Well I don't mean literally every exact same individual will have the exact same amount of power. I really meant Meet the new boss Factions, same as the old boss Factions. Does that help clarify what I am getting at?

Yeah, I don't think you understand what people mean by "power". Sure if you have the power of life or death over two prisoners, you can kill one of them, WAT? Think more along these lines...

Two factions are fighting a war. They are projecting ground, air, and sea power into the combat zone using their OMG MEN WITH GUNS, ETC. There is a balance of power in the combat zone which is established by the effectiveness of the ground, air and sea power in use. Let's say one side currently has the upper hand in that balance of power and is in the process of winning the war.

The *thought experiment* is what if we take, for example, air power out of the equation. Does this shift the balance of power in the combat zone farther to the faction which already had the upper hand, is there no substantial change in the balance of power, or does that shift the balance of power to the underdog or shatter the balance of power (for example, by allowing a third faction to enter the war).

Don't think about George Washington and a couple of trees (LOL, WAT?) think about the *thought experiment* if airplanes were not used in WWII, but everything else remained the same, would that have helped or hurt the Axis or Allies. This is what people mean by power.

Sorry I missed your replay while I posted mine above. Thanks for the direct answer, OK maybe now I got it...

Well if you don't think that Libertarianism will have any significant socializing effect (of material belongings I presume) then... wouldn't the same then necessarily remain in the same general balance of power?

Because if the factions dealt out of the balance of power now were to reverse or shatter that balance of power I think we both know there would be a whole lotta "leveling" would be going on, most probably in ways neither of us would care for.

But since you are saying the same factions the currently control the balance of power under real world Capitalism would remain, in general, in control of the balance of power under Libertarian Capitalism, then...

Wait, but isn't that the "same boss faction" option ?? I guess I still don't get it.

Do you advocate that anyone and everyone who wants to become a worker at your collectively owned and operated firms be able to do so, or is the group allowed to exclude some? Sounds to me like you are simply drawing arbitrary lines wrt the "legitimate" exercise of property rights.

And lol at the idea of your system "being against political power." It not only is not against it, it is encouraging its exercise and pervasiveness in all facets of economic and social life.

Yeah no one said a stateless social order was going to come about without some sort of paradigm shift in the mind of the general public. That is the purpose of discourse and educating people through discussion.

I believe that removing political power from the equation would result in a more just social order. I also believe that it will clearly result in a different "balance of power" than what currently exist today, though I make no assertions of what the particular makeup of that "balance of power" will be.

And no, I don't believe it will bring about a "radical socialist restructuring" because I don't believe it will lead to a widespread system of collective ownership and economic planning, nor will it result in all power relations being equal.

I've no doubt (and have no real problem) that worker cooperatives would exist under a stateless social order. I do not, however, believe they will be a dominant form.

I am well aware of the differences between the various anti-capitalists. However, my criticism still stands as it is a feature they all seem to share.

All of these are very human behaviors so it is no surprise that so many people display such behaviors. I also never said that "ACists" or "whatever you think my cult is" are incapable of this kind of thing either.

The point is, the hostility against the fundamental and atavistic instinct that tells us the difference between 'mine' and 'thine' (ie hostility against "ownership" and "property") stems from either jealousy of those that have more 'mines' than they do, or a fundamental ignorance/misunderstanding of them. Either it stems from an emotional reaction (in the case of the former), or ignorance and a lapse of sound reasoning (in the case of the latter).

Also, I've never said or even implied the bolded. You have a seriously disturbing lack of reading comprehension.

Except "Libertarian morals" take place within a real social order, not in some one-shot prisoner's dilemma. That you can frame a thought experiment as such a game says nothing of the legitimacy of contract or of enforcing "property rights" in an actual social order.

Or, the most logical and rational choice in this situation is for the sailors is to choose non-cooperation (in this case violence for self-defense).

Also, I don't know why you keep asserting things about "Libertarian morals." One can be a libertarian and defend it purely on logical and epistemological grounds. It does not require an ought.

Though, if you wish to read a comprehensive argument of the "morality" of contract, I'd recommend reading Morals By Agreement by Gauthier for a basis in that.

