Thus what I mean by inconsistency.
The “public” control of capital and resources. Sounds pretty anti-individualistic to me. What definition are you using?
Private oligarchical control of resources sounds pretty anti liberty to me.
I’m using liberty in the sense of free will. Not just for ownership, but for everybody.
Ownership for everybody, you mean co-operative?
Private oligarchical control of resources sounds pretty anti liberty to me.
I don’t see how it differs from democratic control. Control is control is control…
Plutocracy? The free market is not Plutocracy.
What governing power does a board of directors have over individual free will in ancap?
Remember, there’s no such thing as a wrong definition. There are only different definitions.
If I understand your reasoning correctly, you shouldn’t object when someone wants to use your body in a different way from how you want to use it. Otherwise you’re exercising “private oligarchical control of resources”, right?
What if I want to use my body to murder your best friend?
I would certainly hope you would oppose my private oligarchical control of resource.
Which “you” are you talking about in the second sentence – the real you, or the one who wants to use his body to murder my best friend? I doubt that the latter would have such a hope. But how you wish to use your body is completely irrelevant to the fact that using your own body in any certain way, to the exclusion of others, is “private oligarchical control of resources”.
Are you implicitly claiming, however, that ensuring free will isn’t your highest moral/ethical goal? If so, then you must logically allow for “private oligarchical control of resources” at some point.
To drive my point home: either you think “private oligarchical control of resources” is never okay, or you think otherwise. So which is it?
Which “you” are you talking about in the second sentence – the real you, or the one who wants to use his body to murder my best friend? I doubt that the latter would have such a hope.
It’s the same me. People can change their minds about peace rather quickly in a moment of passion. You would be surprised what people will do when it’s fightg or flight… pushing over old women that get in their way and all that.
Are you implicitly claiming, however, that ensuring free will isn’t your highest moral/ethical goal? If so, then you must logically allow for “private oligarchical control of resources” at some point.
To drive my point home: either you think “private oligarchical control of resources” is never okay, or you think otherwise. So which is it?
Read my quote. You will find it rare for me to say “x is always bad.” But I 9/10 find democratic decision making better than “my stuff, my decision.”
Private oligarchical control of resources = individual action of malice?
So your support of socialism is because it eliminates the potential for hitmans?
I’m sorry, I just don’t understand…
I call bullshit on this.
So you don’t think “private oligarchical control of resources” is always bad. Okay, when do you think it’s okay? Can you enumerate the circumstances? If not, why not?
I call bullshit on this
Care to elaborate why? You don’t think there are people that call off all morality when it’s fight or flight? You’ve never heard of people getting pushed over and stomped in a human stampede? Some will help them up, some will step on them without a thought. This is human nature, it’s fickle, and generally amoral.
So you don’t think “private oligarchical control of resources” is always bad. Okay, when do you think it’s okay? Can you enumerate the circumstances? If not, why not?
You don’t think me “enumerating the circumstances” of millions of different situations would take a few days?
I don’t deal in absolutes, it’s as simple as that. I don’t think violence is always bad. I don’t think peace is always good (even if I think both are most of the time). I don’t think greed is always bad, I don’t think altruism is always good.
But I do think more often than not, people come to better decisions through council. It’s probably why corporations tend to grow larger than private enterprises…
Well a voluntary council is a bit different than coercive council, which is usually what the democratic process entails. No one said people willingly coming to a decision is a bad thing.
What if I want to use my body to murder your best friend?
I would certainly hope you would oppose my private oligarchical control of resource.
Thats as oligarchical as it is democratic.
Amoral or immoral? If you meant amoral, then that would imply that we as humans, if we had been in that stampede, would have no positive obligation whatsoever to help anyone. If you meant immoral, then our lack of positive action to help others would be wrong.
Which is it?
Good luck with that one. The only consistent thing about him is his inconsistency.
Z.
In full disclosure I will respond to real questions/arguments, like those brought forth by the illustrious and inquisitive Autolykos. Loaded questions, intentional misrepresentations, and unfounded ad hominems will simply be ignored.
**
**
Is this your definition of socialism?
Such a vague definition could be applied to just about any political philosophy. Everyone thinks their political and economic philosophy will benefit mankind over-all. No one actually thinks their beliefs will impoverish the masses.
How can you support-free will. If the establishment you promote institutionally undermines individual-free will? Are you supporting free-will, if your free-will encroaches upon the free-will of your neighbors? Is it free-will for all? Or free-will for yourself, as far as your personal preferences and desires are concerned.