/liberty/ - Liberty

>>60663

I only mean neutral in terms of moderation.

>>60664

AHAHAHAHAHAH now that's even a greater task.

Good luck with picking the right people to help you out (that is if help is needed).

>>60665

I'll probably need only one guy for nights (I live in ET). /liberty/, I love you, but I'll draw heat if I use ancaps. Actually, if there are any individualist anarchists around here who live in Europe, they would probably work best.

>>60668

I don't know why but I do like Individualist anarchists alot more just because they don't want to impose a system on you. Unlike caps and socialists.

>>60681

They usually don't start controversy among other anarchists, which is nice.

>>60668

Then pick me, but I will only delete spam.

Really you can pick anyone if you make the logs public.

>>60662

Be careful who you pick…

Definitely do not want someone going mad with power, considering the potential behind this board.

>>60688

I thought the lefties were against voluntary hierarchies Or does being a mod not count?

>>60685

The term anarcho-individualist always seemed kind of vague to me.

>>60681

>ancaps

>impose a system on you.

By leaving you alone?

>>60700

By forcing me to become apart of the free market because I don't have property, or things to remain independent and not die.

Difference between anarcapitalism and individualist anarchism?

>>60716

>you could easily go innawoods

What woods? A national park? Where is this uninhabited piece of land, and why is it still uninhabited? The frontier has been gone since the end of the ninteenth century. Every plot of land that can support human life on the planet is claimed.

>build your own house if you wish

Yes, office drone. Just learn carpentry and construction, buy a ton of tools, spend months constructing a house in a place with no access to supplies, and learn to live off of whatever happens to be in the immediate vacinity (hopefully including fresh water and enough edible plants to sustain a human). Just don't get sick or hurt as you learn to be a mountain man, or you will die.

How does it not matter to you that your theory's rubber never meets reality's road?

>They don't inherently make money or are more liable to make money just because they own property.

They do if they own property that other people use. Property that is claimed for personal use does not generate income, but property that is used by other people is indeed just income from other people's work.

>Hell, we all own property, you own your computer now don't you?

And a tooth brush even! I bet he even has an iPhone.

>And even on the most basic human level, you own your body now don't you?

No, a person does not own his own body. He is his own body. Existence is not dependent upon a claim.

>You could honestly go and homestead some land in some obscure forest and probably live off the land like many others have done so long before you.

What century do you think this is?

>forcing others to give you things is just that; Force.

That is exactly what private property is. The guys who hold title deeds pay men with weapons to force the people who work there to give them what they produce with their only alternative being death, because innawoods mountain man survivalism is not an actual real-world alternative.

>>60740

More than half of the land in the Western USA is unclaimed insofar as the federal or state governments own it. There's lots of unclaimed land. Our cities are 70 miles away from each other out here.

>>60740

>He is his own body

Since he is his own body, doesn't that mean his body belongs to him alone? Because no one else can have it. Which is ownership.

>>60686

I'm away from my computer, I'll get things set up later.

>>60745

>dat post

Fucking glorious m8

>>60740

>What woods?

Uninhabited lands, you can go ahead and look for them and you probably could find some.

>Where is this uninhabited piece of land, and why is it still uninhabited?

I don't know, why is there bread in the supermarket that still hasn't been bought? It's just one of those wonders of the world.

>The frontier has been gone since the end of the ninteenth century.

Someone doesn't know a whole lot about US land…

> Just learn carpentry and construction, buy a ton of tools, spend months constructing a house in a place with no access to supplies, and learn to live off of whatever happens to be in the immediate vacinity (hopefully including fresh water and enough edible plants to sustain a human). Just don't get sick or hurt as you learn to be a mountain man, or you will die.

You didn't want to be a part of the free market, that's your own fault. And despite your severe retardation, there have been plenty of people who've actually learned these skills and gotten around to building their own houses out in the woods and have lived out there. I don't know why you're so close-minded on the matter.

Yes, people do indeed need to learn about how to achieve their goals before they actually try and achieve them. They might even need resources from other people, who (surprise, surprise) want something in exchange for the tools they provide. If you want something in the market, you have to provide something of value to them. This is voluntary, stealing these tools from them on the other hand is not. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

>And a tooth brush even! I bet he even has an iPhone.

Yep, we all own property, something of which we can use to make money. You could sell your phone or you could even use your computer to write a book or a program or anything that people value on that medium. We all own property that potentially can make us money.

>No, a person does not own his own body. He is his own body. Existence is not dependent upon a claim.

So a man is his arm? A man is his hair? No, he controls these things and effectively owns them, if you were to take away his arm or his hair, he could still live. He is not his arm, he owns his arm. If a man were to lose his leg in battle (for example), he does not cease as a result, he may need intense medical care to stay alive, but that's because it's a body part of his, something of which he owns. Again, these really aren't hard concepts to grasp.

>What century do you think this is?

So let me get this straight, people in the 1800s who were vastly uneducated compared to people who exist now, who were under-equipped in terms of the technology that we have today, all managed to live off the land, build their own houses among various other things and yet you, who lives in the modern age of technology, free access information and numerous other factors that could easily help you in your supposed goal of going innawoods, can't grasp the idea of doing so? You are somehow so genuinely retarded that you find the idea of people living in the woods on their own to be impossible?

If I had to guess what century we were living in, I'd say we're living in the century of dysgenics, considering you somehow exist and didn't drown on your own saliva at birth.

>The guys who hold title deeds pay men with weapons to force the people who work there to give them what they produce with their only alternative being death,

Holy shit, this is some next level retardation. I'm guessing you're going to tell me that if I ask some guy to help me pull my car out of a ditch and then I don't give him my car that I'm somehow exploiting him.

If I pay someone to produce something, this is not force, this is voluntary interaction. He values what I give him and I value the service that he provides me. This is not force, this is the most basic of interaction. And if he doesn't like it then he can go off somewhere else and try to work for someone else

>>60662

>BO goes away for a few months

>nobody notices

You better not change a thing. /liberty/ doesn't need moderation except in the case of spam attacks which rarely happen.

Also a reminder that left-wingers do not make up the majority, and left-wing ideologies aren't even compatible with the ideals of liberty in the first place.

>>60745

Is that your shitposting flag?

I'll fucking stomp on your NAP dipshit.

>>60738

You don't need to give me anything

You just don't need to own everything.

>>60761

No one owns everything in capitalism.

>>60760

only children and states violate the NAP

>>60760

>I'll fucking stomp on your NAP dipshit.

>Fuck the principle of not committing acts of aggression against other people!

> Capitalism is oppressive guys!

Are you actually braindead?

>>60761

>You just don't need to own everything.

Oh, I guess you don't own that computer, your house, car, body, TV,etc. Shit, I can just come inside your home anytime I want.

>>60741

And there's likely a good reason why there's nothing on them. If the market says that all of this unused privately owned land, whose value is propped up by the restriction the gov places on its own land, has such little worth that it makes more sense to speculate on it than to sell it or use it for something, then that would heavily imply that it's not very useful or there's little demand for it.

>>60745

>what is homesteading

I really fucking hate this argument. It's effectively saying "for you to have any property and therefor freedom at all, you literally have to live like a 19th century mountain man or cowboy". It's completely anachronistic in thinking that the conditions that made such a choice viable still holds, and also completely America-centric in assuming that the rest of the world is like that also. In a rural, agrarian society with shit tons of useful, unclaimed land, homesteading made sense, it doesn't make in a extremely urbanized, industrialized society. You literally want to reshape all of modern society and revert it 200 years to make homesteading a viable option.

> Learning to build shit and learning to live off the land isn't that fucking complicated as far as mental requirements go

With a lifetime available to you, no, it's not that complicated to learn how it do it. It's significantly complicated in actually have the means to do it. Homesteading wasn't the norm even when it was done, and you want to make it the norm in a radically different society.

>I fucking INVESTED MY OWN RESOURCES INTO THAT PROPERTY, IT IS MINE

No, you claimed that property by "mixing your labor into it" or buying it from someone who did. It's an incredibly vague condition, but also it's a meaningless one. You think you invested in the forest by clearing it, but to me, a hunter, you not only destroyed a source of my livelihood and way of living, you're also now creating a claim that will last for eternity. Somehow, for a certain, possibly small amount of work now, that gives the owners of it 300 years into the future a justifiable right to it? Not to mention, that land is not equal, people 2000 fucking years ago fought over entire regions that millions live on now: why didn't they just homestead somewhere else? Nor is it infinite, as it is now, there's only enough non-desert or mountainous land for everyone currently alive to have only 2 acres, and for a lot of those people, those 2 acres would be shitty jungle, marshes, tundra etc.

>so I will pay you a wage that both me and the employee in question can decide is fair

You say wage, I say ransom. You claim land you cannot use so that someone else can use it for you so that you can profit off of their labor. Even if you did somehow invest your labor into the land so they can use it now, how does that justify taking a possibly infinite amount of labor for those who use it now?

>If you think your labor is worth more than I'm willing to pay, go work for someone else who will pay you more

This does not justify that one has to do that at all. Being able to chose your master does not make you free.

>maybe if you're a gutless worm with no ambition or drive who can't tear himself away from the teat of society and welfare programs and effective state ownership of your entire body

That's a funny way of saying "Yes, it's a completely realistic and viable way of living even though it was a rarity even when it was done. If you want to live like a normal person then you're shit out of luck"

>>60748

> I don't know, why is there bread in the supermarket that still hasn't been bought? It's just one of those wonders of the world.

The bread hasn't be bought because it's overproduced. The land hasn't been settled because it's likely shit, not to mention that you're still saying that the only way your system makes any sense is for the entire world to somehow revert by 200 years. At least Primitivists are honest.

> Someone doesn't know a whole lot about US land…

Someone doesn't know a whole lot about reality, and thinks that we're still somehow in the 1800s.

>there have been plenty of people who've actually learned these skills and gotten around to building their own houses out in the woods and have lived out there. I don't know why you're so close-minded on the matter.

And people have gone to the Moon, that doesn't mean it's realistic or even a possibility for most people. Nor should you be so absurd to say "Go to the Moon if you want freedom".

>If you want something in the market, you have to provide something of value to them. This is voluntary, stealing these tools from them on the other hand is not. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

You're describing a reciprocal, mutually beneficial relationship through the market, something many Leftists (Mutualists specifically) have no problem with. Unfortunately landlordism isn't that. A landlord doesn't have to provide anything, yet they still demand ransom from what they've claimed, and will use violence if they don't get that ransom. Sounds awfully like the state to me.

cont in next post

> So let me get this straight…

It has nothing to do with the education and skills, even though not being taught that your entire life like most people then severely sets you back. It's that the world is radically different: most people live in cities, work in stores, offices or factories, they do not live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, they cannot get a livelihood from fur trapping in the North (barring the extreme minority that still can). It says something about how ridiculous your system is that you have to say "leave the city, your livelihood, your friends and your family, modern technology and standards of living and become a mountainman if you want to be free", which was literally the option when people became mountainmen, but at least then, they were likely doing what they were doing previously, just more isolated and had to start from scratch. All of this is disregarding that living like a mountainman is a severely abnormal and likely unhealthy way to live, since humans are social animals and have always lived together in tribes, villages, and cities, and you're saying they have to forget a core part of their nature if they want to be free.

> I'm guessing you're going to tell me that if I ask some guy to help me pull my car out of a ditch and then I don't give him my car that I'm somehow exploiting him.

You're not making money off of this guy in this scenario, offering a service is not the same as wage-labor.

>If I pay someone to produce something, this is not force, this is voluntary interaction. He values what I give him and I value the service that he provides me. This is not force, this is the most basic of interaction. And if he doesn't like it then he can go off somewhere else and try to work for someone else

When the guy has to work for your or someone else's benefit to simply have a livelihood, and you're using force to prevent him from using the existing means of livelihood for his own benefit, then it is force. A voluntary exchange has to be between two equal participants; it is not voluntary if the only way the person can possibly live is by paying you a tax to have a livelihood, or otherwise you will withhold those means from him by force.

>>60753

> left-wing ideologies aren't even compatible with the ideals of liberty in the first place.

Unfortunately right-wing ideologies don't even believe in liberty in the first place.

>>60817

Says the authoritarian who expects others to be bootlickers because of muh divine right - I mean muh property rights.

>>60821

>No, it's effectively saying "for you to have any property worth having you're going to have to put some fucking work into it, asshole, and you're free to fuck off at any time and rent from someone else who had the chops to do it"

There's three errors in that statement: one is obfuscating the direct correlation between having property and freedom in an ancap world, the second is implying that the individuals who use the property are not putting a significant amount of work into it, possibly more individually or collectively than the owner ever did, the third is implying that the landlord ever actually put any meaningful work into it and not just enough to claim it and that the renter/tenant is just there because they were too lazy to create useful property of their own and not because they have to rent this property because it's the only option around, excluding going to the middle of Dakota and trying to live like a mountainman.

>The conditions that wouldn't make it viable disappear when you get rid of the state and its retardation.

The state existing doesn't make it unviable, just illegal or much more difficult. There's plenty of cheaper land in the North that someone could say up a few years money worth to buy, but they don't do that because being a fucking frontiersman isn't a viable option for people who don't have an obsession with living in the middle of the woods.

>That said, I'm quite sure with a bit of tweaking to lifestyle you could more or less take a similar approach anywhere else on Earth save for the most inhospitable and barren places imaginable.

I'm not arguing that it's literally impossible, I'm saying it's a ridiculous option because we don't live in the 1800s where the vast majority of people were farmers and the world wasn't urbanized and industrialized.

>I don't want to revert anything except the government's stranglehold on land, monopoly of violence, and so on

So as to privatize it, not abolish it.

>You want to live in a big city, go live in a fucking big city. Ancap could probably be very effectively adapted for cities, which by the way don't exactly take up ALL THE SPACE EVER.

Which means you now HAVE to live and work on someone else's property, unless you are part of the wealthy class of people who own property in the city. Even owning a house in the suburbs regulars a certain level of wealth above the majority of people, and it's becoming more difficult.

>You're being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting me based on stupid assumptions now, and I suggest you stop.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm showing how the common retort of "just homestead somewhere bro if you don't like living under the total domination of the property-owning class" is a ridiculous one.

>I learned proper carpentry in fucking 4H in less than 3 years. And that was while dedicating "hobby" levels of time to it, meaning not very goddamn much

House building, well-digging, farming, and survival skills are more than just carpentry.

>I'm telling you if you want to be a truly free and self-subsistent person without government interference you get rid of the state and you homestead

Yes, I realize that's what you're saying, and I'm saying that one shouldn't have to go to the absurd stint of homesteading to be free in a Capitalist society anymore than one should have to go to the absurd stint of seasteading to be free in a statist one, and that even if there is such an alternative, that does not justify the existing circumstances forcing that choice.

> go rent an apartment in the city

Which places you under the total authority of the apartment owner. Even the government is supposed to have certain limits to their control and demands, in a ancap society, a property owner has none.

>Furthermore, if you try and force me to live like you, I'm going to treat you the exact same way I'd treat any illegitimate governing body given my druthers and I'm going to fucking smash you.

At least we agree on something.

cont in next post

> If I front the money for a small workshop with a bunch of widget-makers in it, and I cannot operate them all myself, I offer to hire people for a mutually-agreed-upon wage to operate the widget-makers that I can't operate myself for any number of reasons

Unfortunately for you, your scenario never happened in real life and never would, since no one would take the raw deal of being a widget factory worker if they had any other choice. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand link related, written by an actual market anarchist. Even if your idealistic scenario did happen, why do you deserve any more labor from the workers than what you put into the factory? No matter how you put it, you're still demanding others labor for your benefit, so that you can receive more than you ever put into this factory.

>You try and take them from me under the flimsy pretense of absenteeism being bad or SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION COMRADES and you're going to have a bad time, asshole.

I'm sure the medieval lord felt the same way.

>I like how you say "homesteading is so anachronistic it's unrealistic in the modern world blah blah" and then the example you use here to try and refute me is SUBSISTENCE HUNTING?

The difference is this a pure hypothetical to act as an example, I'm not implying it's realistic, only that "investing" into the land could be destroying to someone else.

>Second, the hunter absolutely has a right to contest a fucking lumberjack's claim to a forest rich with deer or whatever the hunter is hunting if the hunter was putting resources and time into things like conservation of the wildlife he relies upon, as I think that could be considered a form of homesteading

He's a hunter, not a wildlife ranger.

> WORK TOGETHER as the lumberjack's skillset and aims make him a great candidate for taking care of the trees, culling where needed, replanting and so on

That is not the job of a lumberjack. He's a tree cutter, not a tree farmer, and if he was, the natural ecology of a forest does not benefit him.

>ou seem to think every fucking interaction will necessarily be adversarial instead of cooperative

Property rights are inherently adversarial. Any cooperation done is under the threat of force.

>because you yourself are adversarial.

Says the belligerent, insulting poster.

> I am not HOLDING ANYTHING OF YOURS

The road doesn't belong to me, but the highwayman is preventing me from using it, unless I pay his "toll".

>I AM ASKING YOU TO WORK FOR ME, AND YOU CAN REFUSE OR ACCEPT.

You and your peers are demanding I work for you to be granted the "privilege" of using "your" land.

>I'm taking most of the risks involved with property acquisition and maintenance as well, or have you forgotten

That is not necessarily true, and it wasn't historically, where the peasants had to maintain the property they rented from the landlord.

>So that they can profit off my property by being paid to do shit to it for me.

My labor objectively belongs to me, while your property is simply a claim that you demand I respect. You as the landlord are not necessarily, you're simply a violent leach, since you need not be an actual, useful participant, just simply a person who somehow has a claim to some property.

> What the fuck is it with you commies and being completely incapable of viewing success, investment and so on as anything but EEEEEEVIL?

We don't, we just recognize as what it is. No matter how skillful or intelligent you are, your possession of others labor comes ultimately from violence.

>I am exchanging my resources for your labor, divesting you of most of the risks involved with operation

The "risk taking" argument is a common but fallacious one. Risks are not proportional to gain, if anything they are inversely proportional. Regardless, your risk taking is not necessary in a non-capitalist system.

>while giving you resources that you agree are a fair trade for your labor so that one day you might be able to do what I did and try your hand at being an entrepreneur if you're so inclined.

"Work or starve" is not a fair trade, but a necessary one. And me possibly being like you does not justify the system, anymore than a Roman slave being able to buy his way out of slavery and eventually buy his own justifies Roman slavery.

>It revolves around jealousy, envy, resentment of others' good fortune, and it's all wrapped up in pretty pink bows that say "Equality". You're a failure in life so by god if you can't be a winner you're going to make everyone else just as much of a failure as you. Am I close yet?

Unfortunately not. One can be as successful as they want with their own labor, not with mine. The commie mindset is one of actual freedom and liberty, not simply the freedom and liberty to exploit and oppress, which of course is antagonistic to the desires of the slavers and lords of old, and their modern counterparts, which use the words you just used now against their underlings who demand freedom.

>I'm not your master

If you tell me what to do, how to live, and live off my labor, then you're my master.

>You are doing this UNCOMPELLED BY ME

I would not do this if you did not forcefully keeps the means of livelihood from me.

>You're free to starve. There is not and never has been such a thing as a free lunch

There's a difference between natural law, and manmade law. Natural law says I'll die if I don't eat, and I don't eat if I don't find/produce food. Manmade law says I am not allowed to find/produce food unless I pay a ransom to the individuals who control the means that would allow me to feed myself.

cont in next post

>If I, Mr. Business Owner, fall on hard times and the business goes south, you are free to walk away either at the end of your contract or earlier if the contract allows, with my money that I paid you in your pocket, citeable work experience to present to any other potential employer or for you to use for your own ends to start something yourself, and I get to comb through the ashes of my company. You really have no fucking idea how anything works, do you, commie?

You repeat the myth that the business owner takes all the risks, while forgetting the risks he takes for the workers under him. He loses his business because of his choices, whereas they lose their livelihood because of the choices he made. At the worse, he descends to their level, having to work for someone else for a living, something that should rightfully scare him.

>Most people find it easier to rent an apartment, buy food from a grocery store and work for someone else's company instead of building your own house, growing your own food and starting your own business

There's a difference between "easy" and "possible". You want to conflate the two so you can say it's just a choice they're making because they're lazy.

>here's nothing wrong with the last three, and they're no less valid a path just because most people choose the easy way instead of the liberated way

So there's the choice between easy (possible) and freedom? I have to toil and struggle to simply have liberty? And here I was thinking it was something inalienable that all men are born with.

>Most things worth having require work

And it shouldn't be made more difficult because of the greed of others.

>Envy

I envy others having luxury at the cost of my freedom

>Jealousy

I am jealous of those who have an easy life at the cost of my difficult one

>Resentment

I resent being a slave, as any man should be

>The vital ingredients for a Commie.

And what are the vital ingredients of a Capitalist? Greed, viciousness, parasitism, entitlement?

>>60753

By the way, I'm not a leftie or individualist anarchist, but I'd still like to volunteer. I've had bad experiences with mods, even the ones I've trusted, I don't trust anyone to mod except myself. If I were a mod I promise to be completely neutral in moderation, uphold free speech for lefties included, only delete blatant spam and so on. My timezone is +10 GMT

>>60890

When was the last time any of us had a reasonable discussion with anyone? Someone screams "Hey shitlib, the government will just become bigger again" or something at a minarchist and he doesn't really care to reply.

>>60881

I tweaked a couple things (5 threads per hour, etc.). I'm new at running a board, so you'll all have to bear with me.

>>60908

wait are you the new mod?

>>60919

He's new so he doesn't know how to ## Board Owner, please bear with him.

>>60920

ok then.

>>60920

Wait the new board owner of /liberty/, I thought this was about /anarcho/?

>>60932

Pretty sure its /anarcho/

https://8ch.net/anarcho/index.html

>>60851

> Except, I'm really not. There's a lot of land in the US that is genuinely unowned and unpopulated.

As your chart clearly shows, almost all of that land is fucking desert and arctic wasteland.

> I'm simply telling you a way of doing so, if you have any other ideas that don't involve committing aggressive acts on other people then go ahead and follow them.

You're giving me an extremely unrealistic alternative. My alternative is to do away with the conception of property rights that forces the vast majority of the population into the proletariat. Namely, my alternative is a system of property rights built upon use.

>He absolutely does, a landlord generally orders construction on his land (such as an apartment building, a house, etc) and then provides this service to other people. He absolutely has a service to provide to other people.

A landlord be definition is just simply someone who owns land or property who rents it to others. He might've constructed the housing on the property, or he could've just built the property as is to make a profit off of it, or it could just be 1000 farmland that he and his ancestors have been renting to the farmers for generations. Any service he does provide with his labor is ultimately far less than what he receives in profits.

>I'm simply saying that if you no longer want anything to do with voluntary exchanges between individuals, then the only non-aggressive way of doing so is going and living alone

That would be the only option in a truly voluntary society, but a Capitalist one is not a voluntary society, and whereas in a voluntary society if you want to be completely alone you need to become a mountainman (an unlikely option for an unlikely desire), in a Capitalist society you must do the same to simply be free.

>Again, many people have done so, just because a majority haven't, doesn't make this scenario necessarily unrealistic.

It's unrealistic as a suggestion for a average or normal person.

>He has every option of not working for him and perhaps providing a service to others with his own property instead of working on someone else's factory

A person's ability to labor is something almost everyone is born with, the same cannot be said of property to labor upon. Historically, almost everyone was born into a family that had plenty of land to life off of, whereas now almost everyone is born with nothing except their ability to work on someone else's property.

>A person who defends himself from a thief trying to steal his car is also someone who's 'preventing someone from using the existing means of livelihood for his own benefit', this does not mean that this is aggression

The difference is the thief is taking property someone else directly uses at their own detriment, while the Capitalist does not use his property, but expects others to use it for him.

>Trying to take someone's property is force, someone not giving property or a service to you without you providing something in return is not, this is the most basic of voluntary interaction.

The difference is how to decide what property is legitimately owned. The lord denies the serfs the use of "his" land unless they give him a portion of what they produce. By what right does he have that land? Likewise, by what right does an absentee proprietor have to property he doesn't or cannot use but prevents other from using it unless they give him a portion of what they produce?

>For all you know I could sell the car directly after this interaction, does this mean I owe the fellow money now?

He did not create the car, he simply solved the problem you created. You lost some amount of money by landing your car into the ditch, because for you to have your car back, you had to pay him that amount to retrieve it. A service was given, but nothing was produced, simply regained. There is no possible way you could gain money from him in this scenario, at best you just get a really good deal which is still at your lose. For instance, even if you were to contract some contractors to build a office building or a factory, you are not profiting from their labor, since you would need to then hire employees to use those buildings to make you a profit.

>>60876

>You are free to not own a damn thing in an ancap world, dipshit

Obviously. But if you want to be free you do.

>If you're an ascetic, for example, you are absolutely free to be so. You still retain your self-ownership and all the attendant protections related to that concept.

An ascetic needs very little, but they still need somethings, as such they need to be given those things (giving power to those who provide those things) or produce those things himself. For him to do the second, he need property to labor open. Self-ownership is meaningless as a concept when you must have additional property to make use of your self-ownership, or sell this ownership, at least temporarily to even live.

