So imagine there are four people in a true anarchist society. One fisherman, one smith, a scholar and baker. They are good friends so they want to share their products, the scholar offers help when there are problems that need to be researched. They share a cart when driving to the market and equally split their profits.
Now I am not a communist, but the above would be anarcho communism that works without force and is able to coexist with anarcho capitalism.
You capitalists also never address the hierarchy of the work place, how are you going to solve that? Or is that a none-issue to you?
See my exchanges with @kidsysco in the comments. We addressed Scale.
As to...
I didn't talk about capitalism at all in my article. It was not necessary as I wasn't focusing on the MARKET, property, or the means of production anywhere in my post.
Imagine that. :) Like I said in my post I was writing about something that was not the things people usually attack. :)
In fact the only time I mentioned anarcho-capitalism was as credit for the saying "good ideas do not require force".
So my post still stands and the issues I wrote about in it actually have nothing to do with property, or the market. :)
Another post though what you are talking about may be relevant.
See what @kidsysco and I talked about though and I think it will address some of your example.
Well, I agree with the problem of scale. Luckily I don't have to defend those an-coms :P
On the topic of force or violence I am on your side. If someone commits a crime he deserves punishment and that can administered with force. You are OK with that, right? However purging the non-believers is something socialism/communism should reject as an idea, sadly it often does not.
Oh and just so the NSA and Verfassungsschutz makes me a free backup of all my internet traffic: I would support a serious coup d'etat though :)
I don't agree if it was a victimless crime. I am okay with it if there was an actual victim. And if the victim is calling it a crime because the person said they called them a name or something petty like that then I am not okay with that.
Though I tend to be an advocate for people having property that belongs to them, and if I make something it can be mine. If I find out how to make something nice people like, and I save up enough to build a place that can make more of them and I voluntarily find people that agree to work for me for whatever they and I agreed to and I can make more, that does not suddenly make that belonging to the public and those people. The people can choose not to work for me. Someone else can offer them a better deal. If they voluntarily chose to work with me and agreed to the contract then that is between them and me, and is of no concern to anyone else.
I do consider COERCION as force an involuntary so if the person was coerced into working for someone that is a different story.
However, CRIME is not always a crime in my opinion. The States call a lot of things crimes that are nothing of the sort as far as I am concerned.
Of course I meant real crime like theft and murder , not breaking one of billion useless laws we have. Btw who is to determine what is crime and what is not?
To me a place where I can only get money through getting someone to employ me and if I don't have money I starve to death is something I consider "coercion". There are many jobs/talents where you can work as your own boss or start a company but there will be a lot of people who rely on the job market and sometimes feel immense pressure by it.
Oh and I found out there are people who call themselves "libertarian socialists", they say a lot of stuff that is similar to my ideas.
Yeah there are a lot of DENOMINATIONS of Libertarianism and Anarchism. :)
lol almost like a religion.
My religion is don't archate :D
Exactly... which is why I put DENOMINATIONS in caps. :)
It's not who but what, that is if there is a victim.
Punishment is not a solution, it's vengeance and vengeance is evil.
A murderer has forfeited their right to live, it doesn't require a punishment, only a recognition that they have agreed that they don't believe the right to live is a right, therefore they are free to be killed so should someone chose that. Punishment won't resurrect the victim. Punishment is always vengeance and not restitution. What you want, I hope, is restitution, and in case there is no restitution you can go and hunt all the murderers you want because it's not a crime if they have forfeited their rights.
Socialism always requires a monopoly on force, and because of that it will force people. Libertarian socialists sounds very much like an oxymoron therefore.
I talked about using 'Vogelfreiheit' instead of prison in the article I linked you.
nope, you just define socialism as state communism. Look at the very definition of the word "social". It just acknowledges that we live in a society.
If you want me to get rid of the word I have to disappoint you, we Germans just associate completely different things with it and I don't want to be lumped up with capitalist nut-jobs like you :P
To me a place where I can only get money through getting someone to employ me and if I don't have money I starve to death is something I consider "coercion".
Yet you contradic yourself with the very next part.
Obviously, ONLY GET MONEY is not true, or then you cannot resolve the second part as true.
You're ok with vengeance is what punishment means. Punishment doesn't "work", punishment is simply vengeance, punishment is not restitution.
I wrote an article about my ideas of punishment.
https://steemit.com/politics/@thatgermandude/why-do-we-need-prison-2-alternatives
The issue is that people agree to work under the directions of others?
If I hire someone to work my land, is there a problem with that hierarchy of the workplace?
What's the issue with hierarchy you misguided vengeance seeker?
I was actually just curious if you people accept workplace hierarchy in your construct. So if you get payed for "being raped" as you like to put it, it is OK?
What are you actually talking about? Describe it in as much detail as humanly possible please and don't resort to euphemisms or "as they like to put it".
