Silver_

Silver_ wrote

Promising something is not the same as affirming it in the contract.

If I promise you to give you 500$ in your bank account tomorrow, but If I don't give 'em, I did nothing wrong .

In the same way, that If I say that there will be a meetup in X place, but cancel it, I didn't do anything wrong, I haven't stolen anything.

However, from a moral point of view, It's better If you refund my plane/train ticket even though It is not mandatory.

It's not theft, they haven't stolen anything.

You are aware that they judicial system is part of the state yes?

Private justice already exists.

−1

Silver_ wrote

Yes I read it, I don't see anywhere, where they said that the company will give severance in the contract. Yes, they promised to, later on (was It to not go to jail, because of regulations ?), but the article doesn't say that It was negociated in the initial contract.

And even If what you say is true, I think that the state should never intervene in the judicial system (even for horrible crimes, like mass shooting/rape)

−2

Silver_ wrote (edited )

The corporation hasn't stolen from them, If they agreed to the contract.

So you support when the mafia is regulating another gang ?

It's good when bad people are regulated by the state ?

Edit :

As opposed to.... non state law? All laws are made by states. That's how laws work. i'm not saying that's a good thing, but by definition, the state determines what is and isn't a crime

As opposed to natural laws (the fact that I own my body, for example)

−5

Silver_ wrote

Reply to comment by OdiousOutlaw in Guess who? by ziq

That's where you are wrong. If people don't comply the government lose a lot of their power.

See : agorism.

There is always an agorist solution to avoid government thugs. I'm sure that you can't find anything where there is no agorist solution.

1

Silver_ wrote

Reply to comment by OdiousOutlaw in Guess who? by ziq

Natural rights (the fact that I own my body, for instance)

Governments are illegitimate & are just a group of thugs robbing people at gunpoint, calling it "taxation"

0

Silver_ wrote

Reply to comment by OdiousOutlaw in Guess who? by ziq

No, food shouldn't be a government right.

The government has no authority to grant right & has no authority to complete any action. They shouldn't do anything except closing their own offices

−3

Silver_ wrote

Reply to Guess who? by ziq

Sad, "food" shouldn't be a GOVERNMENT right.

Fuck the government, they are not legitimate to grant "fictious" rights and they should do nothing about the situation, except closing their own office.

0

Silver_ OP wrote

Do not jump to conclusions and suppose that the evitable is inevitable.

If It can be "inevitable" for one person (the thief), It can also be "inevitable" for the victim.

Never said, that It was inevitable, with perfect decision making, though

Where did you get this from? I never said I thought armed robbery was fine. I am just saying that I think compensation is silly in a genuinely voluntary society.

Then, don't compensate. I hope that you will only avoid compensating in ancom communes, though.

If they are escaping violence or starvation or some similarly horrifying situation, yes. Otherwise, probably not, unless they are going to bring it back. But why do I need compensation?

You are not forced to claim, that's right.

But If other people want to claim some compensation, that's their right, too. Do you agree ? Nothing wrong with asking people things, right ?

I am not saying they are all unemployed, but this is what a lack of money does to people in a market society.

Lolz, they can work in rural areas for farmers/other people or make money with the public library computers.

Pay us or we will throw you out of your home and leave you on the streets.

First of all, you don't own the house, If It's true. Secondly, then leave & go elsewhere. Find a cheaper place to live.

They are not dead yet, but what does this have to do with anything?

I mean, they haven't given you something ? Your parents didn't give you land ? Money, nothing ? No resources to be self-sufficient ?

1

Silver_ OP wrote

TIL freelancing isn't labouring for a wage.

Well, both parties are a lot more accountable, very often It is short/medium term projects, so...

Either I'm a lucky bastard or smth, cuz I never had problems & everything worked as intended

What you're describing has nothing to do with abolishing hierarchies (anarchism). It is capitalism, nothing more, and calling it something else doesn't make it less hierarchical or less destructive.

You can abolish hierarchies in your ancom commune, but don't abolish it in other communes, who don't want it, Is it good ?

−2

Silver_ OP wrote

No, no It's better to not ask 'em of course & attack them, even If they are not aware of what's going on.

Exactly, like the state is doing, attacking you just because you are born in some geographical area (wars!)...

So, do you think that the right way to resolve conflicts is through war (war is expensive, btw) ? Like in the Israel/palestine conflict ? Do you think that It is the most efficient method ?

If you went to the effort of taking land by force, why would you give it back just because someone asked you.

I never said that you should ask the robbers when the theft occured one week ago, I just said that you should claim, when a land was stolen thousand of years ago (the "thieves" aren't even aware of what's going on)

You really don't understand how self-interest works, do you?

Yeah, maybe you're right and death isn't a good enough deterrent, no one cares about their own life...