> The original owner holds the deed

And the king held the title.

> If your kitchen faucet is leaking, it is not your job or your place to fix it

It is if that's what's expected of me.

>If your landlord is a shitheel who won't fix shit, move the fuck out and leave a Yelp review or whatever.

That's not what we're talking about.

>For people working land to produce crops or whatever for the landowner: no, you don't own it. You signed a work contract stating very clearly what you can and can not take away from that land and that landowner. If you didn't sign a contract, you're a retard. If you didn't read the contract, you're a retard.

I know how Capitalist property rights works, again, that's not what we're talking about.

>Being a retard is not an excuse to try and steal the landowner's holdings.

For something to be stolen you must prove you have a right to that thing. The state considers not paying taxes theft also.

>I like how you morons pull this black-and-white one-extreme-or-the-other-at-all-times shit. You don't live in the real world.

Nice counter-argument.

>Viability is variable and tends toward "extremely low" in the presence of a state that doesn't like squatters.

I'm saying it's not the state that maked it unviable, it's the present material conditions. The state just makes it nearly impossible.

>"Buy", from the state.

I wasn't referring to state property.

>That's funny. You're funny. You sure you're an ancom?

Take that feeling you're feeling right now, and then imagine that's how ancoms feel about private property as well as state property.

>>but they don't do that because being a fucking frontiersman isn't a viable option for pussies who can't hack it

Says the person too much of a pussy to seastead the ocean.

>Irrelevant

It's not irrelevant. For your alternative choice to be a realistic one, the entire world would have to revert 200 years.

>You really love your little "private property can't exist without government" canard, don't you?

It could exist, but only with tactics no different than the ones the state uses.

> Me, my family and my friends will shoot you and your friends dead on the spot

You mean, your police force - I mean private security? You and your friends aren't going to come to the factory full of 100s of striking workers, you're going to get uniformed thugs to do it for you.

>>60877

>First: the standard of living and the amount of wealth EVERYONE possesses has only gone up.

Standard of living, possibly, amount of wealth, no. Real wages has not increased for decades, people can only live at the standard of living they do through debt. Nor is money in the bank actual property.

>BULLSHIT. YOU ALWAYS HAVE CHOICES. Different landlord. Different area of the city. Different region, etc

Choosing your master does not make you a slave.

>You also assume "but landlords always screw people"

I'm not. I just recognize they have power and control over me. How nice they are doesn't change that.

>You and your ilk have a serious fucking issue with dehumanizing anyone who happens to be more financially successful than you, and let me tell you that's a good way to pick a losing fight, chummer.

You continue to misunderstand my argument. It is irrelevant how nice the slave master is, or the fact that he's also a human, the facts are that he is still a slave master.

>THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND CONTINUE TO DO, YOU MENDACIOUS LITTLE FUCK.

I disagree.

>So fucking pay someone else to dig a well for you if you think you're incapable of doing it correctly. Survival skills and farming are fairly easy to learn, and subsistence farming is very doable

>dude just leave modern life and society behind and live like your agrarian ancestors, it's easy

And no, subsistence farming is not very doable. Even with modern machinery it involves a lot of labor, it's radically inefficient when there's megafarms with huge economies of scale, and it's a precarious way to live.

>You are still a freer person in a city in an Ancap society than a person living innawoods in a statist society.

The exact opposite really. If I was innawoods in a statist society, not only when the laws that exist not affect me, the authority of the state would actually be less than the absolutist property rights of an ancap city.

> Well, if the fact that I paid for it and quite possibly worked with it isn't enough justification

Stolen goods that you paid for or burglared really hard for are still stolen.

> how about if you don't respect my property rights I fucking shoot you dead?

Nice appeal to the stick, Mr might-makes-right.

>I don't like resorting to force

The entire concept or property rights exists through the implicit threat of force.

>First: Unless the property owner delineates to the slightest sneeze how EXACTLY you will behave while on his property, you have degrees of freedom

I have degrees of privilege. I have no freedom because freedom cannot be granted or allowed.

>This does not forbid me from having friends over, nor does it prevent me from listening to loud music on headphones while drinking a beer

No, but if he said "No guests over. And because I'm an asshole Christian, no drinking allowed and no listening to none-gospel music. If I find out you've done either of those things, even outside the apartments, I'll evict you". The likelihood of him actually saying this or the possible competition present to dissuade him from saying this does not change the fact that he has the authority to say this and I must obey or leave. In fact, if I disobey and don't leave I'm considered immoral.

>His intent is to avoid disrupting the lives of any other tenants or neighbors

His intent in irrelevant. Just like the supposed intent of the state keeping peace and order is irrelevant.

>go rent somewhere else if that's not your cup of tea

One more time my brother: being able to choose your master does not mean you're not a slave. The nicety or permissiveness of a master does not mean he's not one.

>Difference being I'm more than happy to leave you to go and make your hippie commune wherever, whereas you will come to my property and demand I accommodate you, your ideology and your demands, because that's what people like you do.

Just because the slave owners didn't care that others didn't own slaves doesn't make them better than the abolitionists who did.

>>60878

>I'm not demanding a damn thing

You are if they are to use "your" property.

>If the deal isn't to your liking, WALK AWAY. Simple. As. That.

I cannot walk away from the system of wage-labor when the alternative is starvation.

>Also, to say that I'm extracting labor from them for my benefit is a lie by omission, you dishonest fuck. They're getting paid for their labor, in an amount that they agree is fair

You buy their labor so you can make a profit from it. They are working for your benefit. It is not anymore mutual and reciprocal than a slave obeying so he doesn't get whipped. "But M'buku, don't you see, if you obey you will not be harmed. It's beneficial for us both"

>Shit, a business owner might even do something like…

How does that have anything to do with them making money off of the worker's labor?

>Oh, more "ANCAP IS FEUDALISM" drivel. Fantastic

I'm sure it makes a world of difference to the ancient and future serfs if the origin of the system they live in wasn't from direct violence.

>Convenient excuse after you play the "anachronism" card on me. Pff.

Mine is simply an example, yours is supposed to be a realistic scenario.

>Why would a sane lumberjack NOT WANT TO ENSURE HIS BUSINESS REMAINED VIABLE BEYOND THE FIRST TEN YEARS?

Because lumberjacks cut trees, while someone else plants them. No one can deliberately plant a completely natural and ecological forest, and you'd have no reason to if you just want the lumber.

>You can cooperate without a threat of force if you aren't a gigantic asshole.

The cooperation as it is is entirely because of the threat of force. No one would pay your rent if there wasn't the constant threat of eviction.

>Also, I don't believe in being polite to people who are rude enough to accuse me of being a slavemaster, tyrant and thief simply because I'm a capitalist

Don't take it personal. Those words are not meant as insults, simply facts.

>Is the "highwayman"'s claim to the road legitimate?

It is not, and neither is the landlord's or the Capitalist's.

>>60879

>I'm asking, POLITELY I might add, if anyone would be interested in exchanging labor for resources. I am not holding a gun to your head and saying WORK FOR ME

No, you and your peers are politely saying that if I want use the means of production in order to secure a livelihood, I must do so under your terms that are designed specifically for you to create profit while you hold a gun to my head and say I better not use "your" property without your permission.

>Risk never disappears, it's just foisted onto other people in a communist setup

Market risks are not the same as natural risks, and as technology increases they come fewer.

>Slavery is compelled by the slavemaster.

And wage-slavery is compelled by Capitalism.

>An employer does not and can not compel you to labor for him unless you've already AGREED to do so with a contract.

He personally does not need to because the system is designed to compel me without him doing anything at all.

>Hunger might compel you to get a job so you can afford food, but I'm not making you hungry

Hunger compels me to work, Capitalism compels me to work for someone else so that I can survive off of the crumbs he gives back to me.

>>60953

Saddest argument I have seen. Everything here is subjective generalizations.

>>60946

>As your chart clearly shows, almost all of that land is fucking desert and arctic wasteland.

That's just not really correct. I mean you have a case with Alaska, not so much the rest of the map. I don't really know how most of Oregon is desert, let alone North Dakota or Oregon. I suggest you do some research on those lands before making such a large generalizing statement.

>You're giving me an extremely unrealistic alternative.

Well living away from people peacefully exchanging goods and services is extremely unrealistic.

>My alternative is to do away with the conception of property rights that forces the vast majority of the population into the proletariat

Yeah, but your idea is retarded and that's sort of the main problem. Your implication is that you somehow have a right to all that property, it's just a very odd and weak justification for theft. This simply can't be achieved through any other way but force.

