income is simply a reflection of the value placed on a person's contributions to others. God, I can't believe you're still using the Labor Theory of Value! laughable.
Drop the mocking tone, until you make a legitimate effort at understanding me. The use of force is not as simple as aggressive and defensive, convenient as that might make it to judge the world. The 10x limit is not arbitrary and not a hard limit. Even putting it a 10x is being generous. And the Labor Theory of Value is just like the STV that you almost certainly subscribe to, both contain a kernel of truth that members of the other side completely ignore because it would impede their moral indignance to admit that the other side has a point in any sense. Enjoy your ignorance and wallow in it, you're way better than me after all because you're better at misunderstanding and dismissing ideas that you only think you understand.

The reason I have dismissed the idea is because it useless in modern economics.  Supply and demand are much more complete indicators of value.  Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, and  Hayek all effectively de-legitimized  Marx as an economic theorist. Ayn Rand, however nutty she was about sex, thoroughly and utterly refuted collectivism in work such as We the Living, Atlas Shrugged, and her many nonfiction works. The Twentieth Century Motor Company is as distilled an example of the fallacies of socialism as you'll find.  That picture is as accurate a portrayal of reality as you'll find. Examples include: Jamestown, New Harmony, Soviet Russia, and many other failures. I think one of us has dogmatic, fantasy-based beliefs...and it's not me.

Also, my view of force is not as simplistic as you may think. The word coercion itself is a general term used to describe many degrees of force.

Yes, and successful examples include: the Tolstoyist communes in pre-Revolutionary Russia, the Israeli Kibbutzim,  the anarcho-syndacalist factories in Spain, the Christian Hutterites, the well-field system in China that lasted for more than 1000 years, the Mexican ejidos...

Alright, I'll be the poster that researches and responds to others' points:
Well-field system: was 1) a system of mostly private ownership, 2) a form of feudalism none-the-less, and 3) controversial as to whether or not it ever was really implemented.
Tolstoyists: were small, short-lived groups of people who all very closely shared the same beliefs. There is no evidence their vegetarian, teetotal, and usually celibate form of pacifism would work in large groups of people.
Hutterites: 1) they operate like a corporation, 2) have a government, and 3) are always very small populations with numbers between 60-250.
anarcho-syndicalists: distilled: The Union is the government.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 09:07:01 PM
Regarding the LTV, it's a different understanding that is easily misunderstood and has a lot of different versions. I see it as you own what you makeEven when the process of making is merely a service you are offering to another (i.e. working for), and those things that you make are valuable otherwise you would not have made them They are valuable because either you made it to use for your own needs or because someone else is willing to pay for it. Their price does fluctuate depending on changing conditions, but the amount of labor required to create something gives you a generally accurate view of the real-world value that price tends toward when not bumped around by the phenomena that STV is more concerned withThese "phenomena" and the marginal utility theory are much better indicators of value than the simple quantity of work you added. Typically, time and efforts factor into a person's value of their production, but do not define it. They're mostly complementary and not as incompatible as most people thinkIts very much like the Rutherford atomic model and the Quantum Theory model. One is primitive and doesn't accurately explain all of the phenomena that occur in reality and one is a more complete, accurate picture that allows for much more insight. Also, the use of one by serious professionals in that field has replaced the other almost completely.. I'm not in a position to rigorously refute or dismiss the big name economists, but I do think they can overstate their differences and demonize each other unjustly, there's certainly an interest in doing so.such a general statement is not based in reason, but blanket speculation
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 10, 2011, 11:49:47 PM
I talked to an old mentor of mine, who helped me break down the four main problems of LTV:
1) you can't make interpersonal labor comparisons except by a market-determined price
2) labor has a price, and the ltv can't explain it
3) the ltv is a theory of intrinsic value, and this is a problem because value is demonstrably not intrinsic
4) the ltv ignores the context of the exchange; as an intrinsic theory of value it implies that the value of the object is fixed at the time of production--it can't change in response to changes in supply or demand
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 11, 2011, 12:05:37 AM
I swear I replied to this but it looks like my post got deleted or something. REMIX!

Even when the process of making is merely a service you are offering to another (i.e. working for)
That's correct. You own the consequences of your action, good or bad, good or service.

They are valuable because either you made it to use for your own needs or because someone else is willing to pay for it
Right, that's why people make it.

These "phenomena" and the marginal utility theory are much better indicators of value than the simple quantity of work you added. Typically, time and efforts factor into a person's value of their production, but do not define it
They aren't indicators of value, they're explanations for the behaviors of prices, but don't touch on why things are priced in the general neighborhoods that they are. The quantity of work that must be spent to get it is precisely an indicator of its value. The price is an indicator of it's value and of how much of something is around and how high demand for something is.

Its very much like the Rutherford atomic model and the Quantum Theory model. One is primitive and doesn't accurately explain all of the phenomena that occur in reality and one is a more complete, accurate picture that allows for much more insight. Also, the use of one by serious professionals in that field has replaced the other almost completely.
It's not like that. LTV has not been disproven. It's been attacked but I haven't seen an attack that hasn't been refuted itself. It's an alternate perspective. STV sees some things LTV doesn't focus on, and LTV sees things STV doesn't focus on.

It's not very widely used in capitalism because prices in capitalism are so far removed from their actual values that it appears useless, everything is a bubble. These bubbles aren't sustainable and eventually pop.

STV will tell you why houses were selling at such ridiculous prices in 2007, LTV will tell you where the prices are going to land after the bubble is fully deflated. The subjective values of housing is continuing to fall and will do so until it gets down to about the point where it reflects the amount of labor it takes to build a house, and then a bit farther because of how too many houses were built because people kept thinking they'd sell for two and three times what it costs to build a house. LTV is more concerned with long-term prices and processes, STV is more concerned with what happens at the moment of transaction. Both care about both, but they have clear focuses. And I don't think they compete. They seem to simply explain different things better. They both explain the same things in largely the same ways.

such a general statement is not based in reason, but blanket speculation
Provide evidence that I had no reason behind what I said.

