It seems that to answer your questions, one needs to choose between some
form of democracy / mob rule and cold moral absolutes enforced by machines
or machine like people.

The two historical problems I see with collectivism are that it has
traditionally been easily gamed by "lobbyists" (term meant very broadly)
and that intellectually immature people blur suppression of their own
urges with meddling in the lives of others.

The exciting thing is that Radical Transparency helps to solve both of
these problems, the sneaky lobbyist is discredited while the bigot
realizes that everyone is human.


If you'll indulge me, I'd like to play storytime for a moment....

Imagine a group, lets say a group of programmers but perhaps it is a
multi-disciplinary group. If you apply to join and we accept you, we
make a commitment to ensure that your health and wellbeing are looked
after. Technically we become your employer but inside of the group you
still have to choose and apply for a position either in administration
or at one of the companies which have hired the group's services. Jobs
within the group will be paid more than you could expect to be paid at
an outside company. We provide you with a bank account and money from
your job is paid directly to it. Unlike a Secret Society, we operate in
the open and you are not forced to be a member for life.
Although it would effectively mean quitting your job, you can leave any
time you want.

Furthermore you get to have a say in how we operate, to define rules and
guidelines and help to resolve disputes between members.
The catch is that you have to accept personal transparency on your buying
habits. That credit card we issue, we get to read the bank statement.
You also must pay dues which are taken as taxes on transfers from the
bank account. If you're buying basic necessities then the tax might be
only 1%, luxury items perhaps 10% but most importantly if you are
patronizing a company which we have determined to be harmful to the group,
we will charge heavily. A sort of boycott-tariff. Obviously if you pull
out cash or transfer the money to an account which is beyond our view, we
can only assume the worst and assess at the highest rate.


Such a group could provide for a lot of the things where Libertarian
Government falls short. Additionally as the group does not claim
territorial control, if it ever became a tyranny, members could as a last
resort quit.

Ideally there would be many such groups competing for membership.
Unfortunately in my naive example, such groups would be better served
by use of war to establish monopoly / cartel than by competition. A more
stable system would necessitate each person being a member of 3 or more
groups which managed different aspects of their lives. Thus the resulting
web of interdependence makes war a negative value proposition.


ok done




On 08/29/2014 04:29 AM, Amir Taaki wrote:
> I was reading Wikipedia and normally I'm not into this ideology stuff
> but I found some really interesting stuff. I was trying to understand
> what anarcho-communism is about and whether it was voluntary. For me it
> seems like you have some central assemblies where resources from
> individuals flow to be redistributed via democratic decision making
> according to the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability,
> to each according to his need".
>
> As someone who values individuals, and wants to see a society based on
> merit where leaders can strike it out, I don't like democracy and I
> don't like collective decision making as always the consensus of the
> majority is to oppose progress and normalise anything different.
>
> The idea of communist worker councils oppressing the rich classes,
> taking the power to guide the economy is very much rooted in the times
> of industrialisation where a poor rural Russia needed to industrialise.
>

>   "While Kollontai was initially drawn to the populist ideas of
>    a restructuring of society based upon the peasant commune,
>    effective advocates of such theories in the last decade of the
>    19th century were few.[11] Marxism, with its emphasis on the
>    enlightenment of factory workers, the revolutionary seizure of
>    power, and the construction of modern industrial society, held
>    sway with Kollontai as with so many of her peers of Russia's
>    radical intelligentsia."

