Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

Pfft. I wouldn't know. I'm not an ancom.

Then what is your "(anti)political" ideology, then ? What are the rules in your ideal (stateless?) society

I was referring to the fact that you seem to think that having someone perform work in compensation for stealing food was somehow acceptable.

Why is it unacceptable, I don't understand (especially If both parties agreed that It is an ok compensation)

Edit: I don't mind /f/shoplifting because I like "free speech" (the concept, not the legal "right" given by the state) . I find it pretty good when controversial topics are on internet.

2

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

Then what is your "(anti)political" ideology, then ? What are the rules in your ideal (stateless?) society

Ideology is useless. I don't indulge myself in dreaming up imaginary societies unless I'm writing fiction. If I had one in mind, it wouldn't have rules.

Why is it unacceptable, I don't understand (especially If both parties agreed that It is an ok compensation)

Are you at all aware of how easy it would be to get someone to agree with me if I used force, deception, and/or intimidation? If you stole from me and I somehow found you and got you to agree to compensating me? I'll give an example: I get a couple of guys to make sure you won't leave until you accept my terms (which, given the nature of this refutation, would be you working for me for however long I deem fit). You find the idea of working for me for 2 years unacceptable; I, in turn, mark up your punishment to 5 years and refuse to budge. Every attempt you make to talk me down leads to the price going up. You can't leave because my friends are blocking the way AND because if you do, you'd be leaving my negotiation; meaning you surrender your reputation and you risk having vigilantes stomping you out. If I get you to agree to serving me under those conditions, it's voluntary, but you were given an ultimatum, not a choice.

3

Silver_ OP wrote

I get a couple of guys to make sure you won't leave until you accept my terms

Then act like If you were accepting the terms. Once you're outside you'll explain your situation to the community/world & this contract will be deemed invalid (against your will/you were cornered) .

you'd be leaving my negotiation

You can always negociate/renegociate later. Get out of this place, exit this "danger zone", go to safety.

you risk having vigilantes stomping you out

I hope that vigilantes are a minor part of society, but that's an unfortunate fact that may happen from time to time ESPECIALLY, WHEN YOU REFUSE COMPENSATING PEOPLE .

If I get you to agree to serving me under those conditions, it's voluntary

It's not voluntary, because you couldn't leave If you didn't say yes

2

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

Then act like If you were accepting the terms. Once you're outside you'll explain your situation to the community/world & this contract will be deemed invalid (against your will/you were cornered).

Naive. In this situation, the thief wouldn't believed; it's my word as the victim of theft over theirs as the thief. No one trusts "criminals" in this society, why would yours be any different? If anyone can break a contract later out of regret, then the contract compensation idea is worthless.

You can always negociate/renegociate later. Get out of this place, exit this "danger zone", go to safety.

No. You can't. That's why I brought the guys here; to make sure you couldn't leave.

I hope that vigilantes are a minor part of society, but that's an unfortunate fact that may happen from time to time ESPECIALLY, WHEN YOU REFUSE COMPENSATING PEOPLE.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that if you leave without accepting my terms, I could easily take advantage of the fact that vigilantes exist and could have them take care of you. It's the word of a thief against the word of the victim.

It's not voluntary, because you couldn't leave If you didn't say yes

It doesn't really matter. Under a voluntarist society, all contracts could only be nullified by the person being compensated; otherwise anyone could break free of the contract under any circumstance, so long as they aren't happy anymore. Which would be a freer system, but would render the point of compensation contracts useless. Which means no one has to compensate anyone.

2

Silver_ OP wrote

Naive. In this situation, the thief wouldn't believed

I don't see why ? What does he gain by lying ? Nothing.

If anyone can break a contract later out of regret, then the contract compensation idea is worthless.

No, you are "free" to stop compensating, in the same way that you are "free" to not compensate. But It will have consequences...

Which means no one has to compensate anyone.

No one has a technical obligation to not rape, murder, rob and do other bad things like that, It will have consequences, however...

1

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

I don't see why ? What does he gain by lying ? Nothing.

The thief has a lot to gain, whether they're lying or not. If they're believed, they get out of having to compensate someone. Meaning they gained whatever they stole and faced no consequence for it.

No, you are "free" to stop compensating, in the same way that you are "free" to not compensate. But It will have consequences...

