/liberty/ - Liberty

>>84326

Free air does not entitle you to an iPhone

>>84326

He was a Social Democrat at most. I don't know if anybody here worships him or any of the other founders. The American revolution was a hot mess on both sides and was far from a "people's" rebellion. We haven't even made our stance to get BTFOed on anything. Come on now.

You're interpreting way too much out of something within a very specific context. Being against some foreign ruler's decision to grant ownership to some douchebag over an entire state doesn't make you a Communist. He's not really making any arguments here either. It's a straight assertion that being alive entitles you to some indefinite amount of property.

Well, that's why property exists. It allows the building of a reputation and a means of producing. His biggest mistake is being a republican.

>muh society is what property exists for

It exists for the family since that is the source of both the individual and society. Even the communists understood this in Engel's work on private property and the family.

>>84326

>Every individual in the world is born therein with legitimate claims on a certain kind of property, or its equivalent.

What he means by this is property that produce products of society, the means of production. Land to build a farm, wood to make a house and fence, capital goods like plows or the means to make one etc. Luxury goods were far from the norm back then.

>>84374

>anarcho-socialist admits property is a means of producing

>hates oppression when workers work and consist with said property

Hierarchy exists because of society and people's willingness to cooperate with it.

The problem lies with mankind rather than with property. Property has given man the ability to be responsible for himself and others and this responsibility enables the worst and best of man. Partisans take this responsibility and take a hierarchy and lie about the whole thing, claiming to be anti-authoritarian with their own authority.

The concept of property originates with man.

>TL;DR

It wasn't real communism.

Porky and the worker are trying to produce the same commodity. Whether they kill each other doesn't matter. It is the most mundane ideology on the planet. Egoism surely triumphs over both ideologies.

>>84433

>finite resources with a world of unlimited desires

Sorry anon but this totally discounts technology, production rates, everything. We have exactly the same earth that existed thousands of years ago. Now there are billions of people with far far more individual resources than the hundreds of millions that existed before.

>If the worker gets other workers, it essentially becomes capitalism

Hardly, a master craftsman directing other workers is still not a capitalist, he is bound to the will of the other workers through the democracy of socialism. It is not as if this master craftsman owns the factor or pays their wages.

>Egoism surely triumphs over both ideologies

Any Egoist that is not also actively trying to become porky is a spooked moral fag.

>>84435

>this discounts technology, production rates, everything

What about population growth and the double-edged sword of technology?

>>84437

>and the double-edged sword of technology

March forward or be out-competed by those without reservations.

>What about population growth

One way to increase production, forcing everyone to have 10 kids instead of the 1.8 standard for high IQ capitalist countries.

>>84435

>master craftsman

>democracy of socialism

>hierarchy, but no control of wages because I said so.

This would be a nice guild system and perhaps better, but it seems faulty.

>>84439

>hierarchy, but no control of wages because I said so.

There you got it!

>This would be a nice guild system

A democratic guild is comparable to communism in many ways.

>>84440

And what about this variety of responsibility? Why would someone on the upper scale of a hierarchy not negotiate his wages?

>>84441

>Why would someone on the upper scale of a hierarchy not negotiate his wages

He can negotiate wages. But control of the assets of the given guild / industrial zone / whatever is decided democratically by the workers there. They could pay each other equally, I think that would be stupid, or they could barter among themselves for different pay rates. The control of capital is the important part.

>>84442

It's not capital, but hierarchy and responsibility that enabled the bourgeois. If you're going to deal with that, you absolutely need a democracy, you are right.

>>84442

>It's not capital

It was CAPITAL(ism) that Marx wrote about. The structure and control of capital is what matters.

>but hierarchy

A worker who teaches and instructs other workers about how to do things is not magically equivalent to a king. He is still bound by all the same system that regulates all the capital.

>you absolutely need a democracy

Let me give you the very first line of wikipedia on "socialism":

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production

>>84444

Fuck intended for >>84443

>>84444

>teachers and instructs other workers is not the same role as a king

>a king, a figurehead of government – the duty of government being instructing and being responsible for others

>capital –ISM

Yes, this need for hierarchy.

>>84446

>Yes, this need for hierarchy.

Sure, hierarchy is fine, as long as those people do not own the capital. The king owning the country is not the same thing as a president.

>>84447

That's the thing about the bourgeois. The capitalist claims responsibility for machinery on behalf of the workers, therefore increasing his status compared to the workers – but it isn't his responsibility of the workers alone that increases his value as a capitalist, but the responsibility for the workers also. If porky got off his ass and worked, you wouldn't have a problem, sure.

>>84448

Ahem, the responsibility of the machine*

>>84448

>The capitalist claims responsibility for machinery

No the capitalist owns the machinery. Under socialism the workers control the machinery.

>>84450

Ownership and responsibility coincide.

>>84451

>Ownership and responsibility coincide.

A person instruction someone on how to use a machine is not the same thing as the capitalist that owns a machine. This autism. The machine instructor cannot kick people off the machine if its against the will of the other works, nor does he have exclusive control over it.

>>84452

*instructing

*workers

>>84452

They share the responsibility, but the master craftsman gains a stronger voice over the workers in exchange for this. It becomes more of his responsibility because he has authority on the matter.

>>84454

>he has authority on the matter.

He is "An authority" in the academic sense citation sense, not in the policeman sense.

>>84455

That is what authority is all about.

>>84456

An academic I can ignore if hes against my self interest, the cop pins me to the ground and kidnaps me.

>>84457

Re-read what I said about responsibility. I said it becomes a race towards ownership because having ownership means more responsibility, therefore raising your status within the hierarchy. I'm more convinced that it's man's own instincts rather than the property itself – man's desire to have control over others.

>>84458

>a race towards ownership

Ownership of the means of production? No one is allowed to become a capitalist, buying things with their money and then employing people. That is socialisms primary restriction. There is no "race to ownership".

>>84459

By whose authority is nobody allowed to become a capitalist? The thing I said about ownership is that it is a claim on responsibility. If mankind invented property and accepted the consequences of owning property, he'll inevitably be confronted with it.

>>84460

>By whose authority is nobody allowed to become a capitalist

The peoples.

>a claim on responsibility.

If I buy a car I don't have to do anything with it. I can set it on fire, I can ignore it for weeks, I can drive it to work. This is not the same thing as the responsibility of a man that teaches people how to drive. He cannot leave the cars rotting or set them no fire.

>>84462

If you owned a pitbull, and a pitbull had gotten lose and started biting people – you would be responsible for that pitbull.

>>84461

The people don't have authority. The people aren't a hivemind.

>>84463

>The people don't have authority

The people can vote for things.

>The people aren't a hivemind.

Neither is congress, or the supreme court, etc, they still decide things, and have authority.

>If you owned a pitbull, and a pitbull had gotten lose and started biting people

And if I was a pitbull trainer, and I killed the pitbull that would be a problem.

>>84464

Killing the pitbull meaning killing a currently peaceful one owned by someone else that did not just maul anyone to death #banpitbulls

>>84464

>neither is congress, or the supreme court

You don't understand. They take their authority from the constitution. So essentially, you want to make it unconstitutional to have ownership of the means of production within the interests of the economic class of the proletariat.

The problem is social consent and you're going ot need violent revolution against reactionaries and other people first.

Go back to the premise that the workers' are a collective, ffs. Don't just say "the people".

>>84466

>They take their authority from the constitution

Thats funny because the supreme court seems to contradict itself about what exactly the document says they can do. Seems like they have the authority and the document can fuck off.

>So essentially, you want to make it unconstitutional to have ownership of the means of production

Sure

>The problem is social consent

Obviously the capitalists wont consent to giving up all their capital.

>need violent revolution against reactionaries

AnCap is going to need a violent revolution against existing states all the same. The state wont peacefully give up its authority. Violence is a part of the game.

>Go back to the premise that the workers' are a collective, ffs. Don't just say "the people".

Without a capitalist class the workers are the people anon.

>>84469

The capitalist class is made up of people despite how much you might disagree about it. But you are right, without this separate class the workers are the only people.

>>84468

>obviously the capitalists won't consent to giving up all their capital

I'm more concerned about the development of feudalism. The feudal era didn't have capital, it only had property and the concept of who was responsible for said property being chivalry. The concept of ownership evokes responsibility which evokes honor. That's how the bourgeois justified their position to begin with.

>>84464

>And if I was a pitbull trainer, and I killed a pitbull that would be a problem

Because you were responsible for the pitbull. The pitbull master gave you temporary ownership to take care of it. Now the authorities will subject you to the consequences of your action. Your ownership isn't the only ownership, because you are subject of the authority that defends your rights and is responsible for you. The sovereigns will take you to court.

And if you killed the pitbull, it makes me more skeptical about you than your property. My whole point is I am not concerned with property, but man's insistence on being responsible for everything. Because man is responsible, from the top down of government, he is going to accept the consequences of this responsibility, which was always based on that ownership to begin with.

>>84470

>up of people

Of course, and Genghis Khan is only a man.

>The feudal era didn't have capital

Of course it did, it had the king that owned all, and then a hierarchy of knights and lords that he delegated land to.

>gave you temporary ownership

No, the problem with me killing his dog is that its HIS DOG, not mine.

>which was always based on that ownership to begin with.

Bullshit, a CEO does not (usually) own a company, he is set with running it by the capitalists (the board / owners).

>>84495

Hamilton was worse.

>>84470

>The feudal era didn't have capital

What are plows, mills, tools, and human capital

>>84424

Nice straw. Not even worth responding.

>>84492

I'm saying that status becomes more important than simply property, and the status the capitalist had was due to taking workers underneath his wing. You cannot be oppressed without being taken underneath another's wing to begin with. Accepting this responsibility and accumulating status inevitably allows the hierarchy to neglect the product of labor based on social roles. A worker isn't an important social role, and it gets set aside for those who have more responsibility than the worker. Since the capitalist had the machine and the workers, his payment would be larger despite not working because he took care of them.

When a worker begins to be responsible for other workers, it opens up the possibility of the capitalist system exploiting their labor over again because the other worker will innovate with his status rather than his labor, separate the workers from their reward, and become the new bourgeois.

Feudalism centered around vassalship and the king being responsible for the lords, the lords being responsible for the peasants, and the peasants being responsible for their families and other peasants. Their social mobility in this age was built on status and hierarchy, which is why you need democracy and equal status and control to prevent people from exploiting each other. But the hierarchy within the workers' circle will rebound and enable status over just being a worker.

Capitalists had ownership of the means of production and status over their workers. The payments and wages the workers received were his status because he had been not only responsible for the machine but the workers too.

To own something and take another person's livelihood, it enables the capitalist class because porky could have worked himself, owned capital, but still had the product of his own labor. However, his wealth would be smaller. To have workers, the capitalist had to pay them and this allowed himself to negotiate his payment. Due to being responsible for these workers, the capitalist could pay them less and not more – because the capitalist ran the operation to begin with. By doing less and less work, but being responsible for them and having status with his ownership, yes.

So, with workers of another hierarchy, the status of having responsibility for the workers would probably open the door for unequal distribution of wealth which wasn't based on labor but rather their status. To find a way to gain wealth over others, the non-labors will find a way to become responsible for others without doing any work at all in a factory because it increases their social value rather than their economic value, but their social value soon becomes part of the economy.

Capital is another piece of property and the capitalist has his social value from being responsible for the property – this is correct – but also the workers. If the workers equally owned the machinery, they would have to become equally responsible for it, or you would have to dismantle ownership of property. Giving the ownership to a party, whose authority is promising to be responsible to the workers' – or taking it back to the circle of workers would mean this. Yes, it would be fair if a master craftsman had higher wages, but the fact he can negotiate the wages due to his status and importance neglects how hard they work. This opens the floodgates for other roles outside of worker because they'll realize their status will gain them more wealth and they'll seek higher ranks within the hierarchy with less labor involved, but their responsibility and "ownership" which was actually how responsible you were for a piece of junk. You can't take away property alone and share it and expect the concept of who getting paid based on their responsibility being taken away. But responsibility is close to the concept of ownership and this will prompt the role rather than the labor to get more payment.

>Bullshit, a CEO does not (usually) own a company, he is set with running it by the capitalists (the board/owners)

This is hierarchy in a board of owners, a corporation, which is shared ownership of ownership. He might not own anything, but he used his hierarchy in shared ownership to take a role over the capitalists as responsible for the entity of shared ownership. What about liability and the capitalists' sacrifice to enter this hierarchy of a corporation, which is shared ownership.

Authority and property consist together.

If you have no problem with hierarchy, you have no problem with authority.

Whether it is a bad thing or a good thing, whether the workers will live substantially or not, is for you to debate about. This is why you want anarchism in the first place, a democracy, and the swapping of authoritarianism with totalitarianism (which still relies heavily on authority).

>public property, no ownership, democracy

Workers will always be workers, the lower half of the hierarchy. If you trim off the top half of grass, don't expect it to grow back anew. A revolution will take you from the beginning to the end, then back to the beginning and the end.

>>84529

>anarchism

>a democracy

>swapping of authoritarianism with totalitarianism

The inherent contradiction is waiting for capitalism to become so affluent and perfect that they'll have to destroy capitalism.Your reformer friends, who want minimum wage laws, along with protectionists are doing a fine job preventing the violent Revolution that is absolutely necessary.

But tbh, my biggest sympathy regarding this doctrine is China. They work the hardest and don't get the affluence of their labor, the dilemma on the largest scale compiled in Red China. Their wages are small and yet they still cannot revolt against the red state.

Another thing is matter is neither created or destroyed.

We have communists, but not communism.

But we do actually have capitalists and capitalism.

Again, asserting the desire to create and regulate capitalism from capitalism itself. Regarding what I said about authority, they better be careful. The attempt at reaching communism is so fallible and dangerous from within as capitalism, the anarchists have to fight corruption with their greatest might. The concept of accepting responsibility for the Revolution opens the potential for the best and worse.The machinery they stole from capitalism will not be their obstacle.

>>84572

>The proletariat isn't a hivemind.

Neither are shareholders, congress, a country, etc. And yet companies are run, laws are made, and wars are won.

>>84599

The company itself is the singular authority within the other authority. Laws depend upon sovereignty, which I assert is singularly. You need a constitution because you'll have to give the constitution to the People and make it work on behalf of the People.

>>84601

Bullshit none of those things are singular. If they are "the people is". Courts contradict themselves, countries have contradictory foreign policy (state vs dod, blue vs red, etc), shareholders argue for influence on the board, board members appoint different c-levels that contradict each other. If this is singular, so are the workers.

>>84602

Courts contradict themselves because we don't live in a utopian world. I said that accepting authority to begin with proves you are fallible. That is why they contradict themselves. It opens for the best and worst possibilities.

>>84468

It's exactly what this anon said. They take the singular authority and tell it to fuck off. They cannot totally abide by the law because they were imperfect beings, but they need the law because they are so imperfect.

>>84603

>but they need the law because they are so imperfect.

Socialism will still have laws anon, and authority, the authority is from the people, the laws the execution of their will. The people may contradict themselves, just as any other authority.

>>84604

If authority is from the people, prepare for the greatest contradictions. The authority of the people contradicts itself because the people accepted the authority; hence, because man was made for communism and capitalism, they really cannot hope to accommodate for each other regarding the authority they use.

>the people may contradict themselves, just as any other authority

Yes, this is what I said. But sovereignty of the people is sovereignty of nobody. Therefore, sovereignty and the people consist together and you ultimately need -the- authority (which is singular) to assert it. You can try to have sovereignty of the people, but you'll need an entity to assert it on behalf of them.

>>84605

>need -the- authority (which is singular) to assert it

There is one singular authority, the people.

>But sovereignty of the people is sovereignty of nobody.

The people is sovereign, no person in particular is above the will of the singular authority. Just as a company may fire its employees, the people may execute citizens.

>but you'll need an entity to assert it on behalf of them.

The people through revolution assert their own authority.

>>84606

"the people" aren't singular. The capitalists and the proletariat don't have the same will. The capitalists were people despite how much you hated them for their greed.

>the people through revolution assert their own authority

Which ultimately contradicts itself.

Listen, I'm just speaking on behalf of the hardship we all face now. Go ahead and have your revolution, but be prepared for the greatest struggle of your lifetime.

>>84607

>The capitalists were people despite how much you hated them for their greed.

They are some humans yes, they are not the people. The people may very well execute them.

>Which ultimately contradicts itself.

The courts contradict themselves, the king contradicts himself, the president does so, etc.

>"the people" aren't singular.

They are the singular authority. The singular authority need not be a single person.

>The capitalists and the proletariat don't have the same will

The democrats and republicans don't have the same will either, they are the government though.

>>84609

>they are not people

Hypocrisy. You now determined the authority you would use the to determine who is the member of "the People" and who isn't. Same applies for criminals. In the capitalist state, you are a criminal and with your logic they have the right to execute you too.

>democrats and republicans are they government

On behalf of the Constitution, which is also fallible.

>"The People" are singular authority

No they're not, and that's why you need the singular authority to act on behalf of them.

>>84610

> who is the member of "the People" and who isn

I won't. The people will. They may execute me. A person may chop off their hand, that does not mean they are not one entity.

>On behalf of the Constitution, which is also fallible.

Which is on behalf of the people

>No they're not,

One authority != one person

Justice must be imposed, and there is only -the- sovereign will.

Different people have different wills.

Even murder, which we consider universally bad, depends on the authority. We have to determine which murder is wrong or right, and this is deeply contestable.

>>84611

You're right, there are other authorities, but they're all singular together. Now you understand the development of other nation states.

>>84612

>Justice must be imposed

And it will be

>and there is only -the- sovereign will.

The sovereign will of the people

>Different people have different wills.

As do different members of a company

>We have to determine which murder is wrong or right,

The peoples will will make it clear.

>>84613

>but they're all singular together

Just as the people is singular together

>>84611

>the people will

The people who favor that justice and work within the system, yes. The authority established this system on behalf of the People, considering how you view social contract, but the authority isn't "The People"

>>84614

>the people are singular together

So were the proletariat and capitalists, and they were a member of "the people", but you use -the- authority to determine which is right and which is wrong. You simply use the authority of "your" people and it is ultimately -the- authority that makes this justice.

>>84615

>The authority established this system on behalf of the People,

The people themselves will establish it.

>but the authority isn't "The People"

Yes it is, the people is a singular entity. A singular authority need not be a single person, nor be consistent with itself.

>The authority established this system on behalf of the People,

The authority is from the people, there is no authority created on their behalf. The king gives authority to the duke, the duke does not create the authority for the king.

>>84618

>but the people the authority is choosing to represent.

The people are the authority. A king may cut off his arm, this does not an argument against his authority.

>>84619

*This is not

>>84617

>a singular authority doesn't need to be a single person, nor be consistent with itself

No, it does have to be consistent with itself and that is why it needs to be a single entity – I didn't say a single person. A king wears a Crown to represent his authority, ffs. A congress and assembly use a constitution for the same thing. This is the great paradox of justice.

>>84619

What if "the People" decided to just become capitalists. You said they didn't have to be consistent with themselves.

>>84621

>it does have to be consistent with itself

Bullshit, courts, countries, kings, humans themselves. The addict one day tells you he hates drugs, the next he says he loves them.

>>84622

>What if "the People" decided to just become capitalists.

Then god wills it.

This is why property and authority consist together, I'm afraid to say. You need justice on behalf of what property and things you have, whether it is personal property or private property. Property "in general".

>>84624

>This is why property and authority consist together,

The people own the means of production, and have authority over it.

>You need justice on behalf of what property and things you have

Which socialism does.

>>84623

The King may be wrong, but he acts upon his authority regardless. The authority is what he inherits.

>then god wills it

Okay, but God willed both capitalism and communism to plague humanity.

>>84625

>which socialism does

And which is why socialism is fallible. What are you trying to defend? The perfect state. Accepting the responsibility of authority is what makes you fallible to begin with.

>>84626

>but he acts upon his authority regardless

As do the people.

>but God willed both capitalism and communism to plague humanity.

For now.

>And which is why socialism is fallible.

*every system involving humanity

>What are you trying to defend

Socialism, the people controlling the means of production.

>>84625

>"The People" own the means of production, and have authority over it.

Ahem, and that authority is a singular entity. The authority allowed them ownership.

>The authority allowed them ownership.

The king does not ALLOW HIMSELF to own his kingdom, he simply does.

>>84628

>every system involving humanity

YES! This is what I said. Of course, humanity is wronged because he was made for capitalism and communism.

>>84631

>humanity is wronged because he was made for capitalism and communism.

Lol no. Man making errors does not mean he was made for both.

>>84630

No, the king's power and consent allowed it. Power and consent are two separate things, but they exist to create an authority. Sovereignty and the people consist together, but there is a sovereignty and a people. Sovereignty of the people is contradictory, because you need -the- sovereign will. The problem with mankind is he cannot agree with each other wholeheartedly, and this is why you need an authority to act on behalf of the consent and power – which you can ARGUE comes from behalf of "The People" or God or whatever military might established it.

>>84632

Well, shit.

Why do we have capitalism and not communism?

Why do we have capitalists and capitalism, but communists and not communism? Are you sure about this whole error thing? What is the error to begin with – the authority determines this.

>>84633

>because you need -the- sovereign will

Yes, the peoples sovereign will.

>mankind is he cannot agree with each other wholehearted

Man kind cannot agree with himself let alone others. There is still the singular entity the king, the singular entity the company, and the singular entity the people.

>Why do we have capitalism and not communism?

We have tanks now when no such thing existed before. Internationalism grows every day. Things take time anon.

>>84635

>mankind cannot agree with himself let alone others

Exactly. That is why he uses an authority, which isn't man himself.

>king

>company

The king isn't the authority itself, the authority goes to the Crown and the power that bestowed it and the people who – you can argue about – consented. If the people are the power, then go ahead and accept that, but "the people" don't coincide with other people and that's why we have this troubled state, that's why we need authority, and that's why we need justice to be imposed.

>>84636

Bullshit authority is from man not paper. Constitutionalism is established by authority not the root of it.

>>84638

>This is why AUTHORITY and PROPERTY consist together

Yes, the authority of the people, over the property of the people.

>>84639

"property of the people"

What if I took your personal property? What if I was a proletariat too.

>>84640

>What if I took your personal property? What if I was a proletariat too.

I'm sure the people would have something to say about that.

>>84641

I'm a member of the People. This is why egoism or authoritarianism triumphs. You can't have a middle ground. You either take justice into your own hands, or you bring it to court which is a property and institution in itself.

>"the People" would have something to say about that

Whether those people agree or disagree depends on the authority. I could have other proletariats who assisted me in taking your personal property and we could be like bandits, and that would constitute a majority. The reason you want an authority to begin with is because you have this property. But the authority will determine it.

>>84642

>I'm a member of the People.

You are not the people anon. You are one person. Working at a company does not make you the company, being a member of the supreme court does not make you the supreme court.

>>84643

>being a member of the supreme court does not make you the supreme court

You used "the" and the supreme court uses -the- authority. The problem is you need to try and establish a consistent standard of laws and conduct because justice is complicated business and they have to try and determine what is lawful.

>>84644

>consistent

Man is not consistent this is an impossible standard.

>You used "the"

Yes I also used THE people.

Just say that you want to make the Constitution the public property of "the People" and that is in favor of them. I don't understand why that would contradict what you're saying. You absolutely need an authority and grabbing a mob of people out of nowhere won't stand for it alone. You are okay with public property, and the Constitution consists of the principles and rules you made "of the People". Why can't that be theirs?

>>84646

A piece of paper is not a source of authority. Authority establishes constitutions not vice versa.

In other words, why would you not need a constitution or some other thing of sovereignty? Do "the People" instinctually know to seize the means of production?

>>84647

A man establishes an authority, but not a people together because if you needed justice to begin with you needed authority over other people.

>>84648

The people are the source of authority. They may use it to establish a constitution if they wish.

>>84650

>if they wish

They probably will because of what I said. They use authority, and you only said they used their power to establish authority.

Why is it "THE PEOPLE" and not "a people" who constitute this? Does being born mean you already agree with communism?

>>84651

It is human kind anon, that will trend to a global state of socialism. The technology created by capitalism will allow a great many things once re-purposed to moral socialist ends.

>>84652

>it's human nature, anon

Fuck, why do we have capitalism then? Who created capitalism? Did it fall from the sky? You look at history and see oppressor and oppressed starting from the magical era of primitive communism, but I doubt capitalism appeared out of nowhere and the primitives decided to oppress themselves. My biggest problem is I don't see this egalitarian doctrine proving that all tribes and peoples developed the same exact way to begin with.

>>84653

Its a trend anon it takes time. We have gone from divine right of kings, to constitutional monarchies, to republics, and in the mid 20th century half the world was successful in revolution. This trend has been over 1000 years. The first attempt at global socialism failed but now we see day after day globalism growing and the socialism finally catching up in the west. It may be a few hundred years still but the trend will continue.

>>84654

>we have gone from sovereignty of kings, to sovereignty of republics, and soon to sovereignty of socialism

Sovereignty consists in all those ages, and you would strongly disagree if those sovereignties were of The People to begin with. The human condition is simply timeless. For all those governments, man was still oppressed as you claim from the monarchy especially and then to the formation of republics.

>>84655

They were not of the people to begin with, but the will of a small number of warlords and men establishing their order. The trend is clear though. Even modern capitalism is far more socialist than the previous absolute singular property of the kings.

>>84656

And yet those different sovereignties never became obsolete. There are still monarchies, republics, and communists among us.

>singly property of the kings

Sovereignty is of the Crown & Constitution, but the King did inherit this sovereignty which became his authority to determine justice with. Like I said, you want to make sovereignty into a public office, and I'm not going to deter you from it – be prepared to accept the consequences of accepting authority.

Even these "warlords" and "men" establishing their order used violent means. You want to use violence to establish communism, if you believe so. I don't see what makes you different. You just want the warlords of the Proletariat to take the authority.

>>84657

>And yet those different sovereignties never became obsolete.

<If any exist literally anywhere its not obsolete

LOL

>>84659

Obsolete is a silly term.

What doesn't exist yet is communism, but hopefully it will come about as you said.

>>84661

Even technology is what man made use of. There was always the potential for that technology in different ages. The thing is one thing lead to another, but it still consisted. My problem is you claim communism is an innovation, but the doctrine of primitive communism discloses that completely because it suggests that capitalism in its primitive form also existed because thereby it wouldn't exist. They consist together.

>>84662

I'm not a commie anon. IDK where it goes from here.

>>84663

Fucking /liberty/, fam

Anarcho-capitalists seem to want the property but not the authority.

Anarcho-socialists seem to want the authority but not the property.

Anarchy, folks.

>>84665

>Anarcho-capitalists seem to want the property but not the authority.

What. Property and authority go hand in hand.

>>84666

Thanks, Satan.

You cannot use your justification of property to admonish us from authority. But you also cannot use your authority to admonish us from property, because authority consists with property; but it isn't that the anarcho-socialist understood that he needs authority to achieve his goals, maybe assuming violence or peace is adequate enough. As soon as justice is carried upon, that is, which involves authority.

Maybe the People can seize the courthouse and tell the authority to fuck off and pretend there is no new authority being established. Their only justification is they're shifting private property to public property, but I intrinsically feel skeptical because of how property is dealt with. It will have consequences and I already said we have communists but no communism, but capitalists and capitalism – we are waiting for the arrival of communism, and we're re-assured capitalism is inevitably dead forever now because their authority told us so.

Honestly, it might work out for them. Time is a pointless debate. They can achieve socialism and maintain this public property, but the idea of a global revolution inherently destroying all of capitalism and replacing it with communism seems absurd. If both existed in the first place, there's bound to remain capitalism and communism within different authorities because these concepts come from people and if people are susceptible to this warfare of ideology they are the producers of both ideologies: man has to deal with communism and capitalism, if the primitive communist state existed. Abolishing property doesn't stop man using any other authority to re-establish property and fight in a state of war. The global population won't surrender to a global authority. The only assumption is different capitalist authorities will surrender one by one and sooner or later they'll all be socialist despite capitalism existing in the first place because of man's desire for control over others.

However, if capitalism and communism were consisting and it inevitably lead to socialism which would become communism, you can return the classless society straight back to a class society the same way primitive communism had ended. By the means that enabled capitalism, being the property and status of individuals over the collective. The defeat of capitalism would lead to the inevitable defeat of communism.

But I doubt communism existed in the first place. For this reason, I doubt socialism can attain communism. Or if it was socialism and capitalism, and communism came out of it, I would rather say the same. Class struggle would be human struggle for all this time. The struggle of mankind is timeless because it exists with his fellow man.If man's oppression happened all those centuries, then it will continue for more centuries.

The existence of capitalism, which wasn't a natural state of nature, but rather the exercise of status, means that despite this arrangement legitimate socialism cannot appear and make communism until it disparages authority and property, but those are the means to begin with. Even on the claim of humility, it only asserts that man was made to be ruled.

The state of nature never existed because as soon as man started to produce, he was oppressed because of it. The question of oppression is another topic, given that authority means the best or worst. He had obligations and responsibilities because he worked. As soon as that man invented fire, another man had to come and tell him to not spread that fire. Then he needed fire for himself, and instead of learning how to make fire, he learned how to make the man produce fire. He felt responsible for the man and his fire-making recipe, knowing the danger and benefit of the arrangement. He insisted he would help the man make fire as long as he submitted to him. To help him with his fire craft, he would ensure the forest and cooperate on maintaining that forest for themselves, with his role being the authority and security of that property; and this is how authority coincided with property, due to the production and security of assets. Security of assets might as well be theft of assets and of the person lead to the concept of territory – which tribal societies had as a notion of property – and this engaged the status of men.

>but socialism exists now, because capitalism allowed socialism to exist?

Socialism and capitalism can exist, but I doubt communism can because both rely on authority and property. Making it public doesn't discount those two things; if two societies existed, one of them being capitalist and one being socialist. Socialists seem to take control with the same means that capitalists do, inevitably leading them to the same issue of social status and necessarily equal responsibility of other people and assets.

Because the oppressor has authority and thereby understood it by becoming responsible for oppressed, it simply enables the best and worst treatment. But authority exists to bring peace and war, love and hatred, and life and death as seen within the development of a family, society – the young to old to dead.

This understanding of authority comes from the father having to take responsibility for a child. It is unequal in terms of the father and mother because the father provides security and so on of the mother and child. This has lead to patriarchy and the authority of fathers over mothers because man is stronger than woman and each have separate responsibilities regarding the child. The father's authority is simply strongest.

In essence, the bourgeoisie has secured the proletariat with the promise of having a job in the first place. He established the role, and the worker accepted being a worker on his behalf; that is the hierarchy of man.

The problem is men don't seek to work, they need to work. There is no strong desire to work as there is a stronger desire to make men work on their behalf, trying to take security for them and establishing an authority.

People are willing to accept working at lower conditions to sustain their life, even if it is under an authority. This is how an aristocracy starts. The aristocratic men seek men to work under them, but the non-aristocratic men only seek a means of living because it was essential. There is no strong desire to be a laborer, so hierarchies develop to escape that labor to begin with and take authority over it.

Liberty has always been the ability to escape labor and working.

The aristocrats want liberty and inheritance to escape labor and help their offspring not have to work so hard. They have to engage in intellect and strategy over the average man to gain this threshold. Then, once he is able, he gives the reward to his offspring so the offspring doesn't have to engage in such a work.

Dismantling liberty becomes despotism, making people have to work. To a degree, socialism needs liberty which is property because nobody wants to work. But I doubt it would prevent the workers and others from innovating out of this system of labor. If it depends on authority to make others play fair, it won't remain fair forever – but perhaps it could be very nice for the workers. They can labor, lose their inheritance, and return to a perpetual cycle of labor without endowing his children with an escape from labor.

TL;DR: Our slothfulness is our own undoing. We can't abide by the nature of the world without triumphing over it. That's how we become great. By doing work. Yet the menial work and contemplative work becomes so undesirable it prompts another set of work. Just as the cycle of laboring is undesirable, it builds the potential to become greater and find virtues. That becomes the product of hard work. There is goodness in the aristocracy and the humble labors to a degree.

With this virtue of hard work, we get skilled labor. The skilled labors negotiate their way out of the unskilled portion of the labor field. They triumph over slothfulness and find another way through labor rather than through the hierarchy of aristocracy. They will still negotiate that they'd rather work less and less and demand more money with less work and they do this with their skill involved. They sooner become like the aristocracy, who tried to escape work with other means. The skilled labors negotiate and expand the value of their work to others, enabling them to become higher to a degree.

They have to ban inheritance to find a means of preventing the aristocracy from passing their objective to escape work to their offspring. The problem is the high disdain for work repulses man so much he would rather find any means to give something to their offspring. The skilled laborer uses education to educate his child to pass on his traits. The aristocrat sends his child to a school and tries to make him far from ignoble. The laborer is stuck trying to work and find a way out of labor.

Giving off traits to children is so natural and desirable for man, abolishing inheritance with your authority is equally as absurd as using your authority on the hierarchy to reduce them to labor.

The best this hierarchy can do is try to negotiate with laborers. Hence why you get minimum wage and protectionism to attempt to prevent violent revolution. But if the laborers seized the means of production, they would probably realize they never wanted it to begin with because they disdained labor so much.

You see, people don't escape from labor in desire of more wealth, they acquire more wealth so they can escape from labor.

Laboring is actually a good thing for your fellow man despite being undesirable. It allows people to share and sustain their lives. This is the incentive to pay the laborer fairly because his labor has done basic good for the rest of society.

Escaping from labor is equally as good for people. They are not forced to labor and therefore find the opportunity to contribute without working. The problem is he cannot help the labor because the labor will always be confined to laboring. The other problem is the escapee of labor isn't half as interested to commit to laboring.

Here comes the great paradox.

The non-laborer escapee becomes the capitalist. He helps his laborer with the job he provides for him. He gives the laborer enough to (((live))). He retains himself as the one responsible for his labor because he provided him for the job to begin with.

So the non-laborer escapee claims good on behalf of society for separating himself and them from laboring, and the non-laborer promotes goodness in that he provided an outlet for labor and enabled the laborer to work and sustain others, but also he paid the worker in wealth so he could stop having to work and return to momentarily living without labor.

Any authority over labor certainly allows the worst and best. That authority is unlikely to be a laborer, though. So, society is based on avoiding labor of all kinds. People want to be dull and live easy. But their attempts at labor sharpen them. Socialism seeks to dull this oppression of labor, but they cannot separate labor from the oppression of labor over man. Labor itself is an oppression to man.

>"You overworked us long enough, porky, it's time to die for making us work and taking the wealth we could have used to avoid working"

<OINK OINK! *gunshots*

>"Okay… boys, back to work."

Can anyone explain all this autism in a tl;dr format?

>>84699

Workers seek liberty, but liberty seeks workers.

>>84699

>>84702

In other words, to truly be liberal as free, you need to find a way to stop being a worker. You can either go for free enterprise or a labor job, whether it is fair or unfair depends.Both have risks and securities involved within the process. Man seeks to be free, but often he has his needs before his freedom and his labor before his freedom because he has needs. In order to resolve his freedom, he has to find a way to resolve his needs and not accordingly to them.

>>84704

>often he has his needs

Sure, but this perpetual circle is already slowed down by technology and will likely to be broken one day by it.

>>84708

What do you mean? Man will no longer need anything?

>>84709

I mean going digital, then management resources would be so simple and petty that they can be fulfilled autonomously.

>>84710

Well, that could be the end of socialism. No more machinery workers. As much as it would be the end of capitalism for not having capitalists owning machinery as it seems machinery produces for society and nobody produces with machinery. What would proceed is another hierarchy because man always has authority over man, and man will create new needs. Thus a vacuum will open for more menial work and servitude to fulfill those older roles, probably more military conquest or space age imperialism.

>>84711

Meh, markets will still exist, i only spoke about physical needs like sleep, eat, breathe etc. Other goals might still be present, and if they are, there will be markets, for resources, at the very least.

Not to mention that now industrial workers don't exist, property seems to no longer be theft from industrial workers. It looks like a happy resolution for the whole family, capitalists and socialists. Socialists can have their love of authority and badass parades while the capitalists are free from labor and the worker. The only thing they all share is the new authority that rules over them.

>>84713

No, thanks, i'm fine without a new Mussolini above me.

>>84714

And what if someone stole your personal property? What then? Are you going to shoot him or take him to court?

>>84715

Whatever seems adequate to the situation. Probably both. Also, th property is private. Personal property is a faulty concept to justify state control over it.

>>84717

Okay, good enough.

>court

Well, there's where you begin to meet your authority. Wherever there is a courthouse, there is an authority above that courthouse that consists with the justice. There might be multiple authorities with different political boundaries, but doubtfully multiple authorities within one political landscape.

>>84718

Private court with representative of my PMC would be appropriate.

>>84719

Who is the private court property of and why do you get to choose? What is a PMC?

>>84721

Private court is the property of its owner. It earns its money as a buisness by acting as a separate neutral entity in resolving conflicts, generally, when both sides agree to choose it. PMC is a private military company, the one which is doing the job the police does now, but in ancap society. If its subject does damage to property of its suubject, or a subject of other PMC that has connections to this one, then the one who damaged property might have to compensate it.

>>84723

Is this the judge then the one judge of all judges? What about other courthouses and other judges? What would be there standard for dispensing justice on behalf of your property? If there are other judges, then what if that judge doesn't agree with your concept of property – are you going to find a different judge?

Do they have a sovereignty and is it a private sovereignty? Otherwise, it must be plain common sense that this was wrong and you didn't need a judge to begin with. If it was your instinct, you could've sentenced the criminal on your individual behalf rather than asking the judge as an individual what he thinks.

I hope you equally paid the judge in this case. If you bought the judge, then he'll probably favor you. But to begin with, even if you did equally pay the judge, justice is determined with authority and accepting authority makes him very fallible to determine this case and takes it at his own risk, or you're assuming you're infallible and then didn't need the judge's authority to begin with.

>>84724

>Is this the judge then the one judge of all judges?

No, there is no central authority, only those temporarily chosen for certain matters. There is more place than one private court, if you did not get it.

> what if that judge doesn't agree with your concept of property – are you going to find a different judge?

Naturally. There would be plenty of courts so that both sides could pick one they agree with, for the conflict to not turn violent.

>Do they have a sovereignty and is it a private sovereignty?

No, they are just a 3rd party the sides agree to decide.

>you could've sentenced the criminal on your individual behalf rather than asking the judge as an individual what he thinks

If you tried, you would have to deal with those whose duty is to protect him. You would not want that.

>I hope you equally paid the judge in this case.

Most likely the expenses of the court would fall on criminal's behalf.

> If you bought the judge, then he'll probably favor you.

You did not get it. There are some companies that offer services as neutral 3rd parties. If you have a conflict, you either manage it yourself, violent way or not, or, especially if there are big players like PMCs on both sides, you decide on a 3rd party that you both agree(or agreed) to be the judge.

>justice is determined with authority

No one gives a fuck about justice and authority. There is damage to the property that a PMC had to protect. The PMC can either deal with the criminal, or, especially if he is protected by other serious force bound by contract, the case can be resolved through a court. No authority, just sheer power and the balance of it.

>>84725

You see, you already determined he was the criminal and had the verdict without a judge on your own behalf. This is individual justice, on your own behalf, but the thief can use individual justice as much as you may use it. The problem with individual justice is it isn't justice, it's becoming a vendetta. It's pretty much depending on Egoism if there's no authority and no justice thereby involved, and individuals can accuse you righteously on different grounds and take it to their own justice.

PMC has no obligation to be a neutral party unless the PMC accepts a justice and a authority. Effectively, you want the PMC to take the justice, and there is no assurance the militants will favor you on neutral grounds. It's absolutely fallible as soon as they accept authority and justice. Also, by which authority did they have to protect your property? You automatically assume it's a given thing, but it's your case that they -had- to protect. If they determine they weren't obligated to protect your property for you, that statement becomes obsolete.

>No authority, just sheer power and balance of it

Well, you're fucked if PMC goes communist one day and decides your porky ass had private property and deserved to work in the gulag. There is no balance of power – the military force has power over you rather than you having power over them. If they wanted to, they can pull you out of court, if they felt they just personally liked the guy, and shot you for bringing harm to their friend. And that would be their own justice, tbh, wrong or right because it is justice and authority that determines this.

>only those temporarily chosen for certain matters

You could ask your mom to come to private court and be the judge. This inconsistent ground for justice will inevitably lead to chaos. only justified in assuming that the "criminal" (who you already deemed wrong and has to pay to begin with) will consent like this. Criminals don't consent to justice like that. You might as well have just shot him, then, since you pre-determined he was a criminal and his verdict was spitting on your window and was therefore GUILTY.

>no one gives a fuck about justice and authority

But somehow you did as soon as you felt other people were obligated to provide justice for your property. PMC is essentially your justice force, but they have no obligation without becoming the authority on the matter and accepting justice. Saying no one gives a fuck about justice and authority is too dismissive.

>duty to protect

Where does this duty come from? You see, responsibility and authority coincide, and this allows a basis for ownership and deciding justice.

>both sides have to pick

Well, criminal can pick a court that justifies his position and you can pick a court that justifies your position. Good luck with that.

If there are more courts without ownership because somehow they're a third party property and no judges in those courts, there is no authority and then there is no terms of justice. This assumes there are multiple laws and different things are okay and not okay in a given regime, but that becomes the equal basis on all grounds around this region. So, one criminal act becomes a righteous act, but a righteous act might as well become a criminal act. Don't bring up "common sense" because it was common sense to have an authority and justice to begin with, especially as soon as you felt there were third parties, people had to protect your property, and you sought to determine the criminal without knowledge that he was a criminal by whichever sovereignty. It's like you assumed there was your sovereignty, it was invisible, and everyone just loved it and listened despite criminals existing in the first place.

If everyone became an individual sovereign, then they are individually entitled to their own justice. For that reason you can't even call him a criminal for stealing, it was his justice. Different courthouses have no business subjecting individual sovereigns, and individual sovereigns will fundamentally disagree on their individual circumstances. He could bring you to his court, and you could bring him to your court. If you both disagreed and didn't really come to a conclusion on whose individual sovereignty was worth more than whose, there won't be justice.

You cannot assume there are things like duty and honoring, obligations, and third parties without an authority and sovereignty. If both PMCs are backing both individual sovereignties, it might as well be a war. They don't have to rely on this nebulous third party, there's nothing they're subject to other than being afraid of the war they could instigate. Especially if they have no grounds of justice but as a variable service on variable terms, they wouldn't be wrong for having a war because nobody would determine it was wrong to begin with unless they paid another judge to come look at the war, determine if it was wrong or right, and the judge said, "You know what, I'm okay with this battle." That's how wars between countries become viable, when politics isn't an option. Nobody really has justice over the other side in the war except for the victor. The winners determine history, unfortunately.

So, these two PMCs might feel such a powerful rivalry between you two, and feel unhappy with the verdict of the neutral party, they might as well go to war. Neutral party could be anyone with any terms of justice, and they become the individual authority on this individual matter which becomes justice for an individual time period. This rule of law applies to nobody else except the two involved, and it honestly becomes an issue of who is more powerful than the other party rather than honest grounds of justice. Third party involved might as well accept you were wrong if the criminal's PMC was stronger than your PMC as to not instigate a conflict…

This fluid basis for justice, individually determining individual cases for an individual justice from two individual outlooks and only for an individual third party and an individual amount of time with two individual military contractors seems like it won't last long to sustain a peace.

