Hey guys, I'm throwing out a new name: This time it's Nock!

[BillKauffman]

You can't then go into court and argue that the court has no authority over you.

Plenty of us go into the court room under duress and then make our case for why it has not authority.

Exactly who has made an argument - that the court has allowed to be heard - that they have no authority over you?

Did this person expect that the court would rule in their favor? Do you not see the absurdity of this?

What do you think the judge would do if they ruled in your favor? Just take off their robe and call it a day and walk out the door with Mike and go get a beer together, arm in arm?

You are going to have to both coherently EXPLAIN why and SHOW people that there is a better way. You are going to have to build this new society with laws in place within the shell of those old society.

[dalebert]

Did this person expect that the court would rule in their favor? Do you not see the absurdity of this?

No, I don't expect that. Why do you think we film these conversations with authority figures? It's not for the court's benefit. It's much like why I have conversations with you. Do I have some unreasonable expectation that you'll pull your head out of your ass and see the light? Not very much, no. But other people are seeing our conversation. It is largely for their benefit.

[BillKauffman]

Did this person expect that the court would rule in their favor? Do you not see the absurdity of this?

No, I don't expect that. Why do you think we film these conversations with authority figures? It's not for the court's benefit. It's much like why I have conversations with you. Do I have some unreasonable expectation that you'll pull your head out of your ass and see the light? Not very much, no. But other people are seeing our conversation. It is largely for their benefit.

What light?

I already said that I believe the only moral position is Lauren's.

I am a Nockian anarchist. I draw a distinction between the state and governance as legitimate agency. My sentiments are more towards civic republicanism's view of freedom than classical liberal.

I would favor moving back to a common law judicial system.

I don't see all taxation as theft.

[John Edward Mercier]

British or French Common Law?

[Caleb]

I am a Nockian anarchist. I draw a distinction between the state and governance as legitimate agency. My sentiments are more towards civic republicanism's view of freedom than classical liberal.

You are NOT a Nockian anarchist, Bill, for whatever else you might be. Nock would never have said something like "I don't see all taxation as theft." (Probably because neither he nor any of the other early true georgists conceived of the land rent fund as a tax.)

Nock was also an unabashed capitalist, which sort of proves my point that Georgism is nothing more than an excuse to undermine true revolution by trying to conform revolution to the preexisting forms. (Notice how when you peddle Georgism, you try to convince people by saying, "We already have a property tax, this simply ... blah blah blah." Georgism is essentially conservative.) Thus, whereas anarchism belongs on the political left, nock and George belong on the political right. They are conservatives. Here's a quote by Nock to show his conservative leanings:

"One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and absolutely impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it. their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruple whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry."

[BillKauffman]

I am a Nockian anarchist. I draw a distinction between the state and governance as legitimate agency. My sentiments are more towards civic republicanism's view of freedom than classical liberal.

You are NOT a Nockian anarchist, Bill, for whatever else you might be. Nock would never have said something like "I don't see all taxation as theft." (Probably because neither he nor any of the other early true georgists conceived of the land rent fund as a tax.)

Nock was also an unabashed capitalist, which sort of proves my point that Georgism is nothing more than an excuse to undermine true revolution by trying to conform revolution to the preexisting forms. (Notice how when you peddle Georgism, you try to convince people by saying, "We already have a property tax, this simply ... blah blah blah." Georgism is essentially conservative.) Thus, whereas anarchism belongs on the political left, nock and George belong on the political right. They are conservatives. Here's a quote by Nock to show his conservative leanings:

"One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and absolutely impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it. their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruple whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry."

Look Nock and Tolstoy were both followers, but each had their own twists/flavors and so do I.

I am also a free market, anti-capitalist (mutualist). No special privileges from the state for capital and land ownership will allow labor to command capital & land (not the other way around like today). There should be no conflict between labor and capital ownership. They are not naturally antagonistic.

Civic republicanism is conservative too. I am a contradiction but anyone who tries to synthesize left and right has to be.

[Caleb]

Ok, but I'm moving your topic to avoid you hijacking yet another thread.

