Quote from: BitterTea on March 08, 2011, 09:05:21 PM

Bob made an agreement with Alice that she would pay him 1 BTC per hour for his work. Assume this is occurring in a society such as you envision. Does this seems like impossibly abberent behavior based on the way you think this society would operate?

It would be aberrant behavior although not necessarily impossible. It would be unlikely that Alice would find someone like Bob to accept anything less than ownership of that which he produces because most people would expect to own the product of their labor.

Quote

If no, then can you explain how such an agreement is exploitative of its very nature, even in such a society? Otherwise, does it bother you that your ideology cannot withstand an agreement between two individuals that you find unsatisfactory?

It's exploitation because Alice gains more than Bob in the exchange due to her position of power. And it's exploitation whether Bob likes the arrangement or not, unless he specifically wants to be exploited as in the case of a fetish. Perhaps he submits to exploitation so as to support a system that he thinks will allow him to exploit in the future. I guess that's the corrupting promise of capitalism. We should reject that promise because it makes it difficult to impossible for any of us to avoid exploitation.

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you support private property, just not of land and capital? Why do you oppose the private ownership of capital? Additionally, how do you define capital? It seems to me anything from a hammer to a factory falls in that category. If I'm not using my hammer, can someone else just take it as long as they use it? What about my car, because they can put it to better use than sitting in my driveway?

As long as you put work into something or do work with it, its yours. Some members of some communities will choose to use and take care of things communally. Others will use and take care of things individually. Of course, owning something doesnt give you any right to exploit others with it. So as long as you put work into your car and do not neglect it, it will be in your driveway every morning. If you do neglect it, you cease to own it. If someone comes along and restores it, it becomes theirs.

Quote from: BitterTea on March 08, 2011, 09:23:24 PM

Who said he's not using it? Say he's a farmer and he just planted his fields. Is he no longer "using" that land and that equipment?

It is in use and it will look as such. If the discoverers arent sure, they can wait for the farmer to come back to maintain the field. If he does not come back, and the discoverers start to take care of the field, they will own that which they produce from it by their own labor. If the farmer ever comes back and can prove that he didnt really neglect the crop, he can have the share of the harvest that his labor in planting the crop entails him.

Quote

Does it matter if he is "using" it or the people who agreed to work on his behalf? What if he builds or purchases robots to work on his behalf?

The harvest belongs to whomever actually works the field. If the farmer uses robots to work the field, the harvest belongs to whomever works to maintain and operate the robots.

Quote

Are you saying that the syndicalists do not understand the concept of private property, not just disagree with it? They don't realize that by using the equipment or land, they are depriving the person who claims to own it of its use at a time of their discretion?

Im saying that the discoverers of the field only expect to get that which they produce from their labor. If the fields official owner does not work the field, he should not get anything.

Quote

The non aggression principle only justifies a proportional amount of force to be used in self defense.

You do not defend something you havent worked for. Instead, you take it. But, assuming that a capitalist really believes that he owns something for which he has not worked, how much force might he ascribe to an infidel who refuses to play along with capitalism?

Quote

Would the type of society you envision not have any sort of protection measures? How does this society respond when one or more individuals decide they can own private property?

Communities will determine their own protection measures. Perhaps volunteers will supervise known exploiters for a time and prevent them from exploiting again. If the exploiter will not reform, community members can always shun him.

Quote

It starts off with a group of people building a machine that makes really useful widgets. Soon, everyone wants to use the machine to make their own really useful widgets, but the creators don't think it's fair that they put in all the work and everyone else reaps the rewards. So they start denying people use of the machine, first using words, and then physical force. Would all of society be obligated to prevent this violence, or would there be a specialized group of people that do so?

First of all, the people working the machine would owe its builders for their expenses, including their labor, but no more. If the builders try to take more than their fair share from the workers, the workers ought to defend themselves. Anyone else with an interest in preventing exploitation should help them.

Quote from: myrkul on March 09, 2011, 02:40:19 AM

It's not a "trade". It's a right. by taking my property, regardless of whether or not I am actively using it at the time, you are taking away the resources i have invested in that property.

Well, think about it. The only way you can get an income from a piece of land without working it is by working to keep others from working that land unless they pay you a tithe. I imagine a land owner patrolling his property claim trying to keep workers out. But thats tiring, and he can only patrol so much land himself, so he hires thugs to do the task for him. But thats expensive, so with the help of other land owners with similar concerns, he sponsors a government that will help him and do so at least partly on funds extorted from the workers themselves.

Quote

In the terms of the "philosophy of liberty" video, you are stealing my past.

If youd like to make that argument, please present it.

Quote

Where did I lose you?

You didnt. A cooperative society will simply exist while a neighboring exploitative society will just try to eat it. Naturally, the cooperative society will resist, but this is not competition because the two societies do not want the same thing. You can compare the two ideas in your head though, if thats what you mean by competition.