>Any service he does provide with his labor is ultimately far less than what he receives in profits.

That's subjective. He provides a service, whether he put a lot of labor into it or not is irrelevant to the question, it all depends on the service that he provides to other people and the utility that people get out of that land.

>That would be the only option in a truly voluntary society, but a Capitalist one is not a voluntary society

But it is. A capitalist society is one that respects the most basic of property rights, meaning no theft of resources from other people. This is as voluntary as voluntary gets.

>It's unrealistic as a suggestion for a average or normal person.

No, again. Just because a small number of people do it, does not mean that it is an unrealistic option. Getting a walrus tattoo is uncommon, it is not unrealistic to do so however.

>The difference is the thief is taking property someone else directly uses at their own detriment, while the Capitalist does not use his property, but expects others to use it for him.

Except, the capitalist IS using his property. By hiring other people and paying them to work on his property, he is maintaining his property, else using it as a source of income. Me hiring a maid to look over a vacation home of mine or me even hiring a fashion designer to spice up the house does not somehow make them more legitimate owners of the property than I. If I hire someone to chisel a statue of a man out of a giant brick of marble that I own, it's the same thing, it's still not his, it is mine. By hiring him to do something with my property, I still exercise ownership over the thing I own (in this case the marble brick, in the others it would be my house.)

>The lord denies the serfs the use of "his" land unless they give him a portion of what they produce. By what right does he have that land?

Well did he build anything there? Did he order construction or modify the land to signify that it is his? (ie: building a house, building a factory, etc). If not, then you're entirely correct. He has no right to that land whatsoever, however if he did build things or has already modified the land then it is entirely his. You don't have a right to it just because you helped produce a service that HE paid you to produce on HIS property.

>You lost some amount of money by landing your car into the ditch, because for you to have your car back, you had to pay him that amount to retrieve it.

I paid him nothing in that scenario.

> There is no possible way you could gain money from him in this scenario

Well, yes there is. Now I have a car I can actually sell because it's not longer in a ditch. I may have to hire people to clean it up a little, but nonetheless the car's ready for sale.

You have a valid point about the "Nothing was made, something was regained" but then it goes back to the whole "Marble statue" question.

>>60953

>Hunger compels me to work

>A non-sentient entity compels

Stop compelling us to read shitposting. Only sentient beings can commit actions.

>>61006

>I don't really know how most of Oregon is desert, let alone North Dakota or Oregon. I suggest you do some research on those lands before making such a large generalizing statement.

You're correct, large amounts of uninhabited land is in regions like Oregon and Idaho. I was mostly looking at the largest collection in Nevada and Utah. Even still, there's likely a good reason why states like Oregon and Idaho are so sparsely populated.

> Well living away from people peacefully exchanging goods and services is extremely unrealistic.

Yes, but wanting to live away from wage-labor and absolutist property rights isn't.

>Your implication is that you somehow have a right to all that property

Not at all. Simply you only have a right to property you personally use.

>That's subjective. He provides a service, whether he put a lot of labor into it or not is irrelevant to the question, it all depends on the service that he provides to other people and the utility that people get out of that land.

Ultimately the only service he has to provide is allowing people to use his property, which is as much of a service as the mobster gives when you give him protection money.

> A capitalist society is one that respects the most basic of property rights, meaning no theft of resources from other people. This is as voluntary as voluntary gets.

The problem is that a Capitalist's society conception of property rights is designed for the propertied to benefit from the labor of the property-less, the proletariat. It is not voluntary because property is necessary to live, and a large percentage will have none, being at the mercy of those that do.

>Just because a small number of people do it, does not mean that it is an unrealistic option. Getting a walrus tattoo is uncommon, it is not unrealistic to do so however.

A walrus tattoo is a personal choice with no greater affect than aesthetics. For homesteading to be a realistic choice for most people it would involve a radical restructuring of modern society.

>Except, the capitalist IS using his property. By hiring other people and paying them to work on his property, he is maintaining his property, else using it as a source of income

He personally is not using it, he is only using the labor of those who do.

>Me hiring a maid to look over a vacation home of mine or me even hiring a fashion designer to spice up the house does not somehow make them more legitimate owners of the property than I. If I hire someone to chisel a statue of a man out of a giant brick of marble that I own, it's the same thing, it's still not his, it is mine. By hiring him to do something with my property, I still exercise ownership over the thing I own (in this case the marble brick, in the others it would be my house.)

Those are all services for your own personal benefit, things you cannot make a profit from. You want to use the house to live in, so you get someone to make it nicer for you. That's entirely different than not using the house at all and not planning to, but expecting to still make money from it by someone else paying you rent.

> Well did he build anything there? Did he order construction or modify the land to signify that it is his? (ie: building a house, building a factory, etc). If not, then you're entirely correct. He has no right to that land whatsoever, however if he did build things or has already modified the land then it is entirely his. You don't have a right to it just because you helped produce a service that HE paid you to produce on HIS property.

Your only difference with the lord is over the conception of how something becomes legitimately yours, not that the lord actually exists or lives off of the labor of others. It's irrelevant whether the lord owns that land because of divine right, or because of homesteading, the point is he exists regardless.

> I paid him nothing in that scenario.

Then there was no net gain, you just passed the costs off time onto him.

> Well, yes there is. Now I have a car I can actually sell because it's not longer in a ditch. I may have to hire people to clean it up a little, but nonetheless the car's ready for sale.

The point is, you had that car previously ready to sale, but now you must take money from your pocket to restore it. You simply transferred value onto the cleaners, none was actually created.

> You have a valid point about the "Nothing was made, something was regained" but then it goes back to the whole "Marble statue" question.

Applying labor to a marble block to create a statue is creating something, is creating value. Restoring a broken statue on the other hand doesn't: the statue being broken effectively destroyed value in the world, since previously I had $10,000 and and a $15,000 intact statue, then the statue broke, making it worthless, then I got it fixed, but now I only have a $15,000 intact statue.

>>61007

Then what is compelling me to eat, if it's not hunger? God?

>>61031

>Your only difference with the lord is over the conception of how something becomes legitimately yours, not that the lord actually exists or lives off of the labor of others. It's irrelevant whether the lord owns that land because of divine right, or because of homesteading, the point is he exists regardless.

As I said not too long ago, how he acquired his property makes all the difference. If it makes a difference whether I bought my watch, built it myself, inherited it from my father or stole it or fraudulently acquired it, then it must also make a difference whether the lord merely claimed the land or whether he put some work into it before the claim. The real problem you have is absenteeism, and there's far better ways to argue against it than by denying that there are legitimate and illegitimate forms of property acquisition. If you truly believed that, you would fight for the legalization of theft, or you would steal like a maniac yourself, or something to that effect. So why beat around the bush?

Also, it puzzles me that the medieval lords have become a symbol of oppression and exploitation. Back when the nobility was still strong, France was doing better than after the Revolution. It didn't recover until fifty years later. Easy proof: Ask yourself where the bourgeoisie came from that rebelled in the French Revolution. If the lords and the king had kept everyone in perpetual poverty, there wouldn't have been a middle class to rebel.

>>61031

>Then what is compelling me to eat, if it's not hunger? God?

You can say that it forces or compels you, but that would just obscure the fact that this is not the same as force or compulsion from a fellow human, simply because hunger cannot act. It "compels" you like any passive force does, and for that reason you wouldn't hold it morally responsible, not like an actor. This is another case of an argument that no one in his right mind would abstract from, but that's still thrown out to win debates and rationalize shitty beliefs and life choices.

>>61031

2/2

> For homesteading to be a realistic choice for most people it would involve a radical restructuring of modern society.

No, it doesn't. Society isn't going to go out there and homestead because there simply is very little reason for most people in society to do so. I am talking about YOU. You wished to live away from the free market (The voluntary exchange of goods and services from buyers and sellers) so that is your prerogative, not anyone else's. I'm just fine living in a house that I can pay off in 2 years, surrounded by businesses where I can easily buy goods and services. You apparently do not find this to be preferable, and I'm just listing the alternatives for YOU.

>He personally is not using it, he is only using the labor of those who do.

Yes and the people who labor on his property gain money from doing so, they also agree to do so.

>Those are all services for your own personal benefit, things you cannot make a profit from.

But this is an artificial and truly arbitrary line. So hiring wage labor is perfectly fine if I don't plan to profit from it? Suppose I just decide to sell the house with all the modifications done to it? Suppose with the Marble statue scenario that I plan to sell it right afterwards because I realize I don't have much use for it or that it will be enough to pay off my child's education? Suddenly this interaction is illegitimate because I seek to make a profit off something I own as opposed to just enjoy it for myself?