I will provide evidence that my general statement was based on reason. You don't have to write a 1000 page book on human action to understand how people think, and how they fail to think.

Premise: Appearances are important.
Premise: You look good if you look like you demolished more of your opponents more artfully and more thoroughly than any of your peers.
Conclusion: It is a good idea to look like you demolished more of your opponents more artfully and more thoroughly than any of your peers.

Premise: Demolition requires disagreement.
Premise: If there is no disagreement, then you cannot look like you demolished more of your opponents more artfully and more thoroughly than any of your peers.
Premise: It is possible to create the appearance of disagreement even if it is not there.
Conclusion: It is a good idea to create as much appearance of disagreement as possible, to enable as much demolition as possible.

Observation: STV and LTV aren't as different as one would expect by reading economists attacking each other.
Possible Explanations:
-They're radically different and nobody can reasonably explain how
-They're not that different, but people that want it to look different make it look different.
Most Likely Explanation:
At least to me, it appears that they're not that different, but people that want it to look different make it look different.

Yay logic! Now your turn!

I talked to an old mentor of mine, who helped me break down the four main problems of LTV:
1) you can't make interpersonal labor comparisons except by a market-determined price
2) labor has a price, and the ltv can't explain it
3) the ltv is a theory of intrinsic value, and this is a problem because value is demonstrably not intrinsic
4) the ltv ignores the context of the exchange; as an intrinsic theory of value it implies that the value of the object is fixed at the time of production--it can't change in response to changes in supply or demand
1. Yes you can. In terms of labor. How much labor would it take you to get the same thing in another way? Compare. Done.
2. What is there to explain?
3. LTV is not a theory of intrinsic value.
4. This is a restatement of 3 and invalid for the same reason.

Do you mind if I ask where your mentor learned about the LTV?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 11, 2011, 12:26:36 AM
Jesus Christ...Where to start:
You are mixing the theories, you misrepresent LTV, your view of scientific advancement is a childish one of "demolishing" current views, and you don't really address the four points very well. I'll get to all of the specifics tomorrow if you wish, but right now, I'm going to bed. BTW, are you in NH?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: BonerJoe on February 11, 2011, 12:30:13 AM
Can you really reason with a dolphinfucker? Stop trying.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 11, 2011, 12:45:19 AM
Jesus Christ...Where to start:
You are mixing the theories
What's wrong with mixing theories? If they both have something useful and something that's better will probably be proposed later anyways, why can't I take what's useful from more than one framework of thought?

you misrepresent LTV
I know that you do. I may, but you certainly do.

your view of scientific advancement is a childish one of "demolishing" current views
When science becomes politically charged that's what happens. And if there's a politically charged science then economics is it. I'm not saying that's how science advances, I'm saying that's how politically charged bullshit works. Real sciences don't work like that.

and you don't really address the four points very well.
They are trivial, unclear, wrong, and wrong, respectively. If you want good answers ask good questions or make good points. You may wish to read this first, so that we're on the same page with respect to LTV, subjectivity, compatibility, non-intrisicity, et al: http://www.mutualist.org/id56.html

I'll get to all of the specifics tomorrow if you wish, but right now, I'm going to bed. BTW, are you in NH?
Maybe.

Can you really reason with a dolphinfucker? Stop trying.
My sexually preferred species has nothing to do with my socioeconomic beliefs nor the validity of my arguments :P
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 11, 2011, 02:58:14 AM
Can you really reason with a dolphinfucker? Stop trying.
That is not very nice BJ. :?
I am sure Zhwazi fucks all sorts of marine mammals.
Unless that blue whale eats more than 10 times the weight of what that otter got, then that sucker is going to pay.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 11, 2011, 03:14:51 AM
Dolphin vaginas are supposedly intensely pleasurable, also dolphin females like to fuck for pleasure and have a history of coming onto humans.

Can't blame him there.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: dalebert on February 11, 2011, 08:14:43 AM
I'm writing a book about people who turn into dolphins, Zhwazi.  You would probably be disappointed though because there is no explicit sex-while-a-dolphin that happens in it.  Been working on it for over five years.  Prolly be at least that much longer before I'm finished.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on February 11, 2011, 08:17:48 AM

I was once at Sea World in San Diego, and at a tank, a dolphin swam up to us. We started petting it, and the dolphin seemed very happy from that. What struck me was how much like a puppy it looked getting petted. Cute little animal. Skin feels like neoprene. I wouldn't want to fuck one however.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: dalebert on February 11, 2011, 09:54:10 AM
I wouldn't want to fuck one however.

Bigot.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 11, 2011, 12:14:17 PM
I'm writing a book about people who turn into dolphins, Zhwazi.  You would probably be disappointed though because there is no explicit sex-while-a-dolphin that happens in it.  Been working on it for over five years.  Prolly be at least that much longer before I'm finished.
That wouldn't disappoint me, sex isn't appropriate for everything everywhere that there's an opportunity for it :P
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: John Shaw on February 11, 2011, 12:15:47 PM
WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 11, 2011, 12:22:26 PM
WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN.
Hahahah. Away from politics, focused on IT and furfaggotry.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 11, 2011, 01:10:35 PM
Got a short minute at lunch. I need a clarification question. What is your definition of LTV. What do you get from it and what are your conclusions? All of this is important in my responses.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Andy on February 11, 2011, 02:12:50 PM
Oh. Wow.

*Gets Popcorn*
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 11, 2011, 03:20:29 PM
It's not something I can provide in as simple an explanation as a definition. See http://mutualist.org/id56.html for some info, big page is big and I don't expect you to read it all, but skim the first third or so at least. Can't get into long explanations, on my cellphone at work.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 11, 2011, 04:05:35 PM
It's not something I can provide in as simple an explanation as a definition. See http://mutualist.org/id56.html for some info, big page is big and I don't expect you to read it all, but skim the first third or so at least. Can't get into long explanations, on my cellphone at work.

I've read a huge chunk (over half) of that page. It's full of false conclusions and misrepresentations masquerading as reason. That's a little harsh, the author attempts to rationalize some of the more greivous answers of LTV, but still comes to the same false conclusions at the end. Like you, I can't go into more detail as I'm at work.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: blackie on February 11, 2011, 04:12:18 PM
I couldn't make it thru the second paragraph.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 11, 2011, 04:58:56 PM
I couldn't make it thru the second paragraph.

That's cause you're "obviously a stupid AnCap and Zhwazi knows exactly what it is you think/believe cause he used to be an AnCap but is now an AnSyn....."
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 11, 2011, 05:17:39 PM
I couldn't make it thru the second paragraph.

That's cause you're "obviously a stupid AnCap and Zhwazi knows exactly what it is you think/believe cause he used to be an AnCap but is now an AnSyn....."
And here I thought it was because economics is obscenely boring and because reading contrary thoughts for somebody that doesnt have a stake in it is a poor use of time.

I notice you didn't bother to contradict or deny any of my characterizations of what you believe. Is this perhaps because I characterized it correctly? I can see why it might be scary, but when LTKoblinsky thought I mischarachterized his understanding he said so. You said effectively nothing and ignored the affront to your sense of moral indignance.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: blackie on February 11, 2011, 05:24:41 PM
I may be stupid, but I'm not an AnCap.

I just can't get into this economic theory stuff.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 11, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
I may be stupid, but I'm not an AnCap.

I just can't get into this economic theory stuff.

Don't worry, you'll soon be a part of Zhwazi's collective whether you want to be or not. Cause he'll use the Labor Theory of Value to convince you. Sort of like the mind-numbed Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project people.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 11, 2011, 09:20:28 PM
I may be stupid, but I'm not an AnCap.

I just can't get into this economic theory stuff.

Don't worry, you'll soon be a part of Zhwazi's collective whether you want to be or not. Cause he'll use the Labor Theory of Value to convince you. Sort of like the mind-numbed Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project people.
That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 11, 2011, 10:10:41 PM
I may be stupid, but I'm not an AnCap.

I just can't get into this economic theory stuff.

Don't worry, you'll soon be a part of Zhwazi's collective whether you want to be or not. Cause he'll use the Labor Theory of Value to convince you. Sort of like the mind-numbed Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project people.
That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Listen, he may not understand the ins and outs of economic policy or may just find it boring (who could, really? but to each his own). The point is, he doesn't even need to be see the nuanced flaws of LTV to see the problems with collectivist thought in general.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 11, 2011, 11:08:11 PM
I may be stupid, but I'm not an AnCap.

I just can't get into this economic theory stuff.

Don't worry, you'll soon be a part of Zhwazi's collective whether you want to be or not. Cause he'll use the Labor Theory of Value to convince you. Sort of like the mind-numbed Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project people.
That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Listen, he may not understand the ins and outs of economic policy or may just find it boring (who could, really? but to each his own). The point is, he doesn't even need to be see the nuanced flaws of LTV to see the problems with collectivist thought in general.
I just want to be clear, I was replying to Brooklyn Red Leg, not Blackie. Blackie can keep doing what he's doing, nothing he's doing is bothering me. He showed that my guess as to why he didn't get through the second paragraph was correct also.

In retort to Brooklyn Red Leg's (who never commented on economic policy, didn't read my post and is just being an asstart) accusations, I'm not a collectivist (hence the "inaccurate" mentioned in my reply to him). LTV is not inherently collectivist. An idea being useful to collectivists doesn't make it collectivistic if it's also useful to individualists.

I don't understand the ins and outs of economic policy either. But I'm willing to learn and don't think anything is beyond my ability to know, so I'll learn as needed.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 12, 2011, 01:38:28 AM
I may be stupid, but I'm not an AnCap.

I just can't get into this economic theory stuff.

Don't worry, you'll soon be a part of Zhwazi's collective whether you want to be or not. Cause he'll use the Labor Theory of Value to convince you. Sort of like the mind-numbed Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project people.
That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Listen, he may not understand the ins and outs of economic policy or may just find it boring (who could, really? but to each his own). The point is, he doesn't even need to be see the nuanced flaws of LTV to see the problems with collectivist thought in general.
I just want to be clear, I was replying to Brooklyn Red Leg, not Blackie. Blackie can keep doing what he's doing, nothing he's doing is bothering me. He showed that my guess as to why he didn't get through the second paragraph was correct also.

In retort to Brooklyn Red Leg's (who never commented on economic policy, didn't read my post and is just being an asstart) accusations, I'm not a collectivist (hence the "inaccurate" mentioned in my reply to him). LTV is not inherently collectivist. An idea being useful to collectivists doesn't make it collectivistic if it's also useful to individualists.

I don't understand the ins and outs of economic policy either. But I'm willing to learn and don't think anything is beyond my ability to know, so I'll learn as needed.

granted, but LTV is logically collective. The final conclusion seems to view all but the most basic property rights (i.e. I baked bread, so the bread is mine) as state-granted monopolies. The right of exclusion is one of the most basic tenets of property rights and ultimately freedom. LTV proponents, especially maurice Dobbs, view this right as a toll-booth, appropriating the fruits of other people's labor. This is an inconsistent view of property. If I build (or buy) a machine of production, am I morally obligated to allow anyone who wants it free access to my machine? After all, their labor is what's important. My capital (machine) is insignificant.  Ultimately, labor is simply a cost of production, which affects the supply curve, which brings us to marginalism. LTV proponents try to argue that labor is somehow unique because it is required for the production of all
goods, but that is just another version of the Water-Diamonds Paradox (water
is the most useful thing but has a low price, while diamonds are not
very useful but have a high price).  The flaw in the Water-Diamonds
Paradox is that it considers only water in a general sense and
diamonds in a general sense.  But nobody buys "all the water in the
world" or "all the diamonds in the world."  They only buy individual
units.  And it's the *marginal* utility of those units that determines
the value of the good in the market.  The theory of marginal utility
solves the Water-Diamonds Paradox, and it refutes this Marxist
nonsense that labor is somehow the ultimate input just because it
happens to be necessary.  Water is necessary for human life, but that
doesn't give any particular unit of water a high value or high price.

Labor may be necessary for every production process, but that doesn't
give any particular unit of labor a high value or high price.  In
fact, in many production processes capital equipment costs much more
than labor.  The reason is straightforward: the supply of machines is
lower than the supply of unskilled labor.  So what determines the
supply curve for the final product?  All inputs, including but not
limited to labor--and labor is not even necessarily the most important
input.
.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 12, 2011, 01:41:36 AM
sorry if my last post is a bit incoherent. I've taken to typing parts of it in Linux text editor and pasting it into the posting box. I've only got half of a screen. I stepped on my laptop and now half of it is black and the other half has black, inky streaks running through it. Should be fixed tomorrow!
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 12, 2011, 02:08:13 AM
granted, but LTV is logically collective.
I disagree. Why do you believe this is so? (the things you write after this do not appear to support it)

Quote
The final conclusion seems to view all but the most basic property rights (i.e. I baked bread, so the bread is mine) as state-granted monopolies.
Many of them are. I believe you own the consequences of your action. If you want to have ownership of land, you should build yourself an island, or build dikes and drain the land you plan to use. Those who became big owners of capital did so with the help of the state. This isn't uniquely left-libertarian or anticapitalist, a lot of ancaps that I know are no fans of big business.

Quote
The right of exclusion is one of the most basic tenets of property rights and ultimately freedom.
The right of exclusion of legitimate property, yes. Most anticapitalist objections are regarding illegitimate property. Not everything that is ostensibly ownable is legitimately ownable, and not everything that is owned is legitimately owned by it's ostensible owner.

Quote
LTV proponents, especially maurice Dobbs, view this right as a toll-booth, appropriating the fruits of other people's labor. This is an inconsistent view of property.
Abuse of false property is appropriating fruits of others labor without contribution. That you own land and paid for it does not make it legitimately owned if the original owner did nothing to legitimately acquire it, and owned it only by fiat. Using a "right to exclude" to extract tribute is illegitimately appropriating value that others created.

Quote
If I build (or buy) a machine of production, am I morally obligated to allow anyone who wants it free access to my machine?
If their use of it does not interfere with your use of it, then you have no basis on which to exclude them. If their use of it does interfere with your use of it, then you do. Most of the time you do. But you would need to be more specific about the nature of this machine.

Quote
After all, their labor is what's important. My capital (machine) is insignificant.
Your capital was created by labor as well, right? It is important too. But you should not expect to get much more rent out of it than you paid for it in the first place, unless monopolistic forces are preventing the laborers from simply getting their own machine or somebody else's and undercutting you.

Quote
Ultimately, labor is simply a cost of production, which affects the supply curve, which brings us to marginalism. LTV proponents try to argue that labor is somehow unique because it is required for the production of all goods, but that is just another version of the Water-Diamonds Paradox
I know what the water-diamond paradox is and I don't see how it relates to the water-diamond paradox at all.

Quote
The theory of marginal utility solves the Water-Diamonds Paradox, and it refutes this Marxist nonsense that labor is somehow the ultimate input just because it happens to be necessary.  Water is necessary for human life, but that doesn't give any particular unit of water a high value or high price.
Labor is not the same as water in the water-diamond paradox. Labor is the root cause of all economic production. I don't believe you are trying to imply that water is the root cause of all diamonds, because that would be silly and you're a reasonable person. Also the LTV is not Marxist. It was around long before Marx and was the widely accepted theory before marginalism.

Quote
Labor may be necessary for every production process, but that doesn't
give any particular unit of labor a high value or high price.  In
fact, in many production processes capital equipment costs much more
than labor.
Capital is created by labor. Capital costs are labor costs that get amortized over the useful life of the capital.

Quote
The reason is straightforward: the supply of machines is
lower than the supply of unskilled labor.
I'm curious why you qualified that as "unskilled labor", and of how you compare the supply of such naturally different things is machines and labor, unless you're comparing the product of a time's labor (the capital) to labor over some unspecified period of time (perhaps the useful life of the machine?), in which case the truth of the statement depends heavily on the specific circumstances.

Quote
So what determines the supply curve for the final product?  All inputs, including but not limited to labor--and labor is not even necessarily the most important input.
At the end of the day, labor is the only input. The costs of raw materials are the costs of the labor to gather, assemble, refine if needed, and distribute the raw materials. The costs of capital are the costs of the labor that goes into the creation of that capital. Not all of the labor that goes into creating something is immediate and proximate labor to the production process.

sorry if my last post is a bit incoherent. I've taken to typing parts of it in Linux text editor and pasting it into the posting box. I've only got half of a screen. I stepped on my laptop and now half of it is black and the other half has black, inky streaks running through it. Should be fixed tomorrow!
Ouch x.x well that explains why part of it has line breaks forced in at regular intervals. Cracked LCD's can be pricey and sometimes difficult to replace. Hope you get that fixed soon and at little cost! And it wasn't incoherent, though I didn't follow quite why you brought up the water diamond thing (maybe I missed something?) everything was understandable.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on February 12, 2011, 02:09:43 AM
Quote
That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Passive-Aggressive much? YOU were the one who attacked me, asshole. Not the other way around. You further stated that none of us is allowed to opt out of your society. I said 'Live and Let Live' and you rebuffed it. As I said, if you're going to turn your guns on me and mine, fuck you then. You're no Anarchist if people are forced to live by your rules. That makes you a Collectivist.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 12, 2011, 02:35:04 AM
Quote
If I build (or buy) a machine of production, am I morally obligated to allow anyone who wants it free access to my machine?
If their use of it does not interfere with your use of it, then you have no basis on which to exclude them. If their use of it does interfere with your use of it, then you do. Most of the time you do. But you would need to be more specific about the nature of this machine.

This is why its collectivist. If I build it or I buy it, you have no right to free load off of me in such a way. Get your own damn machine!  Also, labor is not the cause of production. utility is. Menger's Theory of Derived Demand adequately demonstrates this. IRL, I produce food because I know it will sell. Finally, I don't see where you come off saying that all costs are dependent on quantities of labor. This does not hold up in reality. Time, opportunity cost (it can be argued that abor falls under this classification), raw materials (you can't just write them off as "gifts of nature", capital, utility are all costs that factor into the supply curve. This conversation is a tree. I started with a simple point and has since branched. Responding to each point thoroughly simply brings up further branching. 
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 12, 2011, 02:35:26 AM
Quote
That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Passive-Aggressive much? YOU were the one who attacked me, asshole. Not the other way around. You further stated that none of us is allowed to opt out of your society. I said 'Live and Let Live' and you rebuffed it. As I said, if you're going to turn your guns on me and mine, fuck you then. You're no Anarchist if people are forced to live by your rules. That makes you a Collectivist.
I knew you wouldn't be able to ignore me.

First of all, my attack was explicitly invited (with dripping sarcasm, but I didn't see a better way to prove your skepticism of my understanding of anarchocapitalism unjustified, and my hostility was more in response to your dismissive tone, I wasn't more vicious in my attack, I just had more to say when in that mood then you did).

It's not about "creating" a society that you can opt out of. Societies cannot be containerized, that's a major portion of my point. If we assume that there's a capitalist community and a socialist community existing adjacent to each other, and the capitalists grow the same oligopolistic tendencies that they currently exhibit, just without a state, their power doesn't  hold only within the capitalist community, they have power in the socialist community as well. The capital owners will abuse their power disparity in the socialist community after suppressing the capitalist community itself to a point that it becomes less useful. It's not because capitalism is better, it's because capitalism creates centralized power, and this centralized power is not only a threat to the people that helped the powerful get there, it is a threat to everyone within the sphere of influence of the power created by it.

It cannot be containerized. If it could be, I would gladly go live in Socialist Town across the river from Capital City, knowing the capitalists were safely contained by the river. But it can't. I rebuffed you not because I want to take over the world, but because capitalism takes over the world. It is not a hostile but defensive decision. The threat of capitalism is subtle and (at the fear of sounding like an ass I must say this) you probably don't understand how it works because capitalists rationalize away why threats are good very well to their own reasoning, and the definitions chosen for words make it difficult to understand opposing viewpoints clearly. I said that "Not all aggression is as direct as you would like to believe" because capitalism is aggressive in subtle ways.

I am not an anarchist for not wanting to rule anyone, and not wanting to be ruled. I'm not an anarchist for opposing rulers, even when those rulers insist repeatedly that they come in peace. I am not a collectivist. I am just plain not a collectivist.

Oh, and I'm still curious, was I wrong about what I thought you believed?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 12, 2011, 02:42:26 AM
Quote
That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.

Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.

Passive-Aggressive much? YOU were the one who attacked me, asshole. Not the other way around. You further stated that none of us is allowed to opt out of your society. I said 'Live and Let Live' and you rebuffed it. As I said, if you're going to turn your guns on me and mine, fuck you then. You're no Anarchist if people are forced to live by your rules. That makes you a Collectivist.
I knew you wouldn't be able to ignore me.

First of all, my attack was explicitly invited (with dripping sarcasm, but I didn't see a better way to prove your skepticism of my understanding of anarchocapitalism unjustified, and my hostility was more in response to your dismissive tone, I wasn't more vicious in my attack, I just had more to say when in that mood then you did).

It's not about "creating" a society that you can opt out of. Societies cannot be containerized, that's a major portion of my point. If we assume that there's a capitalist community and a socialist community existing adjacent to each other, and the capitalists grow the same oligopolistic tendencies that they currently exhibit, just without a state, their power doesn't  hold only within the capitalist community, they have power in the socialist community as well. The capital owners will abuse their power disparity in the socialist community after suppressing the capitalist community itself to a point that it becomes less useful. It's not because capitalism is better, it's because capitalism creates centralized power, and this centralized power is not only a threat to the people that helped the powerful get there, it is a threat to everyone within the sphere of influence of the power created by it.

It cannot be containerized. If it could be, I would gladly go live in Socialist Town across the river from Capital City, knowing the capitalists were safely contained by the river. But it can't. I rebuffed you not because I want to take over the world, but because capitalism takes over the world. It is not a hostile but defensive decision. The threat of capitalism is subtle and (at the fear of sounding like an ass I must say this) you probably don't understand how it works because capitalists rationalize away why threats are good very well to their own reasoning, and the definitions chosen for words make it difficult to understand opposing viewpoints clearly. I said that "Not all aggression is as direct as you would like to believe" because capitalism is aggressive in subtle ways.

