Rand, on Rand... Rand Paul tweets an education (school, elect, claims)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet all were proponents of capitalism, the biggest collectivist ideology of all. Rather than allow resources to be shared and production to be practiced by ones own abilities, capitalist put control over capital as the main process of wealth distribution. As all resources need to be owned to be profitable work will therefore move away from free production based on personal needs to work for the needs of others in exchange for money that is never equivalent to the exact production. In the end what you will find is work being controlled by a decentralized number of wealth centers that control the main sources of production.
Offers personal freedom, and if you want to claim their is no difference between him and the communist/Marxists, then I'd remind you the system Kropotkin offered was put into place in the free territories ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory ) only to be destroyed by the Bolsheviks.
You're free to run your syndicate in a stateless society so you're not really arguing for anything you can't have.
When the syndicate knocks on the door to confiscate a real anarchist's property you'll simply get your head blown off.
You're free to run your syndicate in a stateless society so you're not really arguing for anything you can't have.
When the syndicate knocks on the door to confiscate a real anarchist's property you'll simply get your head blown off.
How nice.
Alas the Syndicate would never do that as they are a voluntary group of different unions sending representatives to help build supply chains and share information.
If it is the unions you’re speaking of, wrong again. Unless you have ownership of a capital via usage, you have no claim to it. No one, on the other hand will come knocking on your door demanding something, but if you own land that you don’t live on, anyone else has the right to settle there and do as they wish.
To buy into capitalism you’d have to buy into the principle of control beyond ability and to accept that you must have a state to enforce it.
Alas the Syndicate would never do that as they are a voluntary group of different unions sending representatives to help build supply chains and share information.
If it is the unions you’re speaking of, wrong again. Unless you have ownership of a capital via usage, you have no claim to it. No one, on the other hand will come knocking on your door demanding something, but if you own land that you don’t live on, anyone else has the right to settle there and do as they wish.
To buy into capitalism you’d have to buy into the principle of control beyond ability and to accept that you must have a state to enforce it.
You previously admitted that in a pinch the syndicate could confiscate whatever it wanted from a non-member even if the non-member was simply gone for the day fishing or doing something else to sustain life.
You previously admitted that in a pinch the syndicate could confiscate whatever it wanted from a non-member even if the non-member was simply gone for the day fishing or doing something else to sustain life.
Did you misspeak?
I said a union (or individual for that matter) could ask for usage (as would be their right). If you say it is mine, im using (or will be using it) they have no right to force you to give it to them.
Now, if say you collected water (a public resource) and lost it, anyone could take it if need be.
If you’re not home but you have water in barrel people can assume you collected it for yourself and that would be your personal property. But if more than one person had good reason to believe the place was abandoned and no one was coming back, that water would once again be a public resource.
Either way, no one can force you to give something to them if you have control over it and don’t want to.
I said a union (or individual for that matter) could ask for usage (as would be their right). If you say it is mine, im using (or will be using it) they have no right to force you to give it to them.
Now, if say you collected water (a public resource) and lost it, anyone could take it if need be.
If you’re not home but you have water in barrel people can assume you collected it for yourself and that would be your personal property. But if more than one person had good reason to believe the place was abandoned and no one was coming back, that water would once again be a public resource.
Either way, no one can force you to give something to them if you have control over it and don’t want to.
There's actually debate in the AnCap community on when something becomes abandoned. Rightful ownership is one of our two tenets.
The problem is once I stumble upon something that doesn't occur in nature outside a human mixing his labor with it (an already built house, a hammer) without confirmation from the original owner that he has indeed discarded it there is no way to ever truly know if it's abandoned.
Do you have a system that could alleviate this conundrum? Otherwise this "good reason to believe" gets really slippery and really quick.
There's actually debate in the AnCap community on when something becomes abandoned. Rightful ownership is one of our two tenets.
The problem is once I stumble upon something that doesn't occur in nature outside a human mixing his labor with it (an already built house, a hammer) without confirmation from the original owner that he has indeed discarded it there is no way to ever truly know if it's abandoned.
Do you have a system that could alleviate this conundrum? Otherwise this "good reason to believe" gets really slippery and really quick.
Of course, if the owner lets others in a community know, that would be confirmation.
There would be (hypothetically) housing claims people within a commune could gather so that when they leave their homes on vacation or what else, it would not be settled by someone else.
Now if you live out in the middle of no where by yourself it is much harder to discern if it were abandon. If the place was in ruin, nature having retaken it, etc. then it would be logical to assume it no longer has any occupancy. Besides that I don't see what right someone would have to take what they need from the house, if it looks slightly lived in, its best to leave it alone.
If someone were to take from such a house, and the owner were to find out, they could want to receive compensation through labor, or the two just work it out together.
Theft in this environment would be much harder due to public access to needed resources (little benefit in theft of personal property) but said person who lives in the middle of nowhere could lock their doors, leave a sign, note, etc. if they want to be extra careful.
Of course, if the owner lets others in a community know, that would be confirmation.
There would be (hypothetically) housing claims people within a commune could gather so that when they leave their homes on vacation or what else, it would not be settled by someone else.
Now if you live out in the middle of no where by yourself it is much harder to discern if it were abandon. If the place was in ruin, nature having retaken it, etc. then it would be logical to assume it no longer has any occupancy. Besides that I don't see what right someone would have to take what they need from the house, if it looks slightly lived in, its best to leave it alone.
If someone were to take from such a house, and the owner were to find out, they could want to receive compensation through labor, or the two just work it out together.
Theft in this environment would be much harder due to public access to needed resources (little benefit in theft of personal property) but said person who lives in the middle of nowhere could lock their doors, leave a sign, note, etc. if they want to be extra careful.
No it wouldn't.
Furthermore, if you understand that it's a man-made thing and you can't find the man that made it for confirmation of abandonment you have absolutely no right to take it. NONE.
The person living in the middle of nowhere could do many things to let people know he's gone for X amount of time.
HOWEVER
Forcing/requiring him to follow some sort of protocol would result in it immediately becoming slavery. Case closed. I know you didn't say that was a requirement but just keeping you in line on it.
Like I said, your system is fine under true anarchism (anarcho-capitalism). People in the commune will simply be killed for violating the NAP if they try to stop someone from doing something within their rights.
What happens if a man goes up to a lake one day and decides to drain it to bring back all the water to his house. Nobody else was using the lake. Can he do it?
Furthermore, if you understand that it's a man-made thing and you can't find the man that made it for confirmation of abandonment you have absolutely no right to take it. NONE.
The person living in the middle of nowhere could do many things to let people know he's gone for X amount of time.
HOWEVER
Forcing/requiring him to follow some sort of protocol would result in it immediately becoming slavery. Case closed. I know you didn't say that was a requirement but just keeping you in line on it.
Like I said, your system is fine under true anarchism (anarcho-capitalism). People in the commune will simply be killed for violating the NAP if they try to stop someone from doing something within their rights.
What happens if a man goes up to a lake one day and decides to drain it to bring back all the water to his house. Nobody else was using the lake. Can he do it?
The rest of the post is wrong, but I’ll answer your question in the last paragraph.
It is a public resource so yes, but being as human limitation would make doing such a thing over a short period of time impossible, combined with the fact he would have no motive to take it all, and he couldn’t claim the lake as his (and kill anyone who drinks from it thanks to the delightful NAP) none of this would ever be a problem.
If you take away the imaginary control of private ownership, most of these excesses would be impossible to do anyways.
The rest of the post is wrong, but I’ll answer your question in the last paragraph.
It is a public resource so yes, but being as human limitation would make doing such a thing over a short period of time impossible, combined with the fact he would have no motive to take it all, and he couldn’t claim the lake as his (and kill anyone who drinks from it thanks to the delightful NAP) none of this would ever be a problem.
If you take away the imaginary control of private ownership, most of these excesses would be impossible to do anyways.
I don't care about motives. That's Statist talk. I only care about actions.
Of course these are extreme examples. That's when you know you've got a bona fide true principle. That's why the NAP is true. It's morally and logically consistent.
So he takes all the water and stores it in his home. If the syndicate sees it and wants to use it can they take it from his home by force?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
