What Is Anarchy??

[Hayduke]

Chemicals designed to kill Rats and other Pests - Chemicals designed to kill Humans.

The alternative to using those chemicals would be letting our crops rot or get eaten by pests and watching as billions starve. I personally can not condone an action or inaction that would lead to so much death.

Actually, it happened the other way around. First the poisons were designed to kill humans...we had a lot left over, seems like kind of a waste...maybe we could sell this to farmers...or even whole communities.

Before we started systematically poisoning nearly every life form, there was balance. Pest insects kept in check by predator insects, natural native plantings kept weeds in check.

Pesticides do not kill just the pest, but the predator and pollinator...and others. Now the crops are not only poisoned, but vulnerable to the pest, which, by nature...in order to feed the predator in numbers that will ensure the survival of the whole chain...must come back first. Without the now dead predators the pests flourish at the expense of the crop (and the farmer...where is his wealth? read on). Now more chemical has to be applied (purchased) and as the pests attempt to survive by acquiring limited resistance...MORE poison purchased (here's your wealth)

The lily white (as opposed to red) suburbs of the 50's planted fast growing shade producers like Elms...as opposed to native species. This opened up a smorgasbord for swarming pests...and swarming chemical tycoons. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring tells the true horror tale of the use of these pesticides on entire communities...people sometimes told to stay indoors...and the yards, literally, strewn with dead and dying birds

This whole debacle led to the farmer needing to farm more land (and buy more pesticide, herbicide, NPK [only], and the seed that will thrive in frankensoil) to make a profit...now there is too much grain...the price drops...farm subsides are invented in time for the farm to be foreclosed; corporate factory farms took, and are taking the subsides. This stuff is not some anarchist fantasy this is real, and it is a good example of why we are even having this...discussion.

Should animals have any space?

Yes. And if they have any left they (animals) should share it with the humans that will respect their home...be good house guests. They should eat the rest.

Everyone just wants to be left alone

I wish.

 

[CaptnJack]

Think about this... because you are both exactly what your saying I am. Just cause you dont agree, you dont have to be childish, and ignorant. To think outside the box, is to THINK. Mainstream media portray's your side of the argument, not America's poor to be oppressed. The media never shows anything about anarchist's or class war, so you are wrong for saying that, just like most of the things that come out your mouth. As for talking about mom's... well your really showing your true colors. I love how things result to talking about mom's. Man, I wish you would meet my mom, R.I.P., she'd slap both you spoiled fools so fast... you'd be thinking a little better before you open that flapping jaw of yours.

i didn't even want to read past this, only because i'm gettin tired of others bringing valid points and social and historical based examples and fact, while you bring nothing but theory, and if you really want to live without, easy access to food, electricity, AC, having to walk everywhere, for kids their 360's ps3's, oh and that lovely computer you use. then fine you go ahead and go to africa, the amazon, or somewhere else that is distant from any of the luxuries you wont have with anarchy, because for all those things you need corporations since we've established you'll be some kind of chosen one and take them all down with your hand alone, or a few others.

point has been and is bub, for however many you think there are to march with you and "take back" what was never yours, there will be hundred no thousand fold of those who are proud of what they've worked for and become, what money they make, and will fight before they let you break it all down, i know i will.

 

[fdd2blk]

oh, so moms are childish but reach arounds aren't. what a fucking tool.
seriously, i should just ban you for trolling. how fucking lame. are you really that stupid?
your mom is dead? i'd still hit it. hehehehhehehehehe

 

[Loftiest]

i didn't even want to read past this, only because i'm gettin tired of others bringing valid points and social and historical based examples and fact, while you bring nothing but theory, and if you really want to live without, easy access to food, electricity, AC, having to walk everywhere, for kids their 360's ps3's, oh and that lovely computer you use. then fine you go ahead and go to africa, the amazon, or somewhere else that is distant from any of the luxuries you wont have with anarchy, because for all those things you need corporations since we've established you'll be some kind of chosen one and take them all down with your hand alone, or a few others.

point has been and is bub, for however many you think there are to march with you and "take back" what was never yours, there will be hundred no thousand fold of those who are proud of what they've worked for and become, what money they make, and will fight before they let you break it all down, i know i will.

The OP isn't advocating for 'mainstream' anarchism. Much like nearly all schools of socialist thought, anarchists strive for a technologically advanced, modern society. And given that the development of the modern corporation is fairly recent, I see no reason why the goods and services you've listed would be excluded or unattainable in an anarchist society.

 

[Musical Suicide]

oh, so moms are childish but reach arounds aren't. what a fucking tool.
seriously, i should just ban you for trolling. how fucking lame. are you really that stupid?
your mom is dead? i'd still hit it. hehehehhehehehehe

Oh big tough guy with the privileges. Talking about those involved in the conversation is relevant, bringing up family members is just, yes, CHILDISH. Reach arounds are what people do to their partner while having sex from behind.... usually adults, not childern. Or did you really not know that? Don't threaten me... if you think i will loose any sleep being banned from here cause your allowed to cuse and say what you want without repricussions, and I'm not, well you are sadly mistaken... so be a dick, talk about my mom that died of cancer last year... Having to help her grow and find weed, and seeing what good it did for her is the main reason why I started cultivating herb for myself. Just know, that you can ban me for whatever you want... "God" or whoever you think you are... but the ideas will always be around, and you will never ban the thought of a better tomarrow. So go fuck yourself. peace.



p.s. haha

 

[CaptnJack]

well if you would read his other posts he's talking about burning down corps. and being self sufficient so i dont see where luxuries could fit in with no one to sustain them. and i know they wouldnt do it for free anyway. where are they gonna go to school? who's going to teach them? who's gonna pay the teachers? because we'd need some sort of economy, and with economy you think ppl are gonna abide by a honor system? ha hell no, people are inheritantly greedy. those who are higher on the social scale will also crave power, i guarantee it, the ideology cannot support absolutely no leaders or gov't and have luxuries and corps. and money circulation.

i just don't see it.

maybe in a story book, but not reality.

maybe im confused, but it seemed the OP wanted complete freedom from readin his posts.

 

[CaptnJack]

Reach arounds are what people do to their partner while having sex from behind.... usually adults, not childern.

having sex with moms is usually adults....thought thats what most moms are........was i taught wrong FDD?

point is you should be exempt of insults? what if some here are offended by the homosexual comment you made? fuck em? but you, you have special rights? no one can offend you but you can say what you want to whoever? THAT is childish, learn to take back what you dish and stop bein a bitch about it.

kiss-ass
^_____^_____^
ME--- M.S---. FDD

 

[Musical Suicide]

what you looking for your internet date for support??? Having sex with moms and talking about it is two different things... you two like to talk alot dont you?? Been a long time since you got laid eh??? Its ok, even dorks like yourselves get laid from time to time. And I can make all the homosexual jokes i want.... as long as its not derogertory toward them.... Just the rude "person's" i'm talking to. You seriously are rediculous. Its sad that you both are as lame as you are. I'm done with this thread, thanks for ruining the anarchism thread. I'm going to go vomit now. what do you think fdd?? is this ok fdd? fdd? oh no??? fdd??? what a joke.

 

[Dr. Greenhorn]

I'm not sure, but isn't this a cannabis forum? dont we all smoke? why do people get offended over such little things I just can't understand.....maybe some of us are smoking what dj short calls "grumpy weed" LOL

 

[cookin]

The OP isn't advocating for 'mainstream' anarchism. Much like nearly all schools of socialist thought, anarchists strive for a technologically advanced, modern society. And given that the development of the modern corporation is fairly recent, I see no reason why the goods and services you've listed would be excluded or unattainable in an anarchist society.

say everything continues like normal how would you solve the problem of externalities without government, surely markets can't fix them, they are cases of market failure. species could go extinc, public goods would be ruined... but i still think that where there are large profits and no law it would become a very uncompetitive market and violent, look at drug markets, no law, (artificially) high profits, and violence

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

The OP isn't advocating for 'mainstream' anarchism. Much like nearly all schools of socialist thought, anarchists strive for a technologically advanced, modern society. And given that the development of the modern corporation is fairly recent, I see no reason why the goods and services you've listed would be excluded or unattainable in an anarchist society.

