You are using the wrong definition of “religion”, that one only applies to the field of physics. Out here in the world a religion is a system of faith, fulfilling certain criteria like organizational structure and a moral system.
You can go into business for yourself. You can live out in the wild and be (hopefully) self-sufficient.
My point is that therefore, when others don’t freely give a person what they have, they’re not depriving him of anything and they’re not coercing him to do anything.
Logically speaking, since you agree that syndicalism may not provide you with everything you want, and since you think it’s a problem to not be provided with everything you want, you must oppose syndicalism like you do capitalism.
It’s a valid form of argument, but that’s irrelevant if one does not accept the content of the argument. As I’ve mentioned before in this thread, I don’t think all coercion is necessarily bad or unlibertarian. Why you think otherwise is still beyond me - you’ve never explained yourself to my satisfaction here. Perhaps you’re actually using a different definition of “coercion”?
They are real alternatives.
Please provide a source for these arguments. However, I don’t believe that free will actually exists anyways - not from a hypothetical standpoint of the external universe. But I do believe in free will as a concept, namely to denote each of us’ inability to predict future human action.
There is no ultimate (moral) responsibility for anything. Responsibility exists entirely within the mind. Causal responsibility is another story - it depends on your view of human causality. But if you’re not going to consider anyone to be at least causally responsible for his own actions, then it doesn’t make sense to talk about anyone actually doing anything at all. You can then only talk about things happening - after all, you don’t know what ultimately caused them to happen, do you?
Then how are you free to believe in libertarianism? 
Humans don’t share anything with just anyone. Typically the kind of sharing you talk about only occurs within close-knit family groups, as you yourself seem to recognize. But in societies where most people aren’t bound by such kinship relations, such sharing is hardly the norm. At least part of the reason for this is because there’s much less trust between perfect strangers. How does each know that the other won’t share with him later?
Speaking of which, what do you think would prevent people from taking without giving in an anarcho-syndicalist society?
So this anarcho-syndicalist society would have to be geographically contiguous? Or are you implying that it would have to cover the entire world?
Take the island of Britain. Let’s say a majority of British people suddenly desired an anarcho-syndicalist society, but a sizable minority did not. Furthermore, this minority is scattered through the island, with various holdings of land and other property. What do you think would happen?
Socialism has been disproven? What! You’ve just said:
The economic system which states that the means of production should be owned by the workers has been disproved. So how can you disprove socialism? Do you mean to say that socialism doesn’t exist, so like you would say:
God has been disproved; means that the idea of God has been shown to not be physically real. So are you saying:
Socialism has been disproved; means that the idea of socialism has been shown to not be physically real?
Well, if you are, how could an economic system be shown to not be physically real. It’s an idea, not a physical thing. I could say that capitalism is followed and believed in regardless of the criticisms levelled at it; these are just words though. Libertarian socialism is hardly dogmatic. Being organised into a community isn’t the definition of ‘religion’. I disagree with your last sentence.
So what’s so hard about teaching the workers economics? And really! Do you genuinely believe that workers are brain dead retards, who pander to emotions?
And I’ve rebutted all those criticisms… on this very thread.
‘I highly doubt that you are capable of changing your views on the issue since you seem to be so emotionally invested in syndicalism.’
Cut the rhetoric please.
Please support this, and I don’t mean by simply waving your hands in the air and claiming that machines will do all the hard work. Maybe you can start by explaining what you mean by “use technology correctly”.
You need to stop playing this infantile game of semantics. You know very well that I didn’t mean that socialism was disproven in an existential sense; rather, it has been disproven as a workable economic system. You have completely failed to research or bring substantial evidence against any one of the number of problems I or others have brought to your attention. As others have noted, you’ve been moving the goal post around throughout the entire course of the debate. First you say that in syndicalism we’ll live in a post-scarcity world, then you back track and say that it will still be a condition in your ideal society. Poor debate tactics like this only further invalidate your viewpoint in the eyes of intellectual opponents.
An organized community of believers is an aspect of what is typically defined as a “religion”. Read EmperorNero’s post.
You could assert that, and absent any evidence you would be wrong. I have yet to see a valid argument be made against the workability of laissez-faire capitalism or its innate ability to provide the populous with the highest standard of living possible. I listed problems with socialism that you should take upon yourself to look up. Explaining all of them in detail would take up dozens of posts, each multiple pages long. Again, many of the people on this board have explained them to you already.
**
You can teach workers economics, sure, but that wouldn’t solve any of the problems I listed, except maybe turn the average worker against syndicalism. And while I don’t believe that the common man is, as you crudely put it, a “brain dead retard”, I do believe that he or she lacks the knowledge necessary to effectively run a government. While the best situation for society would be no government, if we must have one, an aristocracy is infinitely preferable to popular democracy.
It was simply an observation that you continue to validify with every post you make on this thread.
If everyone were to do either of those two options, capitalism would cease to be. To prove that, if everyone went into business for themselves, then there would be no workers to work in those businesses. And if everyone went to live into the wild and became self-sufficient, then there would be no need for business. So capitalism, to exist, has to have an oppressed class. That is something I don’t agree with.
I would say that human liberty is something we all have, but capitalism reduces that level of liberty, and so it deprives us of our full liberty. That’s another thing I don’t agree with.
When I’m talking about what I want, I’m not really talking about whether syndicalism can fulfil all the material desires I have. Rather, I’m referring to abstract wants such as liberty. Perhaps I should have made that distinction clearer.
I would say that by definition coercion limits freedom and so is unlibertarian. Perhaps we are. By ‘coercion’ I mean, being ‘persuaded’ to do something you don’t want to do through force, intimidation or threat.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson.
I agree, if philosophical materialism is correct, then everything we do is determined.
Ironically, I don’t think I am free to believe in libertarianism.
Not always, it depends on the kind of society as you would expect. If you take the Israeli Kibbutz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz) sharing and trust are the norm. I think the key is that they all live and work together, like a community. I’m not saying this would work on a big scale, although I think it could. But I’m just saying, that the type of society in which we live, determines who and how much we trust and share.
No. The modern world is sophesticated enough to overcome borders and geographical differences. For example, if the UK were to become syndicalist, and so to did China, then the people of both countries would have no trouble organising and working together as one.
I don’t know, it’s a difficult question. I’ll get back to you on that one.
Chris_Bacon,
Whether syndicalism is in harmony with such an esoteric concept as your iteration of “liberty” is inconsequential to me and others. The oppressed class is a fiction made up in the fabric of the imagination of you and other socialists, both utopian and scientific. It is not oppressive simply because contracts are voluntary on both sides. Even if it was oppressive (which I’ll take the time to remind you again that it isn’t) I wouldn’t care, as it would still be the system that provided me and the ones I cared about with the highest standard of living possible. Debating over morals or emotions will get us nowhere.
rather, it has been disproven as a workable economic system.
Employee stock ownership plans are not workable? Workplace democracy isn’t? I’m sure you think socialism = statism, or USSR… but you’d be wrong.
I have yet to see a valid argument be made against the workability of laissez-faire capitalism or its innate ability to provide the populous with the highest standard of living possible
While the best situation for society would be no government, if we must have one, an aristocracy is infinitely preferable to popular democracy
I think history has some answers for both of these. But of course, we can never learn anything from history, to paraphrase Mises.
Then I guess I don’t know what you mean by “capitalist society” or “capitalism”. To me, both of those outcomes are completely consisten with my definition of “capitalism”, which is “private ownership of the means of production”. Indeed, I consider “private ownership” to be a pleonasm - all ownership, by (my) definition, is necessarily private (in the sense of “exclusive”).
As I mentioned in another thread, the mere existence of other people reduces that level of liberty, as they take up space and consume resources that we could otherwise occupy and consume. Of course, this is assuming I’m guessing correctly at what you mean by “human liberty”. 
Are you using the same rubric in your criticism of capitalism?
Thanks for the link. My point was that, following Strawson’s arguments, the phrase you just used - “everything we do” - doesn’t even make sense. Because how do you know what we do and what we don’t do? His arguments entail that there’s no way to tell whether anyone definitively does anything.
Not only that, but how can you say whether it’s really your belief? How do you know whether you’re the one who’s ultimately believing it?
To the extent that it stops working, the capitalist mode of production and exchange will be employed (no pun intended). Kibbutzim could simply be considered a form of capitalist enterpise.
Fair enough.
I look forward to your answer.
If we were to completely switch to renewable energy, which would take effort - but we can do it, then we wouldn’t need to worry about energy again. We don’t need to worry about food again, since we can create it artificially now. And through desalination we can purely sea water, so we need not worry about water either. The very fact that we still have poverty in the world today shows some of the failings of capitalism.
Perhaps, there wouldn’t be as many Audi TT’s in a syndicalist society, but we wouldn’t have people starving to death.
They are workable. That is not the democratic ownership of the means of production being described by Chris Brown.
No.
Don’t patronize me, Laotzu. Whether socialism is executed by a democratic collective or a vanguard of revolutionaries is irrelevant.
That is a complete misunderstanding of Mises, but that’s par for the course based on some of your other posts. Mises meant that you can’t look at history and create theories from it because there are countless knowable and unknowable variables and conditions that contribute to every historical event. This was the mistake of the German historical school. You can, however, apply theories to history and gain meaningful information.
That is a blatant lie. Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, have many practical limitations, among them how much of both you’d need to power a civilization absent “dirty” energy. What’s important is that the energy would still be scarce, so we would have to “worry about energy again”.
The means to create artificial food are scarce. Unless your magic food factories can produce an unlimited amount of food with no opportunity cost, then the food will be scarce and there will be costs involved in its production.
The chemicals used for desalination are scarce, as is is the ocean.
The existence of poverty in the world is due to the actions of governments, which restrict the build up of capital, penalize entrepreneurship, stifle domestic and foreign trade, destroy the rationing function of prices through currency debasement, and many other breaches on the sovereignty of the market.
I doubt that there’d be very much going on in a syndicalist society besides death and starvation.
That is a complete misunderstanding of Mises, but that’s par for the course based on some of your other posts. Mises meant that you can’t look at history and create theories from it because there are countless knowable and unknowable variables and conditions that contribute to every historical event. This was the mistake of the German historical school. You can, however, apply theories to history and gain meaningful information.
And to actually quote Mises now:
"No general rules about the effects of various modes of action and of definite social institutions can be derived from historical experience. In this sense the famous dictum is true that the study of history can teach only one thing: viz., that nothing can be learned from history. "
Are you going to take back that attack on my character now?
They are workable. That is not the democratic ownership of the means of production being described by Chris Brown.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you said “Chris Brown-ism is not a workable system.” You specifically said socialism, ie, worker control of the means of production. ESOP are not socialism, per se. But they are a step in that direction.
No.
Semco and Alcassa would disagree with you. So would the CICOPA, and Mondragon…
I would add that capitalism is also characterised by the selling of labour for profit.
It also depends on which resources you think a human is free to consume. We can explore this in further depth if you want?
Sorry, I don’t understand what that means.
You’re welcome. That’s an interesting point. I don’t know what he’d say. But, as with all philosophy, we have to be clear what we mean by the words we are using. What does ‘we’, ‘I’ or ‘you’ mean, and who or what do they refer to? The question of identity.
Again, another really interesting point. I’d say that we can’t be sure that even what we think, is actually what we think. For example, if we take thoughts to be explained in terms of neurons, then surely they could be constructed by another source. Perhaps all syndicalists think the exact same things. 
I don’t see why it would stop working in a syndicalist society. If you removed property, there is very little anyone can actually do to harm you - other than physically. So I’d say that trust would be more commonplace.
No, since that Mises quote just further exposed your ineptitude and dishonesty. Mises clearly states that you cannot derive laws or principles from history, which is exactly what I said in my previous post.
Who does and does not agree with me is inconsequential. Present evidence or admit that you have none, don’t machine gun appeals to authority at me.
No, since that Mises quote just further exposed your ineptitude and dishonesty. Mises clearly states that you cannot derive laws or principles from history, which is exactly what I said in my previous post.
I provided a direct quote, you provided a post-hoc rationalization… and you have the gall to speak of my ineptitude?
Who does and does not agree with me is inconsequential. Present evidence or admit that you have none, don’t machine gun appeals to authority at me.
Those are evidence, tho I didn’t expect you to actually look up anything. it’s much easier to sit back and attack people’s character.
Nuclear?
The ocean makes up most of the planet.
There is nothing stopping business or individuals acting against poverty. You’re just using the government as a scape goat for apathy.
And why’s that?
This might help Rcder
If the bolded portion of Mises’ quote is taken completely out of context, then yes, he would be making the completely untrue claim that we can learn nothing from history. But if you read the entire section that the quote is present in, then Mises is saying that you cannot derive economic theory, or any theory, from an analysis of history. I can find quotes from some of his other works that express the same sentiment, though I’d need some time to look through my library.
I also suggest that you brush up on your Latin, because based on how you used “post hoc”, that phrase doesn’t mean what you think it means.
The names of organizations and historical figures are not evidence. Is simply saying “Jean-Baptiste Say” evidence in favor of capitalism, or is it simply a name?
…doesn’t produce an unlimited supply of energy with no opportunity cost.
And yet it isn’t unlimited. How unfortunate for your argument.
Government and private aid to Africa, for example, is typically filtered through the government, where it is then redistributed to the politically well-connected or spent on public boondoggles. I remember one African state built a massive airport even though it only received a few airplanes every year.
I am not using a scapegoat. I listed several ways that the government hinders the growth of capitalism and correspondingly the standard of living.
There are several reasons, the biggest one being the socialist economic calculation problem, which you can learn more about by reading “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”.