Squatters leave house once occupied by soverign citizen; Owner of house afraid of repair costs
315 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42340373]
i'm a anarchist socialist[/QUOTE]
This thread presents a huge problem to your ideology. People just taking shit from people.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42340748]This thread presents a huge problem to your ideology. People just taking shit from people.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure he sees this as a problem.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42340232']itt: people who don't understand the concept of property, and the distinctions between private and personal property.[/QUOTE]
So, like, rather than posting awful zingers and acting all high and mighty over the "morons" who don't know or give a shit about the definition of property, why not actually explain it roughly and actually help the discussion?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42340373]sovereign citizens believe heavily in private property because they are pseudo-anarchists and pseudo-libertarians.
i'm a anarchist/libertarian socialist[/QUOTE]
I thought socialism was about strict economic regulation. That makes no fecking sense.
[QUOTE=Harnbrand;42340810]I thought socialism was about strict economic regulation. That makes no fecking sense.[/QUOTE]
I think he's referring to the part where the workers get a say in things instead of just private owning capitalists.
Eh. I've always thought anarchists and libertarians are naive as hell for believing that humans could actually make such a system work - And that nobody's going to stockpile big guns and seize power for their own authoritarian purposes.
[QUOTE=Harnbrand;42340890]Eh. I've always thought anarchists and libertarians are naive as hell for believing that humans could actually make such a system work - And that nobody's going to stockpile big guns and seize power for their own authoritarian purposes.[/QUOTE]
Fearing a dictatorship is hardly what both of those ideologies are about :v:
I've always wondered, in a true Anarchist system, what happens if someone makes a power grab? Like, actually amasses a reasonable force and fucking destroys anyone who opposes them? They wouldn't even have to be particularly smart about it as there would be no standing armies other than those created by various groups of people.
How does Anarchism deal with that? I don't think I've ever seen it addressed.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42340914]I've always wondered, in a true Anarchist system, what happens if someone makes a power grab? Like, actually amasses a reasonable force and fucking destroys anyone who opposes them? They wouldn't even have to be particularly smart about it as there would be no standing armies other than those created by various groups of people.
How does Anarchism deal with that? I don't think I've ever seen it addressed.[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, anarchism goes by the belief that everyone is nice enough to never do such a dastardly thing.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42340914]I've always wondered, in a true Anarchist system, what happens if someone makes a power grab? Like, actually amasses a reasonable force and fucking destroys anyone who opposes them? They wouldn't even have to be particularly smart about it as there would be no standing armies other than those created by various groups of people.
How does Anarchism deal with that? I don't think I've ever seen it addressed.[/QUOTE]
But everyone would be happy nobody would ever want to hurt anyone. Didn't you listen to Imagine?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42340923]As far as I know, anarchism goes by the believe that everyone is nice enough to never do such a dastardly thing.[/QUOTE]
Pffft. Anarchist "states" wouldn't survive a month in the world then. Maybe if post-scarcity happens and other organised states don't require anything the anarchist "state" happens to hold.
anyone who is an anarchist has never been subject to the very ideologies they believe in
i highly doubt yawmwen would believe half the crazy idealistic views he purports if he were on the shit end of the deal in situations like these
[editline]28th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42340947]Pffft. Anarchist "states" wouldn't survive a month in the world then. Maybe if post-scarcity happens and other organised states don't require anything the anarchist "state" happens to hold.[/QUOTE]
anarchist states cannot exist because of the fundamental concepts of economics and crime
literally impossible without everyone banding together to create a government, thus making it no longer an anarchy state, or everyone killing eachother and thus there are no more people to make up that society
anarchy states favor the physically able, the weak and old would die, and eventually the strong would take over and as above, it would no longer be anarchy because a government would be formed
scarcity and greed
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42340947]Pffft. Anarchist "states" wouldn't survive a month in the world then. Maybe if post-scarcity happens and other organised states don't require anything the anarchist "state" happens to hold.[/QUOTE]
I recall there was a tiny anarchist 'state' in the Ukraine somewhere right after WWI, but was utterly crushed by the USSR when the the reds were reestablishing Russian control everywhere.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42340980]I recall there was a tiny anarchist 'state' in the Ukraine somewhere right after WWI, but was utterly crushed by the USSR when the the reds were reestablishing Russian control everywhere.[/QUOTE]
they never actually succeeded in taking over the government and establishing it though
[QUOTE=Harnbrand;42340810]I thought socialism was about strict economic regulation. That makes no fecking sense.[/QUOTE]
no socialism is a broad range of ideologies that can simply be summed up as promoting "worker's control" or a "worker's state". when i say i am socialist i am saying that i believe that the means of production should be collectivized, matters of production and distribution being decided on by cooperative councils of producers and consumers. this is a contrast to the current system where matters of production and distribution are decided on by a bourgeoisie, land-owning class.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42340914]I've always wondered, in a true Anarchist system, what happens if someone makes a power grab? Like, actually amasses a reasonable force and fucking destroys anyone who opposes them? They wouldn't even have to be particularly smart about it as there would be no standing armies other than those created by various groups of people.
How does Anarchism deal with that? I don't think I've ever seen it addressed.[/QUOTE]
well what if someone makes a power grab in today's society? there aren't any standing armies today other than those created by various groups of people.
[editline]29th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42340980]I recall there was a tiny anarchist 'state' in the Ukraine somewhere right after WWI, but was utterly crushed by the USSR when the the reds were reestablishing Russian control everywhere.[/QUOTE]
the ussr allowed the free territory to exist for quite a while. however, when the free territory banned political parties(including the bolshevik party), it became perceived as a threat to bolshevik control and was destroyed.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42341005]no socialism is a broad range of ideologies that can simply be summed up as promoting "worker's control" or a "worker's state". when i say i am socialist i am saying that i believe that the means of production should be collectivized, matters of production and distribution being decided on by cooperative councils of producers and consumers. this is a contrast to the current system where matters of production and distribution are decided on by a bourgeoisie, land-owning class.[/QUOTE]
production and distribution are decided by the market, by the consumer, if it was decided by the "bourgeoisie," only the top 1% of the population would be able to pay for their products, and thus they wouldnt be profitable
regulated capitalism favors the consumer far more than full socialism does
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42341005]
well what if someone makes a power grab in today's society? there aren't any standing armies today other than those created by various groups of people.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn't answer his question at all.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42341032]production and distribution are decided by the market, by the consumer, if it was decided by the "bourgeoisie," only the top 1% of the population would be able to pay for their products, and thus they wouldnt be profitable
regulated capitalism favors the consumer far more than full socialism does[/QUOTE]
that's just plain out false. wages are controlled by land owners, prices are controlled by land owners. they are not in any way controlled by consumers or workers. if they were, prices would be cheaper and wages would be higher.
The armies of today are both tied to countries (mostly), allowing for massive numbers. And funded by every tax paying inhabitant of the country (usually). This would likely not be the case in an anarchistic system, after all, if you don't fund someone with an army, they won't expand or protect you, I expect there would be lots of small, moderately armed armies.
Hardly comparable to someone trying to make a power grab against a modern military force. It wouldn't be as feasible.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42341005]well what if someone makes a power grab in today's society? there aren't any standing armies today other than those created by various groups of people.[/QUOTE]
a military created by bands of strangers working together in an anarchist society would never be as disciplined or well equipped as a force led by a government with a state funded military
anarchist states with military forces that are "standing," and not merely militias, would have a hard time organizing, funding, and moving troops without a government to do so
why would someone risk their life if they have everything to lose?
I still want to know how laws promising retribution don't prevent crimes.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42341048]that's just plain out false. wages are controlled by land owners, prices are controlled by land owners. they are not in any way controlled by consumers or workers. if they were, prices would be cheaper and wages would be higher.[/QUOTE]
wages are regulated by the state, and set by the employer
if a job did not pay enough money, no one would take that job
if a product was far too expensive, no one would be able to buy that product
thus its profitable for the "land owner" to sell just as cheap as the market is willing to buy, and the fact that they make a sale, obviously means there are consumers happy with the purchase
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42341052]The armies of today are both tied to countries (mostly), allowing for massive numbers. And funded by every tax paying inhabitant of the country (usually). This would likely not be the case in an anarchistic system, after all, if you don't fund someone with an army, they won't expand or protect you, I expect there would be lots of small, moderately armed armies.
Hardly comparable to someone trying to make a power grab against a modern military force. It wouldn't be as feasible.[/QUOTE]
but it is feasible and has happened before many times.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42341080]but it is feasible and has happened before many times.[/QUOTE]
[citation needed]
how does a military pay for and organize supplies and troops without taxes in a way that is enough to deal with a first world nation's military?
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42341071]
if a job did not pay enough money, no one would take that job[/quote]
see: united states, china, thailand, taiwan, mexico, panama, columbia for a few examples to the contrary.
[quote]if a product was far too expensive, no one would be able to buy that product[/quote]
that doesn't contradict anything.
[quote]thus its profitable for the "land owner" to sell as cheap as the market is willing to buy, and the fact that they make a sale, obviously means there are consumers happy with the purchase[/QUOTE]
it's profitable for the bourgeoisie to sell for as high as possible and cut costs wherever possible.
[QUOTE=Bentham;42341064]I still want to know how laws promising retribution don't prevent crimes.[/QUOTE]
they do though?
it may not be the best way to deal with criminal activity by a landslide, (decreasing poverty and unemployment is far more effective) but it does
it wont prevent crimes that result from extreme duress or mental disorders though; a guy isnt going to really care about going to jail if he's on the end of the rope and has nothing left to lose and needs to eat
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42341056]
why would someone risk their life if they have everything to lose?[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I feel this question ought to be asked by many in time of war.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42341080]but it is feasible and has happened before many times.[/QUOTE]
That's usually entire states attacking entire states, massive military forces against weaker or less equipped ones to take control. Thousands of people fighting for a county or leader. Rarely for themselves. As there are no leaders or state in anarchy, you'd be expecting for people to fight for themselves against organised groups fighting for power. Even if the individuals group up, would they all group together? Would ideology divide them? If they are divided by ideology, you end up with groups of people vying for power for they ideology now. Anarchy gone.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;42341119]they do though?
it may not be the best way to deal with criminal activity by a landslide, (decreasing poverty and unemployment is far more effective) but it does
it wont prevent crimes that result from extreme duress or mental disorders though; a guy isnt going to really care about going to jail if he's on the end of the rope and has nothing left to lose and needs to eat[/QUOTE]
You misunderstand, Yawmwem claimed they don't, but didn't clarify why this is supposedly true, so I asked for clarification and he didn't respond to it.
I agree, they do prevent crimes, I just want to know his reasons for believing the opposite.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42341103]see: united states, china, thailand, taiwan, mexico, panama, columbia for a few examples to the contrary.[/QUOTE]
how so?
are you telling me there is an abundance of jobs free in the US and people dont take them because they dont pay enough?
if so, you're plain wrong, thats not what unemployment does
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.