Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You have points, and as I am sure you are aware, it is not a system of free-for-all land that I advocate but rather a system of use-rights in place of property-rights. For the reasons stated, not in the previous post but the post before that, I still believe that private property rights will be abused. It is far more likely to result in a just system where all members of society (with there development of sophistication in the present world) would have control over how land is managed/distributed.
    In any case, it is necessary to defend the nomadic life style for the sake of refuting the claims of propertarians. It is quite clear that upon western invasion, many natural resources were depleted (though, admittedly no private property rights had been assigned). Also, I have seen little evidence that nomads would deplete their own natural resources. From what I can see they would not travel too far (as this requires precious energy, time and effort). For this reason, they would utilise land without depleting all of its resources during season, move to another area (partly because this area was more suitable in different seasons due to weather and climate but also partly so they would not deplete all the natural resources) for the next season before moving back. I mentioned one strategy which was to only chop down a few trees (in the case of the Amazon) and only remain in the area for a limited period of time. There is no guarantee that nomadic tribes will not have to stay in the same place on more than one occasion.
    Basically, for the nomads, it was in their interests to preserve their own environment. Even if it was not, they did not have the means of destroying land that we do in the present day with the rise of the growth of technology that has been concentrated into the wrong hands (the private investor rather than society).
    P.s. speaking of animals, what are your views on animal rights? Will the free market protect animal rights? Are animal rights irrelevant?
    I have seen you refer to use-rights before. I'll have to study the details off that before responding. But I am noticing a creeping trend in your posts with regards to something else we discussed recently - the concept of society. For instance, you refer (quite justly) to destructive technology falling into the concentrated hands as opposed to "society". I would argue that government is the wrong hands, but you still refer to society, as if it was a person with it's own interests and so forth. Just because a society is a collection of individuals, doesn't mean it has the traits individuals have.

    A nomadic lifestyle (as a means & not an end) is proof of a single thing - a lack of property rights. Property rights enables a society to flourish through division of labour & creates incentives for people to efficiently maintain property. As far as I am aware, the nomadic tribes of the Americas had absolutely no concept of official "private property". They saw the world for all. There is really nothing wrong with that, until economics knocks-on-you-door. The fact that those tribes moved around in a pattern, as you suggested, still proves the lack of property rights. One season they'd spend the time on a certain patch, and the following season they'd move to a different patch, and back-and-forth between seasons. The fact that they move means they have used up available resources inefficiently. They would only return back to this patch if they had some kind of guarantee. At some stage, the leader would have the idea of going back, and taking the risk. He then discovered, to his relief, that if they moved between certain patches, they could eliminate the risk element. This, I have argued, is the early stages towards the development of private property. But they, nonetheless, lack the private property. It shows because they have to move around, because they have used up resources inefficiently.

    I think animals have rights because they act as if they have claims to economic goods. For instance, if you try to steal a lioness's cubs, then she'll retaliate. In fact, prides of lions divide up the land as their hunting grounds. It shows that other species understand the importance of private property (except Noam Chomsky ). So, I think animals do have rights - because they act just as homosapiens do - with respect to the world around them. And, rights, as I explained in the blog link above, are an invention in the free-market to deal with disputes over scarce economic goods (much like money). You could even extend the concept of such rights to plants and bacteria! The next question is "how do we treat those animal rights, with respect to our rights?" Obviously, we compete not merely with other humans, but with animals over economic goods. I don't really find the normative claims off "animal suffering" etc ... that convincing in this whole argument. Although, of course, I don't like the idea of needless suffering - animals or not. This is where I introduce the concept of "power". Two entities are of equal power if one can retaliate against the other in an attack. For that reason, rights are respected. Not because you think it is good, but because it is in your interest to do so. After all, if you try to steal something valuable from me, I would retaliate with force. One of us could get hurt, and it becomes an economic calculation of rewards vs. risk. There is a disequilibrium of power if you can't retaliate against an attack. Humans, you must remember, are top of the food-chain. We have ultimate power - through our mental capacity to reason. We managed to leave our planet, and go to a celestial moon, for heaven's sake! This is an accomplishment that is absolutely staggering in the history of our solar system, when you realise that all the other animals are merely worrying about their food! So, in conclusion, that summarizes my views on animal rights. I think I am going to make a blog about this. Whenever, the topic of animal rights comes up, people tend to express their own moral convictions. My views on animal rights are based on my convictions alone. I don't think animals have universal rights, and anymore than humans do. Having said that, my sister has a new kitten, and I respect his rights, but he is so cute.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Ah yes, pan-africanism. No I was refering to your post about organising highway maintenance, national health services (after they had been decentralised and put into the hands of the community) in a post-revolutionary society. There is an interesting article I keep meaning to dig up that I found: it was written by one of the post-civil war Spanish anarchists on the topic of organisation in a post-revolutionary society. However I will deal with your inquiry about pan-africanism.

    It is a very interesting ideology and indeed has brought many benefits for the oppressed natives of South Africa: I am particularly referring to the end (or diminution, rather) of apartheid in South Africa. It holds many of the same ideals (mainly that of social equality, including social equality for all ethnicities) as anarchism but to what extent can one actually declare it anarchism? I have not been able to discover any purposeful objections to capitalism and statism within the ideology. In any case this topic of xenophobia reminds me of Marx's attitudes towards reactionary ideas (particularly among the working class). I believe he said something along the lines of (I am unable to dig up the exact quote, my apologies):

    "You do not get rid of the crap first and then create the revolution: you create the revolution and that, in turn, gets rid of the crap of the centuries"

    In other words, sure it is important to hold struggles against oppressions and undesirable traits in society (this, apart from anything else gets publicity for anarchists) but it is far from the end goal. No. Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. are all delusionary concepts that have been portrayed by the bourgeois owned media to further divide the working classes. What's more is that, we are not so much divided by these small, petty differences as we are divided by class: any of these reactionary ideals we see present among members of society are all a result of a divisive class based system. After we have created a revolutionary society, most citizens will hold a revolutionary mindset (and this can only be expanded by the self-management of labour and new found political power which will enhance the individual, furthering their energy and self-esteem) and over time these reactionary mindsets (racism, homophobia, sexism, nationalism) that have evolved from the unpleasant circumstances of capitalism will naturally degenerate.

    So I would argue that while its great to focus upon abolishing apartheid, abolishing a patriarchical society under the present day economic infrastructure, none of this will be achieved until we have obliterated all forms of domination in society as this is the root of all our struggles. Nonetheless, I support the beliefs of pan-africanism and some aspects of the ideology certainly have similarities with anarchism. For instance, in the same way that the dialectics of anarchism (and other communist ideologies) trace back history as a result of class struggle (between the bourgeois and the proletariat), pan-africanism places stress upon the historical importance of the economic and social circumstances of Africa, tracing back the roots of most of its present day problems to slavery, racism and colonialism. I think it is safe to say a lot of these circumstances are in one way or another a result of class-based domination of the whites over the blacks, of the slave masters over the slaves, of the colonialists over the African natives and of the exploiting classes over the exploited classes. This all boils down to class analysis and is very relevant to some very basic dialectics which many anarchists subscribe to.
    So I am glad you were able to comment on the pan-african ideal and hope to hear from you soon on how current state owned or national institutions are maintained. In response to any explicit rejections of statism, I would say that the notion is inherent in the ideology as one huge state surely would mean the establishment of thousands smaller communes within. The point is not something that can be exclusively inferred from pan-africanism as many countries, such as Libya, wish for a greater socialist and communist system, which of course would incorporate the state as a given.

    The quote is an interesting one and I will deal with it by itself first. Marx says you can't have a revolution before getting rid of the crap. Well this is of course, obvious. By getting rid of the crap, you support evolution, not revolution.

    The two aren't mutually exclusive of course, as you say. There is nothing wrong in trying to get rid of some things and then subsequently having a revolution. Likewise, you can have a revolution and get rid of the remaining residue afterwards but in the main, what Marx seems to be saying - at least to me - is fairly obvious.

    I would disagree on what you say is the main cause of division and prejudice and I suppose we could discuss this endlessly. Whilst the class system is important in enforcing the prejudices present in society, I believe it is first the state (which sets an arbitrary boundary between two groups of people, thus inherently causing strife by its nature) and then capital, or at least a focus on it which instigates these disparities in the first place.

    As you say, pan-africanism and anarchy are not so dissimilar and I would even go so far as to say that they could co exist, diluted forms of the two. You are correct in that both forms attribute oppression and division as their main cause for current conflict and I would agree with the sentiment personally. However, as I've said, I do not think it is the root cause. Nonetheless, the class system and Western oppression (now Chinese) of Africa is something which should be halted and destroyed as soon as possible.

    If you would like to read about it, here is a list of anarchist communities over time. I am going to append this to the OP in case anyone wishes to read about actual historical incidents of where anarchy has occurred; a lot of people brush off anarchy because they assume it has and never will work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...st_communities. Especially, look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...994-present.29

    (Original post by LordHysteria)
    Utilising land depletes resources in a nomadic lifestyle by nature [paraphrase]
    Hello. Just to notify you, the Native Americans in particular followed the grazing pattern of the bison. See here. The Native Americans basically just hunted the bison and used that for pretty much everything they needed whilst they were there and then moved on to the next place.

    ANARCHY__
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I have seen you refer to use-rights before. I'll have to study the details off that before responding. But I am noticing a creeping trend in your posts with regards to something else we discussed recently - the concept of society. For instance, you refer (quite justly) to destructive technology falling into the concentrated hands as opposed to "society". I would argue that government is the wrong hands, but you still refer to society, as if it was a person with it's own interests and so forth. Just because a society is a collection of individuals, doesn't mean it has the traits individuals have
    Use-rights: I mainly refer to a system of distribution of property based upon need that is, for the most part, in relation to one's profession (farmers will get the most land, unless there is another profession you can think of that requires more land than a farmer?). Their use-rights include the fact that no-one has right to unjustifiably enter or cause damage to their property (communes would not permit pollution). This applies to uninhabited land as well although uninhabited land may be occupied - this prevents the pointless accumulation of largely unused land by wealthy individuals. In essence then, private property rights would not be defended but we would replace them with a system of use-rights. This is what most commies are banging on about when they are saying to "abolish private property". Proudhon's famous quote is "What is property? Property is robbery." Of course he goes into much more depth, taking apart the main philosophical arguments of the day that were being used to state that man has a "natural right" to property and claiming them nonsense, in his book "What is Property?" Most commies can't see how ownership of land can be morally justified solely by investing in lots of capital.

    As far as society goes, I don't deny the importance of society (which does exist: it is a network of relationships between individuals) but I don't think the individual should sacrifice himself for the "greater good". I do think that voluntary organisations of individuals within society should collectively own the means of production, yes. Of course "society" itself is not a decision making body (though it can be a collective decision making body when it is united by a democratic nationalised institution such as a state) however it is of course much easier to just refer to "society" than start babbling on about "free associations", "worker's solidarity", "delegates", "mass assemblies" and "direct democracy", blah, blah, blah. There are, of course, various schools of anarchist thought which differ about how a post-revolutionary society should function. There was much bickering, particularly between the anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists before the 1936 revolution when the anarchist unions held a great deal of power. This lead to the rising of "anarchism without adjectives" - some anarchists thought that the specific economic system would be defined by the economic and social circumstances (e.g. whether the local area was industrial [syndicalism would be best suited] or agricultural [communism would be best suited]). In any case this bickering is obviously a huge part of anarchism and would underline the energy in the masses following a post-revolutionary society which would hold youthful energetic decisions in mass assemblies based around everyday politics. You could finally have a say in how your local neighbourhood was run: whether you thought there should be a mini-roundabout, or a set of traffic lights, whether you thought there should be more binmen, etc. Since most initiative is carried out by hierarchies, a lot of the spontaneous energy is stolen from society and we have become "dumbened down" as a result, I feel: we just bend over and assume the authorities will sort everything out for us.

    A nomadic lifestyle (as a means & not an end) is proof of a single thing - a lack of property rights. Property rights enables a society to flourish through division of labour & creates incentives for people to efficiently maintain property. As far as I am aware, the nomadic tribes of the Americas had absolutely no concept of official "private property". They saw the world for all. There is really nothing wrong with that, until economics knocks-on-you-door. The fact that those tribes moved around in a pattern, as you suggested, still proves the lack of property rights. One season they'd spend the time on a certain patch, and the following season they'd move to a different patch, and back-and-forth between seasons. The fact that they move means they have used up available resources inefficiently. They would only return back to this patch if they had some kind of guarantee. At some stage, the leader would have the idea of going back, and taking the risk. He then discovered, to his relief, that if they moved between certain patches, they could eliminate the risk element. This, I have argued, is the early stages towards the development of private property. But they, nonetheless, lack the private property. It shows because they have to move around, because they have used up resources inefficiently.
    I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad thing though, that they had no concept of private property.

    I think animals have rights because they act as if they have claims to economic goods. For instance, if you try to steal a lioness's cubs, then she'll retaliate. In fact, prides of lions divide up the land as their hunting grounds. It shows that other species understand the importance of private property (except Noam Chomsky ). So, I think animals do have rights - because they act just as homosapiens do - with respect to the world around them. And, rights, as I explained in the blog link above, are an invention in the free-market to deal with disputes over scarce economic goods (much like money). You could even extend the concept of such rights to plants and bacteria! The next question is "how do we treat those animal rights, with respect to our rights?" Obviously, we compete not merely with other humans, but with animals over economic goods. I don't really find the normative claims off "animal suffering" etc ... that convincing in this whole argument. Although, of course, I don't like the idea of needless suffering - animals or not. This is where I introduce the concept of "power". Two entities are of equal power if one can retaliate against the other in an attack. For that reason, rights are respected. Not because you think it is good, but because it is in your interest to do so. After all, if you try to steal something valuable from me, I would retaliate with force. One of us could get hurt, and it becomes an economic calculation of rewards vs. risk. There is a disequilibrium of power if you can't retaliate against an attack. Humans, you must remember, are top of the food-chain. We have ultimate power - through our mental capacity to reason. We managed to leave our planet, and go to a celestial moon, for heaven's sake! This is an accomplishment that is absolutely staggering in the history of our solar system, when you realise that all the other animals are merely worrying about their food! So, in conclusion, that summarizes my views on animal rights. I think I am going to make a blog about this. Whenever, the topic of animal rights comes up, people tend to express their own moral convictions. My views on animal rights are based on my convictions alone. I don't think animals have universal rights, and anymore than humans do. Having said that, my sister has a new kitten, and I respect his rights, but he is so cute.
    Yeah, I was referring more to animal testing, whether you thought it was right (or wrong), to what extent you think the free market would sort out the issue. I am personally no vegetarian but I feel that we should do everything to minimise pain and suffering for animals: some of this scientific testing is cruel and barbaric and not something I would want to happen to myself, personally. Technically speaking, the animals haven't "voluntarily" entered this arrangement with the scientists so by your books, would that make it ethically wrong?

    If I am correct, what you seem to be saying is "animals have rights, but life is a vicious cycle of natural competition, therefore humans come out on top and we thus have moral right to abuse animals." But this does not make any sense logically. If this were to apply within the realms of the human race as well, many of the weaker members of society would be treated as animals with no actual rights. Conversely, what if animals were to reach the top of the hierarchy? Would it be part of the natural order, then, if animals induced cancer in the cells of human brains so they could test for cancer cures?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Yeah, I was referring more to animal testing, whether you thought it was right (or wrong), to what extent you think the free market would sort out the issue. I am personally no vegetarian but I feel that we should do everything to minimise pain and suffering for animals: some of this scientific testing is cruel and barbaric and not something I would want to happen to myself, personally. Technically speaking, the animals haven't "voluntarily" entered this arrangement with the scientists so by your books, would that make it ethically wrong?

    If I am correct, what you seem to be saying is "animals have rights, but life is a vicious cycle of natural competition, therefore humans come out on top and we thus have moral right to abuse animals." But this does not make any sense logically. If this were to apply within the realms of the human race as well, many of the weaker members of society would be treated as animals with no actual rights. Conversely, what if animals were to reach the top of the hierarchy? Would it be part of the natural order, then, if animals induced cancer in the cells of human brains so they could test for cancer cures?
    Hmm, I see what you mean by use-rights, but I don't see much economic reality. Moreover, I don't see such a system workable without some form of central planning. Someone will have to get paid for nothing else than ensuring everyone is going be the rules. It seems that majority determines how you live your life, instead of you making that decision for yourself (as you would in anarcho-capitalism). "You're a farmer, so you get x acres of land. We have voted, so don't both arguing" ... and so forth.

    I think I am going to devote a few more blogs to dismantling the economics of anarcho-syndicalism, and commies.

    In regards to animal rights, I described the existence of animals have rights in the descriptive sense. When it comes whether or not they should, in particular scenarios or whatever, then I think it is a question of one's moral convictions. In other words, I didn't deal with the normative question. I probably won't do business with a company that inflicts needless pain on other animals. I suspect that most other people wouldn't either. I am not sure how the free-market or libertarianism would "solve" animal rights. The free-market allows for the most efficient and optimal allocation of resources. Rights (like currency) is an invention of man to deal with the scarce economic goods that the free-market provides. The question of "animal rights" is question humans must ask themselves with respect to how they treat other animals around them. Libertarianism is the political philosophy based on the non-aggression principle.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Hmm, I see what you mean by use-rights, but I don't see much economic reality. Moreover, I don't see such a system workable without some form of central planning. Someone will have to get paid for nothing else than ensuring everyone is going be the rules. It seems that majority determines how you live your life, instead of you making that decision for yourself (as you would in anarcho-capitalism). "You're a farmer, so you get x acres of land. We have voted, so don't both arguing" ... and so forth.
    1) "Oppressed" minorities have right to appeal against decisions - indeed the spirit of revolt will be encouraged and much admired in anarchist communities: we want people to disagree with mass decisions and not follow along like a herd of mindless sheep.
    2) They can leave associations at any time they desire (much like the capitalist free market only voluntary arrangements go hand in hand with social equality, that is equal political and economic power which can only be obtained via self-management of labour as explained previously).

    I think I am going to devote a few more blogs to dismantling the economics of anarcho-syndicalism, and commies.
    State some economic arguments and we can talk

    In regards to animal rights, I described the existence of animals have rights in the descriptive sense. When it comes whether or not they should, in particular scenarios or whatever, then I think it is a question of one's moral convictions. In other words, I didn't deal with the normative question. I probably won't do business with a company that inflicts needless pain on other animals. I suspect that most other people wouldn't either. I am not sure how the free-market or libertarianism would "solve" animal rights. The free-market allows for the most efficient and optimal allocation of resources. Rights (like currency) is an invention of man to deal with the scarce economic goods that the free-market provides. The question of "animal rights" is question humans must ask themselves with respect to how they treat other animals around them. Libertarianism is the political philosophy based on the non-aggression principle.
    Yes but, as with most ethical arguments in favour of laissez-faire economics, you assume people will, on the whole, be bothered by principles adopted by the market which do not somehow, directly or indirectly affect themselves. Thus, I appreciate that you value animal rights (which many other amongst the laissez-faire tradition disregard) but I can see no way in which they would be respected under the free market.

    Edit- I understand what you are saying about rights but I think they are more of a tangible thing than the concept you propose if that makes sense. Also, I think it is important not to ignore ethics when discussing rights. So my point still stands about animal rights in the free market.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Yes but, as with most ethical arguments in favour of laissez-faire economics, you assume people will, on the whole, be bothered by principles adopted by the market which do not somehow, directly or indirectly affect themselves. Thus, I appreciate that you value animal rights (which many other amongst the laissez-faire tradition disregard) but I can see no way in which they would be respected under the free market.
    (Original post by LordHysteria)
    x
    Speaking of animal rights, both of you may find this documentary interesting to watch. http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Speaking of animal rights, both of you may find this documentary interesting to watch. http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php
    That picture on the video looked a bit gory so I didn't really want to press play (I don't really like that sort of thing)...what was it about?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    1) "Oppressed" minorities have right to appeal against decisions - indeed the spirit of revolt will be encouraged and much admired in anarchist communities: we want people to disagree with mass decisions and not follow along like a herd of mindless sheep.
    This is exploitation in its purest form.

    You have no choice but to submit to the decisions of the "community". You have no rights at all. Whatever "use-rights" you have is at the discretion of the commune. You have to appeal before some quasi-government-commune-body or go pack-your-bags!

    What kind of system makes a virtue in revolting? I don't know about you, but something is ****ed up if there is a single revolt!

    You are meaningless in a commune. Your existence is for the benefit of others, and God help you ask for something for yourself! That would be hell for me.

    2) They can leave associations at any time they desire (much like the capitalist free market only voluntary arrangements go hand in hand with social equality, that is equal political and economic power which can only be obtained via self-management of labour as explained previously).
    Oh really. So if I decide for a change of career, and the commune won't have it, I have to leave my home, family and friends, and go to a different commune?

    State some economic arguments and we can talk
    Will do .

    Yes but, as with most ethical arguments in favour of laissez-faire economics, you assume people will, on the whole, be bothered by principles adopted by the market which do not somehow, directly or indirectly affect themselves. Thus, I appreciate that you value animal rights (which many other amongst the laissez-faire tradition disregard) but I can see no way in which they would be respected under the free market.

    Edit- I understand what you are saying about rights but I think they are more of a tangible thing than the concept you propose if that makes sense. Also, I think it is important not to ignore ethics when discussing rights. So my point still stands about animal rights in the free market.
    I said in my previous post that the free-market makes no impositions on people. It doesn't force down peoples' throat a certain view. It allows people to make their own choices. You & I happen to value animal rights, but why should either of us force other people to comply with our views? This sort of thing lends itself towards a government.

    So, when it comes to animal rights, it is NOT a question of the free-market system but, rather, how individual people have been brought up and how they value the world (and all the other species we share the planet with) around them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    That picture on the video looked a bit gory so I didn't really want to press play (I don't really like that sort of thing)...what was it about?
    This is taken from the website itself: EARTHLINGS is an award-winning documentary film about the suffering of animals for food, fashion, pets, entertainment and medical research. Considered the most persuasive documentary ever made, EARTHLINGS is nicknamed “the Vegan maker” for its sensitive footage shot at animal shelters, pet stores, puppy mills, factory farms, slaughterhouses, the leather and fur trades, sporting events, circuses and research labs.

    The film is narrated by Academy Award® nominee Joaquin Phoenix and features music by platinum-selling recording artist Moby. Initially ignored by distributors, today EARTHLINGS is considered the definitive animal rights film by organizations around the world. “Of all the films I have ever made, this is the one that gets people talking the most,” said Phoenix. “For every one person who sees EARTHLINGS, they will tell three."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    This is exploitation in its purest form.

    You have no choice but to submit to the decisions of the "community". You have no rights at all. Whatever "use-rights" you have is at the discretion of the commune. You have to appeal before some quasi-government-commune-body or go pack-your-bags!

    What kind of system makes a virtue in revolting? I don't know about you, but something is ****ed up if there is a single revolt!

    You are meaningless in a commune. Your existence is for the benefit of others, and God help you ask for something for yourself! That would be hell for me.
    You see I think that capitalism subdues the spirit of revolt in people: authoritarian infrastructures tell workers that any form of objection to the hierarchy (e.g. strikes, trade unionism, etc.) is "counter-productive" and that they are best to just bend-over and take it: in the "long run" they will get better paid if they just "stick with it". I think it is a brilliant idea to have a society with energetic, youthful ideas that don't just pop on their rain coat and get to work under a grey sky doing the same old, boring, repetitive work every day but one which constantly questions all illegitimate forms of authority and faces the full heat of the storm head on.

    Oh really. So if I decide for a change of career, and the commune won't have it, I have to leave my home, family and friends, and go to a different commune?
    Not - necessarily - communes can peacefully coexist in the same neighbourhood. Communes would want to keep their members pleased though, for obvious reasons. You don't even have to be part of a commune: all you need to do is co-operate with a commune to get goods and services back from the commune (i.e. trade your goods and services with said commune).

    I said in my previous post that the free-market makes no impositions on people. It doesn't force down peoples' throat a certain view. It allows people to make their own choices. You & I happen to value animal rights, but why should either of us force other people to comply with our views? This sort of thing lends itself towards a government.

    So, when it comes to animal rights, it is NOT a question of the free-market system but, rather, how individual people have been brought up and how they value the world (and all the other species we share the planet with) around them.
    Yeah but I don't believe such a revolutionary mindset will be accomplished via ancap: naturally under a libertarian communist society people would be more prone to questioning authority and therefore more prone to questioning (and actually thinking about) moral rights - including whether or not animals have rights.

    Edit - another problem of course, would be the non-directivity of the free market. People can't see the (indirect) consequences of their actions when they buy a burger from Burger King (i.e., they don't know what the company is doing to animals). But, if they are working in/with the commune (which will have all sorts of lines of labour, including agricultural lines [farming], environmental lines [e.g. surveying the woods and local habitats], etc.) then they will see the consequences of their actions through a great diversity of different jobs and activities.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm totally lost now; can someone summarise what the hell this debate is about?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I'm totally lost now; can someone summarise what the hell this debate is about?
    DRE! You didn't keep up with the debate!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    DRE! You didn't keep up with the debate!
    Yeah, I couldn't get access to the internet for a week so I've kind of got lost with all the multi-quoting (stop this guys!)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by d.re.)
    yeah, i couldn't get access to the internet for a week so i've kind of got lost with all the multi-quoting (stop this guys!)
    (Original post by d.re.)
    yeah, i couldn't get access to the internet for a week so i've kind of got lost with all the multi-quoting (stop this guys!)
    (Original post by d.re.)
    yeah, i couldn't get access to the internet for a week so i've kind of got lost with all the multi-quoting (stop this guys!)
    (Original post by d.re.)
    yeah, i couldn't get access to the internet for a week so i've kind of got lost with all the multi-quoting (stop this guys!)
    nevaaaaah!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    nevaaaaah!!!
    I have answered your quote!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I have answered your quote!
    Yeah..doesn't sound like the sort of programme I'd like to watch . I got that pm off you - I'm just trying to figure out a way to answer it . How are you? Good?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Yeah..doesn't sound like the sort of programme I'd like to watch . I got that pm off you - I'm just trying to figure out a way to answer it . How are you? Good?

    Ah, that's fair. I'm glad the PM's giving you food for thought. Did I send you the link about gift economies in Spain? I'm doing ok thanks, I'm just waiting for Christmas. How about you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Ah, that's fair. I'm glad the PM's giving you food for thought. Did I send you the link about gift economies in Spain? I'm doing ok thanks, I'm just waiting for Christmas. How about you?
    Yeah - but the wiki page only briefly mentions Spain itself. I am good ta - got lots of work on, though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Yeah - but the wiki page only briefly mentions Spain itself. I am good ta - got lots of work on, though.
    Mhm. I thought it was an interesting concept though, allowing everyone to have whatever they need because they contribute to society. Perhaps this would be the alternative to using capital. If you don't mind me asking do/did you ever go to school and then higher education or do/did you do something different? Feel free to answer over PM if you don't feel like saying over this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Mhm. I thought it was an interesting concept though, allowing everyone to have whatever they need because they contribute to society. Perhaps this would be the alternative to using capital. If you don't mind me asking do/did you ever go to school and then higher education or do/did you do something different? Feel free to answer over PM if you don't feel like saying over this.
    Yeah, I'm at 6th form college now (3rd/last year). Might consider higher education in a year or two, depending on how things go. I might not go for some time though (or at all). You?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.