[/QUOTE]

The exercise of ownership of property by an individual is not the exercise of political power. So yes, if you are against property in the manner in which you have repeatedly claimed, then you are not really "all about non-political power" at all.

No.

Why do you believe these "factions" are the same? One rules through political power, the other does not. Doesn't sound the same to me.

I understand perfectly fine what is meant by power. I don't think you really understand the distinction between political power and non-political power in what we are arguing.

Your military *thought experiment* cannot be adequately answered without further information. What we can conclude from the given information, however, is that if you eliminated strategic air power from the equation entirely, the conflict would both unfold differently and, regardless of the "winner," the end character would look differently as well.

We can also say with a degree of confidence that the faction that relied on air power more to achieve their "pre-aero banishment" power status will be less likely to be the victor than before. It is from this this point that I form the conclusion that a stateless social order would be less "collectivist" or "socialist" in character.

The tree example illustrates the issue I am talking about just fine. I'm sorry if you cannot grasp it. It is really a simple concept though.

No, because a "socializing effect" means increasing the realm of "collective ownership." Something I don't believe would occur. But this is not imply that it follows that "the same general balance of power" would remain necessarily.

Put another way: The wealth gap narrowing does not necessarily imply the realm of collective ownership having increased. If I own 100 apples and you own 50, then after a harvest in each of our respective orchards, I increase my apples to 125 and you increase yours to 90, the "balance of apples" has clearly changed, yet it wasn't through any particular collective ownership.

Or, if you want your war example: Say one faction (A) has 100 naval units, 500 infantry units, and 750 air units. The other (B) has 100 naval units, 400 infantry units, and 250 air units. Clearly (assuming pretty much a 1:1 relationship in ability between like units) A has a large advantage in terms of power (forcing B to his will). Now, if we take away air power completely, A still has more power than B, but A certainly does not have as much power in relation to B. It was not because B took forces from A to "even up the sides," but because we eliminated an entire dimension of power altogether. Now the outcome of the war is not nearly as decisive, and A is going to have a much more difficult time "imposing his will" on B (and vice versa) given that you've completely changed the dynamic (by changing the "rules") and tactics of the conflict.

Now, it may be that the actual ratio hasn't changed (meaning air power was a wash), and in that sense the ratio of power has not changed, but you have still changed the manner and tactics in which the conflict with be conducted, and that sense the two conflicts are not really the same but still distinct from one another.

In response to the original post there is a similar scenario occurring now with Onstar.


Before the US Govt bailout of GM, GM was their largest customer (of 2, the other is Saab), and they had consistently denied requests by various LE agencies to 'cut power' to stolen vehicles. Things seem to be different now, vis a vis the commercials aired last year showing stolen cars losing power and pulling over to the shoulder safely in traffic.

The microphones used to help accident victims are now potential surveillance devices. It's not easy to like the idea of a microphone in a vehicle that the govt can switch on any time, even if the 9th court of appeals has denied the FBI this action.

I wouldn't buy a vehicle with onstar now, although I would've considered it a few years ago.

The 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike was a strike of immigrant workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts [...] the strike spread rapidly through the town, growing to more than twenty thousand workers at nearly every mill within a week. The strike, which lasted more than two months and which defied the assumptions of conservative trade unions [...] that immigrant, largely female and ethnically divided workers could not be organized, was successful [...]

By 1900 [...]factory owners [had] eliminated skilled workers and employ large numbers of unskilled immigrant workers, the majority of whom were women. In addition, a number of children under the age of fourteen worked in the mills. For example, half of the workers in the [...] leading employer in the industry and the town, were girls between fourteen and eighteen. [...] a dramatic speedup in the pace of work [...] enabled the factory owners to cut the wages of their employees and lay off large numbers of workers. Those who kept their jobs earned less than $9.00 a week for nearly sixty hours of work. [...] The mortality rate for children was fifty percent by age six; thirty-six out of every 100 men and women who worked in the mill died by the time they reached twenty-five.

