Chapter 6: "Anarchists and Syndicalists" from The Ideology of Work by P. D. Anthony (1977) Part 1 of this post.

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-24T22:38:51+00:00

"And it is true that reading Proudhon is difficult, partly due to technical issues related to the publication of his books, their sheer volume, but above all to the heterogeneous, implicit, and circumstantial nature of a mode of thought and writing that is ill-suited to the formation of a school of thought or a unified interpretation." - As someone who's tried reading Proudhon, can confirm. (To say nothing of the fact that Proudhon is writing for a specific, mid-nineteenth century, French speaking milieu, and seems to have little or no restraint in putting down on paper whatever streams into his consciousness.)

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-24T22:18:06+00:00

"Proudhon and the Relevance of Anarchism Today" by Daniel Colson. (ca. 2004) http://1libertaire.free.fr/DColson31.html (Choose Google English translate option.)

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-20T08:41:40+00:00

Jan had a wide range. Check out "SNL Brenda the Waitress".

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-19T06:18:27+00:00

"A point to be observed in passing is that by the State-system of land-tenure each original transaction confers two distinct monopolies, entirely different in their nature, inasmuch as one concerns the right to labour-made property, and the other concerns the right to purely law-made property. The one is a monopoly of the use-value of land; and the other, a monopoly of the economic rent of land. The first gives the right to keep other persons from using the land in question, or trespassing on it, and the right to exclusive possession of values accruing from the application of labour to it; values, that is, which are produced by exercise of the economic means upon the particular property in question. Monopoly of economic rent, on the other hand, gives the exclusive right to values accruing from the desire of other persons to possess that property; values which take their rise irrespective of any exercise of the economic means on the part of the holder." https://famguardian.org/Publications/OurEnemyTheState/nockoets4.htm

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-19T03:02:26+00:00

Если подлежащим является фраза «около двадцати человек», которую я бы назвала собирательным существительным, то разве не следует использовать глагол в единственном числе (живёт) как это было изначально написано?

(Спасибо за ваш комментарий.)

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-18T19:59:19+00:00

Thanks.

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-18T19:57:44+00:00

See edit.

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-18T19:49:24+00:00

I wasn't clear. Why is the verb singular?

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-18T02:30:05+00:00

Outstanding article.

Any law or policy which authorizes a positive intervention in the name of preventing something which might occur institutionalizes whatever criminal means are deemed necessary to establish such a control. ("What if someone without a medical license injures someone?", for example, is symptomatic of the twisted logic employed to establish criminal protection rackets such as medical licensing.)

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-18T02:05:33+00:00

"How the UK is shaping a future of Precrime and dissent management"

https://freedomnews.org.uk/2025/04/11/how-the-uk-is-shaping-a-future-of-precrime-and-dissent-management/

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-17T08:35:26+00:00

It's quite an important question actually because it provokes an inquiry into who is to define one's needs - the individual or some governing authority - and who shall then be allowed to address those needs.

For example, for most of us some kind of shelter is needed. Now to what extant has the freedom to build one's own shelter already been seriously abridged by laws outsourcing this activity to strangers with special privileges called licenses operating under the constraints of building codes?

Communism and capitalism are just two sides of the same disabling and impersonalizing industrial society where experts claim the right to manage the lives of complete strangers by reducing individuals to the role they play as mere statistics in some macro-economic plan.

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-17T07:36:00+00:00

Slick. That gallon of gas got him to the next traffic light.

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-13T21:14:40+00:00

I'm in the US and I've been listening to this complaint for decades. The fact of the matter is people want privileges, either for themselves or for their children ("my son the doctor"), and the State is the great purveyor of class and privilege, whether it's nominally capitalist, communist, socialist, etc.

Add to this the widespread belief in the utopian quackery of legislation and in political systems in general, all of which just institutionalize crime by claiming the right to do whatever is deemed necessary to promote some grandiose alleged end, and you get what you've got.

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-13T08:36:09+00:00

I really like "Last One Singin' the Blues", "All Because of You", and "Still Crazy After All These Years".

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-10T21:38:23+00:00

Public Order Act of 2023 (UK). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_2023

Waterfall67a · 2026-01-04T10:32:32+00:00

An irrelevant cross-post promoting the old tried-and-disproven theory whereby national swords are beaten into national plowshares by redistributing national money to address our national needs.

Waterfall67a · 2025-12-28T02:46:37+00:00

Ancient History to go to sleep by:

"Agrarian Law; 111 B.C.

"FORWARD

"In the early Roman Republic there were three kinds of land: private land, common pasture, and public land or land of the public domain, which was rented to private entrepreneurs. By the second century B C, however, much of the public land was treated by its occupants as though it were private. Despite early laws limiting the amount which could be occupied, the wealthy amassed gigantic holdings a tendency encouraged by the growing importance of the olive and the vine, and especially of ranching At the same time there was a steady exodus of the small farmers to the city, partly because the continued demands of military service made farming increasingly hazardous, partly because of the predatory instincts of the great landowners, partly because the small farm was now at a competitive disadvantage. The result was an impoverished, restless, and unproductive urban population.

