Comments on: Anarchism and Christianity

By: Brad Spangler PWNS a statist! « Check Your Premises

Brad Spangler PWNS a statist! « Check Your Premises — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:34:08 +0000

[...] slang, but in this case I hope you’ll let it slide. On the comments section of his blog, Brad Spangler just pwned someone real hard. Here are the two relevant comments: #4 devon Says: July 20th, 2007 at 3:17 [...]

By: Brad Spangler

Brad Spangler — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:31:43 +0000

Dr. Reisman (or his metaphorical clone), I don’t wish to censor your comments but I also don’t care to provide you a forum for your incessant desire to argue in circles at the expense of my own time to debunk you. I’m sorry, but you “jumped the shark” when you started arguing in favor of chattel slavery. This comment thread is closed.

By: devon

devon — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:25:02 +0000

He doesn’t hold a theory of property at all if he doesn’t think a person ceased to own something just because they’re not using it. Property by definition is owned. To own something is to have absolute control over it. True ownership has absolutely no conditions attached to it. If he doesn’t believe in ownership, then he doesn’t believe in property.

If an arbitration system does not uphold transactions “considered repugnant” then that arbitration system does not support a free market. It would be making exceptions to free market ethics.

By: Brad Spangler

Brad Spangler — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:16:48 +0000

Actually, no, he advocates a different theory of property than I do and envisions its application as resulting in an arbitration system that would not uphold transactions considered repugnant, just like any rational arbitration system would not uphold a contract in which I sold myself into chattel slavery, for example.

By: devon

devon — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:11:50 +0000

It’s not simply that he disagrees with me. He’s wrong. In a free market, something is not considered legitimately taken, if it’s taken by force. He thinks land taking land by force from someone who has originally appropriated unowned land without force is consistent with a free market. That’s the opposite of free market.

By: devon

devon — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:09:09 +0000

And Kevin Carson’s Mutualist book is ridiculous. I don’t know how anyone can discuss “surplus value” with a straight face in this day and age.

By: Brad Spangler

Brad Spangler — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:08:02 +0000

Well, no, he disagrees with you.

By: devon

devon — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:05:20 +0000

I have all the business in the world challenging Kevin Carson’s free market credentials. The guy does not understand basic concepts and definitions.

By: devon

devon — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:01:20 +0000

I’m well aware of Rothbardian/Lockean property ethics. Yes you’re right that it has to not be stolen property in the first place. I thought that was too obvious to need mention. But, the fact is that Proudhon supports natural capital that was not coerced from anyone, that someone is holding, being deprived of that natural capital by force. Therefore, Proudhon does not support a free market in natural capital. Proudhon is not a true free-marketer.

In what sense are you calling Proudhon a socialist?

By: Brad Spangler

Brad Spangler — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 03:59:48 +0000

Since you were outed a while back as a fake an-cap, you have no business challenging Carson’s free-market credentials.