The mills and the community were divided along ethnic lines: most of the skilled jobs were held by native-born workers of English, Irish, and German descent, while French-Canadian, Italian, Slavic, Hungarian, Portuguese and Syrian immigrants made up most of the unskilled workforce. [...] forming a strike committee made up of two representatives from each ethnic group in the mills, which took responsibility for all major decisions. The committee, which arranged for its strike meetings to be translated into twenty-five different languages [...]

The City responded to the strike by ringing the city's alarm bell for the first time in its history; the Mayor ordered a company of the local militia to patrol the streets. The strikers responded with mass picketing. When mill owners turned fire hoses on the picketers gathered in front of the mills, they responded by throwing ice at the plants, breaking a number of windows. The court sentenced thirty-six workers to a year in jail for throwing ice; as the judge stated, "The only way we can teach them is to deal out the severest sentences". The governor then ordered out the state militia and state police. Mass arrests followed. [...]

A local undertaker and a member of the Lawrence school board attempted to frame the strike leadership by planting dynamite in several locations in town a week after the strike began. He was fined $500 and released without jail time. William Madison Wood, the owner of the American Woolen Company, who had made a large payment to the defendant under unexplained circumstances shortly before the dynamite was found, was not charged. [...] The authorities declared martial law, banned all public meetings and called out twenty-two more militia companies to patrol the streets. [...]

The union established an efficient system of relief committees, soup kitchens, and food distribution stations, while volunteer doctors provided medical care. [...] The tactic of sending children of textile workers to live with supporters in New York City reduced maintenance costs of the strikers and generated public sympathy and financial support. [...] When city authorities tried to prevent another hundred children from going to Philadelphia on February 24 by sending police and the militia to the station to detain the children and arrest their parents, the police began clubbing both the children and their mothers while dragging them off [...] one pregnant mother miscarried. [... when] taken to the Police Court, most of them refused to pay the fines levied and opted for a jail cell, some with babies in arms.

And you think people act this way because either they are "jealous" or in a state of "fundamental ignorance" or they are "misunderstanding" their own lives? That they are just "emotional" or maybe "ignorant", and are suffering from a " lapse of sound reasoning"? Really dude, something a little deeper is going on here, and always will be as long as Capitalism is practiced. You really can't have that shallow an understanding of people or history to think this is an isolated example of mass hysteria, or something.

And oh yeah... explain to me again how the government is not the tool of the Capitalists here. I love these imaginative inside-out explanations of how the rich & powerful are oppressed by their very own governments, and the poor folk too... LOL!

OK maybe morals isn't the way to explain what I'm asking. I am just asking for a simple "ruling" if the following is considered correct by the Libertarian (&etc) code, the NAP (or whatever). And instead of trying to give *thought experiment* examples of how this situation could come about, I'll state the general question. And I would like any other Libertarians (&etc) to chime in here...

Would a Libertarian (&etc) consider it correct if a Libertarian (&etc) unilaterally threatened or used violence on a person or group who refused to voluntarily recognize Libertarian property rights? Under all circumstances? And since the others have no "social contract" and no voluntary contract with the violent Libertarian, how could he be justified under the NAP (or whatever)?

OK, now back to answering my friend Montius...

Why do you think there are only two factions, only two bases of power, and that any faction can only use one kind of power? Faulty binary reasoning IMO.

The real world is full of all sorts of factions... poor folk, Manufacturing Capitalists, churches, Banking Capitalists, Regional Mega-Agriculture Capitalists, welfare advocates, etc, etc. And most all these factions can use political power, some can use power vested in property rights (collecting rent through violence, etc), through direct action (strikes, boycotts, blockades, etc), the [power of the people who believe in the] power of prayer, or by direct violence ("legal" or otherwise), etc.

You know that the owners of the large Capitalists companies and the large scale property owners make massive political contributions, don't you? Do you think they are really stupid enough to waste that money if were not purchases and using political power with it? In fact they have the most political power by orders of magnitude. And by definition the most property power.

The tree example doesn't make any sense, but you understood what I was getting at, so it's all good. If I was going to imagine a world where power comes from fruit trees this would be my example... How has the balance of power changed after cutting down all the Orange trees...

