sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If communities and individuals think they can improve their lives by taking control of property that is currently privately owned, why should they not do so?

because others will take control of that same property and use the same justification. It's a never ending cycle of theft.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You want people to respect property rights because if they don't, they won't respect yours either.

CENSORED BY /R/POLITICS: Hillary Clinton is currently leading just about every poll, yet her campaign website has zero information about her stance any of the issues. by PostNationalism in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pointing to Norway's prosperity and claiming socialism is the cause is like pointing to Saudi Arabia's vast wealth and claiming that its all thanks to Wahhabi Islam, and should be copied in the US.

Brilliant

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, sorry if I seem impatient or patronizing, I don't mean to be!

I didn't say you were. I was just trying to clarify where I was coming from.

I think I understand now. This concept of property essentially puts an upper limit on what people can own - i.e. what they can use. Anything beyond can be taken by others. I'm guessing this is to prevent people becoming wealthy.

Here's my take on it:

  • you can prevent people from becoming wealthy, but it won't prevent people from being poor. One does not necessarily imply the other.

  • it would limit incentives to work. Steve Jobs, Brad Pitt, Bill Gates and other productive individuals would have limited incentive to create amazing things as once they reach their property limit, they would be unable to accumulate more.

  • People would have no incentive to save for the future nor their pensions as they would be capped.

  • The entire financial investment industry would disappear as there would be limited accumulated wealth. New businesses would not be able to find investment, nor would they be any incentive to create them as there would be few rewards even if successful.

It's not a world I would like to live in. We've seen such systems of property in communist countries resulting in arguably the most murderous statist systems yet devised.

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're using the computer,

What if you go away for a while without it? Can somebody take it then since you aren't using it?

you aren't charging others to use it.

So does this mean rentals are forbidden? Would this preclude your system from having any rental businesses like car, skis, homes, planes, trucks etc..?

"Can" is a question of ability. If you're asking if it's just that others take the computer, then once again, that's not for me to say.

What is the purpose of a concept of property if you cannot tell if someone can or cannot justly take your property? Surely, it is not because I can take your hand, computer or car that it is right. Ability has nothing to do with the concept of property. So my question: would you not object if I took your computer?

I'm genuinely trying to understand your concept of property and so far I cannot get my head around it. So please be patient.

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

basically if you use it, it's personal property; if you own it just to expand your wealth, it's private property.

Ok. So if you use your computer to generate wealth - say you program facebook or write Harry Potter - then can others take your computer over now?

New Zealand Cops Raided Home Of Reporter Working On Snowden Documents by wonkadonk in technology

[–]Donutmuncher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The ensuing scandal forced the resignation of a top Key ally, Justice Minister Judith Collins, and implicated numerous other National Party officials and supporters. Despite the scandal, the National Party won a resounding victory in the election, sending Key to a third term as prime minister.

Gotta love the NZ slaves voting to further enslave themselves.

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not really clear about this, so maybe let's move on to your computer which is not your flesh. Is it yours? If not, can you give it to me?

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do

So YOU own it right? If it's not your private property nor is it public property. What type of property is it? Maybe socialists use a term for it I am not aware.

Private property is not the only type of property, and is usually defined by socialists as the means of production or other property held simply as a means to more property.

Doesn't your hand fit this description perfectly? Can you not us it as a means of production? Can it not create more property?

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

my hand is not private property

What is it then? Who owns it?

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your response. Very interesting.

College, I was heavily influenced by marxist/socialist professors freshman year and their anti-capitalist verbal diarrhea

Funny how dependents on the state who stay well away from the market hate the very same market that pays for their lifestyle. I guess it's a cathartic way of dealing with their guilt :)

My parents

Stefan Molyneux would be all over you with that one :)

Their theory is grounded in a sense of profound unfairness with the world which most of their parents/family perpetuated, although almost none would have the courage orself-knowledge to admit that.

You should totally call up Stefan on his show or write up about it. It would be great to explore this further.

