Message from @SYDWAD
Discord ID: 602460457093300255
I'm a voluntaryist so I would never coerce someone to take their property and redistribute it
back, i was reading this: https://canadianworker.coop/about/what-is-a-worker-co-op/
There are different models of worker co-ops but they all have one thing in common which is removing the need for the singular owner role
my problem with that is it easily becomes bloated and stagnant, even on small scales, you see this with any small town. If someone has the ability to make and run an empire they should have the right to do so. This for me falls on the side if me wanting more individual freedom. Less limitations to a person the better so long as it doesnt hamper the same or safety of another
people can from the pooled resources in a post-scarcity society
but this is assuming post-scarcity
It's not that I want to restrict currency or purchasing, I just want to build a platform where it would be unnecessary and counter-productive to do so
but if someone owns them then its not post, you still have to trade in some way to obtain what somone else has
by forcing limitations on something you are restricting it
right and hoarding is unnecessary if such action prevents yourself from gaining from a shared pool
such behaviour can be repressed in the same way gifting is repressed in a market economy
its like saying "you have free speech but we will fine you for using it" its not free
How am I fining?
example
It's like saying: I have my property and you have to abide by my rules if you want to be on my property
is that not in accordance with property rights?
Inaction is not fining
social ostracism is an effective means of utilising collectives in a way that is not unethical
its no different than the ancaps that preach of the ancap and then argue that shooting someone in your lawn may cause your community to disassociate yourself from such cruelty if they see fit
It's like saying shutting my ears or not giving you good treatment for what you said is the same as silencing you
by artificially making it harder to do x you are limiting x
The pure capitalism works the way it is because of human nature, if you alter it to make it harder to run a company on your own thats an artificial limitation and its no longer free
Lol
It doesn't have to be and it really isn't
Capitalism has had many different iterations
pure capitalism is anarchy
Anarchy has many flavours
and a voluntary society takes many forms
Pure communism is freedom, Freedom from coercion, Freedom from force, Freedom to associate, Freedom from class and material slavery. By nullifying the value of property we can truly experience our subjective value of it.
anarcho-capitalism isnt anarchy, by having a set of morals the public follow and punish for breaking its not anarchy. There are diffrent amounts of anarchy in a system but anything other than the strong eating the weak its not anarchy
It's voluntaryist in nature
and as are many other economic platforms
what was the original topic we starded with?
there is no reason for capitalism to be the predominate platform, corporatism is just capitalism clinging to the state and ironically it's the only way it can be sustained
I doubt a free market can truly exist under capitalism
I suppose we were arguing on the nature of communism
and you argued it's anti-equality of opportunity, when I'd argue it allows total association and dissociation and gives more opportunity than any other system
"Pure communism is freedom, Freedom from coercion, Freedom from force, Freedom to associate, Freedom from class and material slavery. By nullifying the value of property we can truly experience our subjective value of it."
Absolute freedom is anarchy until the strong controls you. In communism are you free too hire people under you in order to manage them for more efficiency under a set task? then thats just a speech
there is a force of some kind stopping you from doing things that will harm the system
You could try to do so
but whats stopping them is that they get all the rewards you could give them and more
essentially making it laughable