Comparing Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian answers...

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Individuals are not movements nor are their societies, these anarchists weren't actually living in a full blown anarchist world when they did this, I assume. Just because you have some smart people in your movement doesn't mean they will continue to make strides when the movement is initiated.

You apparently think I'm talking about a few individuals, but anarchism is more than just a sheltered movement of incredibly rare individuals. It is a tendency among the human population to challenge authorities. It just so happens that certain people who do this can rise into prominence in an intellectual field, and it's no mystery why. Richard Dawkins suggested science challenges authority. It does not take authorititative voices at their word. The vast majority of anarchists share this basic principle.

It isn't true that anarchism guarantees people will not advance. People can make strides, provided opportunities. People deprived of opportunities (which our society intentionally does) will undoubtedly reflect the stupidity that humans are capable of.
However, as I've said elsewhere, some people who were previously illiterate are learning to read to better run cooperative Argentinian factories. The reasoning is obvious, if anarchist principles are to succeed then we need intelligent people--hence, we ought to encourage literacy. Liberty and a decent standard of living seem to tolerate each other very well, provided an intelligent population.

Competitive, domineering attitudes and state policy always render us as close to being dumb brutes as possible.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger No, it's not melodramatic at all. If you grab a person and force them to labor for you to your benefit, that's exactly what it's called.

You're not grabbing a person by force if you occupy a vacant house. Sorry, but that's absurd. It might be unwise to move somewhere without making sure noboddy claims it first, but that is in itself different from "grabbing a person and forcing them to labor for you," which is indeed melodramatic (and, in this case, a lie).

There's nothing funny about what you're saying. You're suggesting that the Youth House movement is identical to this absurd dilemma of yours, wherein merely moving into a house is somehow violent. They are different situations, for one thing--your house is perceived as yours, completely abandoned buildings belong to nobody in particular.

It's a pretty simple thing to work out, even though there is no perfect formula for it (nor does the government or a landlord solve the problem, a point I must stress).

On top of this, your rhetoric bizarrely implies that occupying a space without government permission is akin to slavery.

This kind of arguing is what I'm scrupulously careful to not do myself, yet it apparently works for some.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I think communism was one of those "big dashes in the wrong direction" and is the premise behind doing away with private property and advocating collectived ownership of the means of production.

It was a dictatorship. Even if it had been a dictatorship of the proletariat it would have still likely been a bitter failure.

Notice how NOTHING I've said means people ought to break and enter into another person's home. Instead, what is suggested is we need to get rid of authority titles as much as possible, including those of state authority's which claim ownership of things nobody was using.

This does not mean houses will instantly vanish and we'll become cavemen. In fact, if you want to examine primitive, cult-like behavior you needn't look any further than state power, which we are supposed to worship even above our own personal interests.

And yes, this includes authorities who legally dominate the means of production (with state communist nations being no different). We need to openly voice objections to any instances of stupidity practiced by economic authorities. Having a brain implies we can do as much.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps said: You're not grabbing a person by force if you occupy a vacant house.

Is it vacant if I come by the day after its taken over and kick them out, using force, to protect my property and my right to it?

[Gods_Mercenary]

First of all, how is taking a house that someone spent time and effort to buy any different from enslaving them for that same amount of time and taking the rewards and leaving them nothing? Anarchism isn't just rebelling against the establishment, it is a specific ideaology that states that no government is needed nor should be in place. By the way, Kieth was saying that occupying a space without its owner's permission is slavery, the government then has an obligation to get its taxpaying citizen's property back, hence the police assaulting the youth houses.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa You apparently think I'm talking about a few individuals, but anarchism is more than just a sheltered movement of incredibly rare individuals. It is a tendency among the human population to challenge authorities. It just so happens that certain people who do this can rise into prominence in an intellectual field, and it's no mystery why. Richard Dawkins suggested science challenges authority. It does not take authorititative voices at their word. The vast majority of anarchists share this basic principle. It isn't true that anarchism guarantees people will not advance. People can make strides, provided opportunities. People deprived of opportunities (which our society intentionally does) will undoubtedly reflect the stupidity that humans are capable of. However, as I've said elsewhere, some people who were previously illiterate are learning to read to better run cooperative Argentinian factories. The reasoning is obvious, if anarchist principles are to succeed then we need intelligent people--hence, we ought to encourage literacy. Liberty and a decent standard of living seem to tolerate each other very well, provided an intelligent population. Competitive, domineering attitudes and state policy always render us as close to being dumb brutes as possible. Grandpa h.

