There are natural hierarchies such as the expertise difference between student and teacher, voluntary hierarchies such as employer/employee exchanges for mutual benefit, and coercive hierarchies such as those in politics. Using the last to denigrate the first two is irrational. The moment you claim authority to decide how other people may associate, you cease to be an anarchist.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's not what anarchism is, lol. Pretending that student/teacher is the same as monopolistic hoarders of resources is a bit silly. Anarchism does not allow for inequality, because if things were unequal, they wouldn't be anarchistic as people would exude power over others. Power and capital are the same things, and you can't have a stateless society unless those things are dealt with.
Before we continue, are you at all familiar with the concept of property acquired through homesteading and voluntary exchange versus the misappropriation of plunder? These are completely different ideas. If I plant a field, tend the crop, and harvest it, who has a higher claim? If I offer a portion of the crop, or some other form of payment, for assistance in the project at any stage, who is being exploited? Declaring something "monopolistic hoarding" just because you disagree with it isn't conducive to rational discourse.
You're presenting these ideas as if this is a Minecraft server that we click reset on. We have to deal with the real history of our planet, and your philosophy doesn't really address that at all.
You have no "right" to any land that excludes someone else. All you're presenting are fantasy scenarios that will never occur and completely ignore our history and how we got here.
The people you took the land from.
We don't deny the real history. You obviously haven't been following the debates in our circles over how to return stolen land and offer restitution to those who have been plundered. I took land from no one. The State is the thief. We need to cast it off before we can begin any kind of restoration and negotiation to sort out the mess it left. But you seem to reject property, so how can you claim something has been stolen?
You shouldn't think that I am personally aware of your entire biography. You should present those ideas when you argue.
When you occupy a location and prevent others from accessing it via force, then it's stolen. And again, there's a difference between historical significance and ideals for the future. We had property, it was stolen. We need to address that before we get rid of property.
And the moment you start "redistributing" other people's stuff you're a thief (a user of the political means)
Tell me this, did Bill Gates earn $106 billion dollars?
You should already know that Bill Gates relied heavily on political protections and plunder in amassing his fortune. IP laws, trade protections, subsidies, etc. are anti-market government interventions.
However, it must also be noted that we are all vastly, immeasurably wealthier as a result of the computer revolution. Imdustrialist wealth is measured in dollars. Our wealth is measured in goods and services, more efficient products, less paper waste, instant global communication, new forms of entertainment, automated drudge work that no longer rwquires time and labor, and so on.
Of course, with manufacturing in China, we do have real problems of literal slave labor and sweatshop work, but please don't try to claim I am somehow endorsing that.
Wait, you actually think one man is responsible for computers? Hmm....
So you agree Bill Gates didn't earn his fortune? So do you disagree with @dullhawk? If we take back what is rightfully ours, is that "thievery"? If someone steals my watch, and I take it back, am I a thief?
If someone steals your watch and you take it back, you are not a thief.
If you imagine someone stole your watch, but you sold your watch to them, and you "take it back" you're the thief.
I'm under the impression that Bill Gates used politics to get his money, and if so, he is guilty of receiving stolen goods from the primary thief: government. Go after the real problem first, then you don't need to worry about the little guys (and yes, Bill Gates is small potatoes compared to the State).
So would you say that a takeover of the state and using that takeover to tax Bill Gates' stolen money would be in order?
No. To take over a criminal gang is to become the criminal gang.
The State never limits its acts to the guilty. To support the State is to advocate harming everyone just to get back at some who are guilty.
If YOU feel Bill Gates has stolen from or defrauded YOU, personally, I would support your right to go to his house (or hire someone to do so on your behalf, at your own expense) and take back the dollar amount he has taken (and possibly even a small amount of interest). Don't expect others to pay to help you if they don't believe your claims or if they don't want to. And be prepared to defend your actions in arbitration.
I'm saying in the case of Bill Gates and other industrialists, it's a messy situation full of nuance. I didn't say he was responsible for computers. He was the one whose software business did the most to make the PC as we know it into a household object, though. But his case is a blend of market entrepreneurship and political plunder. To say it was solely one or the other is absurdly simplistic. Government likes to blend its misdeeds with market action to gain an aura of legitimacy, and corporatists like to claim to be free market advocates while they feed off the subsidies and protectionism of government. That is why the word "capitalism" is such a source of fallacious equivocation in colloquial English.
"Taking back what is rightfully yours" becomes difficult with fungible cash. A realistic solution is to fight the thievery at its source in government and end the crony capital game instead of trying to trace the thread of finance. We may not be able to undo all political injustice, but at the very least, I think we can agree that stopping its continuation should be a first step no matter what.
And no, I am not saying Bill Gates was a Great Man whose vision was necessary to make the personal computer possible. The market was there. The technology was there. Had he not done it, someone else may have. Maybe Apple, Xerox, Tandy, Commodore, Atari, Amstrad or Sinclair would have become what Microsoft is now. Perhaps even IBM despite their bureaucratic bloat, although I doubt that.
So, can you say with certainty that if Bill Gates, the man, didn't exist that we wouldn't have gone along this path at all? That's what I'm asking.
How would I know?
If he stole it (which includes fraud and using government/politics to get his money) then he's a crook like any other-- just maybe more successful than most.
That crooks exist doesn't justify becoming a thief. You can't fight theft by advocating theft.
So would you say that a takeover of the state and using that takeover to tax Bill Gates' stolen money would be in order?
No. That would be absurd. See the response to your other identical comment. Plus, "tax" is just a dishonest word for theft, and a "tax" is never limited to the guilty.
Why not? How else do we get our money back? Do you think we should wander into his home willy nilly and assassinate him?
How much exactly did he steal from you? Come up with documentation and seek arbitration (not using a government court).
And, if you have proof he robbed you, and he refuses to give back your property, why not assassinate him? You're the one who apparently thinks he deserves punishment of some kind, and I might even agree if he refuses to return your property. At least killing him wouldn't violate the property rights of every other individual who'd fall prey to your "tax".
I, on the other hand, can't put a dollar amount on what he has stolen from me-- can't even really convince myself that he has (although, he does use the political means just like you do, which is bad enough).