If it's my property, then it really doesn't matter what the fuck I do with it. If I wish to use it to make a profit because I see it as something that other people then it's my right. It's my property.

>Your only difference with the lord is over the conception of how something becomes legitimately yours, not that the lord actually exists or lives off of the labor of others.

Why the fuck would I get pissed that someone who owns land exists? Better yet, why would I be pissed that someone lives off the labor of others? We all live off of other people's labor and services, we exist because someone else labored to provide us services and goods. The fact that someone owns property, sees it as good farming soil and thus hires other people to farm on the land does not piss me off. He values what they produce, they value the money he's paying them and in the end he sells the product and gives a portion of profit to them, some of it goes towards tools, maintenance, etc and the rest goes toward himself. This is voluntary, as it is not forced.

>Applying labor to a marble block to create a statue is creating something, is creating value.

Holy shit, you miss the entire point of the scenario. I bring my brick of marble to someone and pay him to chisel out a statue of a man. I paid him for his service of producing a statue, he has done wage labor on this marble brick of mine. Does he have a right to own it?

>>60946

>my alternative is a system of property rights built upon use.

Then how will you deal with underutilized resources? Many residences will have empty rooms that cannot be rented out. because your system denies non-use property. This will deincentivize property owners from building up their land more than their personal use.

>>61035

> If it makes a difference whether I bought my watch, built it myself, inherited it from my father or stole it or fraudulently acquired it, then it must also make a difference whether the lord merely claimed the land or whether he put some work into it before the claim.

The only difference is academic. If it leads to the same real life results, it is the same. You're not concerned about freedom, only whether property is legitimately owned by your academic standards.

>The real problem you have is absenteeism, and there's far better ways to argue against it than by denying that there are legitimate and illegitimate forms of property acquisition.

There are legitimate and illegitimate forms, I'm not denying that, I'm denying that any system of property rights that allows absenteeism is illegitimate if you actually care about freedom.

>Also, it puzzles me that the medieval lords have become a symbol of oppression and exploitation. Back when the nobility was still strong, France was doing better than after the Revolution. It didn't recover until fifty years later. Easy proof: Ask yourself where the bourgeoisie came from that rebelled in the French Revolution. If the lords and the king had kept everyone in perpetual poverty, there wouldn't have been a middle class to rebel.

If feudalism or monarchism was the best system in creating a wealthy society, it would be irrelevant to me. I don't care how high the GDP is how many gadgets I can buy, I care about having freedom and not having to give a portion of my entire life to someone else because he said so.

>>61036

I'm not implying nature is morally responsible. I am making a point how it's a natural law that I must eat, as such I am compelled in a certain way to follow that need. Whereas is it entirely up to humanity how I can or must fulfill that need, and whether I am similarly compelled to fulfill to by working for someone else.

>>61041

>Society runs off of people providing other people services, to live any other way than voluntary action is simply to live a life of aggression and theft.

There's a difference between the one Mutualists imagine, where people mutually and reciprocally fulfill each other's needs and desires, and a Capital society where most of the population must work under someone else, who in turn lives off their labor, while also being forced to follow the whims and desires of the propertied class like they're monarchs.

> does someone who just happens upon it one day have the right to break in, steal from it and do as he pleases with it when it's not Christmas or Thanksgiving and I am not there?

Yes, except steal from it, as long as it does not infringe on you using it on Christmas and Thanksgiving. Why should you care if he does? What you know doesn't hurt you, if there's no difference if he was or wasn't there if you cannot tell any difference.

>The great thing about property is that it is an action of LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT…

You're not explaining why those things are good.

>The mobster is illegitimate because he forces a service on people and their businesses when the business owner on question has not asked for this service, and will face violence if he refuses to pay for his protection service (hence the term 'racket')

And the proprietor offers the service of allowing me to use some property that he somehow claims when I do not want to his service as a proprietor, I just want to use this property, and I will face violence if I refuse to pay him for this service.

>The property owner (or hotel owner or whatever) does not force me to use his property at all, I have the very simple option of walking away and just not paying him a damned thing, there is nothing involuntary about this.

No does not personally force you, but the system in place for his benefit does. You do not have to deal with him as an individual, but you do have to deal with his class.

>No, both benefit. The average worker provides a service to someone who owns tools or the factory that can utilize his service and in exchange the factory owner provides him with money (which he values). This is the most basic of exchanges. The worker values the money he receives from his job and the factory owner values the service that he provides.

The factory owner literally provides no service. He simply grants access to this factory he protects with force. The worker cannot be separated from his labor, but the owner can from his property, making him completely unnecessary.

> What you just wrote makes no sense, and it's apparent that you take liberty in the way you use definitions.

For an exchange to be voluntary, both participants have to have the viable option of saying "no". If I'm dying of thirst in the desert and you come along with water, and you offer it to me in exchange for some transaction, anything that happens is not voluntary because I did not have the viable choice of saying no.

>>61042

> I am talking about YOU. You wished to live away from the free market

I'm perfectly fine with living in a free market, even if I don't find it preferable. I'm not fine with solely having privileges instead of freedom, or having to work so someone else can make money.

> Yes and the people who labor on his property gain money from doing so, they also agree to do so.

The people on his property are ultimately gaining the money from the goods they produced and the proprietor takes hold of. If I'm producing $15 worth of goods an hour, why am I getting paid $10 while the guy up top takes the rest solely because he "owns" it?

> Suppose I just decide to sell the house with all the modifications done to it? Suppose with the Marble statue scenario that I plan to sell it right afterwards because I realize I don't have much use for it or that it will be enough to pay off my child's education? Suddenly this interaction is illegitimate because I seek to make a profit off something I own as opposed to just enjoy it for myself?

The difference is buying and selling a service is an equal transaction, where ideally both are simply trading their labor to each other. Whereas profiting off of the labor someone else did is inherently unequal because that profit comes from value they created but did not receive, and that you're taking solely because you own the property and the other person cannot work without property.

> If it's my property, then it really doesn't matter what the fuck I do with it. If I wish to use it to make a profit because I see it as something that other people then it's my right. It's my property.

It entirely matters because you at taking the surplus labor of others solely because of your status as a property owner, and you have this status precisely because you're using force to maintain it.

>Why the fuck would I get pissed that someone who owns land exists?

If you actually believed in freedom you should consider the existence of a lord unfree.

> Better yet, why would I be pissed that someone lives off the labor of others?

Because they are parasites who remain parasites through violence.

>We all live off of other people's labor and services, we exist because someone else labored to provide us services and goods

Yes, but we ideally give back an equal amount, backing the relationship reciprocal instead of parasitic.

>The fact that someone owns property, sees it as good farming soil and thus hires other people to farm on the land does not piss me off.

An unneeded, violent parasite doesn't piss you off? Then surely you should have no problem with highwaymen, or mobster rackets?

>they value the money he's paying them

He's effectively paying them in what they've produced. He is not offering anything, he is not needed.

>This is voluntary, as it is not forced.

It is inherently forced because since he is not providing any useful, meaningful service, he is not needed or wanted, yet he remains through the use or threat of force. He is effectively no different than a criminal or a warlord.

>I paid him for his service of producing a statue, he has done wage labor on this marble brick of mine

Strictly speaking, he was not paid a wage, but a commission, but it's all the same whether his surplus value was taken.

>Does he have a right to own it?

He has the right to the value he has created, the difference between what the block of marble was worth and what the statue is worth now, since it is entirely through his labor that that extra value was created.

>>61050

> Many residences will have empty rooms that cannot be rented out. because your system denies non-use property

Those rooms would simply be lived in, with the expectation that the tenants share in the upkeep of the building. Even in a Capitalist society that is more houses, not just rooms but houses, then there are homeless.

>This will deincentivize property owners from building up their land more than their personal use.

That is the idea, since their land with not be more than what they can use.

>>61111

>The only difference is academic.

If you don't care about putting your ethics on any rational basis, then we can end this talk right now if you want.

>If it leads to the same real life results, it is the same.

So whether you get twenty dollars back from a thief that stole them from you, or from your neighbor, makes no difference. All that matters is that they have more than you, and you don't like that. My apologies if this is too "academic" for you and hurts your sensibilities.

>There are legitimate and illegitimate forms, I'm not denying that, I'm denying that any system of property rights that allows absenteeism is illegitimate if you actually care about freedom.

