MarkIX

The argument can be found here Stef made the argument that everything, including the body is property hence lumping everything into one category equating his eyeballs and various other body parts with his toothbrush There are obvious differences between parts of my body and my toohbrush. Yes they are merely matter but they behave in such different way that to classify both as property in the same way renders the concept of property irrelevent Yes he did or more precisely "a thing" because if you apply only one category, that of property, then all "things" must share all the characteristics of that category. in other words the toothbrush can own the man just as much as the man can own the toothbrush. But how do you determine that? the only way is to apply universal non ownership or universal full ownership no other state can be determined. The process by which the human body is owned is exactly the same by which anything else is owned therefore vice versa.If this is true then there is no categorical difference between the human body and any other property.Consciousness renders this obviously false.

In the video/podcast Titled “ The Origin of Sexual Fetishism” he uses as a refutation of Anarcho-Communism the argument that the body is just like any other matter i.e. that it is “just a thing”. If this is true how do you preserve ownership? Because if there are only things how can one thing own another thing. Remembering that this statement is a denial of “different categories” of things with respect to their ability to be owned. This leaves only two possibilities, that no thing is owned by any thing which dismisses ownership or that every thing is owned by all things which is more An-Com than An-Cap but still pretty useless. Of course there is the possibility that he meant It is no different owning your “body thing” than owning “a thing” but this comes up against problems. First of all the operation of the ownership are very different empirically and if I own my “body thing” by the same rules that I own “a thing” how does that preclude owning more than one “body thing”, or more germane owning certain parts of someone else's “body thing” individually or as part of a collective that “controls the means of production”. The only way you can avoid this is to create a special category that can't be owned that isn't “a thing” that in fact can't be a thing or it will be subject to ownership, something like a soul. But this won't save the argument because any exceptions you introduce are obviously available to the other side as well. By no stretch of logic can this be seen as a refutation of Anarcho-Comunism. Now a few of you might respond with the presumption that I'm an An-Com but that's not true it's too in-egalitarian and anti-intellect for me,yes its argument by adjective but only because my ideological perspectives are at best peripheral to this matter of logic. While the above argument is, I believe, flawed the is another argument that I would like to offer a different perspective on that being “the wife as employee”. I would like to suggest “the wife as investor” instead. In the partnership called marriage both (or all) members bring assets to the relationship. The ones that could be considered primary being for the men earnings/earnings potential and for the women sexual attractiveness/fecundity. A problem is that over the life of the relationship the magnitude of these “assets” is diametrically opposed. As men age their earnings normally increase while women loose their beauty and ability to bear children, while at the same time the act of rearing children reduces(at least) the ability to obtain marketable skills for the period after her fecundity has ended. In this situation “getting a job” is counter productive and personally undesirable whereas “investing your assets for a return” is productive and desirable. This perspective in no way supports alimony or any other product of the state. It is just a substitution of a partnership for the employer/employee relationship inherent in Stefan's argument. A substitution that more closely parallels the biological realities of the situation. Does anyone see any flaws with my logic?

Is god a Chupacabra? They definitely have some characteristics in common. They both figuratively latch onto your throat and such you dry.

So If you pee in the toilet and then he drinks from it that is your problem too Right? The other party "has to" breathe like he has too eat and drink. No one makes him breathe the "tainted air" why do you think he does?

It doesn't matter any more. When I see reports like this I merely wonder who he offended to get nailed like this. Because my basic presumption is that they all do it and only the out of favour get "caught". Otherwise I wonder if he is in fact less corrupt than he needed to be to stay in the system

So being motivated by the "Standards of others" is bad, Why? Are you kidding? Him and his mates are making out like bandits! How much more productive does he have to be?

No, I'm saying that the "rule of law" is a sick joke that neither solves the problem nor resolves the situation.

No, We are right so we win is not a good plot

a very modest proposal?

The people at Grow Biointensive used to claim that you could survive on <70 m^2 if done right, I don't know if they still do. But that is neither here nor there, I was just wondering if I got the math right. It seems I did and the anecdote is in error. I seem to recall someone if not Stefan has used that anecdote before I didn't check it then, but I did now because I wanted that woman to be properly wrong, "Burdensome" she called humanity, to who or what I'm not sure, But if it's to her then there are still plenty of places she can go that aren't infested with the the rest of us vermin. They don't have ISP's or plumbers so I guess that's why she is gallantly putting up with the "burdensome" nature of her fellow humans ....Sigh.

I heard Stefan of the Peter Schiff Show mention when talking to someone claiming that humans were "burdensome" that the entire population would fit into the state of Texas, with a couple of acres. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas Area = 696 241 km2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population Population = 7.142 billion at 247 odd acres per km2, = 171971527 acres 171971527 / 7142000000 = ~0.024 acres or ~97 m2 is my maths correct?

"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." --John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 5 The "Mixing of Labour" one of the foundational ideas behind the "Homesteading Principle" with the oft neglected condition in bold. According to Mr Locke, mixing labour with land will not allow you to enclose the last land, because there must be "enough, and as good left in common for others". The problem of course is that "enough", "as good" and "others" are all words that are relative, meaning that any solution is going to have to be negotiated among "concerned parties" however far that reaches along with the understanding of just how much and what kind of labour has to be "mixed" with something to confer the right to property.

I see your point thank you for clarifying it for me. As to my second paragraph. I think I was saying that if violence is inherent in humans then it's inherent violence not structural violence, but now that I think about it I doubt that distinction is meaningful.

You seem to know exactly how how people should behave. So tell me why they aren't behaving as you think they should? I think we are at least on the same page.It seemed to me that Stefan was arguing with some random communist and wasn't paying attention to how close Peter Joseph's starting points were to his. I was very frustrated by the debate and more so by the responses I have been getting, it seems people regard the "market" as some sort of magical entity completely devoid of the foibles of humanity, let alone the the serious structural problems that are so clearly evidenced by the current predicament. I'm also frustrated by my clear inability to explain my points. I wasn't arguing about the social contract or how it could be derived I was arguing against the concept of cognitive dissonance. I can frame it this way The state exists because people accept the legitimacy of aggression, They don't say "I don't use violence so they shouldn't " they say "if I was in that position I would use violence differently". As to the point of scamming If someone uses services I provide then claims that we didn't have a contract and they had no choice but to use my services. Then am I then to regard these as legitimate reasons for them not to pay for those services? "Is the structural violence which is a result of the market, somehow caused by people's willingness and belief in using violence to defend property?" It doesn't matter what they are claiming to do with it just that they are willing to use it. My point about property is that Libertarians use the magic of homesteading derived from a misquote of Locke to justify aggression to any degree that pleases them. That is I feel Stefan's point, we can't have a free society today because _everybody_ is wedded to aggression. It's inherent characteristics it composed of people who are aggressive due to family violence, I've proposed a mechanism whereby the State an be generated from a market that accepts the legitimacy of violence, in fact it's pretty much inevitable if the violence is legitimate. its one of my earlier posts. No Stefan argues that the market "will" be peaceful when the legitimacy of violence is removed via peaceful parenting, Therefore it obviously isn't now , otherwise no need for peaceful parenting. Violence in the family is a tool to maintain the structure of the family, children on the bottom parents on top. It is not random in its implementation but done with purpose. Yes a family can exist without violence but the vast majority do not which is why the vast majority of people accept the legitimacy of aggression. I agree with his argument but disagree with his conclusions

"Second, this can lead to worship of the state. Why? The parent (the state), is laying down the rules." The State is not rules. The State is the absence of rules, Just edicts that are backed by force. In any Society there will always be rules.

“mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”

You claim principles, the statist claims principles. Your principles are contingent on what classifies as self defence their principles are contingent as to what they classify a free rider to be. I'm confused by "Can you describe to me an example that voluntarism excludes?" can you help me out. The questions about ownership claims is trying to find out what you feel legitimises violence. It's a fairly well held opinion in libertarian circles that homesteading grants perpetual and exclusive rights. So the question isn't about what happens today. At least half of this conversation is about "tomorrow". All your examples of self defence or claimed self defence are subjective. Why is it OK to defend your property from threat one way and not another, how is it that someone's right to self defence can be limited. You say that shooting campers is extreme, but either they are violating the owner's property and the owner get to decide the level of self defence of they aren't and no self defence is required. Yes I've heard the "You're a Dick" argument but that's aesthetics. If YAD applies in this instance then the "right" to self defence is moderated by the personal preference of others. Doesn't seem much of a principle if that is the case. Could all the things that a government does be done by the "legitimate" owner of land, Or are there other reasons that make these action illegitimate?

Actually you won't get far on this board with that argument. It's taken as given that people are adaptable and can be weaned off violence (over time). It is also not an argument for "Structural Violence" as two better terms for it would either be "Violence" or "Social Interaction". If the violence in Society is "inherent" in the individual it is "inherited" by the structure of society.

So you are saying that Stefan's position is that violence within the family is a cause of violence by the state? And you don't see that as the same as saying That the Structural violence of the family obviously effects the function of the market which gives rise to the state? Do you feel you are in a position of greater knowledge than me is regards to the term "structural violence" could you point out exactly how you feel I am using it incorrectly? The government is either the product of market forces or the market is subject to the same forces that produce the State, both are valid positions with regards to PJ's argument. Both are valid positions with regards to Stefan's argument as well, After all given the evidence we have, you can only come to one of two conclusions either the State is a product of market forces or market forces are insufficient to deal with the formation or existence of the State. Either way the market needs to be changed, either by changing the acceptance of the violence inherent in the social structures that produce it or to change the market in some way to overcome the State.

well when you are required to restitution for your violation, which you are obviously required to deliver, because we are in the realm of moral requirements not aesthetics. You can simply cap his arse, returning him to the condition that your incredibly heinous moral violation deprived him of. It's lucky because now no one will ever discover that you also left a six pack of beer in his fridge as a surprise present. Humour aside, I didn't see where you reveal the An-Soc solutions to the An-Cap problems. Sure An-Cap has problems but that doesn't mean An-Soc wins by default. @Pepin. I'm not responsible for any negative reputation this thread has acquired. I don't know how to do that. And I think it's a bit herd mental.

"Structural violence" has better descriptive power than "The State". The State isn't the problem, if tomorrow you "disappeared" everyone in a position of power within the structures of all states, you wouldn't get to lunch time before before the vast majority of people would be planning on putting some kind of State back. The problem is not that the State exist the problem is that the vast majority of individuals accept the legitimacy of violence. Whilst that acceptance exists there can be no authority without violence, in other words Violence is inherent in the structure of society and therefore all of societies products. Hence the descriptive phrase "Structural Violence". Structural as opposed to random. Parents are not randomly hitting their children with hammers, they are using violence for punishment and "discipline", in a structured way to produce supposedly beneficial outcomes. If it was not used in this way within the family, I can't see it would be tolerated from politicians. That's a point many seem to be missing. When Stefan talks about a free market he's talking APP (After Peaceful Parenting), What PJ is talking about is the market as it stands right now. [Edit] for minor typos

If I restated it as "The violence inherent within the vast majority of current family practices results in the violent structure of the state" Do you think that is a fair restatement of Stefan's position? I like the phrase because I think it allows greater descriptive ability than I previously possessed.

why do you imagine pulling your friend back when he’s about to mindlessly step in front of a moving bus, is a violation of the NAP?

I haven't actually read anything by Ayn Rand, my path to Anarchy didn't travel that way. My comment on "the good kind" of collectivism is strictly about communication. Any language is in fact a collective, wouldn't be any use if it wasn't. But it is a practical mutable collective sensitive to the requirements of individual members while still maintaining enough cohesion to be useful to the multitude, all without any central authority. Sure there are people who claim to have authority in certain languages but the are humoured or respected rather than feared and they have no real power. Marxism and Religion are really hierarchical power structures who use certain Mantras to control the Livestock (they don't call then the flock for nothing). Where in the world has this "collective" ever appeared, the places that confess to be communist have bad records on collectivism, since its the very people they purport to be freeing who do the most dying and the theocracies are perhaps only slightly less backward in filling graves. Faced with the facts it seems that collectivism is a term that shouldn't be used for the actual application of these ideologies. After all if I call myself a pacifist and then spend the rest of the day stabbing people in the neck, you can and should call me a liar.

Human communication is inherently collective, the good kind of collective! But I think it would be more true to say that acceptance of Marxism is due to some unprocessed problems.