Re: Santorum introduces more rent collection opps

The Trucker wrote:

> > When I say State, I mean specificly an involuntary form of
monolithic,
> > top-down governance, that protects the property rights of the
elite.

> Then you should have no problem with a constitutional
> representative republic or a constitutional representative
> democracy.

If such a thing where possible to achieve, perhaps it would OK, but as
I explained in my response to you in this tread, it is not.

> > Being a computer programmer I like the Client/Server vs. Peer to
Peer
> > analogy.

> Peer to Peer is a total mess and a bitch to maintain.

Hardly, as our conversation with each other here in the Internet
proves. If Client/Server where superior we would be having this
discussion on CompuServ.

> > Marxist-Leninist, Liberals and Capitalists want a Client/Server
type
> > state, involuntary and with centralized authority. Anarchists want
a
> > peer to peer social order, an interactive network of syndicates and
> > communes that all are free to join or leave, and all share equally
in
> > the collective Rents and Interests earned by the commune, yet each
> > privately retains their Wages.

> This is very much like the ideal of communism it seems to me.

Anarchism is non-State communism, they share the ideal of class less
society where incomes derived from Rent and Interest are the basis of
mutual wealth, not private privilege.

The differ bitterly on the means to that end, however.

> > However the State also controls it Citizenship, by way of
Immigration
> > laws, appropriation of production by forced taxation, tariffs,

> All of this is administration of land and infrastructure.

Yes, administration of land and infrastructure for the benefit of the
elite.

> > enforcement of laws against consensual conduct etc.

> And this is simply Republicanism. That ole time
> fight against EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLL.

If you take them at their word, that EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLL is their
actual concern, which I do not.

I see it as mere tools by which to subjugate the lower classes for the
benefit of the elite, as the class makeup of those who actually are
arrested and jailed for consensual crimes proves.

> >It goes far beyond
> > authority over land. It certainly does not serve to //mutualize//
land,
> > but rather serves to protect private property rights to land.

> Current taxation techniques and land ownership stuff are pretty
> bad. But that is not an integral part of representative democracy.

They do, however make it impossible for the State to be reformed, as I
explained. The working classes have no means by which to accumulate the
wealth needed to compete with the propertied classes for control of the
State.

Ideas about representative democracy alone will not cause the elite to
voluntarily give up their privilege.

> > The State, by definition in Anarchism, is the apparatus of the
elite.

> And Anarchism by definition of most of the people in this world
> is feudalism.

Even if this were true, how is this relevant to the theory of Anarchism
and not mere equivocation?

> > This does not mean that one could envision a imaginary "Just"
State, it
> > means that the real State is not just, and can not be made just
because
> > in the Capitalist mode of production the price of Labour is reduced
to
> > its cost (Subsistence) and thus the wage slave has no basis for the
> > accumulation of wealth needed to influence the State.

> That can be solved by redistribution of land rent.

But this assumes that the State can be reformed to carry out this
redistribution of land rent, which is a false assumption, as explained
in the text you quote: "the wage slave has no basis for the
accumulation of wealth needed to influence the State."

Do you imagine the landlords will voluntarily redistribute the land
rent?

> > Therefore while a just state is not impossible, the creation of
just
> > state is an economic impossibility.

> The USA started out as a just state.

A "just state" that murdered and robed the Natives, enslaved Africans,
etc, seems not much to celebrate to me.

But that is beside the point, since you agree it is a fascist state
now, therefore justice was lost. This proves that it was flawed to
begin with, and could not protect whatever liberty it provided.

What makes you think, even if it could be returned to its previous
level of liberty, a "just state" would not simply become a fascist
state once again as wealth and power consolidated?

> > Also, any form of top-down rule is vulnerable to capture, thus even
if
> > it is in the service of justice, it can be captured and turned.

> True enough. "the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance"

And yet, as you believe the USA was "once great," obviously this cost
is more than the people can afford to maintian.

> > In a peer to peer model, breakdowns are more easily contained, the
> > other nodes can collectively cause the network to self-heal,
through
> > the isolation of damaged nodes.

> There's that "can" thing. I wonder what the motive would be.

Because a bad node, if allowed to remain in the network, would drive
down the wealth of the others. Thus they would isolate it for self
defense.

> >> Thus the only possible society without a state is one where no
> > person or > group of persons claims authority over land.

> How about a situation in which we ALL claim authority over
> land and elect a "state" to do our bidding?

Because by the time we all claim this authority the State will have
already been made obsolete, and we will not see any need to reintroduce
a central point of failure.

Regards.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast