The Official, State-mandated FAQ by LibSocs for "An"Caps

[Noor]

So, the value and the price are disconnected. Or, more accurately, the value of a product or service according the the producer is not necessarily directly connected to the value of it according to the buyer.

[shrug] Such is life -- again, unless one accepts forceful intervention.

Being opposeed to something, in no way, necessitates 'forceful intervention.' Anymore than militant atheism would be about using 'force' to wipe out all prevailing religious beliefs.

[Brad Reddekopp]

And once again that is an absurd reply. "Such is life" does not apply to lies.

Selling something for the best price you can get is a lie?

[Dadalama]

You assume that the whole renting is valid and moral. Yes, it might be a 'mutually voluntary' situation at first, but it ends up justifying authoritarian and aggressive situations.

Didn't say it was or wasn't. I just wouldn't make that decision for anyone else but me. it's true though, you probably wouldn't have put yourself in that situation.

The issue is because private 'sticky' property forms the very basis of capitalism.

Yeah, that's why I'm not a capitalist. So long as John Huebert isn't here to argue semantics with me I am not a capitalist for the simple fact that I do believe property is a subjective concept. Something, that is not a thing, that the individual decides on a case by case basis whether or not to respect. I don't know what that's called to anyone but it's the way I am.

Society (that is, other people) recognizes it as your possession, and a society that doesn't recognize any form of ownership will fail.

That last part is quite an assertion! Have you seen such a society and how do you mean fail?

Anyways, it doesn't stop ownership it simply makes the idea of ownership more complex and variate between individuals. As a concept, ownership will always exist one way or another. I mean it DID kinda catch on in the first place.

[James]

And then, how does one attempt to justify interest on capital based on time-preference, without supposing that the capital has a productive value?

Recieving something now has more utility than recieving the same thing later, it has nothing to do with whether or not capital is productive by itself. Time preference is applicable to labor too. As Carson put it: "When labor abstains from present consumption to accumulate its own capital, time-preference is simply an added form of disutility of present labor".

Where did it go?

Presumably to someone who was willing to buy it

No, I don't think that is right. When there still exists coercive forces which favor the profit-seeking banks, the question of legitimacy of interest for profit is still relevant.

Who said anythign about coercion? Obviously i'm opposed to extracting interest via coercion but there's nothing unique (as far as i can see) about interest in this respect, extracting anything via coercion is wrong.

[Nokes]

You assume that the whole renting is valid and moral. Yes, it might be a 'mutually voluntary' situation at first, but it ends up justifying authoritarian and aggressive situations.

Do think it would be fair to say that not all rent situations end up this way and also that instances of long term renting and dependency would be lesser under a free economy?

[Brad Reddekopp]

As I understand it, what mutualism mostly says about renting is that it would not be profitable or necessary in a truly free economy. It seems that the mutualists we have here, though, are more interested in telling people what they should and should not do in the present society.

[Nokes]

As I understand it, what mutualism mostly says about renting is that it would not be profitable or necessary in a truly free economy. It seems that the mutualists we have here, though, are more interested in telling people what they should and should not do in the present society.

Yes I have noticed a discord, I do wonder Franc and Noor, do you consider yourselves mutualists or would you say lib-socs is really more accurate?

[Hierophant]

Libsoc is fine. My basic position is (as the FAQ explains) that usury in all forms is unethical. Period. No fucking "this is how it works" whining, Brad. It's unethical. It's wrong. It's theft. However you wanna call it.

[Hierophant]

But of course, you wouldn't know anything about that, would you Brad, since you apparently support rape contracts. Ethics seems to be the smaller concern in your book.

[Noor]

As I understand it, what mutualism mostly says about renting is that it would not be profitable or necessary in a truly free economy. It seems that the mutualists we have here, though, are more interested in telling people what they should and should not do in the present society.

Yes I have noticed a discord, I do wonder Franc and Noor, do you consider yourselves mutualists or would you say lib-socs is really more accurate?

Mutualism IS a variation of libsoc, but as mutualism is markety it's considered to be on the right side compared to anarchist communism and others.

Franc calls himself a left-mutualist (as in he's more leftist than most other mutualists) and I'd say I'm *roughly* mutualist, but I generally call myself plain libsoc since I'm quite sympathetic to ancoms and all kinds of left-anarchists.

And I'll respond to the other comments tomorrow. Oh, and I'd really appreciate it if I could get a proper response to my detailed posts on the previous few pages, from Brad and Aaron. >.<

[Brad Reddekopp]

But of course, you wouldn't know anything about that, would you Brad, since you apparently support rape contracts. Ethics seems to be the smaller concern in your book.

Franc, I think you've lost your marbles.

[Hierophant]

Fine then. If you think I'm crazy, then why don't you reply to Noor then, instead of ignoring her posts.

Personally I think you're the one who's crazy.

[Brad Reddekopp]

Fine then. If you think I'm crazy, then why don't you reply to Noor then, instead of ignoring her posts.

Mostly because I don't care. I'm apathetic. I don't live in hope of seeing important changes in our societies and that doesn't matter much to me. So, I'll participate in political discussions when it entertains me and I'll cop out when it gets tedious. No doubt, you will now make some kind of negative comment on my morality. [shrug] I can live with that.

[Hierophant]

I am majorly NOT entertained by your bullshit on Facebook, let me tell you.

[Brad Reddekopp]

I am majorly NOT entertained by your bullshit on Facebook, let me tell you.

Then I'll tell you the same thing I told family members who objected to my atheistic posts on Facebook: unfriend me. I won't be offended and I won't take it personally.