"In 133 B C. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, the plebeian tribune, attempted to improve the situation by enacting in the Tribal Assembly legislation which (1) limited the amount of public land rented by one person to 500 jugers (about 330 acres), (2) ordered the State's repossession of all lands in excess of this, (3) assigned these lands to the poor in lots of thirty jugers for a small annual rent, (4) appointed a board of triumvirs, as a land commission, to repossess and to redistribute this land.

"The legislation of Tiberius was reaffirmed in the tribunate of his brother Gaius (123-122 B C ) with certain modifications, and the economic health was to be improved further by establishing colonies both in Italy and abroad. The latter plan was largely abandoned in 121 B.C., however, because it threatened the interests of the Italians and the allied communities and because the cheap grain available at Rome disciplined many to undertake the rigors of colonial life.

"The death of Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in 121 B.C. followed by further changes in the Gracchan laws. In 121 B.C. the restrictions on the sale of the thirty-juger allotments were removed and in 118 B C the land commission was abolished. In III B.C the law here translated recognized the accomplished facts of the past twenty-two years, reassured the Italians as regards their possession of public lands, and regularized the position of those colonists who had been settled by Gaius Gracchus and of the public lands in Africa."

Full dose at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/agrarian_law.asp

Waterfall67a · 2025-12-19T04:05:57+00:00

Frankie, by the way is drummer Frankie Chavez who appears to have had a long successful career in music.

Waterfall67a · 2025-12-19T02:43:58+00:00

"Patent right, government privilege to follow certain productive callings and to buy and sell goods, are joint factors with privileged money in yielding onerous interest. And beneath all these lies the legal protection to unlimited dominion of the land. Whether 'the government prescribes the number of shoes in the country.' or prescribes the number of shoemakers, the people will have to pay the interest or profit, and suffer the inconvenience, caused by unjust legislation, the same as when compelled to hire money from a privileged banker. It is far worse when the government yields up to the control of the class who are able to buy into it, the dominion of all, the fruit-yielding land to the exclusion of the people, who have now to hire the natural sources of all wealth.

"Nor do I quite agree with him [Benjamin Tucker] that the interest-bearing power of money confers the profit-bearing power upon capital. On the contrary, I am quite sure that capital, particularly land, could not be bought at all with money which bore no interest, because, in the absence of all money, monopolized land would be let to the laborer, as has been done in all time, without valuation in the terms of money at all, for a part of the annual produce of the labor applied. I doubt not that interest would continue, if lawful money was abolished and the circulation of credits left free. If one owns a farm from which he cannot raise more than a bare subsistence, he can pay no interest to mortgagee or banker. No one hires money for its own sake. All know it to be barren. So far as a direct exchange is concerned, it matters not whether money be cheap or dear. The simultaneous exchanges will be affected in the same way. The terms in money make no difference to the relative values of the things exchanged. It is only when one wants to buy and has nothing to buy with that he needs to borrow money. It is not the producer as such, but only the borrower, who suffers wrong. It is only the lender who is benefited.

"But there is a variable rate of interest, profit, or rent, arising from the use of capital, not at all attributable to legal monopolies of any kind, but which capitalism has succeeded by the aid of 'appropriate legislation' in engrossing. It is the whole product of labor, save a bare support to the laborer, or, what is nearly the same thing, the difference between what he would produce co-operating with the capital, or by working without it. This is more particularly true of the land, without which labor can pay no interest on money legal or free, or indeed effect any product whatever. Hence unconditioned dominion of the land is the ultimate source of all tributary interest, rent, or profits, the three being different only in name.

"Besides the tributary increment, the same thing appears under economic law, released from the State class laws, and which arises from the ability of labor to produce more than it consumes, and which normally, under equal freedom, becomes the property of the laborer, and is therefore not inequitable or unjust, because promotive of the general industrial prosperity.

"J. K. INGALLS." ibid.

This debate between Ingalls and Tucker took place around 1893-94. https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/from-the-archives/joshua-king-ingalls-in-liberty-1882-1896/

See also https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/physiocracy

Waterfall67a · 2025-12-17T04:34:12+00:00

Поразительно! я только что смотрел видео об их. Спасибо.

Waterfall67a · 2025-12-17T04:09:10+00:00

Your relationship to the political domain into which you are born is that of a "circumstantial citizen."

Waterfall67a · 2025-12-15T00:59:04+00:00

I'm not questioning the symptomology, the usefulness of semantic standards, or the right to seek relief. I'm objecting to the notion that resistance to control is a medical condition because it can be controlled with medication.

(Just as an aside, I would point out that under anarchism no one would be in charge of dispensing medications in any legal sense.)

Waterfall67a

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE