LibertarianSocialist Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 A socialist commune is compatible and allowed within a voluntarist anarcho-capitalist society, and its (collective) property right claims would be respected. The question to you is if socialists would similarly allow a freely chosen capitalist society within their socialist commonwealth, and respect their property. Within this question, let us assume that this capitalist society will only claim resources in their own area, and those they have imported through voluntary trade. Further assume that the capitalist area does not contain a disproportional amount of natural resources, compared to the rest (such as Hong Kong, compared to China). Would this be acceptable? I have already argued the exclusivity of the two conceptions of property rights in a previous post. The belief that either system can accommodate the other is false. So your answer is yes. Everyone must be a socialist or be violently forced to live under socialism, right? He has already answered yes, they would absolutely use violence. How any of it is "voluntary" - beats me. All I am arguing is the fact that individuals should not be legally bound to acknowledge a coercive state of affairs in which they never had the ability to consent to. Propertarians use violence too, the question is, is this legitimate? Violence is completely justified in defence against non-consensual impositions. There is no forcing of socialism on people, there is just no preventing late comers to what is morally theirs. If those late comers believed in capitalism they could agree to the continuance of the current state of affairs, but they should in no way be deprived of the opportunity to reject them. Instead of making baseless assertions about violence and voluntarism, how about refuting my claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertarianSocialist Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 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? You were making assertions about the use of violence as if the fact somehow invalidates my arguments. Unless you genuinely believe ALL forms of violence are unjustified, a truly absurd claim, such attempts at discrediting my arguments make little sense unless you can demonstrate why such violence is not legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertus Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts