Philosophy Now Forum

Ok, well, we have a bit of a problem in that you are defining communism as slavery and denying that anyone can want to participate even though there are people who seem to want to involve themselves in communes. But of course, communes have been a reality for a very long time, after all, good Christians will know that it was common in the early church as this little quote from Turtullian (one of the early Church fathers when they were still getting persecuted and stuff on the regular by the Romans) reminds us that if you have some greater ideal in mind, you might care little for things and have no desire to hoard your stuff:

But we are your brethren as well, by the law of our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives.

The common thing that these societies all share (pretty much all the alt-society options tbh, so the Amish and all that too) is that in their alternative society, everyone has to expect the same set of duties from each other. Your minarchism only works if everyone understands the demands and relishes the freedom, but it would fall apart if (when) people exploit the system. Hippy and commie communes always fall to into factionalism and schism, as do all religions. Always, there's some issue with people just not getting the same message somehow, even when the guru thinks his teachings are super clear.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:26 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:40 am I do not agree at all that small communes of like minded people who share their shit with each other are impossible, and I definitely don't hold with this insistence that human nature doesn't allow for it stuff. You are just asserting that out of spite.

It most certainly 'is' impossible because there are always the areholes who want to dominate and hold more power than everyone else--and people are only too willing to let them do it (which is also why Henry's form of anarchy doesn't work either. Both have the same end result).

It should blindingly obvious that I don't personally believe that these things ever last for long without getting ruined that way. But people do enter into these things with the very best of intentions that this time it will different for some reason, they do that all the time, it's another part of human nature. Henry thinks his minarchism thing wouldn't go that way though, he believes in the power rock salt enemas applied by shotgun to fix all these things.

It seems neither you nor I is so naive in this matter as he is, becasue we know that given the social order he describes, the new Rockerfella would be along presently to corner a vital market and abuse thieir monopoly, and then an angry mob would tear the place right down. Both of those outcomes are simple human nature too.

Many families are true communism, but i forgot i really don't want to be part of this discussion.

Ok, well, we have a bit of a problem in that you are defining communism as slavery and denying that anyone can want to participate even though there are people who seem to want to involve themselves in communes.

folks in love with the idea of communes are rarely happy with the actual execution (in the same wzy, all the folks today, in the US, viewin' communism positively would be mightily disappointed if it were the way of things)


But of course, communes have been a reality for a very long time

sure...the idea has been...but, if it's good, where are all the communes (you knkw, the ones that been 'round for decades or more, the ones that are as you describe communism)?


Your minarchism only works if everyone understands the demands and relishes the freedom, but it would fall apart if (when) people exploit the system.

everyone already does relish freedom

what system? there is no system

but when folks choose to deprive others, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property: there is consequence

so, no I ain't seein' commonality between a natural rights minarchy (free men) and communism (*in my opinion, enslaved men)









*I guess I'll have to throw that in every time I seem to deviate from the agreed upon definition

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:26 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:40 am I do not agree at all that small communes of like minded people who share their shit with each other are impossible, and I definitely don't hold with this insistence that human nature doesn't allow for it stuff. You are just asserting that out of spite.

It most certainly 'is' impossible because there are always the areholes who want to dominate and hold more power than everyone else--and people are only too willing to let them do it (which is also why Henry's form of anarchy doesn't work either. Both have the same end result).

even a casual review of history shows, as I say, a relentless march away from man as another's (slavery) toward man as his own (freedom)...we don't have a natural rights libertarian minarchy yet, but we will

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:57 am Your minarchism only works if everyone understands the demands and relishes the freedom, but it would fall apart if (when) people exploit the system.

everyone already does relish freedom

what system? there is no system

Quit talking about this night watchman state if you're going to pretend you advocate no system.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:38 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:26 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:40 am I do not agree at all that small communes of like minded people who share their shit with each other are impossible, and I definitely don't hold with this insistence that human nature doesn't allow for it stuff. You are just asserting that out of spite.

It most certainly 'is' impossible because there are always the areholes who want to dominate and hold more power than everyone else--and people are only too willing to let them do it (which is also why Henry's form of anarchy doesn't work either. Both have the same end result).

It should blindingly obvious that I don't personally believe that these things ever last for long without getting ruined that way. But people do enter into these things with the very best of intentions that this time it will different for some reason, they do that all the time, it's another part of human nature. Henry thinks his minarchism thing wouldn't go that way though, he believes in the power rock salt enemas applied by shotgun to fix all these things.

