bearORbullENIGMA Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 You can still pay rent to someone without it being coercive. Only if there is a choice. With Capitalist Property (land) Laws, as they are, there is no choice, since somebody owns all the land. Seems confused to me from your end. It doesn't. You haven't read up on the history & sociology of the police force so you are having to distract from your ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Many Socialists, such as Bakunin became Anarchists because they predicted that the State would pervert Socialism. That's quite a shrewd & accurate description of what happened, something quite rare in the Social sciences.Excellent point I make here. It is. Realyl there is only one choice - Do we attack others to attempt to solve social problems or not. My answer is simply that we don't because it's evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Only if there is a choice. With Capitalist Property (land) Laws, as they are, there is no choice,since somebody owns all the land. No, you pay because they are violent. it hans't got anything to do with charging for any particular service. It doesn't. You haven't read up on the history & sociology of the police force so you are havingto distract from your ignorance. I don't make any claims to history or esoteric knowledge. Just logic, basic evidence from day to day life and morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 No, you pay because they are violent. it hans't got anything to do with charging for any particular service. If it were a payment for a service, it would not be a payment for land (rent, in the economic sense) There are two meanings to the word 'rent', it is possible they are being confused here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 My point -- though you conveniently chose to ignore it -- is that communist nations fared much worse. I referred to infant mortality in the Western World. You're right, USA 33rd overall out of all countries.Let's see how other Western countries perform. Iceland - 1 Sweden - 4 Norway - 5 Finland - 7 Czech Republic - 8 Swizerland - 9 Belgium - 11 France - 12 Spain - 13 Germany - 14 Denmark - 15 Etc, etc, I'm sure you get the picture. What do these countries have in common? Ah yes, a social market model along lines which Keynes would recognise, with social healthcare and a mixed economy balancing state and enterprise. Is your consumer choice more important that the lives of children? Or are all those dead kiddies just an acceptable risk of your favorite brand of 'freedom'? edit: I've just realised that you listed countries which you think I might 'like' because of my Avatar. Do you really think that I am actually Lenin's ghost? Have you not read my espousal of centrist policy? Is your thinking so binary that you equate moderate centrism with hard line collectivism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 Hmmmm, I believe the US has delivered on class mobility to a degree unmatched in the history of nations. You seem confused as to the nature and mission of social democracy (which is what you are talking about when you say "socialist" which they aren't). The notion that there is no difference between social democrats and plutocrats is very old news indeed and it was socialists who spotted it first. The irony is by promising "mobility" you are actually hooking your cart to their horse anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 It's less schoolboy and more just plain angry. Read some history and expand your mind beyond the schoolboy philosophy you currently subscribe to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 If it were a payment for a service, it would not be a payment for land (rent, in the economic sense)There are two meanings to the word 'rent', it is possible they are being confused here You can voluntarily pay rent. That's my point. To focus on what the organised violence is demanding misses out on the fact that it's demanding at all. if you convince everyone of the moral case for not charging rent and they go along with it, those who are violent will just make up some other random shit, or latch onto something that is already existing and use their force to do that. no one will be actually any freer or better off. It really is oppose force or nowt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 I think you are right. I have been amazed at the profound differences between us and you Brits. We tend to believe -- correctly or not -- that we can change things. You tend to think you cannot. Big difference. I always liked that Irish guys way of putting it 'we privatise the profits and socialist the losses'I guess some would call our present situation 'corporatism' as espoused by mussolini, although i would consider that a better situation than we currently have as it had at least tacit democratic approval. Im currently calling our present situation as a fascist oligarghy. I believe 'monopoly capitalism' can arrive through incompetent government, i would say a fascist oligarchy arrives through the government actively and forcefully promoting it. Not sure about the USA, but its certainly what we have here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 Yes, once the power pyramid is upset with a top heavy government, nothing can proceed but complete centralization of all power. Capitalists do exactly the same thing. They blur the lines between Socialism & the State.They say stupid things like "Socialism equals the State". Conveniently Forgetting that the state & taxation existed long before Socialism & ignoring that REAL Socialism means that the means of production should be in the hands of the people not a proxy such as the State. Any anarcho-socialist, indeed any anarcho-communist, will tell you that Socialism is not dependent on the State. In fact many Socialists warned in the 1800's that the whole idea of using the State as a proxy & vanguard would lead to terrible atrocities, Bakunin being only one of them: Many Socialists, such as Bakunin became Anarchists because they predicted that the State would pervert Socialism. That's quite a shrewd & accurate description of what happened, something quite rare in the Social sciences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 You profoundly do not understand. And a very happy Labor Day to the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted September 7, 2009 Author Share Posted September 7, 2009 No you don't. You just stop using coercion for those things.Nope. Fantasy past I am afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tob the Blether Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 My point -- though you conveniently chose to ignore it -- is that communist nations fared much worse. Where did you see me saying that they did better? You listed countries which you think I might 'like' because of my Avatar. Do you really think that I am actually Lenin's ghost? Have you not read my espousal of centrist policy? Is your thinking so binary that you equate moderate centrism with hard line collectivism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 You can voluntarily pay rent. Not strictly true. To be rent it would need to be a payment on threat of being expelled (otherwise, it would not be charge for land) if you convince everyone of the moral case for not charging rent and they go along with it, those who are violent will just make up some other random shit, or latch onto something that is already existing and use their force to do that. no one will be actually any freer or better off. I think this has come up on several occasions before What you do not seem to understand is that the rent issue is at the seat of individual choice - if one retains the right to be here and need not accept anything else to do so (rent) unmolested, then all other liberties naturaly follow logically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Not strictly true.To be rent it would need to be a payment on threat of being expelled (otherwise, it would not be charge for land) You can get people to leave without physically attacking them. I think this has come up on several occasions beforeWhat you do not seem to understand is that the rent issue is at the seat of individual choice - if one retains the right to be here and need not accept anything else to do so (rent) unmolested, then all other liberties naturaly follow logically. No, they really don't. You can have the right to be here and I can punch you in the face every time you wear blue, or because you have an irish accent or whatever. That I don't attack you based on one particular preference changes nothing about the relationship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tob the Blether Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 You profoundly do not understand. You'll have to explain - what don't I understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 You can get people to leave without physically attacking them. You aren't reading If you cannot deny people land then any payment they make to you cannot be to stop you denying them land. To be rent it would need to be a payment on threat of being expelled from land (otherwise, it would not be charge for land) No, they really don't.You can have the right to be here and I can punch you in the face every time you wear blue, or because you have an irish accent or whatever. That I don't attack you based on one particular preference changes nothing about the relationship. If I decide to wear blue, then that blue wearing person IS me. If I have a right to be there, then that blue wearing person has a right to be there and your actions are therefore unambiguously an infringment of my right to be there. You have to contradict the right to be there, in order to make the molestation not an infringment. However, if my right to be there is at your discretion, then you can do anything at all to me and call it a trade for being able to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 You aren't readingIf you cannot deny people land then any payment they make to you cannot be to stop you denying them land. To be rent it would need to be a payment on threat of being expelled from land (otherwise, it would not be charge for land) And you can get rid of people from a patch of land without attacking them. You can also pay someone voluntarily for occupying a particular space. If I decide to wear blue, then that blue wearing person IS me. If I have a right to be there, then that blue wearing person has a right to be there and your actions are therefore unambiguously an infringment of my right to be there.You have to contradict the right to be there, in order to make the molestation not an infringment. However, if my right to be there is at your discretion, then you can do anything at all to me and call it a trade for being able to be there. Then you agree - the problem is attacks in general, not just the one form? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearORbullENIGMA Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 It is.Realyl there is only one choice - Do we attack others to attempt to solve social problems or not. My answer is simply that we don't because it's evil. It isn't that simple. Until everybody else in the world accepts that collective force cannot be justified & ceases to support or engage in it (which may never happen), then some collective force will be necessary in self-defense. Whether this attitude reinforces the cycle or not, people have to survive in reality, right now & not in some intellectual bubble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tob the Blether Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Hmmmm, I believe the US has delivered on social exclusion and inequality to a degree unmatched in the history of nations. There, fixed that for you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 It isn't that simple. Yes it is. Until everybody else in the world accepts that collective force cannot be justified& ceases to support or engage in it (which may never happen), then some collective force will be necessary in self-defense. Nope. just you. Whether this attitude reinforces the cycle or not, people have to survive in reality,right now & not in some intellectual bubble. Get on with it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tob the Blether Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I think you are right.I have been amazed at the profound differences between us and you Brits. We tend to believe -- correctly or not -- that we can change things. You tend to think you cannot. Big difference. Yeah, you haven't been around long enough as a nation to learn that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Keep trying! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I think you are right.I have been amazed at the profound differences between us and you Brits. We tend to believe -- correctly or not -- that we can change things. You tend to think you cannot. Big difference. This is why I'm emigrating to America The only nation that has any chance of defeating this tyranny is America. I find living in the UK exhausting. It is unremittingly negative and awful. I find the optimism and positive vibe of American people very invigorating. Here people just moan constantly but do NOTHING to try to challange things. At least there are people in America taking up the challange I cannot f-ucking wait to get out of the UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CokeSnortingTory Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) Anyway, back to the original subject, the false dichotomy is best explained thus: Marxism is essentially an immanised perversion of Christian eschatology (i.e. socialist revolution followed by workers paradise = second coming of Christ followed by paradise on Earth) On the other hand, monetarist capitalism is an immanised perversion of Christian eschatology (i.e. end of history followed by permanent global dominance of neoliberal capitalism = second coming of Christ followed by paradise on Earth) As such, both Marxism and Neoliberal capitalism are millenial cults, who take as their template the previous millenial cult known as Christianity. "God" is removed, but the structure remains. Edited September 7, 2009 by CokeSnortingTory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearORbullENIGMA Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Until everybody else in the world accepts that collective force cannot be justified& ceases to support or engage in it (which may never happen), then some collective force will be necessary in self-defense. Nope. just you. No, everybody in the World would have to buy into your philosophy & that's the problem. People would end up being slaughtered en masse by accepting your advice. So they won't. Coercion may never cease, but scaling it down is possible, that's world history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.