Ironically, your hijacking actually improved a thread for once. 

[BillKauffman]

Ok, but I'm moving your topic to avoid you hijacking yet another thread.

Ironically, your hijacking actually improved a thread for once. 

LOL

[Caleb]

Ok, since I've split this thread off, this whole thread is safely being ignored by just about everybody.    You are now free to say whatever you want without damaging your karma or hijacking anymore threads.

I'm not exactly sure that I understand exactly where you draw the line between communism and mutualism. I've been reading trying to discern the difference between the two groups and can't seem to find it. Or more appropriately, I can't seem to find a difference between the end goal of mutualism and full blown anarcho-communism.  Both seem to want to end wage slavery, make each person self-employed, etc.  The difference seems to be that the mutualists want this to happen while still permitting the concept of property. (As opposed to the communist idea of usufruct.)  So the communist critique of mutualism would be that, although it would be a dramatic improvement by lessening the wage slavery system, there would still be stratification of wealth under mutualism which would lead to the two extremes:  extreme wealth and extreme poverty. (I will grant that mutualism would probably result in a much larger more egalitarian middle class.)

Look at it this way, Bill. You know as well as I do that the ability to control property means the ability to exclude. What happens when some poor bloke comes along who, either through his own stupidity or that of his ancestors, finds himself without property? He is automatically forced to sell his labor. The thought of exclusion from land necessitates its corollary: wage slavery.  Wage slavery and exclusion from land should not be thought of independently from each other. They are the same phenomenon.  So how does mutualism maintain the contradictory position that it will eliminate wage slavery while simultaneously enabling land exclusion?

[Pat K]

OH SCREW THIS  THREAD !

[Caleb]

lol ... if you don't keep him busy, Pat, he will just hijack more threads. 

[Russell Kanning]

we could just destroy him
he only comes on here to tell the rest of us what to do

[Pat McCotter]

Nock nock.

[Tom Sawyer]

Nock nock.

who's there?

[BillKauffman]

I'm not exactly sure that I understand exactly where you draw the line between communism and mutualism. I've been reading trying to discern the difference between the two groups and can't seem to find it. Or more appropriately, I can't seem to find a difference between the end goal of mutualism and full blown anarcho-communism.  Both seem to want to end wage slavery, make each person self-employed, etc.  The difference seems to be that the mutualists want this to happen while still permitting the concept of property. (As opposed to the communist idea of usufruct.)  So the communist critique of mutualism would be that, although it would be a dramatic improvement by lessening the wage slavery system, there would still be stratification of wealth under mutualism which would lead to the two extremes:  extreme wealth and extreme poverty. (I will grant that mutualism would probably result in a much larger more egalitarian middle class.)

Look at it this way, Bill. You know as well as I do that the ability to control property means the ability to exclude. What happens when some poor bloke comes along who, either through his own stupidity or that of his ancestors, finds himself without property? He is automatically forced to sell his labor. The thought of exclusion from land necessitates its corollary: wage slavery.  Wage slavery and exclusion from land should not be thought of independently from each other. They are the same phenomenon.  So how does mutualism maintain the contradictory position that it will eliminate wage slavery while simultaneously enabling land exclusion?

1. I believe communism is about the collective ownership of the means of product. Usufruct literally means "use of the fruit" while preserving the common asset. I think you may be conflating collective and common ownership.

2. Mutualism wants to end privilege while communism wants to end private ownership of capital. Most "wealth" from a mutualist perspective is ill gotten by the ownership of capital and land using state privilege to extract the real wealth (wealth can only be created via labor) from those excluded by the privilege.

3. Communist believe wages are expropriated by capitalists based on the labor theory of value. Mutualists believe in a "subjectivized" version of the LTV.

4. A basic income guarantee (see Jason's speech at the Porcfest on Charles Murray's proposal) by requiring the sharing of commonwealth (economic rent) in exchange for exclusive use via privilege while solve the wage slavery problem. Doesn't mean it will end but it will truly be voluntary, ad hoc, and rare.