You just did deny it, by saying that the difference between stolen, bought and inherited property is "academic" and doesn't matter if the results in real life are the same.

>>61114

>If you don't care about putting your ethics on any rational basis, then we can end this talk right now if you want.

The worth of ethics is the results following them brings into real life. Your system of property rights and the ethics related to them can be the most logical and consistent in the universe, but if they result in shitty outcomes, then they are worthless.

>So whether you get twenty dollars back from a thief that stole them from you, or from your neighbor, makes no difference

No, that's not what I'm referring to. The outcome of hanging yourself and poisoning yourself makes them effectively the same.

>All that matters is that they have more than you, and you don't like that

They can live in all the mansions they want while driving all the Lamborghinis with super-models on their laps, I don't care how wealthy someone is, I'm not a materialistic person and I don't want to live in a mansion. I do care how they got that wealth, particularly if that wealth came from my hard work, and I do care if that wealth gives them power to rule over me.

>by saying that the difference between stolen, bought and inherited property is "academic" and doesn't matter if the results in real life are the same.

All three forms are illegitimate to me if they allow lords to exist. It's academic if that lord stolen, robbed, bought, or inherited that property if all the same it results in him ruling over me.

>>61113

>the tenants share in the upkeep of the building

The problem is getting these tenants to do it voluntarily, which is a problem in China (see video).

>Even in a Capitalist society that is more houses, not just rooms but houses, then there are homeless.

Source? Does this include houses that are illegal/not up-to-code?

>That is the idea,

Then you are using resources inefficiently. With no incentive to build up on property, you have less land available for productive and residential purposes.

>>61120

>particularly if that wealth came from my hard work

How do you determine that in mutually beneficial exchange?

>>61123

forgot video

>>61111

>The difference is buying and selling a service is an equal transaction, where ideally both are simply trading their labor to each other

No, labor does not inherently have to enter the mix. I did not produce a car, that does not mean I can't trade my car with someone else's.

>It entirely matters because you at taking the surplus labor of others sol

Repeat after me: There is no such thing as "Surplus Labor". Value is subjective, not objective. The value of a product is (if anything) dependent on the individual consumers who are willing to pay for the product. The amount of labor put into a product is completely irrelevant to how much people will end up valuing it, especially if it's shit.

>If you actually believed in freedom you should consider the existence of a lord unfree.

If you actually believed in logic, you would make an argument instead of making blanket emotional statements that convince no one.

Seriously a communist talking about how Libertarians don't value "Freedom" has about as much sense tied to it as a hooker who argues that nuns don't value their virginity.

>He's effectively paying them in what they've produced. He is not offering anything, he is not needed.

In that very statement alone you contradict yourself. He's offering them money for the product they produce, he is very much needed. It's also his property, his tools, so on so forth, all of which needed his investment. The fact that he seeks to make profit off of his property is completely within his rights.

>Strictly speaking, he was not paid a wage, but a commission, but it's all the same whether his surplus value was taken.

Again, there's no such thing as Surplus Value. Value is not an objective thing, it's subjective.

>He has the right to the value he has created, the difference between what the block of marble was worth and what the statue is worth now, since it is entirely through his labor that that extra value was created.

But again, value is not intrinsic and it is not objective. For all you know I could find the end result to be completely fucking hideous. Ergo, in my eyes he hasn't provided me with anything of value. His labor was simply a commission by myself for him to modify my property, more than that he is owed nothing.

>>61123

>The problem is getting these tenants to do it voluntarily, which is a problem in China (see video).

Yet, as the video talks about, even when it comes to their own shit, they take care of it horribly. It seems like a cultural problem of carelessness and miserliness instead of some concrete aspect of human nature. Even if people don't want to do it voluntarily, they could still be forced to pay "rent" for the upkeep if they want to stay there.

>Source? Does this include houses that are illegal/not up-to-code?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-skip-bronson/post_733_b_692546.html

I know, I know >huffingtonpost, but it's the earliest source I can find.

>Then you are using resources inefficiently

It can hardly be said Capitalism uses resources efficiently when 40% of food in the US is simply thrown away, and I believe that's not even including the produce planted but not harvested because the market changes, making it non-economical to harvest it.

>With no incentive to build up on property, you have less land available for productive and residential purposes.

Not sure what you mean. Why would there be no incentive? If someone wants to use property if something, then they'll use it, and will have an even easier time using it since they won't have to worry about about some absentee owner.

>How do you determine that in mutually beneficial exchange?

If I produce something yet am only paid a portion of what it's worth. It is only mutually beneficial in that I benefit in some sense, but I do not benefit enough for what I've worked to produce.

>>61124

That's an interesting channel. Thanks.

>>61137

>Again comparing ancap to monarchs does not make sense. One is force, the other is not. C'mon now.

What is the value of the NAP if it doesn't create a free society? What does it matter to me if the person telling me what to do, how to live, while living off of my labor originally got his property from force of playing the market?

>So, he can't steal property from my house and take ownership of that property (ie: pictures, TVs, etc) but he can somehow take ownership of the house itself? This just seems like you're making up your own arbitrary rules, either he has ownership over the property when I leave it vacant or he doesn't.

He cannot alter the property, which includes stealing. He has the right to use and live in it while you're gone.

> Long term development isn't good? What the fuck?

You're not giving examples of good things from long term development.

> He doesn't allow you to do anything, he PAYS you to do something.

It depends. With a landlord they're simply allowing me to use the property in exchange for rent. With an employer he is buying my labor. But taking my surplus labor can be thought of as a rent for me using his property..

> if you don't want his service as a proprietor then go claim some of your own land or go look for services from someone else.

Why should I? Why should I respect his absentee ownership?

> This isn't aggression, if I allow someone to stay at my house for a while and then I get tired of him and kick him out then this is not violence. Kicking someone off your property, and keeping him out are not acts of aggression, to break into my property on the other hand, is.

Whether it's aggression or not doesn't change the fact it's still using violence. By defining a certain type of violence as non-aggressive, you're legitimizing its use when it's used to protect the status quo.

> No one is forcing you to do anything, stop pretending otherwise.

He is forcing me to work for him if I want to use his property. Since I do not own property I must use someone else's, so while I have a choice in who I work for, I do not have the choice in not working for no one, since I must use property.

>There is a lack of a system, the simple fact is that he is not forcing you to use his product, if you don't value his product then don't buy him from. No one is forcing you to do anything, stop pretending otherwise.

The service he provides exists entirely within the realm of Capitalism, not outside of it. Laborers, farmers, engineers, are all necessary in any modern system, their need is a natural one, while Capitalists are only necessary in Capitalism, their need is an artificial one.

>> We can steal from the dude who invested his time and money into this factory because we want to!

> That is some really shitty logic.

Reclaiming what was stolen from you is not stealing. If he truly worked and saved his entire life to start a business, then he should be compensated, in fact more than compensated, since he will also receive back what was taken from him by his past employers. Secondly, it's not shitty logic if it's true. The question is: what use is a Capitalist if Capitalism doesn't exist?

cont in next post

> And both do, you can very easily say no.

I cannot say no to the concept of wage-labor if that alternative is starvation.

>Me not giving you a resource is well within the means of voluntary action, you do not have an inherent right to my water and I do not have an inherent right to your labor. Just because you want or need a resource and someone isn't willing to give it to you, does not mean this is involuntary

I didn't say any of those things. I said any transaction wouldn't be voluntary, because it'd be one under significant duress where I could not say no.

> Then what the fuck is the problem?

The fact that property is owned absently, that wealth is allowed to create wealth, and that property ownership is directly correlated with liberty.

> Now you're just being rhetorical.

I'm not. Having the privilege to do something and not the right implicitly means I have no freedom, I just have a permissive master.

>Value is a subjective matter, not an objective one

It depends on what you mean by value. Use values are subjective, but exchange values are not. Use values factor into the demand for a product, but exchange value is the very thing that all prices revolve around.

>Your labor is not inherently worth anything, it is worth something to the factory owner but even then it's not an objective standard. Same thing with your product, it doesn't matter the labor put into it, what does matter is the utility that consumers get out of it (how much they value said product.)

I'm not seeing an argument here, just irrelevant facts.

>Another thing to keep in mind is that your labor and your end product are two entirely different things. Your boss values your service at 10$ per hour while the public values the product itself at 15$.

Yes, that's obviously true, they are two separate commodities.

>You are not the same as your product, in the same way that the act of assembling a phone isn't the same as the product of a phone itself.

The fact remains that is from my labor the product is created.

>>61138

>I did not produce a car, that does not mean I can't trade my car with someone else's.

