• Squatters leave house once occupied by soverign citizen; Owner of house afraid of repair costs
    315 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Valnar;42342939]Ninties eh? Not everyone is able to get those grants, and not everybody is able to take the time out of working in order to get an education. [/QUOTE] Exactly. People forgot this a lot of the time. That IS what tends to cause squatters.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342121]no it's not lol In political/economic theory, notably socialist, Marxist and anarchist philosophies, the distinction between private and personal property is extremely important. Which items of property constitute which is open to debate. Personal property includes "items intended for personal use."[3] (e.g., clothes, homes, & vehicles.[3] Some include money.[4]) It must be gained in a socially fair manner, & the owner has a distributive right to exclude others.[/QUOTE] So if you have a bike in your garage that you're not using and don't intend to use, I can just come and take it, right?
I can't help but think this is a pipe dream in our modern technological society. Even if we were to limit ourselves to the bare necessities- shelter, food, and water- I don't feel the average facepuncher would survive. How many ppl here know enough about carpentry to raise a barn? How many ppl know how to grow and preserve food in the quantities a small village would need? Everyone would need to be able to do a bit of everything, and while some specialization could occur it doesn't seem likely to happen to a degree our current standard of living requires. In other words- I can see this working (even if just temporarily) in conditions roughly equal or worse to third wold countries. At that standard of living almost anything can be seen as an improvement. But for modern countries- to allow extreme specialization and keep it fair/functioning you would require a system to compare one persons efforts against anothers. We do this with money, by converting labor into commonly used currencies. Without such a system there's really no advantage to hard work, no point in excelling. In fact, if by some disaster this is implemented- dibs on video game tester and snack cake quality assurance manager positions....
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42338993]"lol the government gave me a little piece of paper that lets me utilize this land for my own benefit i guess i'll just abandon it then get pissed off when other people want to utilize it." you have no property and no right to land you cannot or choose not to personally utilize.[/QUOTE] Indeed, property is theft yo :P [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Loriborn;42342611]if you believe that capitalism is the only reason bad things happen you need to clear your bias and realize that the root of your "evil" is economics, and economics exists in every system you will ever have scarcity will always exist[/QUOTE] It's mostly artificial scarcity that causes problems :P
This is for everyone arguing for the economic system in America. [video=youtube;QPKKQnijnsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/video] It's a flawed system. Everyone in this thread who are just making excuses for it really need to wake up and realize that it's neither ideal or as good as you think it is, its fucking terrible. If the rich have all the money then everyone else has less.
[QUOTE=Sungrazer;42341914]I still don't understand your point. Once you buy anything, it's yours, whether or not you use it. That's how ownership works. And if you have enough money to own more than one piece of property and don't feel like using it, that's irrelevant. It still belongs to you. How does it give someone the right to come and claim it for themselves?[/QUOTE] Actually as far as immobilities go, that's not precisely the case. MOst constitutions will claim that ownership obligates (not exactly how, but do) and a good example of something like this would be property tax.
Gentlemen, please, please. The Communists/Anarchists/etc have made their very persuasive and convincing argument. Now, let us ask them this: How do we get there and get rid of capitalism for good?
[quote]Now, let us ask them this: How do we get there and get rid of capitalism for good?[/quote] How about establishing a system that isn't dependent on endless growth up to the point where it begins to devour itself and actually doesn't base on fake money that will never ever exist?
[QUOTE=KILLTHIS;42344177]How about establishing a system that isn't dependent on endless growth up to the point where it begins to devour itself and actually doesn't base on fake money that will never ever exist?[/QUOTE] What's the difference between "fake money" and "real money"? Now obviously the infinite growth thing is a problem. Unfortunately, its a problem for every human society because the population is inevitably going to grow irregardless of what you do (save killing people or preventing them having sex).
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42342611]if you believe that capitalism is the only reason bad things happen you need to clear your bias and realize that the root of your "evil" is economics, and economics exists in every system you will ever have scarcity will always exist[/QUOTE] There are a million of bad economic systems, but scarcity itself is an affliction of misallocation and not really an absolute. We have enough homes to house every homeless, enough food to feed every hungry, we have enough power to power every home, and enough resources to give everyone enough water, shelter, and aid to survive at a decent level. But this doesn't happen because the west and developed nations use far more than we need, and not only hoard what we have but also take from those who have even less. There will always be scarcity in that there simply isn't unlimited resources, but with reasonable sustainable exploitation of those resources and the proper allocation of them, we today have enough to provide everyone on earth with a comfortable living space, enough food to feed them, and enough water to give them and enough power to keep them warm. What this means though is that the west will have to rations its water, limit its food consumption, lowers its power usage, and expend some of its labor for the betterment of developing nations.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42344818']What this means though is that the west will have to rations its water, limit its food consumption, lowers its power usage, and expend some of its labor for the betterment of developing nations.[/QUOTE] So you're saying I [I]can't[/I] eat seven Big Macs followed by a double course of steak? Wow fuck you over my dead body
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42342264']-big ol' snip-[/QUOTE] Thanks for actually following through with that. A pretty good introduction and explanation to property :v: [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=RentAhobO;42343734]This is for everyone arguing for the economic system in America. [video=youtube;QPKKQnijnsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/video] It's a flawed system. Everyone in this thread who are just making excuses for it really need to wake up and realize that it's neither ideal or as good as you think it is, its fucking terrible. If the rich have all the money then everyone else has less.[/QUOTE] I don't think many people are denying that the current system is fucked. It is. It's extremely fucked. But we are discussing whether or not Anarchy is a suitable replacement, there are tons of alternate systems after all.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42342444]" Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others." - edward abbey the point of this is that it's one thing if someone is corrupt or bad, but it's far worse when someone is corrupt in a position of power over others. if people aren't able to rule themselves then they certainly aren't able to rule others.[/QUOTE] I still think it'd be the ideal government in a survival situation for all the clear reasons but, outside of that, I'm fond of classic american ideas because I know they work. though now obviously many people fucked that over. But it's lasted quite long regardless. [QUOTE=yawmwen;42342472]it becomes incredibly hard to get power in a system that doesn't have existing structures for coercion and manipulation.[/QUOTE] Whats to stop society itself being corrupted and not the people though? [QUOTE=RentAhobO;42343734]This is for everyone arguing for the economic system in America. [video=youtube;QPKKQnijnsM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/video] It's a flawed system. Everyone in this thread who are just making excuses for it really need to wake up and realize that it's neither ideal or as good as you think it is, its fucking terrible. If the rich have all the money then everyone else has less.[/QUOTE] It's obviously a totally fucked system, and I want social and financial balance, which would be the ideal system IMHO economically. But until it's unfucked, it's very [B]fucked[/B] up to use. we would be better off if the very rich weren't allowed to excel so hugely beyond the upper class.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42344818']There are a million of bad economic systems, but scarcity itself is an affliction of misallocation and not really an absolute. We have enough homes to house every homeless, enough food to feed every hungry, we have enough power to power every home, and enough resources to give everyone enough water, shelter, and aid to survive at a decent level. But this doesn't happen because the west and developed nations use far more than we need, and not only hoard what we have but also take from those who have even less. There will always be scarcity in that there simply isn't unlimited resources, but with reasonable sustainable exploitation of those resources and the proper allocation of them, we today have enough to provide everyone on earth with a comfortable living space, enough food to feed them, and enough water to give them and enough power to keep them warm. What this means though is that the west will have to rations its water, limit its food consumption, lowers its power usage, and expend some of its labor for the betterment of developing nations.[/QUOTE] Better yet, we could just give a minimum income to everybody and continue with capitalism. That way everybody at least has shelter and food, but can make and use any kind of goods and luxury services they please.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42345345]Better yet, we could just give a minimum income to everybody and continue with capitalism. That way everybody at least has shelter and food, but can make and use any kind of goods and luxury services they please.[/QUOTE] so basically socialism?????????
