Under Construction
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
Replies are closed for this discussion.
This reply was deleted.
Under Construction
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies
Craig Plunkett,
The system you're advocating is invisible dictatorship, not anarchy.
Advocating a system that would take your land and business at gunpoint will not be allowed on 30bad.
Such comments will be deleted and if repeated the member will be suspended.
*Arable land owned in common, harvested in common.*
You can own and harvest YOUR arable land in common, but let ME decide what I do with mine..
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance323.html
Good timing.
CP,
Why don't we put our ideas to test?
I assume our goal is the same and that is to create a peaceful, free and happy world.
If I was to set up this wonderful new world I'd set it up as a Free Market Anarchism, without a state/gov as described in details in the free audio/ebooks Practical/Everyday Anarchy (which I hope you'll listen to/read so y....
Now of course some people like yourself would not like this system, because they happen to have other ideas about how to set up this nice new world. You want communism.
No problem at all. I wouldn't force you or anybody else to comply. That would be against their will, therefor anti-freedom and anti-anarchy.
You'd be free to set up your own social/economic structure, you own currency, etc. Get together with your like-minded folks, set up businesses or collectives where you can work for free or work tickets, share the income the way you wanted, etc. Do your thing and live your life the way you wanted.
Now let me turn over the new-world making magic wand to you.
Would I be allowed to do the same under your system?
Would I be able to set up a business, to have a fruit farm, to engage in voluntary transactions with other free market people, etc. To live my life the way I wanted, without hurting anyone in the process. Would you let me coexist but be different?
If not, then it means that you are willing to use force to make me comply with your system, against my will. This means that your system isn't built on freedom (anarchy) but on force and oppression.
If this is the case then there's no point for me to continue the conversation with you anymore.
If yes, then please explain how.
Because as far as I know it's the anarcho-communist system that you are advocating (which btw has nothing to do with anarchy/freedom as it's an 'invisible dictatorship') - and it would not allow to do this. As far as I know if you would implement your system today, you'd come out tomorrow and confiscate (collectivize) my 5 acre land where I grow my fruit isn't that right? You wouldn't allow me to have a business or do peaceful, voluntary economic transactions with others isn't that right? If I'd oppose you'd put me in jail or shoot me isn't that right?
_______
*I mean, you can't just hijack the tradition of anarchism to mean whatever you want it to mean.*
Exactly! Anarchy means freedom as the old man said in the video you posted.. freedom that I'd not have under your system. Yes, anarchy also means without rulers, employers aren't rulers it's a voluntary relationship; your 'dictatorship by the people' are the rulers because they won't let me live my live the way I wanted.
Libertarianism is a philosophy in principle. It can be applied to political theory, but probably shouldn't be used as a political platform in and of itself.
People hail Capitalism and insult Socialism. Or they despise both and cheerlead for some other Ism. Even though neither one has ever been "purely" implemented, because they really can't be. People are inherently more complex than these systems. They are just cheap approximations which reflect, not dictate, human behavior.
By a "Libertarian Society", I simply mean one in which the principle of non-aggression is the golden rule. Since apparently "Libertarian" is a loaded word, I guess I should clarify that in the future.
ETA - I love the comments by the way. I'll try to give a better response later on when I have more time.
Non-aggression principle IS the Key to maximum human happiness.
Problem is that nearly everyone is a covert aggressor, whether they know it or not. Ferreting that out in a person can be difficult, and if confronted by the fact of it, they will likely aggress upon you quite severely! Ego at work.
And the number of human beings on the planet who have the capacity to self-inquire and self-reflect deeply enough to see their "inner aggressor" for themselves and correct it... well, there are certainly very few of them around.
Nevertheless, carry on! The only way to make any significant change in this world is to find the cause and either remove it or at least control it. That is work well worth doing.
"By the principles of mutual aid and solidarity. Arable land owned in common, harvested in common"
Are you living that way right now? Land in common, worked and harvested in common? Where? How is it working out for you? Do you have enough to eat? How do you work out disputes? How long has this cooperative been active and solvent?
.
There is no "common good." There is only what the individual needs, and that is good.
Suppose my idea of "whole food and a clean place to live" differs from yours? Would you force me to have it your way? Indeed, suppose I prefer the food that you have and the place that you live. Shall I just take it from you? Or would you gladly give it to me?
People want different things, at different times. No changing that. We all must have certain basics, but even within that, there are great differences in what one will want at a specific time and place. How do you reconcile that?
Force or persuasion? Which is the more evolved way to act?
Mandatory or voluntary? Which is the more evolved way to act?
.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next