You did do work of equal value to buy that car, and any cars traded would also have to be equal value, or someone is getting screwed over.

> The value of a product is (if anything) dependent on the individual consumers who are willing to pay for the product

How does that disprove the fact that someone produces a product but only receives of fraction of what it's worth?

>The amount of labor put into a product is completely irrelevant to how much people will end up valuing it, especially if it's shit.

Not any labor, but the socially necessary amount. If it requires a large amount of labor and/or capital to create, then it will have to be priced at least equivalent. If it sells extremely little, then it'll just be a specialty luxury.

>you would make an argument instead of making blanket emotional statements that convince no one.

You want me to make an argument for why a lord being over you makes you unfree? At the very least, it removes your autonomy and denies you any rights.

> Seriously a communist talking about how Libertarians don't value "Freedom" has about as much sense tied to it as a hooker who argues that nuns don't value their virginity.

In what sense do you value freedom, other then the "freedom" of the proprietor to control and exploit (and I don't mean that in an emotional sense) those who use his property for him?

>He's offering them money for the product they produce, he is very much needed.

Beyond initial startup costs, he is simply paying them portions of what they actually produce. A bakery worker is effectively "paid" 10 loaves of bread for every 15 they make, they're just given money instead of bread since it's easier to deal with. The money they are given ultimately comes from the buyer, not the employer.

> It's also his property, his tools, so on so forth, all of which needed his investment.

Yes, he is needed in a Capitalist system, because in such a system, the means of production are bought and sold privately. He is needed in any other system, not like an engineer or a farmer is still needed.

> Again, there's no such thing as Surplus Value. Value is not an objective thing, it's subjective.

Again, the surplus value is the difference between what someone makes and what they receive in payment. Whatever determines value is irrelevant.

>For all you know I could find the end result to be completely fucking hideous. Ergo, in my eyes he hasn't provided me with anything of value. His labor was simply a commission by myself for him to modify my property, more than that he is owed nothing.

If you are commissioning him because you want a statue, you will likely have to pay him his market rate regardless of how you feel about his style of art. If you are commissioning him to sell the statue, then how you subjectively feel about it is completely irrelevant, because it will still have an objective price decided by the market, and the difference between that price, subtracted from the cost of the marble, and what he was paid is the surplus value.

>>61317

Sweet Jesus, you guys fucking annoy me. The proprietor acquired his property by BUYING it. And he didn't have these funds automatically. He either worked for them and restricted his consumption, or he took up a loan and now has to pay it back, or he inherited his funds, which is supposed to shift this process back in time. Either way, someone had to restrict his consumption so that you, you entitled shit, wouldn't have to.

Ordinarily, I would ask you to read a damn book, but clearly, that isn't the fucking main issue. The main issue is that you have no goddamn clue how life works. If you had worked a day in your life, you'd know that "the capitalist" is often just slightly richer than his employees, or that every or as good as every employment is contractual, or that restricting your consumption to start an enterprise is the fucking foundation of society. But nope, you get hung up on the fucking labor theory of value and demand that the worker gets the product of his labor. Frankly, I hope some capitalist does that. Gives his entire factory to the workers, lets them keep the "product of their labor", and doesn't pay a single dime to keep it up. There is no management, no marketing, just workers producing product after product and keeping it. And when they have a million Svertnar chairs and Somi cupboards, they can look back at their life's work in pride and then write a shitty post on /liberty/ on how utility is not the source of value, labor is!

>>61314

>What is the value of the NAP if it doesn't create a free society?

It does create a free society, a society free of aggression, not a society where you are free to take as you please from anyone.

>He cannot alter the property, which includes stealing. He has the right to use and live in it while you're gone.

Use inevitably leads to altering the property. If I lock my door, and he's unlocked it then guess what? He's altered my property. If I leave a gun that I use for hunting in a case and he decides to waste all my bullets for his hunting, then guess what? He's altered my property, he has taken ownership of it and effectively stolen it from me.

>You're not giving examples of good things from long term development.

Farming is an example of long term development, society itself is an example of long term development. Are you really that dense that you honest to god don't understand the difference between long term and short term action?

> But taking my surplus labor can be thought of as a rent for me using his property..

There is no such thing as surplus labor.

>Whether it's aggression or not doesn't change the fact it's still using violence.

Violence is not inherently bad, especially when it is used to defend one's self or his property against a threat. A man who uses violence to get someone out of his car is completely within his right to do so. Violence used against someone trying to kidnap one's child is absolutely fine, violence used against someone who breaks my lock and enters into my house is fine.

>He is forcing me to work for him if I want to use his property.

Then it's not force, you can just as easily walk away without getting the property. The fact of the matter is that it's his property, meaning he has ownership rights over it just as you have ownership rights over the service you provide.

>Reclaiming what was stolen from you is not stealing.

Top kek, nothing was stolen. Surplus labor does not exist.

>I cannot say no to the concept of wage-labor if that alternative is starvation.

Just because the alternatives have consequences that are not forced on to you by individuals does not mean you can say no. You already stated later in a scenario on the matter that you didn't say that you had a right to his water, well in much of the same fashion, you do not have a right to his money, just as he does not have an inherent right to your labor. If you want his money, then you will have to do something for him just as he wants your labor and will have to provide you with money to do so. This is not aggression, this is a voluntary exchange of resources. No one is forcing you two to cooperate amongst each other, he could just as easily say that he doesn't want your labor just as you can say that you don't want to work for him. It comes from an agreement.

>It depends on what you mean by value. Use values are subjective, but exchange values are not. Use values factor into the demand for a product, but exchange value is the very thing that all prices revolve around.

No, all value is subjective and dependent on the individual consumer's preference. Exchange value is very much subjective, if I don't value what someone else is trying to exchange with me then I'm just not going to take it, hence I don't value it. Prices themselves are estimates that regards to how to best utilize profits in regards to setting a price that most people who are interesting in the product would pay (Ie: what they value). This is still entirely dependent on people's subjective preferences and are not objective.

>I'm not seeing an argument here, just irrelevant facts.

Are you dense? I'm telling you there's no such as thing as surplus value, value is subjective ergo you have no reasonable objective claim of having "Surplus value" stolen from you. Value is simply just a subjective matter of preferences, one that does not conform to the amount of labor put in as much as it does to the utility received from it.

>>61314

>Yes, that's obviously true, they are two separate commodities.

Right.

>The fact remains that is from my labor the product is created.

And your labor is not the same thing as your product. Your act of building a phone is not the same as a phone itself. People may value the phone far more than they do your ability to make one (which is often done by uneducated low skill workers as a means to enter the market), and in fact that's exactly what's happened.

>I said any transaction wouldn't be voluntary, because it'd be one under significant duress where I could not say no.

Just because you have to face the consequences of your decisions does not mean that this is not voluntary. Hundreds of people choose voluntarily not to work, and they face the consequences of it, which is that people won't pay them because people generally won't voluntarily pay for someone who provides nothing of value to them. To force people to pay for you on the other hand is a non voluntary interaction, letting them choose how they use their resources and them ending up not spending a dime on you, however, is entirely voluntary. If you want someone else's resources then you have to give something in return.

>You did do work of equal value to buy that car, and any cars traded would also have to be equal value, or someone is getting screwed over.

Again, value is not objective and that's not even the way trade works, trade happens when I value your vehicle more than mine, if they're both of equal value to the both of us, then there's no fucking point in making a trade at all. God damn.

>How does that disprove the fact that someone produces a product but only receives of fraction of what it's worth?

Because it's not inherently worth a god damned thing, it's only worth anything because individuals value it at certain prices. And again, you're only paid based on how much your employer values your service, not the product itself. These are two different things.

I was going to go on with the rest of your post, but 8ch is retarded with it's word limits and then I saw this;

>Again, the surplus value is the difference between what someone makes and what they receive in payment. Whatever determines value is irrelevant.

And I just had to throw in the towel. Jesus fuck, you are actually dense

>>61314

>40% of food in the US is simply thrown away,

How much of that are expiatory regulations the result of capitalism? Do you have an alternative in rapidly calculating demand shifts?

>If someone wants to use property if something, then they'll use it,

How can they use it up if it doesn't exist? You can't build up on someone else's personal property? Only the owner can, and since rent is verboten there is nothing to compensate the labor and risk in building it up.

>If I produce something yet am only paid a portion of what it's worth.

Of course you will be paid only a portion. There is other labor mixed into it, and you have costs of maintenance, capital, resources, and risk.

>>61314

The huffpo link has a dead Fox Business link as its source