Anarchy is not simply challenging authority, socialists are not anarchists, yet they would be considered challenging the government of most capitalist countries. You named a few individuals, and I sais their poltitical ideologies have nothing to do with their advances, considering they were and are under the protection of a state as they make their discoveries. The state system has been responsible for far more advances. Name one major, advanced, civilization that didn't have some sort of central, law making and enforcing government.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary First of all, how is taking a house that someone spent time and effort to buy any different from enslaving them for that same amount of time and taking the rewards and leaving them nothing? Anarchism isn't just rebelling against the establishment, it is a specific ideaology that states that no government is needed nor should be in place. By the way, Kieth was saying that occupying a space without its owner's permission is slavery, the government then has an obligation to get its taxpaying citizen's property back, hence the police assaulting the youth houses.

I might question the need for government myself, but, yes, that's basically the point. Even being a philosophical anarchist (believing that government itself is an unnecessary evil) I believe that people and their agents are justified in removing others from property that is owned by them.

I can accept, if there is a mechanism in place for determining what is truly abandoned property, that homesteading of such abandoned property makes sense. But, to randomly declare something vacant and occupy it makes no sense whatsoever.

If governments are to exist, that is one of their primary purposes, to defend the legitimate property rights of their citizens.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: grandpa You're not grabbing a person by force if you occupy a vacant house. Sorry, but that's absurd. It might be unwise to move somewhere without making sure noboddy claims it first, but that is in itself different from "grabbing a person and forcing them to labor for you," which is indeed melodramatic (and, in this case, a lie). ... On top of this, your rhetoric bizarrely implies that occupying a space without government permission is akin to slavery. This kind of arguing is what I'm scrupulously careful to not do myself, yet it apparently works for some.

No, what is akin to slavery is taking someone's legitimately acquired property without their permission. If I work for 20 years to acquire a piece of property and you then take it, you have effectively taken 20 years of my life.

My truck cost the entire amount I currently earn in a year, before taxes. With take home, the value of my truck is one and one half years of my life.

There is nothing substantially different from placing me into slavery for one and one half years and stealing my truck. And, given half an opportunity, I will defend my truck the same as I would defend that one and one half years of my life.

Nothing at all bizarre about that.

Keith

[Osborn F Enready]

Keith said: No, what is akin to slavery is taking someone's legitimately acquired property without their permission. If I work for 20 years to acquire a piece of property and you then take it, you have effectively taken 20 years of my life. My truck cost the entire amount I currently earn in a year, before taxes. With take home, the value of my truck is one and one half years of my life. There is nothing substantially different from placing me into slavery for one and one half years and stealing my truck. And, given half an opportunity, I will defend my truck the same as I would defend that one and one half years of my life. Nothing at all bizarre about that.

I fully agree sir, and well spoken.

[rmnunez]

I suspect the underlying problem is with the productive use of property. These squatters that are so admired by some, are described as having seized "abandoned" property. When things are abandoned they are the property of whoever finds them. You can tell something is abandoned because its usually alone, out of place and there's nobody around it.

How can you tell a house or building has been abandoned? Maybe you could tell by the lack of use it gets, but even this might not indicate its abandonment. Laws regulate this by requiring a squatter occupy seized property for a prescribed period, usually many years. If an owner hasn't found out about the occupation and use of his property, then its likely this was abandoned.

If you inherited a house from some distant uncle and other relatives disputed this, the property could sit empty for years while title was litigated, same could result if the tax authority seized the property and you challenged this, years of litigation to see whether your taxes were failry assessed and seizing this property an equitable solution. Sometimes property suffers damage rendering it uninhabitable and while its owner can't occupy it, he may seek to sell it or use it to guarantee credit.

[syc-sadist]

conservatives sound not very good

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Is it vacant if I come by the day after its taken over and kick them out, using force, to protect my property and my right to it?

This question doesn't make sense. It's not vacant if it's being used by anybody.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

He means if a free loader came and took over say, his warehous over night, does he have a right to take it then, it isn't not being used by him anymore if he wants to use it, and it was his in the first place.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary First of all, how is taking a house that someone spent time and effort to buy any different from enslaving them for that same amount of time and taking the rewards and leaving them nothing? Anarchism isn't just rebelling against the establishment, it is a specific ideaology that states that no government is needed nor should be in place.

First of all, I wasn't originally talking about taking a house that someone else was using. Some just intentionally steered the discussion into that different scenario.

I have not said a word in favor of breaking into a house that someone else is clearly using.
I've suggested this is likely to happen from time to time in any society, as no rules over who owns what will be absolutely followed by everyone.
As far as I know that's a fact of life and the state doesn't get rid of that and actually adds to the confusion.
I should also add that B&E and slavery are different things, regardless of my position on it. Slavery is "The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder," which clearly is not typically the intent of breaking and entering.

Second, rejuvenating abandoned buildings is not forcing anyone to do anything.
However, landlords are obviously a different case. They actively coerce people in order to make money. They can legally dominate land rights and rejuvenate abandoned buildings. Why are they allowed to do this? Because they serve the state-capitalist protection racket, that's why. The Youth House movement, on the other hand, doesn't want abstract entities to dominate land, nor does it seek to exploit people in its everyday functions. That apparently makes them a bunch of thugs and not those who employ legal force to profit off of things others are using. Which condition is more like slavery?

As for the philosophy of anarchism, it is perhaps too simple-minded to say it's merely against governance. Every organization has governmental functions, even informal ones.
However, anarchism is against hierarchy and accumulation of power in any individual or group in any social relationships (be it the state, the church, corporations or even personal relationships). That's a pretty common sense idea, certainly not heavily steeped in ideology. There is no perfect manifestation of anarchism, which is precisely why most anarchists are constantly debating which actions people should take and how much power is too much.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Anarchy is not simply challenging authority, socialists are not anarchists, yet they would be considered challenging the government of most capitalist countries. You named a few individuals, and I sais their poltitical ideologies have nothing to do with their advances, considering they were and are under the protection of a state as they make their discoveries.

First of all, anarchism is a form of socialism. If you did some minimal research into
its true principles you'd know that. It's simply an anti-state form of socialism.

As for the individuals who made scientific advances, there is every reason to believe scientific understandings of the world go hand in hand with anarchic theory.
Good scientists don't simply take someone at his word. They examine claims as best as they can. In other words, they question even leaders in agiven field.
In the case of Graeber, he found his anarchic views strengthened by his anthropological studies.

You bizarrely give the state credit for the innovation of individuals.
It's revealing that state supporters tend to give the state credit for prosperity, scientific advances and anything remotely positive, yet never suggest state societies are responsible for the wars they cause, for the ignorance of the general population or for any other social ills.
That's when it miraculously becomes solely a matter of stupid individuals, which the state ideal apperently deserves little credit for.

You're a great example of this attitude. You go out of your way to portray people as without any potential aside from where they are unless they have rulers. This view overlooks how the very basic nature of being ruled leads to Yesmen who, by their very position, will be less likely to apply critical thinking skills. In short, hierarchy often makes people stupider, especially if intelligence is punished.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger There is nothing substantially different from placing me into slavery for one and one half years and stealing my truck.

