What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

Started by Aster Phoenix36 pages
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Why? They are selling something of their own, that was manufactured by them. Why isn't it their right to say what they value their work at?

Because people need to make enough to live on.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Because people need to make enough to live on.

If they can't afford it, they can buy it somewhere else.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, that's because humans are not property, they can make their own decisions.

Okay, they buy them as fetuses . . .

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course that's just moral and therefore subjective. Which kinda ties in with what I said earlier, if most people don't see a problem with child labour then nothing will happen in that society, I just assume that that won't be the case.

And again, apply that argument to current society, if the majority was pro-child-labour, what would stop them from implementing it?

Existing regulations. Whiners who can't see the big picture.

Well the majority presumably aren't; but then if Person D just happens to be someone who doesn't agree with the majority and purchases children to work in his sweatshop then whose to say the majority should interfere in an anarchist society?

I don't think the current regulations against it are the sole reason for the lack of widespread child labour, but then I still think they are a reason. Consider that less than a century ago child labour was commonplace in the Western world. Consider that in developing nations it still is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think anarchy is the enemy. I think people are.

Not to mention that once you've lead people to anarchy (which is very Lenin, I might add) there's nothing to stop them from choosing to form government again

Absolutely. If it doesn't work out they can form governments again. In fact, they can just move together with all people that miss governments and exploit each other, while the people who don't want to be robbed and also don't want to rob can have an anarchist society. Since I am anarchist I don't want to force anyone to do anything really, I just don't want to be forced either. It would obviously preferable to live in an anarchist society with people that agree with it fully with me, but it's not a necessity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they're all going to work together voluntarily to move society and protect people I don't see how they won't have to share the same views on many many issues.

I don't know where you got the view from that they all have to work together voluntarily. Odd.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If they can't afford it, they can buy it somewhere else.

I was talking about how much people make at a job. But price controls do serve as purpose, to keep the consumer from being gouged.

But let's say your example happens and because they have to pay their employees a decent wage they decide to be greedy and raise their prices, which means less people will buy from them and they have lower profits.

Wouldn't it be better to simply pay your employees a decent wage and settle for a normal profit, instead of being greedy?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well the majority presumably aren't; but then if Person D just happens to be someone who doesn't agree with the majority and purchases children to work in his sweatshop then whose to say the majority should interfere in an anarchist society?

Whoever? They can just do it if they want. It's anarchist, there's nothing stopping them from interfering.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think the current regulations against it are the sole reason for the lack of widespread child labour, but then I still think they are a reason.

Well, to be fair I don't know if child labour laws as they are know are really that good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Absolutely. If it doesn't work out they can form governments again. In fact, they can just move together with all people that miss governments and exploit each other, while the people who don't want to be robbed and also don't want to rob can have an anarchist society. Since I am anarchist I don't want to force anyone to do anything really, I just don't want to be forced either. It would obviously preferable to live in an anarchist society with people that agree with it fully with me, but it's not a necessity.

And then the people who rebuild governments from the group up come back and crush you 😛

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know where you got the view from that they all have to work together voluntarily. Odd.

Is your system not about free choice?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Existing regulations. Whiners who can't see the big picture.

What would stop the majority from changing those regulations?

That made me think of an interesting question though: in an anarchist society, who runs the justice system?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And then the people who rebuild governments from the group up come back and crush you 😛

Is your system not about free choice?

They'll probably try. It might be a problem. Lets try it, I say.

And, yeah, on some sort of free choice. Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And, yeah, on some sort of free choice. Why?

Then how would them working together not be voluntary?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That made me think of an interesting question though: in an anarchist society, who runs the justice system?
Private judges, for example.

If you guys are really interested in anarchist theory though you can check out this http://simplyanarchy.com/ it's pretty interesting, imo.

Anyways, this is the first full out debate about Anarchy, I usually just mentioned it on the by, or argued Minarchist points, I am sure I am not giving the best picture with the best examples and analogies.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then how would them working together not be voluntary?

It won't be voluntary to advance society. It will be voluntary to advance themselves.

I am not actually sure how advancing society is defined, in your opinion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Private judges, for example.

Isn't that exactly as bad as what we have now?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Private judges, for example.

Who's paying for them? Which I guess would also answer the question who's winning the case?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Who's paying for them? Which I guess would also answer the question who's winning the case?
People that need something judged.

You know you could really just look at the link I gave, it's very informative.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Isn't that exactly as bad as what we have now?
No?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Private judges, for example.
Actually though on further reflection is there a need for a legal system, when there would be in theory no laws?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Actually though on further reflection is there a need for a legal system, when there would be in theory no laws?
There would be a need to settle disputes. There wouldn't be a need for a judicial system as such.