Oh and I forgot something, what happens in your anarchist society, when people don't respect the rules/aggress people ?

−1

Silver_ OP wrote

Yes, some bad things happened in the past (war, colonialism...etc) and then ?

Doesn't mean that we should become savage animals.

If you think that you have a solid/legitimate claim to a specific part of land/property, then claim & see If the owner gives it to you or not. Now, we'll be able to think about taking some kind of action

−1

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

I am going on a long journey through the desert, and I need water. When it is stolen, I need to be flown out or rescued in some way, maybe even to a hospital. That would be frightening and a bit of a disappointment, but at least my water went to good use.

Ok, If you die because of him (especially If he didn't even need the water, but he just wanted to sell it), what do you think ? Is it just, Is it fair ?

Why? If I had more food than I needed, why should I want any compensation?

It would be a shame about the door, though, but it is already gone; why should I ask for compensation?

6 things :

What If you need it ?

What is your opinion on armed robbery ?

You are parking your car, you come back, It isn't there anymore, Is it good, Is it legit ?

How is your system really different than today !?

Do you think that It is ok to steal from people who have "met their very basic needs" ? For example, is it ok for me to steal your phone/computer ?

Edit: Oh I forgot, If you're working on something (whether you're building a house) or you're driving or anything else. Can I just come & smash your computer screen, smartphone, vandalize your car, vandalize your house or do anything like this, without compensating you/without consequences ? Is it good behavior ?

However, when you consider the fact that not working for money in a market economy will result in deprivation of food and shelter and maybe even water, it starts to sound much less voluntary.

3 things :

First of all, even If It were true It would still be voluntary

Secondly, You didn't inherit anything from your parents ?

Thirdly, even when starting from scratch with 0 resource you're not forced to do wage labour/jobs (freelancing, helping people in rural areas in exchange of stuff, co-ops...etc are ok alternatives).

0

Silver_ wrote

Reply to comment by Literallyshaking in by !deleted7175

I think that rioting and things like this are quite bad. Direct action is much better.

However, the state is still in the wrong and the "United States law" is illegitimate

−1

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

  1. Nothing wrong with hating wage labour. Don't like it, don't do it.

  2. Nothing wrong with wanting to work a certain way (co-ops for example)

  3. “Wealth is power, poverty is weakness,”

I don't see how. It surprises me that I hear this coming from someone who is not a capitalist. I thought that capitalists were the materialist ones.

1

Silver_ OP wrote

issue of inequality

Inequality isn't an issue, poverty is.

accumulation by force

If you think that a specific property (a plot of land for example) was stolen thousands years ago, you can still contact the "new owners" and claim it/negociate . They probably aren't aware of it & who knows, maybe they'll give it back to you for free !

So it's going to come down to fighting: taking back land and labor and energy and time, and decolonizing it from property rights, from empire, from industrial exploitation, from the police, from bureaucrats, etc. And that's where voluntaryism, for all its redeeming features, totally falls short.

I couldn't care less If you "steal" "public" property. However, I think that you should judge individuals and avoid judging groups.

I mean I find it dumb to attack people who did nothing wrong or attack them because of some land theft that happened 1000 years ago that they are not even aware of. Tell 'em first, If they don't want, then you can think about what to do...

to create internally consistent standards of social interaction.

I agree, that's why I think that violence (in other cases than direct self-defense, should be avoided as much possible).

Do you accept this system of privilege as it is, and let the trajectory of capitalism play out until we are all dead? Or do you fight back, by disrespecting the social norms of "peace/consent" insofar as privilege is concerned? That's the only important question, as far as this "Voluntaryist" or "Pacifist" stuff is concerned.

Well, the state is mainly responsible for most of this bullscrap, but even If they weren't I can't care less If someone is driving a lamborghini or a car made out of diamonds at the other side of the globe, I just think that poverty is a problem, but stealing his car **isn't the only way to solve this AND ISN'T a VICTIMLESS act"

That's the same as saying that a prostitute shouldn't have the right to deny you sex, If you don't pay, cuz you weren't able to have sex for years... Sex is a basic human right !

Oh, but It is their bodies, not material stuff, so It's different ! But Is it really ... ?

If a hundred+ of workers work (in a co-op) for building an apartment, then leave it for 1-2 months, then a group of squatters come & trash the place Is it really fair for the squatters ? Is it really fair that all these physical efforts are going to waste ?

−3

Silver_ OP wrote (edited )

2 things : You didn't inherit anything from your parents ? No land, nothing ? Me too, I had to leave early & besides a computer I didn't have anything. Fortunately, I will soon buy a real plot of lands & I'll be good :)

Here are some ways to earn money without wage labor :

Freelancing

Affiliate marketing

Selling goods/services

Being a middle-man

−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

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