Alexander Reynolds () writes:
Absolute and complete freedom means "freedom from ALL restrictions" If you collectively own property, you are under the restriction of the majority's will to control that property.
That assumes that the majority has a will.
Sooner or later there is going to be a conflict. If you can do anything you desire with your body and the surrounding matter/energy, that is equivalent to absolute property rights. If a sufficiently large group of people come along and restrict your activity, you don't have absolute and complete freedom, QED.
I never said anarchy was easy. If you want to starve, then that is your choice; that is anarchy: nobody forcing you to behave as THEY want you to by THEIR rules.
And if you disagree with the way the majority of your "collective"/commune is using the collective property? Love it or leave it? What happens if a capitalist is magically transported to this society and he wishes to start a business. No one is going to force him to not behave like an entrepreneur?
If you are forced to work, you are being ruled, if someone else is, you are ruling them.
That is what a "free-"market economy does! It removes government rule over people and replaces it with business/oligarchial rule.
And anarchosocialism removes it from business and places it among the group. Either way, a group of people has some control over your life. By your definition of anarchism, it is an oxymoron.
Rand did not present an economic theory, she presented a philosophy.
You didn't read the book.
Objectivism is a _philosophy_, not an economic theory. Objectivists tend to be pro-laissez-faire simply because it follows naturally from individualism. That's why the objectivism usenet group is called alt.philosophy.objectivism, not sci.econ.objectivism. If Atlas Shrugged presented an economic theory, could you please define the model rigorously? (If you have taken atleast Econ 101 you will know what I mean by "model")
You can present a theory through fiction, but you can not prove or disprove it through a story book world, hence I take objection to your ridiculous assertion:
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's
Here you imply Atlas Shrugged proves that an anarchocapitalist state can only exist in theory. Whoops, back to logic 101.
Again you do not understand what anarchy is! Read Skinner's Beyond Freedom or
You still didn't answer my criticism. In the quote above you state "It is only through theory that a pseudoanarchist capitalist state can exist" and as proof of this bald assertion, you state "read Atlas Shrugged" The implication you made was, by reading a book of fiction book you can disprove a economic theory. Care to explain that? There are two ways to disprove a theory: 1) show that it isn't self-consistent 2) apply the theory and produce a counter example from reality. You haven't shown (1), and since Atlas Shrugged isn't reality and never has been, (2) doesn't work either. This is my last message on the subject. You should think about what cypher technology can do and compare that to your philosophy. A functioning BlackNet(tm) won't produce a non-market non-laissez-faire system. If anything it will promote buying and selling of data, dossiers, stolen designs, property, etc. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --