It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The philosophy of liberty

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
 


Archy: A suffix properly meaning a rule

Anarchy means no ruler.

It does not mean no hierarchy




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The owner of the well would sell the water because it is in his best interest to do so.

He gains nothing by hording and everything by selling.


If the owner was a rational person, yes.



Indeed, he even gains by simply giving the water away if he has enough on hand to do so, since this would gain him the good graces of the people needing the water.


Again, if he was a rational person, and a good businessman. But that is not always going to the case. In which case Darwinism will ensue. Which, I'm sure, is fine by both of us.




The reason why he would sell the water rather than give it away if the water was in limited supply is not only to acquire profits, but also to ration the water.


rationing the water would infringe upon the right of any other individual to drink freely, thus he is a monopoly of force that water source, and is, himself, a state.



Those most in need of getting a drink would be willing to pay the higher prices, while those least in need of a drink would wait until the price comes down.


Unless those most in need cannot afford it. If they have contractual agreements to die of thirst, then they are legally obligated to do so, however, if they have not, then again, Darwin will win.



Under a socialist system, the State would ration the water, not based on need, but based on arbitrary political reasons.


You assume a socialist commune requires a state. It does not.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
 


Archy: A suffix properly meaning a rule

Anarchy means no ruler.

It does not mean no hierarchy


Then I must assume the owner of my company does not have rule over me.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
 


A socialist commune requires a leader to distribute the goods.

Who decides how resources are to be distributed in a socialist commune?

Everyone votes on it?

The water situation is a great example of the waste socialism produces.

If we say there was not enough water for everyone to get a full drink, is it more beneficial that the water be equally distributed among all the people, resulting in a half glass for each person, or is it more beneficial that a full glass of water be given to those who are most in need of a drink?

Under a socialist distribution system, wouldn't everyone want their share of the water whether they were thirsty at the moment or not?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
 


Archy: A suffix properly meaning a rule

Anarchy means no ruler.

It does not mean no hierarchy


Then I must assume the owner of my company does not have rule over me.


Correct.

Working for someone is voluntary between the two.

Either one can reject the other at any time if they feel they are not benefiting from the arrangement.

There is no rule and no force involved.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A socialist commune requires a leader to distribute the goods.


No, it requires everyone agree on how it is distributed, it at all. I'm not a pure social anarchist, but I know they would not elect one man to make decisions. That's is folly on any serious anarchist.



Who decides how resources are to be distributed in a socialist commune?


That would be done by direct voting. Remember, communes are going to be MUCH smaller that cities we have now. That's how decentralization works. In fact, the commune could be so small, that it only entails 3 people in a co-op coexisting in a privately owned commune. They do not need a leader to decide how to split their rightly acquired capital.



Everyone votes on it?


yes



The water situation is a great example of the waste socialism produces.


I agree. Any commune that ties itself to one water source are doomed to failure. But it is their choice, and they are free to make it, so long as it is contractual.



If we say there was not enough water for everyone to get a full drink, is it more beneficial that the water be equally distributed among all the people, resulting in a half glass for each person, or is it more beneficial that a full glass of water be given to those who are most in need of a drink?

Under a socialist distribution system, wouldn't everyone want their share of the water whether they were thirsty at the moment or not?


I think you're confusing socialism with marxism. Socialism isn't "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Socialism is just the mutual ownership of the means of production. If someone works for 3 hours, and another for 6, obviously, in a free market, the person who worked for 6 will get twice as much in return for someone who worked on only. That's more than likely what a collective will agree on, at least in mutualism, or left-libertarianism.

Socialism != forced redistribution of wealth. Perhaps that is where your hang up is. Now communism, or marxism on the other hand. Don't get me started on them, then we'd agree to much and these arguments won't be fun anymore.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Correct.

Working for someone is voluntary between the two.

Either one can reject the other at any time if they feel they are not benefiting from the arrangement.

There is no rule and no force involved.


So he has no say in when I must work, or when I must take a lunch break, and he cannot terminate our contract if he failed to outline such things when we agreed to write said contract?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It seems you and I are practically in agreement with free markets, and voluntarism, however, I think we're just going to have to a agree to disagree on what is and isn't 'rule', and that hierarchy (in your view), does not insinuate rule (or coercion). That is your view. I do not share it, but I respect it.

I think we've completely derailed the topic of discussion, which is supposed to be about the philosophy of liberty, not the quibbles over contractual property rights and semantics of anarchy.

edit on 12/3/2010 by Arcane Demesne because: grammer



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by 46ACE
 



The simple fact is that we give up a few of our rights (like the rights to kill, rape, steal, and assault) for the basic protection of our life, liberty, and property. Some philosophers have said the only thing you really have protection of is your basic right to life, and they had arguments to back those statements up.



Incorrect. The Supreme Court ruled long ago a police officer has no duty to protect an individual life and can't be held responsible if he fails to protect you.

Their ruling said police officers only protect Society as a whole.

Thus we have given up all rights and don't even have the right to defend our own life. Some parts of America if you kill someone that broke into your home to kill you......you will go to jail. The illegal aliens crossing the border and broke into that mans home to kill him...he shot them and they turned around and sued him and took his home.

We have no "Liberty" anymore. People in other nations have more freedom than us. They still let their people have a right to their own life. Some countries still have property rights. Heck in China you can drink booze at 18.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

So he has no say in when I must work, or when I must take a lunch break, and he cannot terminate our contract if he failed to outline such things when we agreed to write said contract?


Whether you decide to follow his "rules of the workplace" is entirely at your discretion. You face no violence if you disobey him or decide not to work for him any longer. Disobeying the agreed upon rules of your employment however may result in him terminating the employment agreement between you though.

That's a contract violation and in no way represents him "ruling" you in the statist sense. You are free to leave him if he is abusive or does not pay you what you think your services are worth.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

So he has no say in when I must work, or when I must take a lunch break, and he cannot terminate our contract if he failed to outline such things when we agreed to write said contract?


Whether you decide to follow his "rules of the workplace" is entirely at your discretion. You face no violence if you disobey him or decide not to work for him any longer. Disobeying the agreed upon rules of your employment however may result in him terminating the employment agreement between you though.


Ah, but my premise was that we had not agreed on certain rules of his workplace (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Who then should be held responsible is my question? Should I get to come in late, and work awkward hours, so long as I get my contractual work done, without any fear of him unlawfully terminating my contract because he forgot to specify every nuance of our agreement? If so, then fine. If not, then he is acting outside his powers of contract, and is then liable for court action for transgressing my individual right to follow our contractual agreements (thus attempting to rule a part of my life I did not consent to in contract).

I understand this is trivial in the grand scope of things, but in the root of the philosophy, hierarchy leads to rule. That is how I see it.

edit on 12/3/2010 by Arcane Demesne because: oops



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
 



Ah, but my premise was that we had not agreed on certain rules of his workplace (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Who then should be held responsible is my question?


If you had not agreed to work for him, yet you were working for him, then you would be considered a slave and he your master.

Obviously, this requires violence on his part to keep you enslaved.

Agreeing to work for someone under certain terms necessarily requires a contract, either verbal or written in agreement.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
 



Ah, but my premise was that we had not agreed on certain rules of his workplace (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Who then should be held responsible is my question?


If you had not agreed to work for him, yet you were working for him, then you would be considered a slave and he your master.

Obviously, this requires violence on his part to keep you enslaved.

Agreeing to work for someone under certain terms necessarily requires a contract, either verbal or written in agreement.


You're missing the concept. I had agreed to work for him. He just didn't draw up a good enough contract to limit my freedom to choose when to work. All the contract was for me to finish a particular project or production implementation at a dead line. It I can do it in one hour, and he thinks it'll take me 8, I can legally fudge off all I want for 7 hours. If he fires me @ the 6th hour, claiming I have produced nothing, he is in violation of his contract, and thus issuing force. Once you understand this crucial point, you'll understand why an only capitalist society will inevitably require a state.

The same goes for communism. Neither can thrive perfectly in anarchy. This is not a jab at your beliefs, nor am I trying to 'deceive' you in some way. Pure capitalism will lead to despotism, IMHO. I know you feel differently, but I think you should read some left libertarian stuff.

Just remember. I'm a capitalist as well. Just not in all aspects of life. Nor am I a socialist in all aspects. Our goal is anarchy, and anarchy will only be achieved through mutual aid, voluntarism, and a contractual blend of capitalism and socialism.

Mutualism (Don't pay attention to the "anti-capitalist" heading. That's just for shock value to bring the lefties over to the right)
Agorism

------------------------

This has been fun, but I gotta head home. I'll see ya in another thread, most likely joining farces to combat those big statists again, instead of each other, lol. Take care
edit on 12/3/2010 by Arcane Demesne because: edit to add farewell



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
 


Again, you are jumping to conclusions.

If you had a valid contract with him and he failed to uphold his end of the bargain, then you could take him to court and sue him over it.

Having a court system does not require a State.

You would take him to a private arbitration court and sue him, loser of the case pays the court costs. That's how it works in many countries today with civil suits.

If he fails to obey the court, he will effectively ostracize himself from the legal community. If he has insurance, the insurance company will pay you. If he doesn't have insurance, no one will want to do business with him.

Further, this will tarnish his reputation as an employer - other people will not work for him if he has a reputation of not paying his employees.

He will rapidly put himself out of business if he decides he isn't going to pay when he is legally obligated to do so.


No state required - no violence required - in any of this.

Firing you does not entail violence by the way, so I'm not sure where you're getting the "force" from in all of this.

edit on 3-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
aww I missed another awesome discussion (though I am not majoring or minoring in philosophy it is always fun all the same.)
(still gonna read all these articles that you guys kindly provided.)



Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously, this requires violence on his part to keep you enslaved.


Hmm, I disagree, there are many nonviolent ways to enslave, but they arn't particularly nice


also if we are defining socialism/capitalism in terms of means of production than yes, capitalism it is owned by the "bourgeoisie" as Marks calls them, and in socialism no individual owns the means of production (so I guess you can say everyone owns it).

as for the necessity of a state, in an ideal world in which the masses could agree as a whole, and enforce their own decisions as a whole (without formal unity, only unity of purpose), or if such conflicts of interest never arise, than the state is unnecessary, otherwise it is necessary. In capitalism than the private militia may work for a while, but than you get feudalism where everyone is building a bigger army to enforce their own rule, and in the end that is no longer capitalism, is it? So both are much more stable with a state, but my example of when one is unnecessary stands for both systems.

Edit: on second thought I think I'll add the articles to my "read when I finally find time" list (which is growing quite extensive)

edit on 3-12-2010 by sensen because: see Edit



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sensen
 


That's a lot of grandiose statements without much logic behind any of them.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Not really (relative to what has been said so far).

First part of my post was a simple statement of opinion.
Second part was an unsupported claim, but do you really want me to get into the psychology of it?
Third part was a definition in terms of production (not in terms of free market, which despite being closely associated with capitalism doesn't belong to capitalism alone.)

As for part four, I am attempting to utilize simple reasoning. Do you think it needs proving that if there is no dispute, ever that a state's existence isn't necessary?

Or is it that a capitalistic state which relied on private militias to enforce rules would perhaps enforce each individual's wishes, and that than the smaller militias would fall out of the picture, than the bigger ones would likely control the masses, than the larger armies would likely settle for some sort of territorial rule, or there may be one and suddenly we have our state back, or if there are many wars will be waged over time "kings" would rise and fall, ect. Than again not that I think of it that is probably the one that you are calling unfounded aren't you.
Oh well, I guess that by than pure capitalism's free markets are gone. My point was that if you want private militias to enforce property rights than property disputes become wars, and owners with smaller private armies come to fear those with larger, and than comes the part in which the bigger militias comes into possession of a few people's safety, lives, whatever you wish to call it (yes I know this isn't libertarian philosophy, and that one "can't own another", but I am a realist, and such things happen), than we loose capitalism (assuming that some semblance still remained before it became a full blown dictatorship.)

Sorry that i'm not into that idea of citing every word out of your mouth, but it just doesn't suit me, and quite frankly I believe that it can impede an argument if required everywhere (though I do see necessity depending on context, I don't see it here)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by 46ACE
Of course "Direct democracy" equates to"mob rule";and 51% can vote anything they want from the other49%. An issue addressed by a constitutional republic( where individual rights are supposed to suercede the "rights of the state".


You would need 100% of the population to agree on what % a vote requires to pass a law. That is up to the commune. some may require 99 or 100% vote rate every time, some may not. democracy doesn't inherently mean, majority rules...I don't think it does anyway.



99% Can vote whatever they want from the the remaining 1%: Diddle the numbers all you want.

That satement means:"The good of the "collective ( hive) simply supercedes the good of the one? Unfortunately that is a dangerous position to hold.What guarantees the life and liberty of the individual? Saying there is "none" is great until its you up there sitting backwards on a horse heading out of the society with a bucket on your head banished because the crops failed and there are too many mouths to feed over the winter.

Its awfully hard to beat a constitutional republic where the individuals' right to life; liberty; and the pursuit of happiness are solid tennets..
Which IMHO is what all these complicated multifaceted political ideologies attempt to do.
edit on 4-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join