(Original post by Melancholy)
It seems to me that if you want to criticise the free market, you have to criticise the coercion which comes from the free market. It's like criticising abortion purely because a fictional dictator used coercive force against anyone who disagreed with abortion.
Though I am highly critical of the free market, I was not criticising the free market specifically in this post. I was merely stating that one can be against government intervention in the market place (pro-free market) whilst being in favour of state intervention.
I also think that it's just plain wrong to say that the free market does not imply any social/political freedoms. You have freedom from coercion if you have the choice of who you do and do not lend your labour or produce to.
The free market does not
imply social/political freedoms. There are even some libertarian right wingers who agree with me on this. The point is that under the banner of the free market ideology is the belief that you would have "freedom ... of who you do and do not lend your labour or produce to" as you correctly identify but not necessarily freedom to speak out against the political system. This is all I had meant. You can't deny, surely, that Pinochet was in favour of the free market?
And yes, the free market would involve state-coercion in the scenario that you describe, but it's not solely because of the free market.
I didn't say it was
of the free market. Rather that some are pro free market and
pro government intervention in other areas. Which basically leads me to my conclusion that you cannot state that you are merely a capitalist or a free market enthusiast: you have to clarify that you are specifically, for instance, a liberal (though I am not trying to assign you to this particular ideology though from what I've read it seems to suit you the best).
Of course, the State is going to have to use violence in order to stop the poorest receiving the money from the rich for their healthcare.
Yes but under social anarchism, voluntary workers' communes would organise the distribution of labour and refuse to co-operate with the rich so forcefully extracting money from the rich (which is hardly ever "earned" anyway - interest, rent, accumulation of capital, inheritance, tax-dodging and exploitation of labour) would not be necessary.
Can we conclude that it is because of the free market that violence is used?
This was never my point.
I'd certainly hesitate to do so - the police are getting involved because the poor are, arguably, "stealing" the money, labour, talents, efforts, resources and such things from the rich. In other words, they're using coercion to PREVENT coercion (the police are used to prevent murder, the police are used to prevent theft, etc.)
Yes, you are correct that the vast majority of crime occurs because of poverty. Socialism will fix this.
True, the vast majority might want to "steal" from the rich, and yes, coercion may be used to stop them. But anyway, I think coercion will be used regardless of what system you adopt. Your system of communes employs a heck of a lot of coercion (people being told what they have to work towards, devote their labour towards, give their profits towards, and so on.
People are not "told what they have to work towards [etc.]" - they
co-operate with communes in exchange for goods and services from society. Only coercion used would be to prevent those who would wish harm to another citizen from doing so.
I'm a liberal (in the American sense), and yes, it involves capitalism, and yes, capitalism as-we-see-it-now is largely a liberal conception of capitalism (mixed economies and so forth). I'm not arguing about my stance though. I certainly don't want unrestrained free markets and, as a consequence, unrestrained social freedoms.
I see, so you do not advocate an entirely free-market. Good, you can be worked with.
(Original post by Oswy)
Absolutely I do. The forced alienation of the people from land through the 'private property' construct is the ultimate starting point for all consequential exploitation.
I like to ask libertarians about private property because they know, deep down, that its existence is highly inequitable and actually contra
libertarianism. Libertarians are only ever able to justify private property pragmatically
, (as above), as they know it doesn't fit libertarian theory as properly applied. To this extent such propertarians are not really radicals at all, they are just tories pretending to be 'cool'. It's a particularly useful issue to bring up with them because they are almost never willing to compromise any other element of libertarianism, even to the point of absurdity; such as with the 'pet torture' argument I use against them from time to time. Ahh, it's like shooting fish in a barrel
Yes, I find it rather amusing how they try to associate linguo that was originally leftist such as libertarianism (Joseph Dejacque - "le libertaire") and anarchism with their own propaganda and then have the audacity to talk about "rights" being non-existant (particularly in the case of animals and then coming up with some completely void of reality, philosophical explanation of rights), property being non-coercive and the best one - "people power"!
(Original post by simontinsley)
None of that argues for your system of collectivising land completely. You are arguing for collectivising both the unimproved land and the management and therefore improvements of it. I can see the arguments for collectivising the unimproved value (and I've laid them out), but there are no such arguments for collectivising the management or the improvements; any more so than any other good.
There is reason to collectivise any land and that is to prevent economic despotism.
[QUOTE]All this says to me is that someone (even a collective on behalf of the village if it's voluntarily formed) should own the river in the first place. That's the only issue here, if no-one owned it before, I don't see the issue, and nor do you based on your paragraph below.[/QUOTE
That's not the point though: does he have the right
to do it? And the answer is no. In a similar way, no-one has right to deprive land use from society. As for the village owning the river, well a capitalist could just as easily buy up the river and channel the water into a coca-cola factory and the village probably wouldn't have the money to buy property rights over the river anyway.
Though here you have described the homesteading principle (although that even has the caveat that the land must be improved for it to be claimed), which leads to private property. What gives people the right to occupy or use that land to exclude others from 'violating' (using) it. You have argued exactly in support of private property rights. Incredible!
I have not argued for private property: re-read. I have argued for
property. Every man and woman would have an equal right to the management of land distribution. This stuff about "land must be improved for it to be claimed" would not necessarily be the case.
It does argue for the collectivisation of only the unimproved bit. It doesn't collectivise the management or the improvements on land, no, and why should it?
To prevent the
(Original post by Militantbuthopeful)
Where do you stand on religion in all forms personal, organised or state endorsed/run?
I am not against one pursuing their own religious faiths (though I am an atheist and think religion has a lot to answer for in terms of the further divisiveness it has caused between peoples) however I am against organised religion: the church, in some historical scenarios has become a centralised hierarchy. Politics should be secular.
Do you believe it is harmful or not from a purely socialist viewpoint?
Organised religion: yes. Otherwise, people should have freedom to worship as they see fit.