The fact that you put quotation marks around the word "free" proves a lot about voluntaryism and why anarchists consider it bad. Also, it was you who said:

If you are in a desert have a bottle of water & a mugger attacks you & steal the water, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances. If some people break your front door steal some food & run away, they will have to compensate you (sooner or later), regardless of their circumstances."

Keywords here being: have to. If I have to do something, it isn't autonomous; something is making me do it. Which is what anarchism opposes.

No one has a technical obligation to not rape, murder, rob and do other bad things like that, It will have consequences, however...

No one is advocating for a system that condones rape, murder, or robbery. You're advocating for (or at least defending) a society that uses a compensation-based justice system that runs on contracts formed on an individual basis. You've continued to defend this system even when I've pointed out that it doesn't fucking matter whether or not slave contracts are "voluntary" or not, because coercion and deception exist.To the anarchist focused forum of a website run and moderated by anarchists and socialists. I'm telling you that that system is either ripe for abuse or ineffective. Voluntaryism either requires that contracts cannot be nullified after an agreement is reached, in which case, it would thoroughly abused OR the contracts can be nullified by the person compensating, in which case, anyone can nullify the contract; so the contracts are essentially just worthless moral obligations that can be ignored with impunity. As I've stated in my first post.

2

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

If they're believed, they get out of having to compensate someone.

No, they will just "win" the "right" to renogociate the contract, nothing to gain, there.

The fact that you put quotation marks around the word "free" proves a lot about voluntaryism and why anarchists consider it bad.

Yeah, It's sad that criminals (who don't want to compensate their crimes/assume the consequences) are oppressed, but victims are living in heaven.

OR the contracts can be nullified by the person compensating, in which case, anyone can nullify the contract; so the contracts are essentially just worthless moral obligations that can be ignored with impunity

Yeah, but don't be surprised when you're ostracized or If you meet an angry vigilante "hero".

1

OdiousOutlaw wrote

No, they will just "win" the "right" to renogociate the contract, nothing to gain, there.

Why the fuck would anyone want to renegotiate with someone who tried to enslave them? Why are you defending such a shitty framework for a justice system? Why the fuck does it feel like this conversation is going in circles?

Yeah, It's sad that criminals are oppressed, but victims are living in heaven.

I'm, like, 90% certain that this is sarcastic, but I'm really not sure with you. I'll just assume it is and move on.

Yeah, but don't be surprised when you're ostracized or If you meet an angry vigilante "hero".

Oh, fuck, more talk of ostracization and vigilantes. That's why this conversation is going in circles, you keep repeating the same shit without substance. Why would I be ostracized for not doing something that's optional and easily ignored? Do you think there's some stigma against not doing jury duty?

2

Silver_ OP wrote

Why the fuck would anyone want to renegotiate with someone who tried to enslave them? Why are you defending such a shitty framework for a justice system?

They want to gain back their reputation to not be ostracized from people property.

Why would I be ostracized for not doing something that's optional and easily ignored?

Because I don't want thieves near my property, therefore I won't allow you to enter in my property. Maybe, I will be the only one doing this, who knows, but I am pretty convinced that other voluntaryists will think the same.

Do you think there's some stigma against not doing jury duty?

Is there stigma to smash someone's car and not pay for the damage ? Oh wait...

1

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

They want to gain back their reputation to not be ostracized from people property.

"People will want to be enslaved so that others will not think badly of them." This is fucking gold, lmao.

Because I don't want thieves near my property, therefore I won't allow you to enter in my property. Maybe, I will be the only one doing this, who knows, but I am pretty convinced that other voluntaryists will think the same.

It doesn't matter if you want thieves near your property. No one likes having their shit stolen. It really doesn't matter if you don't "allow" them into your property. What? You gonna stay in your house for the rest of your life, because you're afraid that someone will steal from you? Come the fuck on.

Is there stigma to smash someone's car and not pay for the damage ? Oh wait...

"Smashing a car and ignoring optional contracts for negotiation are the same thing." How do you miss the point this fucking often?

2

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

You gonna stay in your house for the rest of your life, because you're afraid that someone will steal from you

Or security cameras or pay guards to keep my home safe or better security doors...etc

"Smashing a car and ignoring optional contracts for negotiation are the same thing." How do you miss the point this fucking often?

My point was : you smashed the car, the owner want to negociate (so that we'll know how to compensate him/how much). You don't want to. You don't compensate.

Do you really think that there is no stigma to not fix when you break other people stuff ?

1