There is no perfect human law for people because people are not perfect, but they attempt to have an authority on the basis for peace and the power of the sovereignty. Regarding laws and justice, people accepting authority become automatically fallible for the best and worst conclusions for different individuals. But there is always an individual sovereignty that overlooks -the- authority that applies justice.

The best dissenters of this idea do to counteract this concept is to make the offices and authority as public as possible despite sovereignty being an individual authority. It's why Constitutions become amendable regarding circumstances and laws, because the circles of justice determine what is right – but it still applies to the sovereignty of something that is consistent.

Really, trusting a sovereignty and an authority is like a leap of faith. You need to hope and trust your path will end up on your favorable grounds, and you need the authority to determine justice between you individuals because you cannot consent and ultimately require a power above.

>>84742

>you already determined he was the criminal and had the verdict without a judge on your own behalf.

I used the term "criminal" because i had no better one. I meant a violator of property rights in this situation. You are again trying to shill your demagogue "justice" concept in here. Don't.

>PMC has no obligation to be a neutral party unless the PMC accepts a justice and a authority

It benefits its business to be, not something something justice and authority.

>you're fucked if PMC goes communist one day and decides your porky ass had private property and deserved to work in the gulag.

And that's why there are more PMCs on the market. Do you know what balance of power mean?

>wrong or right because it is justice and authority that determines this

Again, noone cares about your imaginary concepts you are shilling into every sentence. There is an established convention and contracts based on it. After all that, there is only management of all this rules and agreements.

>You could ask your mom to come to private court and be the judge. This inconsistent ground for justice will inevitably lead to chaos

You really are that stupid, do you? This is an ancap board, this "chaos" argument is one of the stupidest of all possible. Go shill your meaningless screeching somewhere else. /monarchy/ likes this kind of shit.

>who you already deemed wrong and has to pay to begin with

He has to compenstate for the damage done. No wrongness included. The amount of damage is decided upon physical proof.

>Criminals don't consent to justice like that. You might as well have just shot him, then, since you pre-determined he was a criminal and his verdict was spitting on your window and was therefore GUILTY.

Autist

>you felt other people were obligated to provide justice for your property

No, or course not. PMC does it because i pay it for that. Otherwise, it is just me and my arms, idiot.

>Where does this duty come from?

From a contract. If we decide i pay you x of money and you will protect me if someone tries to harm me, and you would not, you'd break the contract and will be treated accordingly to it, be it a refund or a fee.

>Well, criminal can pick a court that justifies his position and you can pick a court that justifies your position.

And if we have to pick as we do not want to kill each other, we'll have to pick one we agree with, i.e. neutral. This is also the reason for courts to be neutral, it is good for business.

>>84767

>rights

Where do you get your rights?

>demagogue

Hey now, I'm not a demagogue. I hate democracy and I hate totalitarianism. I simply care about the concept of sovereignty.

>>84768

>Where do you get your rights?

From the power you have. I think rights are a faulty concept. If you have power, you can do it, if you do not, you cannot. No speaking of rights can change that. It is mostly the same way as morals are.

>I simply care about the concept of sovereignty.

Sovereignty? if i get it right it is basically the same as legitimacy, but not only for the state. Well, technically, from ancap perspective no coercion can be legitimate, so sovereignty goes the same way. Also, everyone has self-ownership, well, unless they do not, for some reasons, and allowance of that is debatable.

>>84768

Overall, you are your own state on your property, and interact with other actors the same way, except for modern states' invasiveness.

>>84767

Authority itself is a right to power. What about those rights?

>You really that stupid, do you?

Are anarchists really this stupid? Almost like the others with this naive association with people to cooperate and play nice within all people; no natural distrust of other people. It seems foolish. Inherent contradiction when we arrive at the concept of criminals.

You haven't dealt with the issue of individual sovereignty. The PMC only have an incentive to help you out with your justice.

>and that's why there are more PMCs on the market

Okay, but what about that rogue PMC?

>he has to compensate

If it is determined that he did wrong, yes. But in this state, he is probably innocent until proven guilty. Now you need to tackle a consistent basis for getting a judge who is on your side without the obstacle of him getting a judge or simply refusing this whole judgment procedure to begin with. If justice is like this, the criminal might as well disregard justice like all natural criminals and get his PMC to deal with you.

>stop using stupid terms

Stop using terms like "rights" and "rules" and "property" and "agreements" because those typically reside with "justice" and "authority" to begin with…

Okay, concerning the protection and the contract you signed with the PMC to deal with the judge, it seems like a great idea. It might equally apply to the opposite with, if his PMC also influences the judge that same way. It could perhaps be an okay system.

>>84771

>Authority itself is a right to power. What about those rights?

You've got those on your property, generally. It is still not as much of a right, as force. It is not a matter of belief of sorts.

>Almost like the others with this naive association with people to cooperate and play nice within all people; no natural distrust of other people. It seems foolish. Inherent contradiction when we arrive at the concept of criminals.

I misused the word criminal, my wrong. No one gives a fuck for rightness or wrongness, it is just that you've got to compensate the damage to keep other agreements in place.

>You haven't dealt with the issue of individual sovereignty.

Sovereignty is a matter of belief, so i do not care. Whatever your beliefs are, if you try to enforce them, you'll get shot, either by me, or PMC i hired.

>The PMC only have an incentive to help you out with your justice.

They help you with application of force, not justice. Justice is a faulty concept to trick people into accepting your power over them.

>Okay, but what about that rogue PMC?

That's other PMCs major job, protection, silly.

>If it is determined that he did wrong, yes.

No. It is determined by PMCs behind actors unwilling to fight each other, so they create such system for their subjects. If he did it, and how much damage was done is for a neutral 3rd party to decide. It is not a matter of rightness/wrongness, again.

>Now you need to tackle a consistent basis for getting a judge who is on your side without the obstacle of him getting a judge or simply refusing this whole judgment procedure to begin with.

Pre-chosen list of reliable courts from each side would do.

>f justice is like this, the criminal might as well disregard justice like all natural criminals and get his PMC to deal with you.

His PMC does not want to deal with my PMC, that's why this all thing started to begin with. If he does not accept the rules, his contract might get broken, and he'll have to deal with my PMC all by himself.

>Stop using terms like "rights" and "rules" and "property" and "agreements" because those typically reside with "justice" and "authority" to begin with…

I explained my stance on rights, it is just an accepted ownership within a contract. Rules are a contract of sort, simple as that. Property is one's power over certain object. Agreement is just a statement of terms to follow, with subject responsible for it. No "justice" required. As for "authority", this is a very murky term, it is very interconnected with belief, and not practice based systems. I prefer the term "power over".

>>84773

Well, these are all good counter-arguments. It seems the PMCs have enough powers over each other and this remains like a stable state. Just like the world we see today with the threat of nuclear war that maintains peace.

My only problems is the inevitable problems that lead to the creation of a state, like desire of authority or charity on behalf of others or military might. The biggest problem is people become so naive of a system that could have been good, they demand the state. That's how we had this problem to begin with… My point of view is asserting the least difficult state. Hopefully the PMCs don't intervene on behalf of people who want to establish a state against those who never wanted a state since both types of people seem to exist.

>>84776

> like desire of authority or charity on behalf of others or military might

Well, for such a system to exist for a prolonged period of time it has to create a belief in itself among its subjects. Today it is called legitimacy. If people have an alternative, or become clever enough to create it, these systems will fall one by one, as they will have to compete with a system where they are not needed. Today, people are generally developing, not in terms of thinking, but the ideas they master. Who would have thought of libertarianism one hundred years ago? And now, despite all the scandals and shitstorms, it really is becoming at least recognized.