I am not an anarchist for not wanting to rule anyone, and not wanting to be ruled. I'm not an anarchist for opposing rulers, even when those rulers insist repeatedly that they come in peace. I am not a collectivist. I am just plain not a collectivist.

Oh, and I'm still curious, was I wrong about what I thought you believed?
AKA, The cappies will not let the pure folk mooch off of them AND will proceed witht he horrendous act of having a higher standard of living and having access to cheaper, higher quality goods.  Who knows, they might even exert their "power" and offer the weaker of the pure folk  some of these goods (*gasp) for a price! This tainting must not be allowed!
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 12, 2011, 02:44:54 AM
Also, for an excellent study of property rights, value, and law, I highly recommend david Friedman's Law's Order. I believe (<stress this) he is Milton Friedman's son, but takes a more anarchist viewpoint from very rational study.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 12, 2011, 02:56:24 AM
This is why its collectivist. If I build it or I buy it, you have no right to free load off of me in such a way. Get your own damn machine!
You have the right to use force in defense. If somebody is doing something that does not harm you, you do not have the right to use force against them. The logical conclusion when X is doing peaceful non-infringing non-excluding activity Y with Z's property, Z cannot use force to stop X from doing Y. In that regard, Z does not have the "right" to stop X. I can understand why you don't want freeloaders, but that's a separate problem that I'm sure your entreprenuerial mind can find an agreeable solution to if things were more specific than this very general description.

Quote
Also, labor is not the cause of production. utility is.
I think we are speaking of "causes" in different senses of the word. I understand what you are saying and agree (though it seems to be phrased a little awkwardly, perhaps "anticipated utility is the cause of production"?). But you are using "cause" in a different way. I'm trying to say that all factors of production can be traced back to labor. The motivation to labor is a separate question, which you seem to have attempted to answer.

Quote
Menger's Theory of Derived Demand adequately demonstrates this. IRL, I produce food because I know it will sell.
This is not inconsistent with a labor theory of value.

Quote
Finally, I don't see where you come off saying that all costs are dependent on quantities of labor. This does not hold up in reality. Time, opportunity cost (it can be argued that abor falls under this classification), raw materials (you can't just write them off as "gifts of nature", capital, utility are all costs that factor into the supply curve.
Time is time laboring. Labor is an opportunity cost, but it's more than that. I don't write raw materials off as gifts of nature, I explicitly said they are gathered by labor. The cost of raw materials are the cost of the labor to bring those materials to market.

Quote
This conversation is a tree. I started with a simple point and has since branched. Responding to each point thoroughly simply brings up further branching.  
It's unfortunate but true. I honestly prefer conversational flows, but forums are not a medium that lend themselves well to that flow of discussion because of the low interactivity and high latency between replies, we would never get anything said.

AKA, The cappies will not let the pure folk mooch off of them AND will proceed witht he horrendous act of having a higher standard of living and having access to cheaper, higher quality goods.  Who knows, they might even exert their "power" and offer the weaker of the pure folk  some of these goods (*gasp) for a price! This tainting must not be allowed!
You're grossly mischaracterizing the nature of capitalism's spread though. I'm going to hold my tongue on this until I've had more time to discuss things with you, because I think you'll eventually find yourself that this is a gross mischaracterization, and you've been (mostly) cooperative in the discussion.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 12, 2011, 03:06:56 AM
that last part was admittedly sensationalist, but on a principal level, your conclusions that capitalism must not be tolerated because it cannot be contained is the same idea that led Lenin to use a reign of terror to impose "unity" on the people of the USSR. Communism attained its distinction this way. These types of systems cannot be maintained on any meaningful scale without crushing the oppositon. Otherwise, people "opt out", as has been witnessed by immigration history.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 12, 2011, 03:18:06 AM
that last part was admittedly sensationalist
I'm genuinely glad that you said it yourself, I think Brooklyn Red Leg actually believes it o.o

Quote
but on a principal level, your conclusions that capitalism must not be tolerated because it cannot be contained is the same idea that led Lenin to use a reign of terror to impose "unity" on the people of the USSR. Communism attained its distinction this way. These types of systems cannot be maintained on any meaningful scale without crushing the oppositon. Otherwise, people "opt out", as has been witnessed by immigration history.
I hear the same line of reasoning, "Hitler used natural selection as a reason to kill 12 million people, evolutionary theory is bad mkay, god made earth in 6 days just like Genesis says", and it doesn't fare any better here. Not trying to say your ideas are as baseless and stupid as creationism, but it's the same pattern of reasoning. Just because some monster said something and then did something terrible after coming to power by saying things like that, doesn't reflect upon the statement itself, only upon the person. If anything, the fact that they were able to get to power saying things like that shows that there's a grain of truth at least that resonates with people's understanding that those people thought they could trust somebody that claimed those ideals. I would just like the "capitalism cannot be contained" idea to get it's own independent evaluation first. Also, the tools Lenin had available to him to act on that ethic is very different from the kinds of tools I would suggest using.

And I don't propose a new USSR, I agree that they are unsustainable. Sustainability is important to me. I believe the most sustainable systems are radically decentralized ones. It would take time to explain how I expect capitalism to be fought by anarchistic socialism but it's not in the ways you are accustomed to hearing, I bet.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: yamnuska on February 12, 2011, 03:24:59 AM
None of this shit will ever work until we can travel in space and fuck off on our own to colonize some plant or big ass asteroid. Then everyone can go start their own version of a perfect society. Of course within a decade there will be interplanetary warfare because we just can't leave each other the fuck alone, human nature. And so my hypotherical thought shows itself, what if we could get into a ship we own individually and colonize the stars, what then? Peace and goodwill? Man will always abuse their peers, always.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2011, 04:03:59 AM
I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 12, 2011, 04:20:16 AM
I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?