It seems neither you nor I is so naive in this matter as he is, becasue we know that given the social order he describes, the new Rockerfella would be along presently to corner a vital market and abuse thieir monopoly, and then an angry mob would tear the place right down. Both of those outcomes are simple human nature too.

hey, there ain't nuthin' wrong with natural monopolies...it's the artificial, gov-supported, monopolies that bite

what I believe is simple: freedom is best, and there are ways to remedy intrusions on freedom...such remedies are at play, right now, all over the world...ownness is relentless...jackboots stomp on it...the timid, psychotically, try to self-possess and wear a leash at the same time...hordes of slavers (though they never see themselves that way) look to regulate and direct always, they say, for the common good...in increasing numbers, folks aren't buyin' it

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:03 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:57 am Your minarchism only works if everyone understands the demands and relishes the freedom, but it would fall apart if (when) people exploit the system.

everyone already does relish freedom

what system? there is no system

Quit talking about this night watchman state if you're going to pretend you advocate no system.

not once have I said night watchmen state: I say natural rights libertarian minarchy

the first is a state; the second is the outgrowth of a principle

and: don't tell me what to do

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:46 am Many families are true communism, but i forgot i really don't want to be part of this discussion.

not really

I hear adderall is good for perkin' up memory

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:54 pm typically, minarchist thinkin' sez a minarchy requires three proxies (local peacekeeping, local arbitration, and national peacekeeping)...I accept these but interpret them as...

a local, minimal, constabulary

a local, minimal, court of last resort

a minimal armed border patrol

the militia

Henry, this is a system, now you are just convinced you advocate for no system?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:00 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:26 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:40 am I do not agree at all that small communes of like minded people who share their shit with each other are impossible, and I definitely don't hold with this insistence that human nature doesn't allow for it stuff. You are just asserting that out of spite.

It most certainly 'is' impossible because there are always the areholes who want to dominate and hold more power than everyone else--and people are only too willing to let them do it (which is also why Henry's form of anarchy doesn't work either. Both have the same end result).

even a casual review of history shows, as I say, a relentless march away from man as another's (slavery) toward man as his own (freedom)...we don't have a natural rights libertarian minarchy yet, but we will

This brings I think it was Pooper's criticism of a theiry like that to min "history does not run on rails"
I have been authorised to award 100 shiny Flash Danger Points to whoever guesses which theorist he was criticisng for that sort of directional history.

by the way, flash, this...

But we are your brethren as well, by the law of our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives.

...was a nice try, but I'm a deist, not a christian

that is: I don't care what early christians thought (though, it's interestin' to note, that modern day examples of the christian commune do very much resemble state communism...the branch davidians, for example)

bad ideas take many forms; good ones (like mine) only need one

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:31 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:00 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:26 am

It most certainly 'is' impossible because there are always the areholes who want to dominate and hold more power than everyone else--and people are only too willing to let them do it (which is also why Henry's form of anarchy doesn't work either. Both have the same end result).

even a casual review of history shows, as I say, a relentless march away from man as another's (slavery) toward man as his own (freedom)...we don't have a natural rights libertarian minarchy yet, but we will

This brings I think it was Pooper's criticism of a theiry like that to min "history does not run on rails"
I have been authorised to award 100 shiny Flash Danger Points to whoever guesses which theorist he was criticisng for that sort of directional history.

never said the march was clean, straight, or continuously successful

pretty sure I described it as meanderin' more then once and mebbe described it as haltingly

over the long haul, however, the march is foward

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:28 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:54 pm typically, minarchist thinkin' sez a minarchy requires three proxies (local peacekeeping, local arbitration, and national peacekeeping)...I accept these but interpret them as...

a local, minimal, constabulary

a local, minimal, court of last resort

a minimal armed border patrol

the militia

Henry, this is a system, now you are just convinced you advocate for no system?

hey, we never talked about how those things came to be

you obviously think it's about votin'...I newer said that or hinted at it

so, no, it ain't a system

wanna explore how these things come to be in a natural rights libertarian minarchy, what they actually are, and who they serve?

tune in tomorrow...I'm bought ready to hit the sack now

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:11 am hey, there ain't nuthin' wrong with natural monopolies...it's the artificial, gov-supported, monopolies that bite

If we have as our entire state apparatus, nothing but a minimal constabulary, a minimal court of last resort, and a minimal border patrol, plus we have a law universally accepted by all that no man can be told what he must do with his own property (for enslavement of the property appears to be enslavement of the owner), then it is easy to work up a scenario in which an enthusiastic monopolist can do great harm to a society, and effectively relieve others of their property, while never exactly doing anything wrong.

Also, how exactly does debt and lending work in this thing of yours that isn't a system? I mean there's no bank regulator, no particular currency even, and presumably nothing to stop debtors skipping town other than some sort of revenge if they ever come back? Collateral requirements would need to be enormous. Serious market to be cornered by the unscrupulous there.