As long as it's voluntary & non-aggressive, who gives a damn how others live? (a response to @pomperipossa's "So, you're an anarchist?")

in anarchy •  2 years ago 

Yesterday, my good friend @pomperipossa posted this article, asking questions of those who identify as anarchists, but not as anarcho-capitalists. I began writing my response in the comments, but it got REALLY big, and so I figured it would make more sense to post it myself, which might then help to bring more folks into the conversation as well. Please be sure to hop over to his original post and give him an upvote if you like the conversation he's started.



(Image Source)


I have some questions for people who self-identify as anarchists but are against the free market. I think they confuse free markets with government, crony capitalism and mother nature. If you live on an island like Robinson Crusoe and you don’t work to acquire shelter, drinking water, and food, mother nature will kill you. I guess you could say you are oppressed by mother nature. I don’t think I will get all my questions answered, maybe they will answer questions that I didn't ask, but I doubt they will answer my questions. I believe they will reject the definitions of the words I use. I believe they will refer me to read some book instead of answering. The reason I think this, is because I believe they can’t make convincing non-contradictory arguments. Am I wrong? Fine prove me wrong!

  1. Do you think there should be rulers or do you think every person should rule themselves?
  2. If private property is violence or oppression, then how would you separate people from their property?
  3. Would you do it without violence or oppression? If so please tell me how.
  4. Do you think people should own the food they are about to eat?
  5. If you think people should own the food they are about to eat but that they should be prohibited from accumulating too much, where do you draw the line?
  6. How much is one allowed to own?
  7. How do you get the right to decide this?
  8. If someone accumulates a store of food in case of a future food shortage while someone else chooses to rest and play, do you think the slacker owns the food that the industrious person worked hard to obtain?
  9. If the accumulated food is enough for one person to survive until more food can be obtained, do you think the industrious person has to give half of his food away so they both starve?

As someone who spends a lot of time with people who self-identify as "anarcho-capitalists", "anarcho-syndicalists", "anarcho-communists", "anarchists", "agorists", "voluntaryists", "libertarians", "sovereign beings", and so on, I feel like I am in a unique position to answer your questions, and to point out some false-dichotomies & misunderstandings that all of these folks who choose to self-identify with words [words that they know come with a lot of connotations & in some cases, centuries-long smear campaigns].

The most important bit of confusion that I see from the an-cap side is that people who promote cooperative, rather than competitive, interaction necessarily oppose free markets. Just because someone wants to share the fruit of their time & energy with others, freely associating with people who also want to share the fruit of their time & energy, does not mean they promote forcing/coercing anyone else to act in that way. They do want to associate with people who share their morals & philosophies (as does everyone else), and they most likely want to promote their morals & philosophies to more people (as does everyone else).


(Image Source)

Now then, to your specific questions (these are my personal answers):

  1. Every being is the creator of it's own reality, owner of it's body, and should not be infringed by another being capable of morality.
  2. I don't think the concept of private property is "violence or oppression". I do think that cultures which place accumulation of private property as one of their top measures of "success" are destined to suffer from unnecessary stratification, classism, and huge differences in mental & physical health, education, et al between those classes.
  3. N/A
  4. I don't think that the concept of "ownership" really needs to apply to food as raw materials (plants). Now if someone takes plants & puts in their own time, energy, and skills to create a dish (or they are from someone's garden, where they have put their own time & energy into growing them), obviously they get to choose how that is distributed.
  5. N/A
  6. One is "allowed" to do anything, as long as it doesn't harm or threaten to harm others. So as long as you "owning" (I find this to be a artificial, limiting, and outdated concept) things isn't causing harm/threat of harm to another being, it's fine.
  7. That's hard to say. From one point of view, since we are each creating our own experiences, we have the "right" to decide whatever we want about our experience. From another, every being is free to make their own decisions, and therefore none of us have a "right" to try to change how anyone else lives (including deciding that they should not have rulers, have slaves, etc). From another, if there is an absolute truth, then no being has the "right" to differ from that truth.
  8. I've already answered the purpose of this question I believe, so I would just like to point out that this sort of hypothetical, with a clear false-dichotomy, and so many assumptions about the level of competition/cooperation in the hypothetical culture, which is going to decide what is right/proper. This is also an example used often, which doesn't translate to everything. There is a difference between someone working hard, farming, and stocking up food, and someone say, owning a bunch of stock (or cryptos), having the value of those go up (without any input of time or energy from said owner), and then selling all of them and buying a bunch of food. Looking at it from another angle, what kind of human could see someone else starving to death and not share their food with them (unless they only had enough for the immediate survival of themselves & family).
  9. I feel like my response to number 8 covers this one. I would like to point out that food is not a scarce resource as soon as you remove corporations, GMOs, toxic pesticides/herbicides, transporting it 1000s of miles, and throwing away half of what is produced to maintain the illusion of scarcity. (Here's an example of how food production works when done in a reasonable manner)