All societies are collectives, to one extent or another.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2011, 04:31:33 AM
A society where stealing is wrong is possible. Just never been tried. I am not saying bad people would disappear I am saying the thieves don't necessarily have to run everything.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Andy on February 12, 2011, 05:59:36 AM
I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?


His views are probably different to yours because he didn't *stop* thinking when he heard the "simple truths of liberty."
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on February 12, 2011, 06:30:45 AM
A society where stealing is wrong is possible. Just never been tried. I am not saying bad people would disappear I am saying the thieves don't necessarily have to run everything.

It also depends on what you consider to be "stealing".
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2011, 08:14:18 AM
Andy, property rights and the NAP are the basis of my simple truths of liberty. If someone isn't hurting someone else or me, what they are doing is none of my business.
and....
Andy and TLV. Stealing is taking the wealth created by someone else and using it for what you believe it should be used for, done by a individual or a group. Stealing is stealing even if me and 10 friends take someones stuff and give it to a puppy orphanage. Or if I take someones dinner and save it for him later, or......
I don't like to type that much, when someone comes on this board and admits he wants to control people or wants to be cotrolled I don't feel like getting all that deep. Why dig into Adam Smith or Ayn Rand when the guy or girl can't even grasp Wheels Off Liberty on a three day bender? You want to steal or be someones slave, fine I think you are evil or pathetic.
But... you know what TLV, here is a present. This article actually makes your point a little better.
http://www.cracked.com/article/89_the-6-most-horrific-bosses-all-time/ (http://www.cracked.com/article/89_the-6-most-horrific-bosses-all-time/)
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Andy on February 12, 2011, 10:37:53 AM
Quote
Andy, property rights and the NAP are the basis of my simple truths of liberty. If someone isn't hurting someone else or me, what they are doing is none of my business.


Probably not exactly relevant, but... what if they're clearly planning to hurt you next week?

Quote
. Stealing is taking the wealth created by someone else and using it for what you believe it should be used for, done by a individual or a group. Stealing is stealing even if me and 10 friends take someones stuff and give it to a puppy orphanage. Or if I take someones dinner and save it for him later, or......

Yeah. No kidding. But how do you know if something belongs to someone? Because they say so? Because someone else said so and sold it to them?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2011, 11:57:13 AM
You have the right to property from any resource you have rightfully purchased, claimed by using or improving, or rightfully inherited of course.
You have the right to wealth the you created by increasing the value of assets to sound more Adam Smithyish.
If someone tries to take your property, they had better have a damn good reason or they will lose at arbitration and be known as a bad dealer who would have a difficult time doing business with others.
If a group of people get together and try it, they will acquire your wealth. We call this system "government".
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: LTKoblinsky on February 12, 2011, 12:20:34 PM
Bah, the Lenin example is NOT the same line of reason as Hitler=evolution bad. It's a real world example of revolutionary socialist ideals proving unrealistic and sustainable except by force. Again, for a wonderful, in depth study of property, read Friedman's Law's Order.

Finally, by your logic, I should let others in to freely use my kitchen while I sleep.  I mean, as long as they're quiet, it doesn't interfere with me. The same thing goes for the salon my wife got her hair cut at today. The stylist was an independent contractor who paid the salon owner for use of her facility. Does the first person who builds an innovation suddenly have a moral debt to everyone who follows after? Must they open their facilities to anyone who asks?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 12, 2011, 12:32:45 PM
I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?

His views are probably different to yours because he didn't *stop* thinking when he heard the "simple truths of liberty."
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You seem to understand :)

I think you are right. For myself, I am looking into the sea steading idea.
However the news from Egypt is encouraging. I am still optimistic about NH as well.
Guys like Zhwazi surprise me. He reminds me of the traitor character in the first Matrix film. How can someone who knows the simple truths of liberty suddenly want collectivism?
It's simple, I don't. I have repeatedly stated this. I am not a collectivist. I'm very much an individualist.

I don't reject the "simple truths of liberty". State your most basic and simple principles and I will probably agree with them. I reject where some people have taken them. The basic and simple parts of anarchocapitalism I still agree with for the most part. It's some of the conclusions that anarchocapitalists draw and reinforce in each other that I disagree with. Some aspects of the nature of property and justly acquiring it I disagree with. The analysis of the root of all the problems in the world being the government I mostly agree with, but the government is a proxy for many other problems in society. The most general way to state the problem we face is "perpetual classes defined by drastic power disparity". Government is the biggest perpetual dominating class, but not the only one, and ignoring the others and going so far as what many anarchocapitalists do to defend the aggregated power of the rich and powerful as if they are better and smarter is something that I strongly disagree with.

Quote
Andy, property rights and the NAP are the basis of my simple truths of liberty. If someone isn't hurting someone else or me, what they are doing is none of my business.
If I were able to prove that some of what you believe is legitimately owned property could not be legitimately owned property, would you adjust your definition of property accordingly? If you did adjust it according to what I would explain as illegitimate, you would be adopting a position similar to the lefty "occupation, possession, and use" standard.

NAP is not the entire picture. It tells you how to avoid committing injustice yourself, it does not tell you how to deal with injustice after it has happened, and it does not allow for anticipatory defense (obviously because of the huge can of worms that would be that ancap's framework isn't ready to open). What is needed is a process for justice, not a guideline for avoiding injustice. A process for finding justice would make the NAP redundant if properly designed (and not referring to the NAP in it's design).

Quote
I don't like to type that much, when someone comes on this board and admits he wants to control people or wants to be cotrolled I don't feel like getting all that deep.
I didn't say that though. I explicitly denied it in fact.