[QUOTE=J!NX;42345473]so basically socialism?????????[/QUOTE] It's socialist in the same way that council housing and free healthcare is. The idea is that by giving everybody a minimum income, they will provide a stable and reliable consumer base for the "capitalists" that will weather economic recession. This in turn would promote political stability, improve standards of living, and prevent the actual communists from getting into power. Why support communists when the government already ensures you are given a basic decent living?
[QUOTE=J!NX;42345473]so basically socialism?????????[/QUOTE] Something like Sobotnik's system would be a safety net that keeps people from being effectively in poverty.
[QUOTE=imptastick;42342334]There is no motivation to do the undesirable jobs, you would never get enough volunteers to work in waste management, mining, or factory jobs. Who is going to clean up shit or bust rock when they could live just as well doing a cleaner less demanding job?[/QUOTE] Nobody ever addressed how to encourage people to do the undesirable jobs in an anarchic society. For modern society to function you need people (a lot of them) willing to do the dirty, dangerous, and physically demanding jobs. I am sure there would be a few people who would volunteer, but not nearly enough to fulfill all the required positions. "Why risk my life doing physical labor when you get the same benefits delivering peoples food". You cant pay them more because that would be unfair to individuals who do the more intellectually taxing jobs "Why put in the effort to be a doctor when a waste management employee gets better stuff?", and you cant reward both because then you are back at capitalism. Also what do you do when you have several people who want to be a baker in a town that only needs one? How do you decide which people get to do what they want and which have to settle for something else? Do you vote and allow popularity do decide who gets the better jobs or do you allow redundant jobs that drain more resources than they provide?
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;42338716]This kind yeah. The ones that occupy abandoned property that just lies dormant are mostly ok though.[/QUOTE] If it's abandoned I don't see an issue with it. Waiting for you to go to your local store for some groceries, breaking in and claiming this type of bullshit and not being legally allowed to do anything? I'd just walk in and threaten to shoot them. If they still didn't leave, I just would. Probably legal in my state, so long as they forced themselves in, anyway. Some things are just so bullshit you can't help but to see red
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42344103] Now, let us ask them this: How do we get there and get rid of capitalism for good?[/QUOTE] if we knew exactly how to do that we would have already smashed capitalism. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=imptastick;42345874]Nobody ever addressed how to encourage people to do the undesirable jobs in an anarchic society. For modern society to function you need people (a lot of them) willing to do the dirty, dangerous, and physically demanding jobs. I am sure there would be a few people who would volunteer, but not nearly enough to fulfill all the required positions. "Why risk my life doing physical labor when you get the same benefits delivering peoples food". You cant pay them more because that would be unfair to individuals who do the more intellectually taxing jobs "Why put in the effort to be a doctor when a waste management employee gets better stuff?", and you cant reward both because then you are back at capitalism. Also what do you do when you have several people who want to be a baker in a town that only needs one? How do you decide which people get to do what they want and which have to settle for something else? Do you vote and allow popularity do decide who gets the better jobs or do you allow redundant jobs that drain more resources than they provide?[/QUOTE] you can incentivize in a communist or anarchist society, it just has to be voluntary. let's say that there are not enough miners because nobody wants to be a miner. the council or syndicate might put forward the idea of giving miners extra resources so that there is a greater incentive for this work. the difference between this, and a normal wage, is that the incentive is completely voluntary. i can choose whether or not to give part of my resources to miners.
[QUOTE=imptastick;42345874]Nobody ever addressed how to encourage people to do the undesirable jobs in an anarchic society. For modern society to function you need people (a lot of them) willing to do the dirty, dangerous, and physically demanding jobs. I am sure there would be a few people who would volunteer, but not nearly enough to fulfill all the required positions. "Why risk my life doing physical labor when you get the same benefits delivering peoples food". You cant pay them more because that would be unfair to individuals who do the more intellectually taxing jobs "Why put in the effort to be a doctor when a waste management employee gets better stuff?", and you cant reward both because then you are back at capitalism. Also what do you do when you have several people who want to be a baker in a town that only needs one? How do you decide which people get to do what they want and which have to settle for something else? Do you vote and allow popularity do decide who gets the better jobs or do you allow redundant jobs that drain more resources than they provide?[/QUOTE] Being a firefighter or a cop doesn't really pay that much despite being dangerous jobs. why do people do it?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42346775]if we knew exactly how to do that we would have already smashed capitalism. [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] you can incentivize in a communist or anarchist society, it just has to be voluntary. let's say that there are not enough miners because nobody wants to be a miner. the council or syndicate might put forward the idea of giving miners extra resources so that there is a greater incentive for this work. the difference between this, and a normal wage, is that the incentive is completely voluntary. i can choose whether or not to give part of my resources to miners.[/QUOTE] I just dont see there being enough incentives to go around without causing some serious differences in living conditions.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42344818'] developed nations use far more than we need, and not only hoard what we have but also take from those who have even less.[/QUOTE] An economy that only focuses on Needs is bound to be shitty.
[QUOTE=matt000024;42346928]Being a firefighter or a cop doesn't really pay that much despite being dangerous jobs. why do people do it?[/QUOTE] Those people normally do because they enjoy giving back or in the case of many firefighters they like the adrenaline. The same could not be said for those hauling trash or scrubbing toilets, which normally take those jobs out of necessity. That necessity would not exist in a society where everyone has equal access to resources.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42347156]An economy that only focuses on Needs is bound to be shitty.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't, but needs would be provided for first.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;42347165]What if no one want's to give any resources to the miners? What's to make me give any to them?[/QUOTE] nothing makes you do anything lol that's the point of anarchy. you all come about this from the wrong mindset because you all are used to being forced to do everything. the people in government have brainwashed us into thinking we need a king, president, boss, or representative to tell us how to do things for ourselves. anarchism challenges this notion. we already know how to create a functioning society without people putting a gun to our head and telling us to.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42347209]nothing makes you do anything lol that's the point of anarchy. you all come about this from the wrong mindset because you all are used to being forced to do everything. the people in government have brainwashed us into thinking we need a king, president, boss, or representative to tell us how to do things for ourselves. anarchism challenges this notion. we already know how to create a functioning society without people putting a gun to our head and telling us to.[/QUOTE] anarchy has never worked and will never work its great on paper if you really believe you can get a couple billion people to behave for the sake of the community, and ensure that no one will ever make a power grab, but that is silly and ignorant to believe its a nice mentality to have if youre a ~free spirit~ i suppose but it doesnt work when you attempt to replicate it here on earth
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42347245]anarchy has never worked and will never work its great on paper if you really believe you can get a couple billion people to behave for the sake of the community, and ensure that no one will ever make a power grab, but that is silly and ignorant to believe its a nice mentality to have if youre a ~free spirit~ i suppose but it doesnt work when you attempt to replicate it here on earth[/QUOTE] again this is also applicable to capitalism dude
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42347168']It wouldn't, but needs would be provided for first.[/QUOTE] an economic system focused on needs is the opposite of what people want the fact that people will always have "wants" is why economic systems like that exist and i dont just mean material wants, i mean wants such as the desire to work or not work or work in a certain field or whatever the case may be [editline]29th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42347249]again this is also applicable to capitalism dude[/QUOTE] uh the US may have a good deal of financial inequality, but that is not entirely the fault of capitalism canada for instance has a much smaller income gap between the wealthy and poor regulated capitalism favors the consumer, anarchy favors those willing to take advantage of others without needing to jump through legal and social hoops to do so
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42347168']It wouldn't, but needs would be provided for first.[/QUOTE] Would there be "wants" defined as unnecessary and therefore banned or restricted?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.