You Are Beautiful

You Are Powerful

You Are Free


If you enjoyed this post, and want to support my work in the physical & digital worlds, please consider following me, up-voting (maybe even re-steeming) this post.


KCK

BipCot

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Haha, even more than I did, you've got chapters.

Awesome reading as always kenny

Thanks brother! Sending love your way :-)

Battling with self thanks

My thoughts in a nutshell: "Free choice, free will as long as it Harm's None!" Awsome thought provoking post @kennyskitchen I am now an avid fan and follower. Upvoter and Resteemer..

Thanks so much for your response and support @thethreehugs! I totally agree with your nutshell. Following you now too :-)

It's always great to meet people of like minds!

Kenny, I always appreciate your point of view. I feel you are indeed someone in a unique position and I'm very grateful that you are there. You provide us with a balance that we otherwise wouldn't have. Your honesty and dedication to your ideas and principles inspire me and I will continue to look forward to our next meeting.

Thanks Mike, I really appreciate your words and your friendship. I'm very much looking forward to my return to Acapulco this winter :-)

This post recieved a vote from @minnowpond. For more information click https://steemit.com/steemit/@minnowpond/boost-your-rewards-with-minnowpond

private property can only exist through violence and oppression.

It was originally common property and the majority of it was "created" (forcefully taken by the government and given to the newly created capitalists) through the enclosure acts.

Private property is something laboured on by one person and controlled by another. This control can only exist through a government.

First, I think you've confused some of what I quoted from @pomperipossa as my own thoughts/words

private property can only exist through violence and oppression.

I understand where you're coming from here, but I don't think it's nearly as black & white as you're making it out to be. If I go spend a weekend in a forest, and harvest some herbs & mushrooms while I am there, I have in some way made them my "property"...

Private property is something laboured on by one person and controlled by another. This control can only exist through a government.

So you're saying that if I labor on something, and control it, that it's not my property? I don't really believe in property or ownership myself (none of it stays with you when you leave this body), I'm just very curious how you justify such a narrow view.

"So you're saying that if I labor on something, and control it, that it's not my property?"

what?

oh yeah I forgot you still don't understand the different types of property.

You're basing these arguments on the fact that he used the word "private property", when you know full well that anarcho-capitalists don't believe in any other kind of property. And again, you're not responding to me, you're responding to my quote of @pomperipossa.

"I don't think the concept of private property is "violence or oppression". I do think that cultures which place accumulation of private property as one of their top measures of "success" are destined to suffer from unnecessary stratification, classism, and huge differences in mental & physical health, education, et al between those classes."

he used the word "private property", when you know full well that anarcho-capitalists don't believe in any other kind of property.

"I understand where you're coming from here, but I don't think it's nearly as black & white as you're making it out to be. If I go spend a weekend in a forest, and harvest some herbs & mushrooms while I am there, I have in some way made them my "property"..."

oh so you don't understand the different types of property I see. You really need to read up on anarchism. Its something the first self-proclaimed anarchist wrote a massive book about. (Spoiler, he called it theft and slavery.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

Its something the first self-proclaimed anarchist wrote a massive book about. (Spoiler, he called it theft and slavery.)

He also said "property is impossible", "property is despotism", and "property is freedom", and he was most specifically talking about land ownership.

You make a lot of assumptions and personal attacks, not exactly intellectual debate..

" about land ownership."

As in one major aspect of private property.

here this video explains it well

This post recieved a vote from @minnowpond. For more information click https://steemit.com/steemit/@minnowpond/boost-your-rewards-with-minnowpond

Congratulations @kennyskitchen! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of comments received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

gmos aren't bad its just patents that do so.

GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad, but when you combine that technology with a profit-based system, and no sense of personal accountability by business owners/executives, you end up with huge amounts of soil destruction, "food" that is mass-produced without any evidence that it doesn't have long-term negative effects, and an acceleration in the degradation of the Earth's ecosystem.

"GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad, but when you combine that technology with a profit-based system, and no sense of personal accountability by business owners/executives, you end up with huge amounts of soil destruction,"

so basically markets in a nutshell.

""food" that is mass-produced without any evidence that it doesn't have long-term negative effects, and an acceleration in the degradation of the Earth's ecosystem."

We have been mixing species for thousands of years. The only difference is we are able to do it directly with GMO's. Now we can actually make sure that only one specific gene is within the new crops and not just a mix of the two. I have read many research papers. I see zero evidence that any hard could come from it.

Oh wait do you want me to do a 300 year long study on how having plants in my house could have a negative effect on me? I'm all for it, but I have had plants for a long time and until you show me evidence I really don't care what you have to say on the matter.

so basically markets in a nutshell.

Competitive, non-rational markets, yes.

We have been mixing species for thousands of years. The only difference is we are able to do it directly with GMO's. Now we can actually make sure that only one specific gene is within the new crops and not just a mix of the two. I have read many research papers. I see zero evidence that any harm could come from it.

The argument that because humans have been practicing selective breeding (picking the "best" phenotypes and crossing plants that are already closely related is the same as GMOs is either being completely intellectually dishonest, or not understanding what the GMOs being created in the current world are. If I pick my two favorite hemp plants, and use one to pollinate the other (even though they're not the same), this is in no way a parallel to taking genes out of a salmon to put in a tomato, or taking genes out of E.Coli to put in corn, soy, etc. to make it "Roundup Ready"

Oh wait do you want me to do a 300 year long study on how having plants in my house could have a negative effect on me? I'm all for it, but I have had plants for a long time and until you show me evidence I really don't care what you have to say on the matter.

You're using logical fallacies to try to ignore the fact that current GMOs are created, tested for less than a decade (on the small scale, with huge biases), and then mass-produced and sold to consumers without their knowledge or consent.

"Competitive, non-rational markets, yes."

the goal of the market leaders is to make a profit. It doesn't matter how "rational" somebody thinks you are when you sell enough oil to escape from any effects of climate change yourself.

"The argument that because humans have been practicing selective breeding (picking the "best" phenotypes and crossing plants that are already closely related is the same as GMOs is either being completely intellectually dishonest, or not understanding what the GMOs being created in the current world are."

Gmo is simply taking a single gene and putting into a plant. Smashing the genes of plants together on the other hand is way more likely to have side-effects. I would say selective breeding is worse. A large portion of your dna is already made out of viruses, do you really think a single gene in something you eat after being researched for 12-16 months will have any major side effects after the fact? Remember, either way you break down its dna when it enters your body. You are the one with no understanding of GMOs

the goal of the market leaders is to make a profit. It doesn't matter how "rational" somebody thinks you are when you sell enough oil to escape from any effects of climate change yourself.

This is also really funny to hear from someone who is upvoted each of his own comments for more than $.50, without upvoting the rest of the comments, or even the original posts themselves. Hypocrite much?

Gmo is simply taking a single gene and putting into a plant. Smashing the genes of plants together on the other hand is way more likely to have side-effects. I would say selective breeding is worse. A large portion of your dna is already made out of viruses, do you really think a single gene in something you eat after being researched for 12-16 months will have any major side effects after the fact? Remember, either way you break down its dna when it enters your body. You are the one with no understanding of GMOs

Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects, vs 3 decades of GMOs with huge increases in autism, digestive issues, cancer, and more (we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly), as well as soil destruction (clear & direct causation from the pesticides & herbicides these GMOs are created to withstand)... I'll definitely take my chances with nature's process over Monsanto's or DuPont's.

"This is also really funny to hear from someone who is upvoted each of his own comments for more than $.50, without upvoting the rest of the comments, or even the original posts themselves. Hypocrite much?"

half of my power is delegated to steemstem. I also follow my upvotes with my main account. I have decided to upvote myself because I believe I can put it to better use, stupid much?

half of my power is delegated to steemstem. I also follow my upvotes with my main account. I have decided to upvote myself because I believe I can put it to better use, stupid much?

My point is simply that you're arguing against profit-motives and competitive markets, while using your SteemPower (capital) to upvote yourself (profit), and not others, in a competitive & self-above-others way.

You know, when I first saw you pop on the scene last year, I followed you and was up-voting you because I saw some use of logic, reasoning, and actual dialogue. Somewhere along the way you switched to ad hominems, personal attacks, and childish communication. It's really unfortunate, and I hope to see you shifting back to mature communication.

"Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects, vs 3 decades of GMOs with huge increases in autism'

great evidence, but its fucking stupid. Autism hasn't increased, we have better tools to detect and understand it. What was called apsergers syndrome, for example, was only detected in half the people because the most common symptoms of it noticed actually only come out when paired with another mental syndrome that happens in about half of them.

So, wrong and delusional.

"huge increases in autism, digestive issues, cancer, and more"

correlation does not equal causation. The amount of technology in school increased during that time, it must be the source of my cancer.

"Considering 1000s of years of selective breeding without any major side-effects,"

Guess what? You can talk about it after the fact but what would you have said to the first person doing cross-breeding? It saved millions of lives, but you would still be against it wouldn't you.

"as well as soil destruction (clear & direct causation from the pesticides & herbicides these GMOs are created to withstand).."
that's a use of GMO, not the technology itself. Nuclear power could save us from climate change. But it was used in bombs, looks like africa gets to die, oh well.

"'ll definitely take my chances with nature's process over Monsanto's or DuPont's."

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/11/cdc-study-attempts-to-assess-outbreak-risk-from-organic-food/#.WaB043Xys8o

Looks like many types of organic food have been proven to be more dangerous to consume and look, unlike you, I have evidence to back up my statement.

You:

that's a use of GMO, not the technology itself.

Me (many comments before):

GMOs as a theoretical science aren't necessarily bad


You:

correlation does not equal causation.

Me (in the comment you're responding to):

(we can't draw direct causation because of all the other potentially hazardous technology being thrown around willy-nilly)


You're simply being argumentative & combative for the sake of it, and while I'm grateful for all the activity you've given my post, which will most likely get more people to read it, I'm not in the habit of playing chess with pigeons.

The thing is, the majority of genes do a specific single thing. More research on that gene can confirm that yes, it does create that specific protein chain. Then we research the effect of the protein chain either through direct observation or through measuring the effects on the life.

In fact every single plant we grow is attacked by viruses. Many of these virsus inject the wrong dna, sometimes the dna of other lifeforms. You are a million times more likely to die from this than anything a single researched gene will do.

It doesn't matter where it came from if we know what it does. Being scared of it is like being scared of dihydrogen monixide (That's water if you didn't know)

GMO's aren't bad? "We have been mixing species for thousands of years?"

I have no problem with hybrids (mixing within a species), but I have a huge problem mixing insect DNA with plant DNA as just one example.

You have no problem with genetic engineering of food?

the thing is, we specifically choose which genes to put into the plants. We study exactly what it does, and what any possible affects are in the plant. When you eat something you break up the dna so as long as it doesn't create toxins it really doesn't matter what it does.

about 8% of human dna is from viruses, many of that is from random plants, animals, or bacteria.

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by kennyskitchen from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

  ·  2 years ago Reveal Comment

the problem is always what will happen when there is a crisis. Food shortage, disease, some natural catastrophe or just a highly intelligent psychopath who's also a sociopath.

What always happens when there is a crisis, humans step up, come together, and figure out a way to handle/survive it. Spontaneous order is a wonderful thing, and the creativity & strength of humans, especially in community, who love and care for each other, will always be greater than we believe possible beforehand.

Communities always have to toughen their structures and their culture to sustain internal crisis. But with that always comes the risk of the entrenchment of a administration class. Eventually that happens and then the community goes the same way as always: It turns predatory and wins and grows, or it gets owned and fades away.

You used "always" quite a few times in there, and every place you did so it definitely does not fit. Properly intentional communities, with clear agreements and structures, are extremely resilient and adaptable. It's generally safe to say that if you're using the word "always", you're probably wrong.

  ·  2 years ago Reveal Comment

A small likelihood multiplied with time equals always. Think in the long-term. 5+ generations.

In a multiverse sense, yes it does. In reality though, the likelihood of anything will change and can go to zero as the variables involved change.

For example I know a bit about Switzerland, which basically is the role model for how the planet should be organized politically.

I would disagree with this statement at its very core. Switzerland is a nation-state, meaning it is operating on an outdated, inefficient, force & coercion-based system.

Small units of course are very resilient. There is this 150/5000 rule for family/community and if you don't go beyond that, you can have close, functioning social order in the long run.

Exactly. These small communities are the only way to peacefully and effectively organize humans, as that is what we are designed for, and humans need to be emotionally connected to their community in order to function.

great post, thx for sharing!

You're welcome, thank you!