Trees Before...... Trees After
7 Able (4 A, 3 O)..... 4 Able
6 Baker (6 O)..........
5 Cane (4 A, 1 O).... 4 Cane
4 Davey (1 A, 3 O).. 1 Davey

Well I was using the word "socialist" in a generic way, and didn't intent to imply all the baggage of "collective ownership" and "central planing" and such of Communist like societies. I really should have said more socialist (in the sense of being more egalitarian). I really should have been more careful with my words on a defacto Libertarian BBS. That was my bad! So I meant to ask...

Do you predict that Libertarianism Capitalism would be more egalitarian than real world Capitalism?

And I believe you have basically answered that above, that you feel you really can't make any predictions at all about how the balance of power would shift, and you don't really have any idea (or care) or who might be the economic winners and losers. Fair enough, but I would be interested if you actually did have even a hunch on this one particular question.

What you are not getting here is the difference between Legitimate Possession and the Rights of Property. A French dude wrote a whole book explaining the distinctions about 180 years ago. I have suggested twice we do a reading thread together, where we work together to try to explain the arguments to the lurkers, instead of mindlessly arguing. My first suggestion is we would promise to not change each others opinions! Believe me, there is a crucial distinction to be understood here. But I guess it's the interwebs, so mindless arguing is required.

Did you really just reply to my suggestion that what was confusing you was faulty either/or reasoning by... a classic exposition of faulty either/or reasoning... no that didn't just happen did it, LOL.

So you imagine there is some power outside of politics, OK so far. But then there must be exactly one Anti-Power, like there is one Anti-Poop-Brown color? Epic Logic Fail. And even if there was one Anti-Power, why wouldn't you pick direct violence instead of an abstract right like property rights? Oh wait... trick question, LOL!

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anarchist theory corner @ @ @ @ @ @ @

And I continue to amaze that you keep asking me questions about my believes in a thread about what Libertarians (&etc) believe. WTF dude, but whatever, It's all good.

Do I advocate someone else tell the workers at Mondragon what their policies should be? No, I advocate absolute small group autonomy. Each group makes their own policy by themselves, got it? That's what I advocate. And BTW what a silly question, WTF?

Well just two poasts ago you thought I was all about OMG EGALITARIANISM OMG, and it turns out you were 100% wrong. Like I said, where the heck did you ever get that goofyball idea? So sure, I'll bite at the next bit of goofyballness... you tell me why anarchists are in favor of Political Action. Maybe you can include some cites for anarchist voter registration drives, LOL. This should be extra-special hilarious.... go go go, LOL, LOL, LOL

Tell me again how the government isn't also a tool for labor unions again? What part of the whole "forming winning coalitions" I talked about earlier do you not understand? Of course "Capitalists" and "the rich" have used government for their own benefit. So has organized labor, and a ton of other special interest groups. This changes nothing about my argument.

What you are really asking is: is an individual free to exclude another from use of his property if the person trying to use said property doesn't recognize the owners claim to the property.

The answer is yes, of course.

I don't, and nothing I said states that. It is supposed to be a thought experiment, and the idea is to keep things as simple as possible in order to demonstrate the point. One "set of factions" utilizes political power and the "other set of factions" does not.

Lol @ "collecting rent through violence." Once again, rent is a contractual relationship. No one is unilaterally taking your rent.

You realize that nowhere have I disputed this, right? You seriously have a very poor ability to read arguments.

Erm the tree example makes plenty of sense. Learn reading comprehension better, imo.

I was using the word socialist in a generic way too. I have no idea what alternative way you are using it as.

Yes, like I said I have no idea about what the actual arrangement of economic goods would be, nor do I care if they are "more egalitarian." What I can say is that the stability of property will lead to wealthier, more peaceful, and more "just" social order. It echoes Hume's thoughts on the issue here.

And what you are not getting here is the difference between a "right" and a "liberty."

And if you want to just throw 180 year old books at one another, I'd say read Bastiat's Economic Harmonies for a direct response to and criticism of Proudhon's view on property.