Bah, the Lenin example is NOT the same line of reason as Hitler=evolution bad. It's a real world example of revolutionary socialist ideals proving unrealistic and sustainable except by force.
We should be able to discuss the "Capitalism cannot be contained" idea without regard to the fact that Lenin believed it. Lenin also believed in statist means to his ends, I do not. If nothing else, this important difference calls for a re-evaluation of the idea in its context.

Quote
Again, for a wonderful, in depth study of property, read Friedman's Law's Order.
Do you have a link to a PDF or something?

Quote
Finally, by your logic, I should let others in to freely use my kitchen while I sleep.  I mean, as long as they're quiet, it doesn't interfere with me.
There's a small element of "yes you should", but the reasons for not wanting them in your house while you're asleep are more issues of distrust of why somebody you don't know would be in your kitchen while you are asleep, and possibly be using my ideas to defend their being there if challenged. If by "others" you mean friends that you have invited over, then of course you should let them freely use your kitchen while you are not using it. Would you not let me use it if you knew me and had let me into your house for a while, as long as I was bringing my own ingredients to cook food? I promise I'll clean up after myself.

Quote
The same thing goes for the salon my wife got her hair cut at today. The stylist was an independent contractor who paid the salon owner for use of her facility.
The salon owner is getting rent. Discussion of rent would take more time, but the income of rent over the life of the building should be approximately the same as the cost of the labor to build the building in the first place, plus the costs for duration-of-use of utilities. If the salon owner is making money by owning a salon and renting it out, the salon owner is a landlord abusing their position in the market to extract an unjust tribute from the stylist.

Quote
Does the first person who builds an innovation suddenly have a moral debt to everyone who follows after? Must they open their facilities to anyone who asks?
The question is too general for an answer. Were you implying that the salon owner was doing something innovative by renting the salon out, or are you thinking of something else?
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2011, 12:50:20 PM
Bah, the Lenin example is NOT the same line of reason as Hitler=evolution bad. It's a real world example of revolutionary socialist ideals proving unrealistic and sustainable except by force. Again, for a wonderful, in depth study of property, read Friedman's Law's Order.

Finally, by your logic, I should let others in to freely use my kitchen while I sleep.  I mean, as long as they're quiet, it doesn't interfere with me. The same thing goes for the salon my wife got her hair cut at today. The stylist was an independent contractor who paid the salon owner for use of her facility. Does the first person who builds an innovation suddenly have a moral debt to everyone who follows after? Must they open their facilities to anyone who asks?

Property is a asset. Rentals are fruits from that asset. As far as I am concerned a rental contract would vary from case to case and are binding.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2011, 01:20:33 PM
Zhwazi, just to clarify I am not a anarchist. I think anarchy is a noble end goal for a society.
Yes I live by the NAP. I judge people based on the NAP. I don't suffer bullies, I am not a pacifist. I honestly do not see any moral questions about it.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Riddler on February 12, 2011, 02:18:25 PM
Yeah. No kidding. But how do you know if something belongs to someone? Because they say so? Because someone else said so and sold it to them?


nigga's always carry a ree-seet
case you's gahtsa return shit n' shit....
nigga knows shit ain't warrantteeed wit-out no ree-seet
shit be simple in mah world (pronounced ''whirl'' by the brethren)
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 12, 2011, 02:19:52 PM
Zhwazi, just to clarify I am not a anarchist. I think anarchy is a noble end goal for a society.
Yes I live by the NAP. I judge people based on the NAP. I don't suffer bullies, I am not a pacifist. I honestly do not see any moral questions about it.
The NAP is not useful for how you apear to be using it. The NAP is a litmus test to see if injustice is present, it does not indicate where the injustice is or how far it reaches. You can only say in this day and age that the NAP is grossly violated, but you cannot say what is and is not a violation. Many apparently aggressive actions can be defensive or retaliatory on deeper than first-glance inspection. You cannot fairly judge using the NAP because it omits too muh information from the picture. Justice is the true goal that the NAP is subordinate to. The NAP must not stand in the way of justice or it loses its own purpose for being.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: alaric89 on February 12, 2011, 03:21:31 PM
If people are only responsible for their own actions (and those whom they are the guardian of) and all perceived crimes have a victim claiming injustice, how would the NAP ever show to be wanting?
I submit that if a injustice worthy of reparations happen, the guilty party must have violated the NAP at some point.
I said I accept defensive violence, not retaliatory.
Title: Re: Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian
Post by: Zhwazi on February 12, 2011, 03:51:39 PM
You have the right to property from any resource you have rightfully purchased, claimed by using or improving, or rightfully inherited of course.
Only if the original owner legitimately owned it. A chain of transactions establishing a property right depends on the right having been legitimate when it was first claimed. Otherwise, all subsequent ownership claims are also invalid.

And what you own is not the thing, you own your improvements to it. If your improvements disappear, your ownership disappears.



If people are only responsible for their own actions (and those whom they are the guardian of) and all perceived crimes have a victim claiming injustice, how would the NAP ever show to be wanting?
Because it is insufficient. NAP is about percieved aggression, not about justice.

Quote
I submit that if a injustice worthy of reparations happen, the guilty party must have violated the NAP at some point.
I agree, but the NAP does not say anything about the nature of the injustice, only about the aggression. If it is more complex than random acts of theft and violence, NAP doesn't tell you anything useful.

Quote
I said I accept defensive violence, not retaliatory.
Violence is violence. Injustice creates debt, and retaliatory violence creates a counter-debt. Destructive equalization of these debts is clearly inferior in the overall and long run. But it's up to the victim how they choose to discharge this debt. I believe in almost every case people will choose restitution over revenge. When viewing the current situations, you cannot rely on this due to the government and courts being based on legislation and not on justice, and being biased in favor of the state. It is not your place to judge the justice of violence in current situations. You can criticize other things, but justice is far too enshrouded in complexity and lies to ascertain as you seem to want to.