Libertus

Not sure what you mean by "subjective nature". Intent isn't a more or less subjective factor than any other of the three. The firm needs to have actual evidence, at least a plausible reason to believe there is intent. Let's say, the company has issued a press release saying, they're going to "bomb these bastards". Or maybe, the CEO of the firm was caught sending an email expressing intent to murder. To address your scenario, the company can demonstrate no evidence of intent, so therefore they can't claim their own attack to be in self-defense. This is not an arbitrary condition I just made up, it's a standard used in courts and procedure around the world: "I have reason to believe and do believe", not just the latter.

Some nitpicking from me. Otherwise, fantastic discussion, thank you. @fractional slacker > BIG is basically just "granting" every citizen a check, sometimes referred to as a negative income tax. They're not exactly synonymous. Most variations of BIG are not related to income, you get the same amount, not matter how much money you make. One variation of BIG is the negative income tax, its height depends on income. > ...cato-... pragmatic-libertarian... When I see the term "pragmatic libertarian", I can pretty much already tell it's going to be be neither libertarian nor pragmatic. @pumpkinhead > In response to Finland considering giving 800 euros to each citizen per month; Not true. They're only giving it to citizens who work in low income paying jobs. Almost every newspaper got that headline wrong. @Livemike > Is BIG more immoral than what we would get without it?" and I have to say "No." There is imho no point in comparing "immorals". In both cases, current system or current system plus BIG, money is being stolen. For the morality of stealing it doesn't matter what the loot is spent on. There is only one advantage of the BIG over the current system. We can all stop pretending. I mean, since all subsidies produce more of what they subsidize, more and more people will be dependent on the BIG, until they make the majority of the electorate. And since their livelihood will depend on the amount of BIG, while prices will rise accordingly, it will be in everybody's self interest to raise the BIG. After one or two election cycles, the political debate will only consist of who offers the higher number. 800. 1000. 2000. Sold. Every other issue will pale in comparison, It's inflation, this time set by the voter directly, since they will have to print a ridiculous amount of money to pay out the BIG for only the first year, let alone a steadily rising BIG for a rising number of poor citizens every year. Because nobody is going to lend your government money if they're just going to give it away. Money lending depends on profit expectations.

Here's my rule of thumb, I don't remember where I picked it up, but the conversation usually ends when I quote this: OIC = opportunity, intent, capability Those are the elements of a credible threat that warrants a preemptive attack. They make it self-defense, even if you have to strike first. I have yet to encounter an example of a situation that can't be judged by these three factors, let alone a better description of my own thought process, how I determine whether I would strike first. I can elaborate, if you want, but I find it self-explanatory, so let it simmer for a while...

Suuure the state is going to shrink itself. Like that's ever going to happen.

The problem has always been the taking of money and resources from those who have earned an produced them. How the money is being spent is not important, the forceful taking is the crime. No "let's divide the loot this way" makes it right.

Again, "reason"... that's not precise language. We weren't "created" for a "reason". We evolved. Your sexual pleasure centers, hormones, other ornamentation evolved as a mechanism of reproduction. It's a fact, not a moral judgement, so how can you possibly take it personal? Again "x is for y" is vague language. Are you making a moral judgement, as in "it's OK to use your parts for something else besides reproduction?" yeah sure. I don't know / don't care. That's why I was trying to convey in my response that I mean "cause and effect", not "thou shalt". All I'm saying is, that from a biological, evolutionary standpoint, sex is pleasurable because pleasure encourages reproduction. It doesn't even have anything to do with bi / gay sex. I use condoms - but the sex is still pleasurable. Just because I'm mimicking / tricking my pleasure centers doesn't change what they were there for. They have no other "purpose" as in "they evolutionary evolved as a survival strategy". When you're having gay sex you're tricking your brain into thinking you're engaging in a reproductive act. It's the same as in masturbation. The same goes for pain. Pain evolved as a mechanism to prevent and alert on injury. But then again, some people derive pleasure from pain. Does that change anything? I don't think so. Our tastebuds evolved to detect sugary fruit and make it "taste well" so we get our vitamins. I hope this clears it up. Edit: one more thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

The reason why we have sexual desire is to have children, and that is also the reason (as in "cause and effect") why it's pleasurable - that's just a factual statement and does not imply a moral judgement. I hope that helps.

Socialism does work. It works outstandingly for the ruling class, it works for making the poor poorer, it works for extracting wealth from the productive, and it works for propagandizing the minds of the people so they demand more socialism after socialism has screwed them over.

Then what am I incorrectly asserting, exactly? You can't just say "your're making assertions" and then don't name my assertions or show how they're incorrect. All I'm saying is, yes, you have admitted that you would indeed use violence against people accumulating wealth, making labor contracts, charging each other for various goods and services. Do you not stand by that statement? You can take it back, no problem. Then I won't continue "asserting" that that was your position. Everybody can change their mind at some point. Have you?

What baseless assertions? You were asked a direct question, and after some back and forth, you came out and admitted that you would absolutely interfere violently against people accumulating wealth, making labor contracts, charging each other for various goods and services. Do you not stand by that statement?

He has already answered yes, they would absolutely use violence. How any of it is "voluntary" - beats me.

You could actually point a laser at your eyeballs while driving a car on a busy street and then answer your own question.

You're now equivocating "use violence" and "interfere" as "oppose". I'm not playing your games. My direct question was repeated several time: would you interfere? would you use violence interfering in the accumulation of capital, contracts and trade and the answer is, yes of course you would. I'm not asking "would you oppose..." but "would you (or communists) interfere violently in the accumulation of capital, contracts and trade and the answer is, yes of course you would. That's the answer every single Communist has given me, after being pushed numerous times to stop coating their language in vagueness. Yes, you would use violence and you would interfere in labor contracts and exchange of resources and you can tell yourself you're justified in doing so all day long, the conclusion is, that Communism is not voluntary except for when you're a full blown Communist.

To close up our thread of discussion: yes, you would interfere in accumulation of capital, contracts and trade, and yes, you would absolutely use violence to do so, thank you for clearing that up.

My argument was about how a company can't be RUN by workers, because they don't know how. Mondragon is not RUN by workers, so it doesn't address my argument, which I will repeat at the end of this post. Mondragon is "owned by workers" the same way Google is owned by workers: Some workers own shares, some don't. Is that a fact or is that not a fact?

Mondragon is not run by workers, and only partially owned. What are you talking about. It says so right there in the article.

Why doesn't any Communist in modern times build a company, by themselves, with their own capital, and then hand over control to the workers collective? They can't all be disadvantaged, at least some of them should be able to. If all a successful collective needs is a bunch of workers, who do all the planning, strategy, market analysis and distribution of their product by themselves, democratically, why don't they exist by the thousands and have outsmarted, outclassed and outperformed all the capitalists on the market? Because it's a fantasy. Just because I'm good at woodworking doesn't mean I have a clue about who needs how much wood product at what time. It doesn't mean I have a clue about logistics. It doesn't mean I have examined all the alternatives to my product and can make a smart decision when to grow and when to cut back growth. As a woodworker, I can't run my company, and why should I learn how to do it? I am specialized in wood working, let somebody do the strategy who is specialized in that. Communists still live and think in the pre-industrial age. That's why they focus on "workers" so much.

In other, less words, (your brand of) Communism isn't voluntary at all. You would interfere violently with contracts for labor, capital movement, rent, and many more. Wouldn't you? What happens if the capitalists resist your intervention?

Those were not rhetorical questions. Are communists going to interfere?

Communism is voluntary? So what happens if a group of people decides to accumulate capital, trade labor for wages and defend their private property including means of production from intruders (absentee ownership)? You mean, communism is voluntary - for communists.

OK, first impression (5 seconds) black on red - this is an "anarcho"-communist. Secondly, why do you capitalize "Anarchist"? I mean, don't get me wrong, I make that mistake all the time, it's a habit I picked up from.. being German. Thirdly, you need a pop filter or at least don't speak directly into the mic. About the content: 1. What does that mean, you "oppose" nationalism? How are you doing that? Isn't nationalism a "feeling", not something people do? What should, in your opinion, be done with people who feel nationalist? By "not worshipping dirt and flags" you're stating that you're not a nationalist yourself, but that's not synonymous to "opposing" it. 2. "I am moral". People can't be moral. Only actions are either moral or immoral (or amoral). So, you're saying, your actions adhere to moral rules, is that it? What are these rules? 3. You "worship" virtue and morality. Well, everybody thinks they do. Especially nationalists. 4. What is the deeper meaning behind the constant affirmation "I am an Anarchist"? You have a 1 minute video and repeat it, how often, 6 times? 5. Last image: again, the red, isn't red the color of communism? Why is "non-aggression" in red, when, clearly, communists do not believe in the NAP? I hope you don't take these questions as personal criticism, I just like picking things apart one by one in hopes that you might be able to create something better, clearer, more compelling, something that I and people like me feel like sharing and spreading.

Do you ever get tired of having the same argument over and over again? You're (of course) using the Marxist definition of Capitalism, and we get it. It refers to something very different from what Capitalists of the Anarchistic persuasion refer to. I'm not going to debate which one is the "correct" definition, just, that the two definitions are very different. It doesn't matter who uses the "right word" what matters is to define your terms to make clear what they refer to. What Marx criticized was a system very similar to the ones in place today: crony capitalism, which is the system where influential people use the state to extort wealth from the general population by having it write laws that initiate and threaten violence against peaceful people if they happen to disagree. This is the crux of the matter and what crony capitalism, democratic socialism and all other forms of "democracy" have in common. What Anarcho-Capitalists are advocating is a stateless society. That means, there should be NO state apparatus which can be used in order to initiate violence. Neither by a majority nor by a majority of thieves and murderers. You must be new here.

yes, it means "to the stars". It's Latin.

"Disprove X, but my definition of X is a secret." That's why it's important to define the term, first. I could define god as a square circle, which is a contradiction in itself - and direct contradictions don't exist. The theist will then try to attack the definition, but since he has not provided his own definition, that attack should be rejected immediately until he does. Until the theist has provided a definition, he is not part of the conversation. He has not even sat down at the table.

Can you name a situation in which one is justified in initiating force against a fellow human being who has been acting peacefully. Just the most obvious case, so we know where you're coming from.