Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     7 years ago 

    It is a sad story. I don't really understand his behavior either, only that I know in both my case from months ago, and @haejin's case more recently -- Bernie attacked first. "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." -- and, I'd argue, even sooner than that, because I'm going to defend myself against your punch before it lands. (The generic "your" of course.)

    Merry Christmas! Today is the darkest day, the sun's gonna get stronger soon! :)

    [-]
     7 years ago 

    "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

    This is where law begins at end. Beyond this law has no purpose. This is also a non-negotiable absolute axiom contrary to what the commies say.(https://steemit.com/whales/@taskmaster4450/whales-and-others-their-behavior-on-full-display#@pandorasbox/re-vimukthi-re-pandorasbox-re-taskmaster4450-whales-and-others-their-behavior-on-full-display-20171221t182058406z)

    I'm going to defend myself against your punch before it lands.

    This is Justice. Justice is more or less pointless after the damage has been done. Prevention is better than cure. Any form of aggression that is used against a First breach of NAP (A crime) that doesn't far significantly exceed the original aggression is a non-crime though it's a sin. My definition includes First Degree Murder.

    $0.30
    • Past Payouts $0.30
    • - Author $0.27
    • - Curators $0.03
    5 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     7 years ago 
    $0.31
    • Past Payouts $0.31
    • - Author $0.23
    • - Curators $0.07
    2 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     7 years ago 

    There are basically only two ways in which economic life can be organized. The first is by the voluntary choice of families and individuals and by voluntary cooperation. This arrangement has come to be known as the free market. The other is by the orders of a dictator. This is a command economy. In its more extreme form, when an organized state expropriates the means of production, it is called socialism or communism. Economic life must be primarily organized by one system or the other.

    It can, of course, be a mixture, as it unfortunately is in most nations today. But the mixture tends to be unstable. If it is a mixture of a free and a coerced economy the coerced section tends constantly to increase.

    One qualification needs to be emphasized. A "free" market does not mean and has never meant that everybody is free to do as he likes. Since time immemorial mankind has operated under a rule of law, written or unwritten. Under a market system as any other, people are forbidden to kill, molest, rob, libel or otherwise intentionally injure each other. Otherwise free choice and all other individual freedoms would be impossible. But an economic system must be dominantly either a free or a command system.

    Ever since the introduction and spread of Marxism the great majority of people who publicly discuss economic issues have been confused. Recently a very eminent person was quoted as denouncing economic systems that respond "only to the forces of the market place," and are governed "by the profit motive of the few rather than the needs of the many." He warned that such a system could put "the world's food supply into even greater jeopardy."

    This immense cooperative system is known as a free-market economy. It was not consciously planned by anybody. It evolved. It is not perfect, in the sense that it leads to the maximum possible balanced production and/or distributes its rewards and penalties in exact proportion to the economic deserts of each of us. But this could not be expected of any economic "system." The fate of each of us is always affected by the accidents and catastrophes as well as the blessings of nature—by rainfall, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, or what not. A flood or a drought may wipe out half a crop, bringing disaster to those growers directly hit by it, and perhaps record-high prices and profits to the growers who were spared. And no system can overcome the shortcomings of the human beings that operate it—the relative ignorance, ineptitude, or sheer bad luck of some of us, the lack of perfect foresight or omniscience on the part of all of us.

    All quotes from Henry Hazlitt.

    Anarchy and Communism are two opposites like the 2 poles of a magnet. Mixing them is an oxymoron.

    https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/46766.Ludwig_von_Mises

    $0.27
    • Past Payouts $0.27
    • - Author $0.21
    • - Curators $0.06
    3 votes
    Reply
    [-]
     7 years ago 

    Um, the og anarchists called themselves communists, tyvm.
    But you would have known that if your history class had been of a different type, ie, not one controlled by folks that wanted to control you through your ignorance.
    Me, too, except that i broke free and read the histories on my own.
    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen

    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

    I fought long and hard to remain crapitalust, but this novel finally showed me crapitalism's last lie that controlled me.
    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/624

    You have to decide for you.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       7 years ago 

      Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.

      Source: Wikipedia

      Anarcho-communism is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, private property (while retaining respect for personal property) and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle:"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

      Basically it's plain old communism minus state (How is that possible??? Not properly explained.)

      Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of self-ownership, private property, and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that, in the absence of statute (law by centralized decrees and legislation), society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the discipline of the free market (in what its proponents describe as a voluntary society).

      These 2 only have elimination of state as common ground. They both got their name "Anarchy" because they both advocated the elimination of state. How communism("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".) is going to function without a state is simply incomprehensible to me.

      Dubai went from a plot of sand to having indoor rain forests/surfing/skiing and artificial islands in less than 3 generations and Singapore went from a ghetto to twice the GDP per capita of USSA and became one of the most expensive cities on Earth to live on by following a fraction of the principles of free market capitalism.

      On the other hand commies have Hitler, Stalin and the only Fat man In North Korea.

      $0.11
      • Past Payouts $0.11
      • - Author $0.09
      • - Curators $0.03
      2 votes
      Reply
      [-]
       7 years ago 

      Ok, what we got here is you using a later definition of communism.
      When Marx split with Bakunin at the first international he also split from Proudhon, who is the og.

      The banks backed marx and he is in the history books allowed to the masses, while Bakunin is not.
      It is a clue.
      https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/franz-mehring-the-bakunin-marx-split-in-the-1st-international

      Imagine, the statists and banksters teaming up to spread fake news, who would've thought?

      Think what we would be like in a cooperative world where we all worked for the same goal, better lives, rather than who can score the highest score at the lowest cost.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         7 years ago 

        No, I'd rather have

        who can score the highest score at the lowest cost.

        That's how all the technological progress happened. That's how a smartphone is more powerful than the best gaming rig from just 10 years ago.

        Imagine, the statists and banksters teaming up to spread fake news

        Bound to happen. My mind would be blown if this doesn't happen.

        cooperative world where we all worked for the same goal

        That's collective over individual. I don't know which circle of hell is that. But it's certainly hell for me. A person has the right to swing his stick in any way he/she likes as long as it stops before the other person's nose.

        As long as NAP isn't breached, nobody has the right to tell what the other person should do. Everyone working for the same goal can only be achieved through telling people what do do.

        Control over my existence is sacrosanct and a world that treats collective>individual is the worst for hell.

        $0.12
        • Past Payouts $0.12
        • - Author $0.09
        • - Curators $0.03
        2 votes
        Reply
        Show 3 more replies
        [-]
         7 years ago 

        Justice is more or less pointless after the damage has been done.

        I like that, a lot. Thanks!