Yes, but a corporation (the modern kind, as opposed to the ancient 16th century kind that was sanctioned by the crown/state) is more or less an autonomous entity.

As far as them being a recent creation. That is just incorrect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Co - 1602
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_West_India_Company - 1621 (date of Charter, not of founding, was founded in 1567)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company - 1600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_East_India_Company - 1664

That's over 400 years of Corporations (Chartered Companies) and Joint Stock Companies, from which the modern Corporation exists.

Though that's just for the modern Joint Stock Corporation the actual history of corporations stretches back further to the Roman Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_corporations

On top of the historical basis of corporations, which are still established by the State (or its authorized agents) is the fact that they are the most used form of organization in the United States with the vast majority of businesses being Corporations, regardless of actual substatus (Proprietorship, Partnership, Joint Stock) so just saying corporations implies a lack of research.

Though in truth the 4 examples above (Dutch East & West India, British East India, and French East India) show historical examples of corporations with quasi-governmental powers. Compared to those four early examples the Corporations in the United States are extremely limited in their power.

The problem isn't the corporations, which are powerless or nearly powerless with out the support of the state, but the State itself, which empowers the corporations acting like a giant enabler.

This action by the State effectively ignores the definition of Justice and takes the blindfold off, making it so that while the ideal is that all are equal before Justice (Justice is Blind) the fact is that Justice is not Blind but is dispensed in an arbitrary fashion by the Government, or interfered with in particular by the government.

As far as corporations not existing in an Anarchist Society, I maintain again that this would not be the case as a Joint Stock Corporation/Company does not necessarily have to be chartered by the state and from their legal creation (1865 it sounded like) until the 1930s any lay person would be able to have a corporation chartered and then attempt to sell shares in it personally to raise start up capital.

The boom of the 1920s was a result of this open market, where corporations like Radio Corporation of America were created, stock was then sold to salesmen (stock brokers) who would go door to door attempting to sell shares. It is quite possible that from the period of the 1920s - 1930s private ownership of corporations was distributed through out all income levels.

Something that has changed as the entire industry has become opaque after being wrapped in layers upon layers of regulations to "protect" people from themselves.

Ultimately a Joint Stock Company is the fairest form of business in that the owners can also be the employees, and thus it is possible for the employees to in fact share in the profits of the company they work for. Which ultimately is what Socialists and Anarcho-Socialists/Syndicalists whine about.

The reality is that their desired outcome is staring them in the face but they are too ignorant and incapable of critical thinking to see it.

 

[Loftiest]

well if you would read his other posts he's talking about burning down corps. and being self sufficient so i dont see where luxuries could fit in with no one to sustain them. and i know they wouldnt do it for free anyway. where are they gonna go to school? who's going to teach them? who's gonna pay the teachers? because we'd need some sort of economy, and with economy you think ppl are gonna abide by a honor system? ha hell no, people are inheritantly greedy. those who are higher on the social scale will also crave power, i guarantee it, the ideology cannot support absolutely no leaders or gov't and have luxuries and corps. and money circulation.

i just don't see it.

maybe in a story book, but not reality.

maybe im confused, but it seemed the OP wanted complete freedom from readin his posts.

Like I said, he's not advocating 'mainstream' anarchism. It's obvious he's an anarcho-primitivist, vastly different from traditional anarchist schools of thought.

 

[grow space]

i say anrchy is good only once the whole world is fucked up-probably in the year 2050 when we have fucked our biosfar so bad that the changes we do to our lifstyles doesent change shit.but now-nononon noooooooo.

 

[cookin]

Like I said, he's not advocating 'mainstream' anarchism. It's obvious he's an anarcho-primitivist, vastly different from traditional anarchist schools of thought.

just glanced at this on wikipedia, says abolition of division of labour???? how can you expect things like computers then??

 

[Loftiest]

Yes, but a corporation (the modern kind, as opposed to the ancient 16th century kind that was sanctioned by the crown/state) is more or less an autonomous entity.

