People who prefer to interact in a way you may not like are not your enemy. There is room in the free market of voluntary association for communes, syndicates, religion, atheism, markets, families, etc. ad astra.
What specific complaints do you have against market anarchism without resorting to mischaracterisation of what we actually espouse?
Oh, didn't realize you were one of those ancap people, oops. Lol.
You can't have anarchism without eliminating power structures and hierarchies. It's impossible. Capital prevents equality, and there's no way to have a stateless society without equality that doesn't turn into mad max style ravaging.
Also pretending capitalism is "voluntary exchange" or whatever buzzword you want to use is silly and means nothing. Capital will never coexist with anarchism.
You say this from zero evidence. You believe it though it is demonstrably unproved. Further, I am convinced that personal security is presently being developed such that institutional power will become obsolete. When gangs of thugs cannot use force to take power or wealth from secure individuals, and neither can individuals, 'Mad Max ravaging' is just as obsolete as totalitarian collectivism.
No capital necessary. Just modern tech deployed rationally to secure one's person and property, with a bit of community mutual support preferable.
Who defines your property?
LOL Change goalposts much?
Just because you can't answer the fundamental question that defines your entire ideology doesn't mean I'm "changing goalposts".
My goal is to show you that you live in a fantasy world and if you can't answer that question, then it'll be a lot easier than I thought.
We can answer it. It's not obscure or convoluted. And you did change the subject rather suddenly.
It's not a change of subject. It's literally asking you to explain how you can do something under this fantasy philosophy. Instead of whining, how about answer the question? lmao
Changing the subject isn't responsive to the prior dialogue, and is a tactical mistake. You demonstrate that my reply to your comment is irrefutable by moving to a new attack vector.
You are full of fail.
weird, you can't even answer a simple question. Again, it's not changing the subject when I want to establish basic definitions for the purpose of a debate.
I'm guessing you don't debate in good faith often, or at all. This is strange. Why won't you answer the question?
Lockean property rights aren't something that rely on some individual's authority for definition. It is a simple matter of the cause and effect of human action.
Someone is the end consumer of every good and service. Who has the authority to consune and produce? Individuals. Voountary exchange and original appropriation seem a reasonable standard to define this right-of-use, do they not?
Wrong answer. The right answer was: Government. Without government you wouldn't have your property. If you don't pay taxes, you lose your property, but I'm sure you know that.
Pretending that every "exchange" is equal is bizarre. Capitalism, at its core, is based on growth. Also, just because you didn't personally kill native people does not absolve you of your situation.
Now, we need to define what we think reasonable property allocation would be before we go on. I don't think any one person should own mansions or skyscrapers or plantations, or any other luxury mega-valued property type.
As far as right of use, from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
Dogs and Octopi have property, yet no government. Every premise you believe is false.
personal property and private property are different things, but either way that was the dumbest shit I've ever read in defense of ancap ideologies. Kudos!
Octopi eat each other.
Government doesn't create or protect property. Government by its very nature violates property. Taxation, eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, registration, licensing, permits, fees, zoning laws, etc. are all violations of property. And when you suffer harm, government forbids competition with their monopoly in dispute resolution. Don't treat the sales pitch for government as gospel.
Why do you say those with greater ability are obligated to provide for those with greater need? Why does need grant authority to demand production? I say this as someone suffering from chronic illness, so understand that I am not a millionaire questioning why I should toss crumbs to the needy. How do other people owe me based on my need? That sounds like coercion, and I don't want to coerce, because I am an anarchist.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Even Proudhon asked who determines these, and when there is a dispute, whose decision stands. It sounds nice, but is in reality a recipe for authoritarianism.
So, if the government and the police force wasn't there, how would you define what your property is?
Our abilities are not vastly different from one another. No one is fundamentally better than anyone else on that level. It's pure fiction. Being "rich" is an illusion propagated by oligarchs who want to retain their own power. Strip everything away and put any two people in 130,000 BC and you'll find that we're all basically the same.
You speak of "power" as an abstract. People are unique, with different talents, abilities, knowledge, and value scales. Sometimes this means a real power difference. The question is in how this power is used.
As I have stated elsewhere, "capitalism" is used in English to describe two distinct and oppositional concepts: voluntary trade, and political interventionism. The former does not lead to the latter. I see a lot of left anarchists conflate the two concepts and disregard the essential distinction.
I use the term "market anarchist" in hopes of avoiding this pointless semantics debate, but you brought it here.
Well asked! Thank you! Mad max is already here. What's next? !invest_vote
Mad Max, but with Tesla pickups?
Hey @jacobtothe, no, I was refering to the comment you'd answered with your question in regard with the conversation that followed already. And I don't mean to judge the commentator being Mad Max, but the world we already live in. I wonder how this chaos can be advocated while anarchism is criticised. Can only be externally controlled ignorance or misunderstanding. And only the latter can be addressed, right?
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?
This looks like spam.
Hello @jacobtothe
This is not spam, the user @andrepol calls this tool manually, this will give you an extravote, allows small users larger vote.
Good to know. I wasn't sure, so I didn't downvote it.
More information can be found here, unfortunately only in German.
Oh sorry for that @jacobtothe, looks foreign to you, I understand. Thank you @cervisia for steping into the breach. !invest_vote True: @voinvote/2/3 is coming after it and upvotes the comment that is replied to. Please take it to be a compliment!
For reading foreign text I'd like to recommend the machine translator by deeply.com
@andrepol denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient! ----> Wer ist investinthefutur ?