What's the issue with hierarchy you misguided vengeance seeker?
(just seemed that you didn't want to clear the premmise but rephrase the question, so that's what I said in case you missed it, to answer your Yes and No question, I needed to know exactly what you were asking with hierarchy in the workplace, which equates to exactly to "I was actually just curious if you people accept workplace hierarchy in your construct. So if you get payed for "being raped" as you like to put it, it is OK?", you can repeat your question, rephrasing it, but it didn't do it for me because it only raised even more questions to understand your question.
But.
You have the assumption that BOSS means rape, do you realize that? You believe in the idea that "without a boss" is forced onto you and and you have no choice but to be "raped", unless you ban the boss?
I think you must also believe that EVERYONE ELSE sees it like RAPE, and OBLIGATORY RAPE, but I want you for a second to imagine, that when I hire someone to help me, it's CONSENSUAL, when I work for someone, it's Consensual. Just try that little exercise for me and then do ask me the question again, you literally want to ban sex, you do realize that's what you're asking.
Hierarchie is a system of Authorities.
You said every transmission of decision making power is "not possible". And your argument was pretty much shouting "rape!" at me. So I am not sorry if you struggle a little to keep up with my thought process.
To stay in the realm of your logic, you said (correct me if I got that wrong): Letting other people make decisions for you is like letting other people have non consensual sex with you. As I told you, I do not agree with this strange metaphor. But according to your logic it is OK to if you take money for transfering power.
Thanks for not looking the article I linked you. You would drop the "vengeance seeker", but it helps to protect the narrative if you ignore what people say that are not from your camp and get hung up on your defintion of the words they used, doesn't it? I am used to this behavior when talking to people who are on the establishment side, but I think you are the first Anarcho that I see "debating" that way.
No, you got lost in translation. I said that you cannot transfer your authority onto someone else, and have them do or act on your behalf, how they chose. That's an imaginary belief system that has no ground in reality. If that person chose to take your "authority" (yeah absurd as it is, hypothesis sake) and he murdered someone on your authority, does he get blamed? A great example is you're giving your decision over the family finances to someone else, then when they fuck up the finances, you blame them, even though you cannot, because you are to blame. Even if they are malicious, you ultimately chose to do that, you chose to trust that person with doing things that you should be doing. And that's the closes real world example there is to giving your "decision making power" to someone else. We are talking about CONSENSUAL WORK, CONSENSUAL SEX, people chose to work for someone, stop twisting the conversation because you are a moron, examine that basic logic equates absurdity to you.
No, it's simply a System of Organization, look it up, stop defining it by abstractions and misunderstandings. A system of organization, CAPICHE?!
Please do us all a favor and go back and quote exactly what I said! You're assuming that I'm giving the person I work for the power to make choices in my name! You're assuming that work cannot happen otherwise?! That I can agree to work, consensual?! People can chose to take orders, to follow orders for work, yes. In that is implied agreement, consent. Those people cannot follow order like "kill people" because they have no authority over someone's life, or property. If you let someone with your property, you give them freedom to do what they wish with your property, you basically gave them your property, you understand that? But that only works with property that is yours, that's the one and only thing that is transferable, the fruits of your labor, effort and time implied.
No, you want vengeance, you are for FORCED REHABILITATION on top of vengeance.
That's the definition of vengeance idiot,
I looked at your article, and addressed it here, and again, it was all vengeance this, vengeance this, and a little retribution after or before vengeance.
your defintion of the words they used, doesn't it?
My story is that people that want to do these things won't stop because of the LAW. My story is that once these things happen, the law cares only about VENGEANCE, and not restitution, and least of all a chance at forgiveness, and then call that REHABILITATION. The law is imposed by a group of thugs that are nothing but dumb and bad people who are there because people believe, like you, that without them there would not exist arbitration, or vengeance/retribution, or maybe redemption, restitution and maybe even forgiveness, so we can have vengeance because vengeance is the only way, even though vengeance doesn't equate restitution, has never worked, and has been observed for as long as people grasped logic.
I'm the first to use terms that I believe are more accurate of what you're advocating? I'm sure there have been numerous people that "debated" you this way, and this is the blockchain, but I'm the first anarchist, not anarchaous, well don't think I'll be the last.
Copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy
Got you good buddy, don't mess with me when it comes to clean definitions.
Your next try is adorable as well. Read exactly what you posted... vengeance can imply retribution. You try to somehow twist my words by adding meaning to them. Classic.
I advice you to avoid using big words. It is obvious that you are trying to mask your intellectual incapabilities behind them.
Actually you are the first anarcho I am aware of who debates me that way. Not sure if those guys from my Climate Change Hoax Post were anarchos. I usually agree with anarchos on most problems and even on some solution.
For some reason you tried to bring camp- thinking and a vs-mentality into the debate with me. Not sure why you are so triggered.
OK, you read it, sry for the accusation.