As far as them being a recent creation. That is just incorrect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Co - 1602
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_West_India_Company - 1621 (date of Charter, not of founding, was founded in 1567)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company - 1600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_East_India_Company - 1664

That's over 400 years of Corporations (Chartered Companies) and Joint Stock Companies, from which the modern Corporation exists.

Though that's just for the modern Joint Stock Corporation the actual history of corporations stretches back further to the Roman Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_corporations

On top of the historical basis of corporations, which are still established by the State (or its authorized agents) is the fact that they are the most used form of organization in the United States with the vast majority of businesses being Corporations, regardless of actual substatus (Proprietorship, Partnership, Joint Stock) so just saying corporations implies a lack of research.

Though in truth the 4 examples above (Dutch East & West India, British East India, and French East India) show historical examples of corporations with quasi-governmental powers. Compared to those four early examples the Corporations in the United States are extremely limited in their power.

The problem isn't the corporations, which are powerless or nearly powerless with out the support of the state, but the State itself, which empowers the corporations acting like a giant enabler.

This action by the State effectively ignores the definition of Justice and takes the blindfold off, making it so that while the ideal is that all are equal before Justice (Justice is Blind) the fact is that Justice is not Blind but is dispensed in an arbitrary fashion by the Government, or interfered with in particular by the government.

As far as corporations not existing in an Anarchist Society, I maintain again that this would not be the case as a Joint Stock Corporation/Company does not necessarily have to be chartered by the state and from their legal creation (1865 it sounded like) until the 1930s any lay person would be able to have a corporation chartered and then attempt to sell shares in it personally to raise start up capital.

The boom of the 1920s was a result of this open market, where corporations like Radio Corporation of America were created, stock was then sold to salesmen (stock brokers) who would go door to door attempting to sell shares. It is quite possible that from the period of the 1920s - 1930s private ownership of corporations was distributed through out all income levels.

Something that has changed as the entire industry has become opaque after being wrapped in layers upon layers of regulations to "protect" people from themselves.

Ultimately a Joint Stock Company is the fairest form of business in that the owners can also be the employees, and thus it is possible for the employees to in fact share in the profits of the company they work for. Which ultimately is what Socialists and Anarcho-Socialists/Syndicalists whine about.

The reality is that their desired outcome is staring them in the face but they are too ignorant and incapable of critical thinking to see it.

Just to recap, here's what I said that you take issue with: 'And given that the development of the modern corporation is fairly recent...'

By modern corporation, I was referring from the late 19th century on when these entities were formally recognized as juridical persons, as is understood in the history of economic thought - something I learned at university, not from Wikipedia.

I know very well that corporations aren't a recent development, hence why I used the adjective 'modern' to modify corporation. I hope that you'll not intentionally mischaracterize my comments again.

'...so just saying corporations implies a lack of research.' Great, the guy who quoted Wikipedia five times in a paragraph is attacking my knowledge. Plus, within the context of my reply using the all-encompasing 'corporation' was very adequate.

'Which ultimately is what Socialists and Anarcho-Socialists/Syndicalists whine about.' I have no idea why you're capitalizing 'socialist', 'anarcho-socialist' or 'syndicalist'.

I believe the most accurate way to describe any potential anarchist societies' economic structure will be through the use of co-operatives, consumers' and producers' alike.

 

[Loftiest]

say everything continues like normal how would you solve the problem of externalities without government, surely markets can't fix them, they are cases of market failure. species could go extinc, public goods would be ruined... but i still think that where there are large profits and no law it would become a very uncompetitive market and violent, look at drug markets, no law, (artificially) high profits, and violence

This is a great point, Cookin. These societies wouldn't be able to handle market failures. Hell, their theorists still use LTV.

 

[Loftiest]

just glanced at this on wikipedia, says abolition of division of labour???? how can you expect things like computers then??

It's understood that there would be a degree of division of labor. Even Marx recognized that.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Just to recap, here's what I said that you take issue with: 'And given that the development of the modern corporation is fairly recent...'

By modern corporation, I was referring from the late 19th century on when these entities were formally recognized as juridical persons, as is understood in the history of economic thought - something I learned at university, not from Wikipedia.