>Hopefully the PMCs don't intervene on behalf of people who want to establish a state against those who never wanted a state since both types of people seem to exist.

Yeah, though the market system itself does not present them as "just", so to seduce people into supplying their legitimacy would be a lot harder. Also, on a smaller scale, the people themselves are a serious force, given them firearms, for example, so if such a system is to establish, it would be hard to overthrow it. The property rules also support such order, as no overton window is present, unlike, say, democracy, so even the smallest property violation is clearly seen and can be opposed.

>>84777

holy trips

>Today, people are generally developing, not in terms of thinking, but the ideas they master. Who would have thought of libertarianism one hundred years ago?

My only problem with this is the concept of ideas to begin with, as they are remembered and forgotten… But you are right, libertarianism slowly developed out of a series of ideas, remembered and forgotten, and they did lead us to newer concepts. The newer concepts revolve around old concepts; the old concepts revolved around the central idea of that concept being developed. The central idea always existed to be understood one way or another, it's just gradually refined and rationalized. However, this process leads to unaccountable results, imo, almost like a cycle… as I said, remembered and forgotten. Institutions are typically formed on behalf of formalizing them, such as was monarchy and other governments, likewise with books and art to preserve ideas, along with the natural inheritance and rights that came with sovereignty and authority as I knew it. In fact, monarchy simply represented the manhood and inheritance as a sovereignty. This is what also inevitably lead to the establishment of constitutions. It seems you assert these ideas will develop so frequently and build mastery, they'll decide the best ideal was no formal state.

My problem is idealism is self-defeating… I always prioritized what they were based off, like as for monarchy being the living blood of the monarch.

>though the market system itself does not present them as "just"

I remain skeptical of this because there are enough people who proclaim the market system to be unjust. I myself don't think this way, but those people do.

>>84778

>My only problem with this is the concept of ideas to begin with, as they are remembered and forgotten…

Well, with internet on our hands, more is remembered that some wished be forgotten than otherwise, a lot more.

>It seems you assert these ideas will develop so frequently and build mastery, they'll decide the best ideal was no formal state.

If it can be done without it, it will effective cut out the middleman, and the more problem it causes, the faster it will happen.

>My problem is idealism is self-defeating…

And ancap allows for these idealistic systems to emerge, and to fall as they will. An ancom can create a commune in ancap, but it will never last long, if any, as it is not the market who destroys it, but its system being self-defeating. I recommend game theory for this, as one of my most admired parts of theory, ancap or otherwise.

>I remain skeptical of this because there are enough people who proclaim the market system to be unjust..

True, but market system is very stable economically, hard to overthrow. You cannot, for example do it if you are one of its participants. PMC trying to create its legitimacy is heavily disadvantaged by being a company, both relying on the market to exist and presenting itself as a market entity. People can be united to oppose the system, but it has to be lead by someone different from a PMC, and is very likely to lead to direct conflict, as contract system does not leave much space for moralizing.

Other point is that people willing to create a more "just" system are free to try, as there is no central authority to oppose them, unlike today's states.

Overall, you have an economically stable system with very serious force present, as both people with military grade weaponry and PMCs as heavily trained soldiers, all bound by contracts and not having loopholes like "understanding what you're doing" as we have today. Commies coming to rule is possible, but it would be as hard as overthrowing a militaristic socialist state at its most power to accomplish.

>>84779

You said the market was so strong to prevent it, but what the concept of the state? If what you said about the market being true implies it is strong enough to maintain and consist for generations, the state was also that force strong enough and prevalent as evident with the world today.

>>84780

It all ends on the people, and technology, to some extent. The more physical power can people impose on each other, through different means like state, and the more people willing to do it, the more force will be applied on a single individual. Technology generally allows individual to achieve more, make him less dependent on others. Modern states exist with the market, as they cannot manage all themselves without failing. The more they are present, the more their influence interferes with the market, the worse market functions. I do not actually know people good enough to say what exactly in them is influenced or present that allows the state to exist, so you can do your guesses. I'm not sure coming changes are going to be enough for the current status quo to be broken, though space exploration might be very detrimental to ancap ideas, as states need to be established, while markets appear and exist naturally

Can you imagine peace without war, love without hatred, prosperity without envy, money without greed, liberty without slavery, life without death; can you imagine a world without other people?

Libertarians and their interactions with the state, abolishing the state, and so forth lead to the creation of new states: like cutting off the head of a hydra, they lopped off one head and created an abundance of heads. Their state became worse and worse, until the they decided they needed a new hydra and begin the process all over again.

Which reminds of the martyred King Charles I, who simply stood for his right as was his inheritance. The inevitable death of this king lead to great injustice like the French Revolution, onward to the great wars of the future and the Bolshevik Revolution.

The US owes its stability to not actually being a real revolution. They fought the King and they simply separated.

Revolutionaries be careful. An attack on sovereignty is an attack on all people, only the participants of Revolution act, but other people are left to react. Remember the civil wars and decline.

>>84801

>>84804

>>84805

>>84807

>>84809

Autism

>>88310

This.

Also, it's a bit more than one. The US was overtly founded as a communist country (The USPO will send you a construction diagram for the means of production), with a socialist justice system - the right to face a non-government accuser and have a soviet of twelve try to solve and mediate your issues.

That… that last one didn't last, obviously. But the US was still founded as classically a hard left-libertarian institution.

>>88325

>You forgot to shill ancoms somewhere

Yeah, well, it's kinda hard when the structure is literally minarchist state communism.

Mincom =/= ancom

>>88368

Um excuse me, didn't you know that there are exactly two kinds of commie? Soviet-flag waving Stalin-loving tankie, and soyboy antifa protester AnCom. There are no other types of socialist and anyone who says they're another type of socialist is a Tankie or a Soyboy ancom trying to trick you.

>>88310

Yeah well, we all know it's mostly AnCaps and "I'm not a fascist I just think Hitler had some really good ideas" Libertarians here.

>>88770

I just made a new anarcho-socialism called Working Socialism, where you keep the money you earn, everyone is free to establish hierarchies, make a commune if they want, start a business if they want or work for someone else if they want. I think it is a pretty good idea we should try it.

>>88776

Great idea comrade! We should shill this on leftypol.

>>88777

/leftypol/? why those far right fascists would never accept my perfect form of socialism!

>>88775

>The types of communists out there are the type who believe in real socialism (the kind that works) and not real socialism (the kind that doesn't work).

I think you got those the wrong way around.

Guys, i lost the "no such thing as left libertarian" pic. Could anyone post it here, please?

>>88857

Ditto.

The flowchart, right? I've been looking all over for it.

>>88859

Yeah, vertical 3 or 4 stacked on top of each other. I tried searching in older posts, but after 50 or so and some through lats posts, but found nothing, though i swear i've seen it here 1 or 2 times. Googling did no good either.

>>88865

Same, I also tried Google. I know I saved it long ago but my shit's so disorganized that I can't find a damn thing.

>>88775

kill yourself

>>88874

Nah, it's been post on 4cuck /pol/'s /lrg/.

>>88771

anarcho-syndicalist here to tell you you're full of shit and the main reason I'm here is because /leftypol/ cares an awful lot about being pol/ and very little about being /lefty.

Sign me up for the revolution when you boot out the brilliant children with few plans and fewer goals.