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

[Brad Reddekopp]

I think you guys are nuts. I'm out of all these political discussions. I won't be reading or contributing to the politics-related threads on the board anymore.

[Sparx]

Seriously Franc, you seem to have lost your mind. I miss Sane Franc.

[Hierophant]

Sparx, I don't think you realize how fucking insulting that is. If you do, go fuck yourself.

[Sparx]

My intent wasn't to insult you. It was rather an attempt to provoke you to compare your current behavior to your past behavior. From what I observe, you seem to have become obsessed with proving your point against capitalism, despite the fact that nobody even cares. I think that's crazy of you, it's like shouting at a wall. And why do you feel responsible to teach the wall your beliefs in the first place? I think you have a good understanding of psychology, but you seem to be ignoring the facts. You can't just preach to people like that, it doesn't work well in the long term.

[tism]

My intent wasn't to insult you.

Intent isn't relevant.

It was rather an attempt to provoke you to compare your current behavior to your past behavior.

I seem to recall that he's already admitted somewhere on this board that his ideas have changed. He knows.

From what I observe, you seem to have become obsessed with proving your point against capitalism, despite the fact that nobody even cares.

He cares. Noor cares. I care.

I think that's crazy of you, it's like shouting at a wall. And why do you feel responsible to teach the wall your beliefs in the first place?

Who are you comparing with a wall?

[Sparx]

Intent isn't relevant.

If that's so, then I must have misinterpreted Franc's post:

Sparx, I don't think you realize how fucking insulting that is. If you do, go fuck yourself.

I interpret this as "your intent matters to me", hence I explained that my intent wasn't to insult him.

He cares. Noor cares. I care.

So what if you and Noor care? You guys have been convinced already, you have that kind of mindset.
Why do you think that the same anti-cap arguments that make sense to you don't click with other people?
People are predisposed to sets of beliefs, and you can't change them to see something they're blind to.
Sure, intimidation might work for a while, but in the long term, it's a bad strategy.

Who are you comparing with a wall?

Someone who is not willing to convert to Franc's beliefs.

[Hierophant]

From what I observe, you seem to have become obsessed with proving your point against capitalism, despite the fact that nobody even cares.

Except about half the world. Wake up, asshole.

I think that's crazy of you, it's like shouting at a wall.

Yes, I agree that capitalists are thick-headed like walls, because they stubbornly refuse to look at their implicit premises.

And why do you feel responsible to teach the wall your beliefs in the first place? I think you have a good understanding of psychology, but you seem to be ignoring the facts. You can't just preach to people like that, it doesn't work well in the long term.

I am not here to preach. If you just don't like mutualism, why don't you just get the fuck off my section?

[tism]

Why do you think that the same anti-cap arguments that make sense to you don't click with other people?

At least, for the same reasons as how anti-god arguments don't make sense to fundamentalist christians.

[Sparx]

If you just don't like mutualism, why don't you just get the fuck off my section?

Point taken, I apologize.

[Dadalama]

If you just don't like mutualism, why don't you just get the fuck off my section?

Point taken, I apologize.

love it or leave it huh? *giggles*

[Hierophant]

Why would you stay where you're not wanted?

[James]

The quality of this debate seems to be going into to decline slightly. Anyone got anymore relevant points or will this just descend into name calling?

[Noor]

It's not. Offering someone a one-time gift for use of their stuff, is very different to them claiming a right to continuous increase from it.

Is it THAT different though? I disagree that this one time gift is really a gift. The person gifting is recieving something in exchange for the "gift" just like any other purchase. Taking that into account your accepting that someone can legitimately charge people for the temporary use of their capital or land. The only difference I can see between this fixed payment and a loan at interest is the former is a lump sum whereas the latter is spread out over a longer time period and from my understanding of your argument it's the continual increase over this time period that your objecting to.

However, if you accept the premise that charging another for the temporary use of your capital is just, there is no real increase once time preference is taken into account because the lender will factor this into their price. They will charge more for the use of capital for 5 years than 1 year and it's this time period that the "continual increase" is taking into account. Therefore the only difference between a one time fixed payment and a loan at interest is a one time fixed payment is paid back instantaneously and at a higher price. I can't see how this benefits the borrower in any way, if anything it would harm them by raising the short term cost to set up and start making the money back.

I think the fundamental issue is the system they end up justifying. A right (a justification of violence) to a continuous increase ends up justifying an exploitative and aggressive system-- as in, at some point (out of several points in regards to rent) if the tenant is unable to pay, the landlord is justified in using violence to extract it out of him.

You're not justified in using violence to extract a one-time gift out of the guy, though. You don't have a right to one-time chunks.

I agree this is a relevant consequentialist concern, which i will return to later, but it doesn't prove that rent is immoral. The problem is the criteria for ethics (IMO) isn't whether an action is voluntary or not it's whether rights are violated, the two just happen to overlap in the vast majority of cases. Pure voluntarism includes voluntary slavery and social contracts so to argue that rent is immoral on the grounds it might not be voluntary would mean implicity accepting that slavery and statism could be moral in the right circumstances.

I'm not saying it's wrong because it's not voluntary-- that was mostly to explain to the 'voluntaryists' how rent would justify an aggressive situation even though it starts out voluntary, which ends up blurring the line between 'voluntary' and 'aggressive.'

Also should the land owner get compensated for improved land and immovable property that is the product of their labour if that land/property was re-homesteaded?

I don't know. I'll leave that up to the context and society around that case to decide-- it's entirely a social construct.

[Noor]

I see. Well, I haven't been paying very close attention to most of the arguments.

That's not an excuse to avoid addressing anything I say. You don't back off whenever you find it 'convenient' to you in a debate because you don't want to think about the issue.

[NJBiker]

Would not rent, as a contract, be subject to a private (non state- non monopoly) 3rd party arbitrator and therefore making it like any other contract? I guess words like enforce the contract are coercion. Instead, like that old mariners set up, where parties that do not fulfill there responsibilities that they voluntarily agreed to, are in effect black balled and all other parties would think long and hard about doing business to those that shirk their responsibilities. Some still would, but the shirker would have a harder time renting anything else. Like a credit score or something. It would behoove those getting the rent not to let the renter default for too long to prevent the loss of other renting revenue, because they may not get the back rent. Obviously the renter would have to surrender the property.