Proudhon's conclusion that for property to be just, it must have equality as a necessary condition simply doesn't follow.

No, once again you suck at reading. I never said that all non-political power is the same at all, nor did I imply it. The thing that all non-political power does share is that it is, wait for it.....non-political!

So you saying that you are "all about non-political power" implies you don't have a problem with power that is non-political. But then you go on to state that you have a problem with property "rights." So far you haven't formulated a coherent argument to support your problem with such non-political power.

Because your arguments either fail completely to be coherent, or fail completely to grasp "Libertarian theory" without first painting your conclusions with your own assumptions deriving from your own silly belief system.

No, it is actually a very illuminating question. If you advocate exclusion, you believe in some degree of "property rights." It is as simple as that.

Do you believe the workers at Mondragon be allowed to decide who "consists of the workers at Mondragon" or not? In other words, do they have the right to refuse to let some worker work at their "collectively owned" firm, or not? It is a very simple question.

You advocate Proudhon's view of property, for one. Or have you actually read Proudhon?

Hmm let me think Idk maybe because you advocate turning all workplaces into a political system themselves?

I confess that I haven't read the entire thread so sorry if it has been said.

Even if you were told that your movements were going to be monitored by your employer, you cannot freely choose not to be because you have bills and a family to support.

Libertarians could argue that the imbalance of power between Capital and Labour leads to us agreeing to sell rights that should otherwise be protected if we were not slaves to the free market.

Phibes, please to be keeping reality out of this purely theoretical circle jerk presented by Montius. I gave up on the walls of text posted ages ago.

The bottom line, which is what American consumerism demands, requires people to voluntarily give up any personal right to privacy in return for a slice of the goody pile. Look at the latest political rhetoric..........cut spending to manage the economy, balanced with....we need to grow the economy. These are 2 concepts diametrically opposite. Facebook became the leader in web usage by what, people voluntarily giving up their right to privacy. That's reality.

How are they slaves to the free market? Sounds more like they are slaves to biology to me. You should focus your anger towards mother nature IMO.

If capital is all privately controlled you have no choice but to sell yourself to survive in a free market. What other choices do you have if you don't control capital?

I have no anger, but what do you mean by 'biology'. Born too stupid to deserve rights?

so what is the alternative to privately owned capital?
god?

Whether capital is privately controlled or not, you still have to produce before you consume. The need to consume is biological. It's not some invention of the Bourgeoisie to control and oppress the proles.

OK, but how do you justify that using the NAP (or whatever)? If two people have no implied "social contract" and no explicit voluntary contract, what possible justification can a Libertarian use of unilaterally using violence.

Some cultures and societies believe in property rights, some don't. Some cultures and societies believe in their own sky-man and some don't. What possible justification can a group of outsiders of those cultures and societies rationalize unilaterally using violence because the oppressed group doesn't share the same beliefs? And what difference does it make if they different beliefs on property rights -vs- different beliefs on sky-man?

How can people outside of the Capitalists system be subjected to Capitalists violence if they there is not something like a "social contract" binding them, against their wishes and will, to the Capitalists depredations? How do Libertarians (&etc) morally justify using violence unilaterally against all non-capitalist outsiders?

Well even if we wanted to way over simplify things, into rich and poor coalitions you insist, well what you said still doesn't make any sense. The rich coalition has more political power than the poor, duh. Like I said, they are the ones primarily funding the politicians, they have bought and paid for the majority of the political power, always have and always will.

And the rich coalition is completely dependent on their bought and paid for governments to physically protect their greedy carcasses as well as what they claim they have property rights over. Without the police, National Guard, and regular Army, the rich coalition would be dispossessed of all their wealth and power very very quickly. Capitalism depends on the constant use and threat of violence to function, on a scale only government like organizations are capable of delivering.

Sure if we did a thread we could do Bastiat's response after Proudhon. I am not talking about Proudhon's views on equality, I am talking about his value free logically explanations between the concepts of Legitimate Possession and the concept of Property Rights, which is what the bulk of the book is about. You can disagree with Proudhon's opinions about equality being just, but not his logic distinguishing the two distinct concepts of LP and PR.

