Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian

[TimeLady Victorious]

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.

[Zhwazi]

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.

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.

[LTKoblinsky]

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.

[LTKoblinsky]

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.

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.

[TimeLady Victorious]

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.

[LTKoblinsky]

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...

[Zhwazi]

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.

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.

[alaric89]

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.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

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.

What the fuck?

[LTKoblinsky]

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.

[Zhwazi]

Zhwazi: You can't be a anarcho socialist. It's a simple contradiction in terms.

No it's not. Socialism isnt about government.

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.

[alaric89]

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?

[Zhwazi]

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.

[alaric89]

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.

I am sure you would be a fine king, but what we lived in wouldn't be anarchy. 

[dalebert]

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.