4 ms·

That is nothing more than wishful thinking. There is a reason unions has to force its members to pay dues and not just live on donations.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
That is an example of voluntary association. They chose to gain the benefits of the union, they need to pay the dues.
- username90 6y ago
  My point is that voluntary donations isn't enough to run much at all, even for organizations that the worker is in control of. And a society needs roads. How would you ensure people pay for roads in an anarchist society? Would you have toll booths everywhere? That isn't economically feasible. Donations? As I said that isn't even enough to pay for a worker union, roads needs more than that.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Voluntary association, not voluntary donations. People need roads, when this problem is brought up they will be willing to pay for roads. If you are unwilling, you aren't part of the society anymore.
    - username90 6y ago
      > People need roads, when this problem is brought up they will be willing to pay for roads. If you are unwilling, you aren't part of the society anymore. Sounds like taxes to me.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        I never said there wouldn't be taxes.
    - aoeusnth1 6y ago
      How does banishment from society work? What happens to people who refuse to leave and still use the roads?
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Those are kinds of decisions that the society should make.
    - bccdee 6y ago
      That's how taxes work though. If you want to be part of society (have a job, employ others, own real estate or a business), then you have to pay taxes on those. After all, the well-being of the economy is a public good maintained by the state. If you don't participate in any of those ways, then you don't need to pay taxes. If you try to participate in society but don't pay the tax for doing so, you get punished.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        There is no option to leave society and not pay those taxes, while that option is present in anarchism. You are forced to be a part of the state or you face strict punishment.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      So then that is not voluntarily association. Because presumably, you would be kicking people off of roads, using force, if they refuse to pay the roads tax. That's using force.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        It's not a "road tax," if you don't choose to be a part of society, you can't be a part of the society. You are free to leave. The concept of "kicking people out" implies that they have some natural right to be part of that society.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > The concept of "kicking people out" implies that they have some natural right to be part of that society. Thats still force, though. You are just saying that the force is justified. But thats still force to physically prevent someone to have access to those roads. It is force, in that you are physically, using a threat of violence against someone else, because you don't want them using your road. I am not saying that this is morally wrong, or anything. I support the justified used of government force against others. But lets not pretend that this isn't force/violence. > you can't be a part of the society. It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence. You can make the argument that the violence is justified. Which is fine. I absolutely believe that violence and government force can be justified. But justified force is still force! > You are free to leave. And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them (although you may believe the violence is justified, justified violence is still violence!).
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >You are just saying that the force is justified. But thats still force to physically prevent someone to have access to those roads. These people aren't members of society. There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road. We're not building roads to random strangers houses, and we can refuse their attempt to connect to our road. >It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence. >And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them There is no need to use force first. If you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food. They will either leave, join society, die, or use force to try and steal what they need. The only time force is necessary is in the fourth example, where they instigate the use of force.
komali2 6y ago
"wishful thinking" alone isn't a good enough argument to consider the case settled. The American democratic system is "just wishful thinking," in reality powerful oligarchs control many of the day to day levers through lobbying and outright bribery, while other oligarchs slowly transform entire swaths of the population into willing sheep (rupert murdoch). But america still works, kinda, so it's not enough to say "it's just wishful thinking."
- username90 6y ago
  Ultimately the rulers of USA are decided by the people. You might have a lot of trickery and corruption behind the scenes, but every politician still needs to get votes from actual workers so they can't be too alienated. This isn't optimal, but it works well in theory and is fairly robust since if the system gets too corrupt people will vote in an unsanctioned candidate.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

That is an example of voluntary association. They chose to gain the benefits of the union, they need to pay the dues.

username90 6y ago
My point is that voluntary donations isn't enough to run much at all, even for organizations that the worker is in control of. And a society needs roads. How would you ensure people pay for roads in an anarchist society? Would you have toll booths everywhere? That isn't economically feasible. Donations? As I said that isn't even enough to pay for a worker union, roads needs more than that.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Voluntary association, not voluntary donations. People need roads, when this problem is brought up they will be willing to pay for roads. If you are unwilling, you aren't part of the society anymore.
  - username90 6y ago
    > People need roads, when this problem is brought up they will be willing to pay for roads. If you are unwilling, you aren't part of the society anymore. Sounds like taxes to me.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      I never said there wouldn't be taxes.
  - aoeusnth1 6y ago
    How does banishment from society work? What happens to people who refuse to leave and still use the roads?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Those are kinds of decisions that the society should make.
  - bccdee 6y ago
    That's how taxes work though. If you want to be part of society (have a job, employ others, own real estate or a business), then you have to pay taxes on those. After all, the well-being of the economy is a public good maintained by the state. If you don't participate in any of those ways, then you don't need to pay taxes. If you try to participate in society but don't pay the tax for doing so, you get punished.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      There is no option to leave society and not pay those taxes, while that option is present in anarchism. You are forced to be a part of the state or you face strict punishment.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    So then that is not voluntarily association. Because presumably, you would be kicking people off of roads, using force, if they refuse to pay the roads tax. That's using force.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      It's not a "road tax," if you don't choose to be a part of society, you can't be a part of the society. You are free to leave. The concept of "kicking people out" implies that they have some natural right to be part of that society.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > The concept of "kicking people out" implies that they have some natural right to be part of that society. Thats still force, though. You are just saying that the force is justified. But thats still force to physically prevent someone to have access to those roads. It is force, in that you are physically, using a threat of violence against someone else, because you don't want them using your road. I am not saying that this is morally wrong, or anything. I support the justified used of government force against others. But lets not pretend that this isn't force/violence. > you can't be a part of the society. It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence. You can make the argument that the violence is justified. Which is fine. I absolutely believe that violence and government force can be justified. But justified force is still force! > You are free to leave. And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them (although you may believe the violence is justified, justified violence is still violence!).
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >You are just saying that the force is justified. But thats still force to physically prevent someone to have access to those roads. These people aren't members of society. There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road. We're not building roads to random strangers houses, and we can refuse their attempt to connect to our road. >It is not that they "can't". Instead, it is that other people will use violence/force against them, in order to prevent them from being a part of society. That is force. that is violence. >And if they refuse to leave? What are you going to doing about it? Answer: you will probably use force against them There is no need to use force first. If you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food. They will either leave, join society, die, or use force to try and steal what they need. The only time force is necessary is in the fourth example, where they instigate the use of force.

komali2 6y ago

"wishful thinking" alone isn't a good enough argument to consider the case settled. The American democratic system is "just wishful thinking," in reality powerful oligarchs control many of the day to day levers through lobbying and outright bribery, while other oligarchs slowly transform entire swaths of the population into willing sheep (rupert murdoch). But america still works, kinda, so it's not enough to say "it's just wishful thinking."

username90 6y ago
Ultimately the rulers of USA are decided by the people. You might have a lot of trickery and corruption behind the scenes, but every politician still needs to get votes from actual workers so they can't be too alienated. This isn't optimal, but it works well in theory and is fairly robust since if the system gets too corrupt people will vote in an unsanctioned candidate.