So does that mean you want to go through Proudhon and Bastiat in a reading thread together as a team? Why not instead of mindless arguing?

My argument will not seem coherent to you until we get over the LP -vs- PR hurdle. But as an aside, if you can discern that the boss class also uses political power, and that the governments serve the boss class as well as others, you are a very unusually Libertarian (&etc). (In fact the boss class dominates political power and the governments mainly serve the boss class, but I quibble). So these comments were not directed at you. Sorry sir!

They are directed at the more typical Libertarian (&etc) who must dogmatically insist the boss class never uses political power, and must dogmatically insist that the governments never serve the boss class. Hilarity ensues when they try to explain how the rich and powerful Mill owners were oppressed by "THE STATE" in 1912 Lawrence MA, LOL.

@ @ @ @ @ @ anarchist theory corner @ @ @ @ @ @

And if I made a gimmick account, self identified as a real world Capitalist (for example a US Republican) and asked the same questions? Actually I think that you are interested in learning something here... sure you got to know it is childish to paint all Anti-My-Ism into a single pseudo-movement and conclude that centuries of struggle and pain can only be because all those people are "childish", etc. There is something going on here isn't there, and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones? Like I said, it's all good.

Well I think Capitalists have all sorts of "collectively owned" firms also? All sole proprietors busniness' are collectively owned, all equal partnerships are collectively owned, and all corporations that have even stock ownership are collectively owned. In fact, the vast majority of Capitalistic firms are collectively owned (BTW, firms not capital).

I know the idea of autonomy is going to be hard for someone who is so enamored of hierarchy to get at first. Nobody should have the prerogative to set another groups policy, period. There is no reason to to think all the millions of groups would decide on the same policy. So sure, it is possible that a few might have a policy of open membership no questions asked. Your question is silly because it is hard to imagine that this open membership no questions asked policy would likely at all. Would this be common in ACland?

About the "excluding" issue, once again until we can get over the LP vs PR divide you are never going to understand the "his" and "her" part of things.

Actually no, but you do bring up a good point. The key is SMALL GROUPS, because over a certain size factions, politics, and bureaucracy naturally form in any human organization (regardless of purpose or ideology). The optimal size for your group(s) may vary, but they should all be small enough to have a smaller New England town-hall type meeting if necessary.

This is an "axiom" of the Anarcho-Syndicalist "flavor" of anarchism BTW. A functioning AS society would have a practice of "hiving off" new firms when the number of people at an existing firm grew to high. And to clarify the first time I have mentioned anything AS particular ITT, everything else is generic to all "flavors" of (lower case) anarchism. And to further explain, the different "flavors" or anarchism mainly differ on preferred means, there is more than a consensus on desired ends.

Publically owned and controlled

They needn't invent the need, but they learnt how to control the resources and means of production.

Here's a hint for you: someone produced those "means of production."

I find it difficult to follow your line.

To simplify mine: If I live by digging holes, say, but I can't own a shovel, then I work all day using someone else's means of production (a shovel) being paid according to market forces (not much in that market) while the shovel owner plays golf.

Don.t mean to appear socialist, as I am not, but you can see how if I have a family to support I am a slave of the shovel owner.

Why can't you own a shovel?

LOL you dudes crack me up... yep most likely someone working for wages made that "means of production" using someone else's "means of production", LOL... do you ever gotta point with these inane one liners... don't ever change.

And I love the whole "biology you gotta eat" sidetrack... well whatever reality we are in is an "is" a fact of nature, and to try to get to some normative statement about how people "ought" to treat each others privacy, or anything else, is...

Well I'll let you google Hume's Guillotine. Once again, to you ever gotta point with these inane one lines... LOL, and I'm not complaining, LOL don't ever change, LOL, you dudes crack me up...

If you can't own a shovel we're talking about something other than a free market, obviously.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. The guy I'm responding to is the one jumping from the "is" of "we gotta eat" to the "ought" of "ergo people are slaves to the market" without explaining the details.

It is a metaphore. If you are a waiter why can't you own a hotel?

Not sure of your point. Grammer and spelling may help.