I know very well that corporations aren't a recent development, hence why I used the adjective 'modern' to modify corporation. I hope that you'll not intentionally mischaracterize my comments again.

'...so just saying corporations implies a lack of research.' Great, the guy who quoted Wikipedia five times in a paragraph is attacking my knowledge. Plus, within the context of my reply using the all-encompasing 'corporation' was very adequate.

'Which ultimately is what Socialists and Anarcho-Socialists/Syndicalists whine about.' I have no idea why you're capitalizing 'socialist', 'anarcho-socialist' or 'syndicalist'.

I believe the most accurate way to describe any potential anarchist societies' economic structure will be through the use of co-operatives, consumers' and producers' alike.

Then perhaps you should have said the separation of the corporation from its owners, or recognition as a citizen/entity, but even that is not a modern develop as could be witnessed by the fact that the powers given to the British East India Company rivalled that of any government, and for a period of time it effectively ruled India, and had its own army to enforce its rule.

Not to mention the Plymouth and London Companies which were chartered to form and govern colonies, and to establish trade in the new world. Your claims that the modern corporation is a new form for corporations is false, or at least your date range is. When the form of corporations as being quasi-governmental agencies, or separate from their owners goes back to 16th or 17th Century Europe.\


As far as Wikipedia, while it isn't the best reference, it does provide background information, and links to better sources, and thus provides a quick way to prove that a person isn't just running their mouth.

I don't have the time, nor inclination to make what is effectively a graduate level dissertation when a simpler response is sufficient.


Though perhaps you should try to read what is written and respond to the main point made instead of the supporting information.

Which was that the State empowers corporations, not that corporations are a new idea.

 

[Loftiest]

Then perhaps you should have said the separation of the corporation from its owners, or recognition as a citizen/entity, but even that is not a modern develop as could be witnessed by the fact that the powers given to the British East India Company rivalled that of any government, and for a period of time it effectively ruled India, and had its own army to enforce its rule.

Not to mention the Plymouth and London Companies which were chartered to form and govern colonies, and to establish trade in the new world. Your claims that the modern corporation is a new form for corporations is false, or at least your date range is. When the form of corporations as being quasi-governmental agencies, or separate from their owners goes back to 16th or 17th Century Europe.\


As far as Wikipedia, while it isn't the best reference, it does provide background information, and links to better sources, and thus provides a quick way to prove that a person isn't just running their mouth.

I don't have the time, nor inclination to make what is effectively a graduate level dissertation when a simpler response is sufficient.

I don't know how to put it simplier for you, but I'll try. Within the discipline of economics, in dealing with the history of economic thought, the term 'modern corporation' is generally used to denote from when they were recognized as juridicial persons on. Take a junior level (300) economics course on the development/history of economic theory, and you'll certainly learn that. The course is taught at virtually every public institution.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I don't know how to put it simplier for you, but I'll try. Within the discipline of economics, in dealing with the history of economic thought, the term 'modern corporation' is generally used to denote from when they were recognized as juridicial persons on. Take a junior level (300) economics course on the development/history of economic theory, and you'll certainly learn that. The course is taught at virtually every public institution.

The point that I'm making is that taking the argument from "Modern Corporations" is a short sighted argument that fails to look at the entire picture, which extends back to corporations such as the Plymouth and London Companies, and the British East India Company and other state-sanctioned monopolies that were infact more powerful than modern corporations, and were granted powers that exceed the limitations placed upon a citizen.

Compared to those corporations the Modern Corporations are limited in their power, and are continuing to have more and more onerous regulations placed upon them that further curtails their power. Unlike the British East India Company no modern corporation would be given free reign to govern a territory, nor would a modern corporation be allowed to establish a tyrannical government in any nation.

Unlike their predecessors which were allowed to murder, kill, and bribe officials in pursuit of their business interests most governments have enacted laws that prohibit corporations from engaging in that kind of behavior, and punishes it. Even the last remaining hold out, Germany, has now taken a more rigid stance on how they handle criminal acts committed by their corporations over-seas.