Do you truly believe that? How can that even withstand a moment's thought?

I don't think people should steal cars and houses. Keep in mind, that' s NOT what I was originally discussing--you all just hijacked the discussion to make it seem as though I'm in favor of someone just taking everything he/she wants.

That's not the point I was making, although, if we're honest, we'll admit that a system of slavery and stealing someone's truck are vastly different situations.
We'll also admit there is no absolute way to deal with who owns what, regardless of personal positions on the matter. That's just a fact of life.

Also, on top of this, honesty entails there is not a shred of evidence that the disappearence of economic exploitation and legal authority means people will instantly start stealing and/or destroying everything in sight.
That view, which unfortunately I'm seeing here, is simply one of complete cynicism and ignorance. It's intellectual cowardice.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I fully agree sir, and well spoken.

That wasn't spoken well at all. Slavery and staling someone's vehicle are vastly different.

And such a comparison is quite irrelevant to the original discussion.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez I suspect the underlying problem is with the productive use of property.

No it is not. Plenty of people buy property and use it for things that aren't productive, or even things that are arguably counterproductive. Unless we're totally brainwashed, dollar signs do not determine the entirety of life's worth.
The underlying problem is whether or not people should be able to occupy a building without state permission.

Quote by: rmnunez These squatters that are so admired by some, are described as having seized "abandoned" property.

That is an accurate descrpition. It's much more accurate than your ideas that people cannot operate factories without foreign investment or hang around a building without being financially "productive."

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps said: That wasn't spoken well at all. Slavery and stelaing someone's vehicle are vastly different. And such a comparison is quite irrelevant to the original discussion.

Granpa, your logic is the only one FAILING to grasp the relevancy of this, if you'll notice, excpet for a few communists who don't believe in the right to property.

This is the wall that you keep bumping your head against.

Beat your head until its bloody and bruised, it won't bother me.

Point being, it is ALL that is relevant, and you can't see its relevance because that is the flaw in your logic, the big gap you leap across to keep the faith in your ideals that are logically flawed.

Denial, that is the problem.

You refuse to accept ownership of property.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Granpa, your logic is the only one FAILING to grasp the relevancy of this, if you'll notice, excpet for a few communists who don't believe in the right to property. This is the wall that you keep bumping your head against. Beat your head until its bloody and bruised, it won't bother me. Point being, it is ALL that is relevant, and you can't see its relevance because that is the flaw in your logic, the big gap you leap across to keep the faith in your ideals that are logically flawed. Denial, that is the problem. You refuse to accept ownership of property.

First of all, I didn't say people cannot have personal possessions. That's an absurd lie. Nowhere in this thread or any other have I suggested this. I suggested standards over who owns what will never be universally applied or agreed upon, which is really a truism regardless of anyone's opinion. It's a part of life that people have to work out.
However, authority figures and exploitative social arrangements are not the only way or the best way to sort through such problems (especially when they add so much to them).

Furthermore, you haven't taken step one to explain how slavery is comparable to someone stealing a truck. . One is an act of continually subordinating another, another one is taking someone's vehicle. Both are unfortunate but different but world apart.
Making a deep and serious comparison between the two is absurd.
They are comparable only if we stretch our imagination to great lengths

It cannot be adequately compared, so you just
label me a "communist" and say I'm bumping my head against the wall and I'm in denial. I'm not bumping my head against any wall here. I've stated my positions adequately, based on plain observations.

Here's another obvious point: My position against authoritative, exploitative use of property doesn't mean any community will dictate everything people can and cannot do. I haven't proposed any such thing.
My point was: People in the movement in question are independent-spirited, BUT if any decisions are to be made, no one person is supposed to give out orders from some high and mighty position. Hence, it's not any more communist than it is individualist.

Decision-making is not an either/or equation, no matter how much I'm lied to about it. The existence of an individual doesn't totally negate the outside world, nor vice versa. Hence, I endorse the practical principles of anarchism.

Grandpa h.