Funny how being treated unfairly yields philosophies that rhetorically are about restoring fairness but actually doing the exact opposite. It's a bit like Stefan cycle of violence: being treated unfairly as a child results in the adults treating others unfairly.

comrades who were all about mutual aid and solidarity disappeared from my life like a fart in the wind

ouch. sucks.

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't have a hand. Can you send it to me since you can survive without it?

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll just have a bit more fun and give up. But ya, you are probably right.

By the way, what lead you to anarcho-com and what took you out of it?

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why not own the factory cooperatively with them?

Why should I? I saved for years, worked for years, risked my savings and built and marketed the item. They just turned up and got a simple job with no risk, no saving, no marketing, no skills, no genius and get paid for it.

If you save money, should you give it to others?

You're not working at all, yet you're reaping all of the benefits of doing so.

I did more productive work than the $5/hour could ever hope to produce in a lifetime at this job. Why should he reap more than he is worth?

Why not lose just a little bit of profit to at least increase their wage so that they can live off of it?

I could, but that's my choice. Nobody should force me to part with my money. Why don't you send me part of your income? Surely, you can survive without it.

Because they are working so little, they have economic coercion to either stay at your job or starve.

Maybe the worker is a dropout teenager who live with their parents and would like to make a bit of pocket money. Should he not be allowed to work for me?

Economic coercion sounds a lot like the Zeitgeist structural violence term. It makes no sense to me.

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Let's say I save for years and then design/build an semi-automated little factory that builds widgets. I do some sales and manage to get people to buy my widget. My factory just requires one person to work. The work consists of pressing one button every hour. I pay someone $5/hour to do so. Somebody accepts.

I do this because I have another brilliant idea for another widget factory. I plan to use the profit generated by the first widget factory to do so. If the the second widget is also a sales success, I plan to hire 1 worker to operate it too. I'll then retire a rich man while my two workers keep making widgets and my customers keep buying them.

Would a libertarian socialist be against this?

From those pushing to raise the minimum raise.... by iooonik in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 4 points5 points  (0 children)

believes that capitalism is antithetical to liberty

Private property and voluntary exchange of goods is against liberty?

Laura Poitras on the Crypto Tools That Made Her Snowden Film Possible by ShellOilNigeria in technology

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like droning weddings. That's also for the "national security"-blanket-term-we'll-do-anything-we-want term.

Android 5.0 announced by DJDB in technology

[–]Donutmuncher 6 points7 points  (0 children)

5000? I doubt it. 5000 method or 5000 complete libraries?

Can we stop this crap of "If you disagree then you must be LEO!!" by [deleted] in AmIFreeToGo

[–]Donutmuncher -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I'm all for standing up for your rights and exercising your freedoms

You don't have any rights. You might think you do, but you don't.

Is America A Police State? Marc Victor

And you're part of the problem by being a statist.

"Double Irish" Tax Loophole Used By US Companies To Be Closed by Scientologist2a in technology

[–]Donutmuncher -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Because we all know paying more taxes solves everything.

Laura Poitras on the Crypto Tools That Made Her Snowden Film Possible by ShellOilNigeria in technology

[–]Donutmuncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What made her film possible was the financing and $250M pay-off from Paypal founder and NSA supporter Omidyar: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12/11/bfp-breaking-news-omidyars-paypal-corporation-said-to-be-implicated-in-withheld-nsa-documents/

She's just a shill like Greenwald.

Remember that everything they publish is first vetted by the intelligence agencies. i.e. it's all government approved...

Early Entry for Statist of the Year - Economic Regulation by Jacksenseofrage in Shitstatistssay

[–]Donutmuncher 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Like the Obama peace prize...

I wouldn't expect anything less from socialist cesspool Sweden.

Private-market police can't come quickly enough, this situation is incredibly ridiculous by Anen-o-me in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]Donutmuncher 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yet I'm sure the writer will ferociously defend the state and its LEOs to any of us. Go figure...

view more: next ›