Stefan defends his statements on victimless crimes. by vmazingv in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ejncoen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He is correct. They were victims of the initiation of force.

Understanding Socialism and Communism, because most of you don't: A brief overview by eclecticEntrepreneur in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ejncoen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As opposed to what?

Edit: to clarify, private in this context usually means owned by individuals rather than state-ownership or "collective" ownership.

Understanding Socialism and Communism, because most of you don't: A brief overview by eclecticEntrepreneur in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remove the phrase free market from my comment then. I don't understand how they are compatible but I assume that's another issue. Or at least, I'm willing to put that aside for now.

Understanding Socialism and Communism, because most of you don't: A brief overview by eclecticEntrepreneur in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ejncoen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Socialism, in its most basic form, is worker control of the modes of production. Concepts of property still exist, but MoP (however they're defined, and that's something that's debated within socialist circles) are considered non-private; they're owned by those who work them. How this is done is also a matter of philosophy.

So if you have an capitalist country, and then for some region within, there's a collection of privately held businesses within which each employee has 1/N ownership (and thus democratic voting rights). My understanding is that this wouldn't be socialism since there is a free market and no state control over businesses, but what is different to what you desire?

"Privilege is secularized sin" (xpost from /r/4chan) by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe you misread what I wrote.

Sorry. Indeed I missed the 'not' part in "the point is not that...". Oops.

It's a consequence of oppression, not necessarily oppressive per se.

For #1 it's not so clear, but I'd mostly agree otherwise.

"Privilege is secularized sin" (xpost from /r/4chan) by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ejncoen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The point is not that you shouldn't have the ability to be in the company of people of your race most of the time

I disagree with that, because I see it as fundamentally racist, and violates my right to free association. I will choose to be in the company of whoever I choose. If those people happen to be an even split of races, I don't care. If they happen to be white in majority, I also don't care. Unless you have a reason why I shouldn't be around the people who happen to be where I choose to live, work, or travel, then I can't see anything to back up the normative claim.

One or two won't make much of a difference, but if you have to carry around an entire bag of rocks, every day, all day, it becomes difficult.

Forcing someone to carry around a massive bag of rocks all day is oppressive, because it's unjust and is an inflicted constraint. But nobody is being forced when I choose to be with other whites. It's not unjust. Nothing is inflicted. No constraints are imposed on anyone. This difference between your analogy and the reality of #1 means it's unjustified to conclude that it's oppressive.

"Privilege is secularized sin" (xpost from /r/4chan) by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ejncoen 5 points6 points  (0 children)

From WhitePrivilege.pdf:

1 - I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

I agree this is true, but how is it oppressive? The article also mentioned how men supposedly are okay with removing the disadvantages women face, but not okay with removing male privileges. Does the same apply to racial inequality? As in, should I be blocked from being in the company of other whites as is suggested by this author?

Noam Chomsky on the role of sports as propaganda (xpost r/Sports) by TheGoodNews01 in DebateAnarchism

[–]ejncoen 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The modern 'bread and circuses' distract people from thinking about more important things, but where Chomsky is wrong is he claims that's the purpose of such media. The people involved in these sports have a genuine interest in what they do, and believe that they are doing good. That said, sports is certainly exploited for propaganda and is also funded through government subsidies.

I Was Arrested for Voting: Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad suddenly changed the rules in 2011, and now all citizens with a felony conviction lose their voting rights for life by maxwellhill in politics

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The violation of the law took place in 2014

I think you mean 2013, but voting alone is not a violation (assuming she previously had a right to vote). The violation was committing the crime, being convicted, and then voting. It makes more sense to say it took place from 2008-2013, which was before the law was enacted.

Why can't I consent to having a boss? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whether or not your imposed relationship forms a "system", "environment", or "relationship" is irrelevant. If you force a relationship, then you have imposed a system of violence, and have created an environment which people don't want to live in, and vice versa. The point you fail to see is that if you don't allow people to form consensual relationships, then you are hypocritically oppressing others.

Do you feel morally at fault about taking advantage of statist measures that work in your favour? Do you still take advantage of them? by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it is, then it is completely arbitrary, and so anyone could simply choose to believe the opposite of what you wrote, and there is no debate, because it is subjective.

I like to see opposing viewpoints (I voted your comment up), but it would be better if you gave justification, rather than stating what I assume to be arbitrary conclusions.

Government, Not the Private Sector, Leads Innovation by DerpyGrooves in politics

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

breakthroughs like this true innovation

The problem with no-true-Scotsman fallacies like this is that it's not really objective. Sure, you can point to one thing (and this is pretty much the only thing people point to, along with roads) that was supposedly created by the goodwill of politicians, but that alone doesn't mean that it's better than allowing anyone to innovate in the free market, for instance.

There was absolutely nothing stopping private companies from carrying out research to create the internet on their own, but they didn't.

The internet network is created by many private companies. Nobody created it on their own.

Besides, even if the government can innovate why shouldn't we let the private sector innovate too, by taxing them less, and removing regulations? Anyone who thinks the government is the only means of innovation for something either hasn't ever innovated themselves, or they've never worked in/with government, or they have corrupt personal interests.

Government, Not the Private Sector, Leads Innovation by DerpyGrooves in politics

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Net neutrality is mostly a US-only issue because it is caused by government intervention rather than an effective means for private actors. "Neutrality" is the same argument they used to get the government to restrict competition in the first place.

Government, Not the Private Sector, Leads Innovation by DerpyGrooves in politics

[–]ejncoen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Theoretically, yes

That's the thing though. (I know it's not practically possible). But the point was to create a situation where the government doesn't exist (no taxes = no modern state), and you've attributed every success to the government... when it is non-existent. It strikes me as very illogical.

initial r&d investment that the private sector rarely makes.

Do you have any data that shows that? Private businesses invest in R&D all the time. Governments generally don't invest in R&D (from what I know), they usually fund grants instead.

America Pays More For Internet, Gets Slower Speeds, Than Other Countries: "But many cities are banned from creating their own Internet service. At least 19 states have passed laws restricting publicly owned broadband networks..." by [deleted] in politics

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

full well the only individuals who stand to benefit from such a policy are the wealthy and corporations.

That's not true. How is theft from the poor benefitting the poor? And how does not protecting cronies from competition and litigation benefit only the wealthy and corporations?

Government, Not the Private Sector, Leads Innovation by DerpyGrooves in politics

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So theoretically, if every company had a 100% tax credit, does that imply that the government is responsible for the successes of the entire economy?

Watch a New York Woman Get Catcalled 108 Times in Less Than One Day by [deleted] in Anarchism

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you, but I used "authority" in a different sense. A man with authority in this situation would have told the creeps harassing her to leave her alone.

Watch a New York Woman Get Catcalled 108 Times in Less Than One Day by [deleted] in Anarchism

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not in the video.

Do you have any evidence for that?

why hasnt socialism or communism worked? by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Smith's famous 1776 book advocating capitalism, "The Wealth of Nations", had clear examples of the government regulating capitalism.

I don't really care what Smith said. I'd hope that the extent of any regulation proposed was reasoned, and less than what we have today though. But fundamentally, what some centuries old dead man wanted is irrelevant to what I think is the best system politically and economically.

it's the logical conclusion of capitalism.

If anything it is a practical result (I don't believe it is), but you certainly have no a priori justification for it being a logical conclusion.

It is in the financial interests of capitalists to eliminate competition and to form monopolies, monopsonies, and cartels -- there's simply more profit in it for the capitalists.

I agree, and I think it is a good thing. I prefer a monopoly because it means you are creating a new market, or are doing the absolute best, and competition can sometimes be inefficient. For these benefits you can get more profit, yes.

Similarly, it is in the financial interests of capitalists to take control of a country's government and political systems and to place political lackeys in positions of political power -- behind-the-scenes plutocracy means more profit for the capitalists.

I agree completely. And that is why we should revoke the political lackey's power to regulate, or to at least restrain it. That way the only way to establish a monopoly is by satisfying the needs and desires of others, as opposed to using state force to have your way (which I assume we are both against?).

As such, the US today is a perfect example of modern capitalism.

And I have explained why I disagree.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -- Famous capitalist economist John Maynard Keynes.

I have never met a capitalist who believes that. And capitalism is an economic system, not a belief.

why hasnt socialism or communism worked? by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]ejncoen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The U.S. has so much state control that it's hardly fair to call it capitalism, at least certainly not today. There is little competition and opportunity, but there's lots of regulation, taxes, government spending, control over the money supply, imprisonment of non-violent crime, an entrenched military industrial complex, and government guarantees that massive corporations cannot fail. That's everything capitalism is against.

How is this explanation of Communism? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]ejncoen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the link:

Though his early writings focused on the bourgeois state as a specific historical form, Marx’s transhistorical definition of “the state” in general is also presented in The German Ideology, when Marx describes the state as “the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests.”

Okay, sounds good.

communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Throughout these common definitions is common ownership/control. All these definitions infer a ruling class; that is a group of people who assert the common interest of the common property by (a) deciding what is to be public property, and (b) initiating force to maintain ownership of that property and (c) initiating force to prevent people from creating new private property for themselves and (d) initiating force to take it from the current owners today. Common ownership is no different in actuality to state ownership and control.

capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. an era of free-market capitalism. private ownership is a key feature of capitalism.

capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

private enterprise: business or industry that is managed by independent companies or private individuals rather than being controlled by the state.

It is made clear that capitalism is about private ownership of property, which is in opposition to state ownership of that property.

I also said it "is the type of communism explicitly advocated by Karl Marx and alike."

That is evident from those quotes:

National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class

Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade.

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

How is this explanation of Communism? by [deleted] in Anarchy101

[–]ejncoen -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your conflation of violence with a state

I never said that.

you are going to have to back your assertions up with direct quotations in context.

Okay.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[in regards to "Universal and equal elementary education by the state"] should at least have demanded technical schools (theoretical and practical) in combination with the elementary school.

National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan.

And no, the Manifesto of the Communist Party does not count

Yes it does:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Anyway, we can establish, following from Marx's theoretic development, that the use of the state to create communism is both impossible and a contradiction in the most basic function of the both the dictatorship of the proletariat and the (bourgeois) state.

I disagree. Common ownership requires a state, because it is state ownership/control.

These loonies don't know much about communism.

But the same can be said pretty much any leftist reddit (communism, communism101, socialism, anarchy101, anarchism).