RE: Response to A "Letter" Addressed to Antifa/Anarcho-Communists
I hate re-writing because there's no way to capture the original flavor. But I can't find it, my general points were something like:
I agree with your attitude about how the world should work and whatnot.
Once a pack of dogs chased after me while I was bicycle touring and thought it might be ok to cut through a yard to get back to the street. This annoyed me and did not seem peaceful or civil etc
Land is unique because it was here in the first place, it's nobody's creation, there's just a fixed amount of it that by default we share. So it should follow different rules than things we produce and create ourselves like pencils
To me it seems like what you're describing for the AnCap position is just people who have a bad view of how claims to land ownership should work and who misapply their own principle .. like, when the dogs chase after me, that IS an act of aggression .. so to me the issue doesn't seem like voluntaryist principles but rather the way some people apply them. And when people start blocking the ability to pass through and whatnot, you'd just regard that as an act of aggression.
I mentioned that I was making it long too, lulz
Then I said it seems like you're maybe conflating AnCap with love of money, and I mentioned how there are AnCaps who do this, like Jefferey Tucker loves glorifying consumerism and weirdly talking about how great McDonald's is (even tho it doesn't exist without govt aid) .. but that I don't think this is actually what flows out of volntaryist principles or what a voluntary society would look like
In my mind a voluntary society looks essentially like you're describing, driven by social esteem and perceived contribution.
Money may actually just be a figment of the scarcity that the current order of things creates. When you have everything you need, money seems moot. So voluntary societies who keep what they produce and it doesn't all get drained by powerful leeches .. seems like money (as we think of it now anyways) naturally stops mattering
That's the problem though, I've never met someone who wasn't an an-com who agrees with that. Every non-commmunist anarchist seems to think private property is #1 and it's not aggressive if someone owns the property, as it's their choice what goes on in the property.
That's the reason I have a problem with people who identify as "an"-cap as because of machines and the robotics that are here and easily implemented there's simply no role for money or capitalism.
Unless the capitalist artificially makes things worse, like they do in this society, and then essentially "farms" everybody else, then he must make them all die in the streets as they provide no value in a traditional capitalist sense.
I agree voluntarism should be the same as what I'm saying, but most I see still think capitalism can be voluntary when they force things like private property on people who have no capital, which thus puts them in the position to work for the capitalist or die.
That's not voluntary. You need basic human needs given or the ability for someone to find it on their own, such as out in nature, but with private property that isn't really a thing, at least without "muh nap" being brought up as an excuse to enslave.