>
> So this is where it gets interesting. I'm reading about market
> anarchism, which I know is something people have called me as well as
> being labelled voluntarist. I like the Proudhon and Lysander Spooner too.
>
> There's a section called "Left-wing market anarchism":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism#Left-wing_market_anarchism
> and the first paragraph in, is the stuff I already know but the rest is
> veeeerry interesting. I'm surprised at how much the ideas expressed
> there are the same as my own. Like I go on, and there's many things I
> thought were unique to my political beliefs.
>
>> proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal
>> ideas of self-ownership and free markets
> yep already knew this, I like self-ownership a lot.
>
>> taken to their logical conclusions, these ideas support strongly
>> anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, ...
> yep this is what I thought of market anarchism.
>
>> pro-labor positions in economics
> that's new to me. My economics do take a view with empowering the
> disempowered in an open economy so that self-liberation and
> self-emancipation are available to all.
>
>> anti-imperialism in foreign policy;
> no borders right
>
>> This strand of left-libertarianism tends to be rooted either in the
>> mutualist economics conceptualized by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
>> American individualist anarchism, or in a left-wing interpretation
>> or extension of the thought of Murray Rothbard.
> I pretty much agree with all those ideas.
>
>> Arguing that vast disparities in wealth and social influence result
>> from the use of force, and especially state power, to steal and
>> engross land and acquire and maintain special privileges
> This is my main argument for why we need markets. The system is rigged
> through printing money, force and a rigged democracy.
>
>> They judge that, in a stateless society, the kinds of privileges
>> secured by the state will be absent, and injustices perpetrated
>> or tolerated by the state can be rectified. Thus, they conclude
>> that, with state interference eliminated, it will be possible to
>> achieve "socialist ends by market means."
> Wow, I definitely want to achieve socialist ends by market means. If we
> can form cooperatives that allow people to live cheaply and freely, to
> pool money for things like costly cancer treatment or insurance, then we
> have no need for intermediaries and we can make an economy that works
> for ourselves. This is why the market is so powerful because it gives
> you the ability to wield it for whatever objectives, and then the
> effectiveness (in a "free open" market which values merit) is tested.
> It's by no means perfect, but it's a much more fun way to live, and
> that's the only way to unlock liberty.
>
>> Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis bosses
> yes, become the boss. Take back your work.
>> support poor people's squatting on government or abandoned property
> let me get back to u on this one
>> prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the regulatory
>> restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised.
> they split up the electromagnetic spectrum and sell it to corporations.
> Part of that spectrum (in the middle) is visible light. Can you imagine
> selling the license for emitting a shade of red? So ridiculous, and
> that's why we have a crap monopolised telecom infrastructure- they
> control the airwaves.
>> They see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by
>> highway subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood
>> of the limited-liability corporation with suspicion
> I've been reading Assange's Google book, page 25 paragraphs 2-3 are a
> good read for a greater enunciation of this.
>> doubt that Third World sweatshops would be the "best alternative"
>> in the absence of government manipulation.
> I don't want a world of privatised slaves. I want everyone to be an
> entrepreneur and to own their work.
>> Left-libertarians tend to eschew electoral politics
> I don't vote. It's a waste of time and a silly game.
>> They prefer to develop alternative institutions and methods of
>> working around the state.
> So much this!! This is definitely my strategy.
>> that market anarchists can and should call themselves "socialists."
> I would call myself socialist.
>
> Now about anarcho-capitalism:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
> I get many of the ideas, and I realise there are many variants which I
> strongly associate with many of the traits. Also I feel a commonality
> with many people who associate as anarcho-capitalist through their values.
> However I don't understand a few things. Is this philosophy dealing in
> absolutes? Is it always wrong to steal someone's property like a bag of
> rice when you're starving? Is it more wrong to steal from a big
> supermarket than an individual? Is it right to steal from the
> government? How about a morally reprehensible individual? Or a
> corporation? Or is the private property thing more of a steering
> guideline- that we should seek to protect private property.
>
> How is private property linked to use? For instance, many amazing or
> valuable places on earth or certain resources have been taken by power
> groups for nefarious ends. For instance DeBeers uses its influence to
> further encroach its monopoly and rig the market to drive out
> competitors. On an earth that had no borders or lines, who is to say
> this millionaire guy has the right to buy an entire river or beach for
> his own private mention, and then use force to prevent my use of that
> natural unused geography. Is that really ethical?
>
> I think Bitcoin is interesting as many of the things that ancaps are
> striving for can now be done through blockchain & crypto technologies
> without the need for private courts, law enforcement and security
> services. I'm strongly of the view that the more we can live without
> needing police and judges in a society, the better we will be.
>
> How do anarcho capitalists view things like copying bytes of a movie or
> jumping train barriers which do not deprive people of the movie or a
> train ride?
> I think maybe the situation in the relatively young US is different to
> the older aristocratic Europe. Here we have the situation like the Duke
> of Westminster who owns the best land and properties around England and
> London, and is the 2nd richest man in the UK. He's a big supporter of
> royalty and the military.
> He is basically rich from being a rentier.
> Would we be wrong for violating his property? How about if we made good
> use of his buildings putting them to productive use?
>
> My questions fall into:
> * Does anarcho-capitalism deal with moral absolutes?
> * How widely can you interpret aggression against property?
> * When is it ethical to violate private property?
> * Who enforces all of this? Is it private militaries and mafias?
> * How does geography play in this? Not all land is equal, and capture of
> land can be a self fulfilling advantage, especially with natural
> resources like water or energy.
> * Why is there such a huge emphasis on private organisations, and no
> discussion about cooperatives or mutualism (normally a cornerstone of
> anarchism)?
> * What is the discussion around our individual action? In terms of what
> values we want to promote, and how that informs our strategy.
> * What if the voluntary market disagrees with defence of private
> property? Which takes precedence?
>
>> Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just,
>> and/or most economically beneficial, way to acquire property
>> is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original
>> appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.
>
> This is indeed correct.
>
>> The only alternative that remains to Rothbard is self-ownership,
>> which he believes is both axiomatic and universal.
>
> Is this antithetical to the concept of anarchism?
>
> From 2nd paragraph of Wikipedia article on Anarchism:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>> As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many
>> currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed
>> body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead
>> fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.
>
> I feel like having an axiomatic and universal basis for your philosophy
> is a dogmatic way of thinking which leads to fixed doctrine.
>
>> This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by
>> a person implies his right to use and transform these places and
>> goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not
>> change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and
>> goods originally **appropriated** by another person.
>
> goes on further:
>
>> According to Rothbard, property can only come about through labor,
>> therefore original appropriation of land is not legitimate by merely
>> claiming it or building a fence around it; it is only by using land
>> ...
>> Rothbard argues that the resource need not continue to be used in
>> order for it to be the person's property
>> ...
>> "His labor has been irretrievably mixed with the land, and the land
>> is therefore his or his assigns' in perpetuity."
>
>> He believes slaves rightfully own any land they were forced to work
>> on under the "homestead principle"
>> He proposes that businesses who receive at least 50% of their
>> funding from the state be confiscated by the workers.
>
> Does that mean we should re-appropriate businesses to varying degrees
> based on how much they benefit from the state?
>
>> Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail
>> over wage labor.
>
> This is what I strive for generally, but with a lot of this stuff
> (especially around contracts), it's cool but seems a bit wishful
> thinking in places that someone people will organise this way because of
> these rational principles... when for me I kind of have some ethic I
> want to push, some strategy for working towards that but no really
> strong vision of "how it must be". I try to develop my sense of ethics,
> and actually I feel stealing from a supermarket is more ethical than
> buying from it... especially if we oppose big nation-states with the
> recognition that the deep state doesn't start and end with the public
> institutions, but its echelons reach deep with many different consenting
> players (some more than others including ourselves).
>
> I'm curious to see how people are thinking about these sorts of ideas,
> and feeling an affinity to anarcho-capitalism. I'm not interested in
> what the theory says, but what you feel is right.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>