Political Theory

Re: Anarcho Communism

excel — Wed, 09 May 2012 09:20:11 GMT

Laotzu del Zinn:

Speechless, eh?

Re: Anarcho Communism

Laotzu del Zinn — Wed, 09 May 2012 06:16:19 GMT

excel:

Laotzu del Zinn:

Conqueror: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.

Homesteader: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.

Fail.

I agree; property is fail.

Re: Anarcho Communism

excel — Wed, 09 May 2012 05:45:31 GMT

Laotzu del Zinn:

Conqueror: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.

Homesteader: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.

Fail.

Re: Anarcho Communism

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 09 May 2012 00:20:35 GMT

I found this absolutely hysterical and thought that it would positively contribute to this thread:
(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Anarcho Communism

Laotzu del Zinn — Tue, 08 May 2012 18:38:05 GMT

excel:

Except your entire bullshit argument hinges on the recognition of property rights of the conqueror and the property owner being equally conducive to a peaceful society.

Which means you believe that someone who conquers is as peaceful as someone who either homesteads or trades.

Which means you're an idiot.

Thus, you can't even handle the mises forums stock responses.

Conqueror: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.

Homesteader: I claim this land as my own and will bring violence upon you if you disagree.

USA: conquered the land and created a relatively stable and peaceful society within their own borders (relatively).

Congo Free State: bought the land and created a abhorrently violent situation which quickly collapsed.

Re: Anarcho Communism

excel — Tue, 08 May 2012 10:24:58 GMT

Except your entire bullshit argument hinges on the recognition of property rights of the conqueror and the property owner being equally conducive to a peaceful society.

Which means you believe that someone who conquers is as peaceful as someone who either homesteads or trades.

Which means you're an idiot.

Thus, you can't even handle the mises forums stock responses.

Re: Anarcho Communism

Laotzu del Zinn — Fri, 04 May 2012 14:10:54 GMT

excel:

Laotzu del Zinn:

Then my response would be; then people should respect the claims of the conqueror, because it is a "claim to property," so they can live in a peaceful and free society. Mises.org's stock answers I am familiar with, and are not going to work.

To rape is make love, to conquer is to make peace...
If you don't know the difference between making war (conquering) and peace, then it seems you're not able to handle even the stock answers.

... this is what I'm saying about trying to discuss around here... ugh

That was my point. I asked why should anyone respect the owner's claim any more or less than a conquerer's. He responded "So your question can be boiled down to 'why should anyone respect the claim to property?'

My answer: So that people can live in peaceful and free society "

Ie, we should respect claims to property so that people can live in a free and peaceful society. Am I wrong in this conclusion? Why is it ME that is the one with an incoherent position when I am not the one that said we should respect a conqueror's claim to property to live in a free and peaceful society?

Re: Anarcho Communism

excel — Fri, 04 May 2012 12:36:55 GMT

Laotzu del Zinn:

Then my response would be; then people should respect the claims of the conqueror, because it is a "claim to property," so they can live in a peaceful and free society. Mises.org's stock answers I am familiar with, and are not going to work.

To rape is make love, to conquer is to make peace...
If you don't know the difference between making war (conquering) and peace, then it seems you're not able to handle even the stock answers.

TL;DR answer: The stock answer still stands.

Re: Anarcho Communism

Eugene — Fri, 04 May 2012 05:38:30 GMT

Another extremely interesting discussion about this can be found here:

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/21514.aspx?PageIndex=1

Re: Anarcho Communism

Laotzu del Zinn — Fri, 04 May 2012 00:12:52 GMT

gotlucky:

It's a tricky word, because what is legitimate to you may not be to me. Basically I mean, why should anyone respect the claim to property, even if it came from unowned, unused, and/or was traded, any more or less than if it was conquered?

So your question can be boiled down to "why should anyone respect the claim to property?"

My answer: So that people can live in peaceful and free society.

Then my response would be; then people should respect the claims of the conqueror, because it is a "claim to property," so they can live in a peaceful and free society. Mises.org's stock answers I am familiar with, and are not going to work.

Re: Anarcho Communism

gotlucky — Thu, 03 May 2012 22:54:37 GMT

It's a tricky word, because what is legitimate to you may not be to me. Basically I mean, why should anyone respect the claim to property, even if it came from unowned, unused, and/or was traded, any more or less than if it was conquered?

So your question can be boiled down to "why should anyone respect the claim to property?"

My answer: So that people can live in peaceful and free society.

Re: Anarcho Communism

Laotzu del Zinn — Thu, 03 May 2012 22:51:04 GMT

gotlucky:

Laotzu del Zinn:

I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why?

Don't worry, we don't have to get into a flame war, but seeing as you haven't defined what you mean by "legitimate", there really is no way for anyone to know what you are trying to say. You might as well be saying:

"I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is blabalsdfaopsgha;ljrgal;fjs... but why?"

Well, until we know what that jumble of letters means, we really have no idea what you are trying to say.

It's a tricky word, because what is legitimate to you may not be to me. Basically I mean, why should anyone respect the claim to property, even if it came from unowned, unused, and/or was traded, any more or less than if it was conquered?

Re: Anarcho Communism

gotlucky — Thu, 03 May 2012 21:51:41 GMT

Laotzu del Zinn:

I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why?

Don't worry, we don't have to get into a flame war, but seeing as you haven't defined what you mean by "legitimate", there really is no way for anyone to know what you are trying to say. You might as well be saying:

"I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is blabalsdfaopsgha;ljrgal;fjs... but why?"

Well, until we know what that jumble of letters means, we really have no idea what you are trying to say.

Re: Anarcho Communism

Laotzu del Zinn — Thu, 03 May 2012 20:27:01 GMT

I keep seeing people claiming homesteading unowned/unused land is legitimate... but why? And where is this land that is unowned, unused, or can be traced through a succession of abandonement and/or trade, without conquestive claims to "property" in the middle?

We can go on all day about guys in the desert, or Cicero the slum lord, etc. But the fact is, if a property claimant leverages his title against the welfare of the common people, they will react, often with violence. You can call this coercion, or aggression. It doesn't matter. It will happen, because any claims to property, even "private property," is social in nature. As such, it must be utiltitarian to society.

(If it's going to f up the thread, plz don't answer. I'm not looking to get into a flame war with certain posters.)

Re: Anarcho Communism

Eugene — Thu, 03 May 2012 19:45:31 GMT

Of course anarcho-communism can exist in an an-cap framework! A family for example is a totally communist structure.

However I'm not sure how would anarcho-communism even work. Here is a very good article about it.
http://attackthesystem.com/free-market-anarcho-communism/

However I'm not sure he presents the contrarguments well.