"We both have certain perspectives that I don't think can be altered in this discussion, although I appreciate this."
Are you sure about that? I was not boring with these opinions and ideals, I learned them through speaking with others. Eventually I started debating. There was one group of people I just couldn't beat, they had all the facts that proved all of my ideas wrong. Eventually I decided that I could not hold ideals I could not defend.
Comparing two rather outdated systems using federal reserve notes of paper printed out of thin air by a central authority does not produce freedom or overall prosperity, real purchasing power decreases per year due to the increasing supply.
All other points are null and void. The individual is the smallest minority. To require anarchy while needing a collective solution of unification of workers without the ability of the individual to choose not to co-operate and still be free, does not produce a level of freedom I would be interested in. Politics and battles of control are bread and circus tricks.
Again if centrally controlled notes are used you do not have freedom. Make the old system obsolete as Buckminster Fuller once opined.
Hence why I'm sure why our perspectives cannot be changed, although I realize what you are saying.
"All other points are null and void. The individual is the smallest minority. To require anarchy while needing a collective solution of unification of workers without the ability of the individual to choose not to co-operate and still be free, does not produce a level of freedom I would be interested in. Politics and battles of control are bread and circus tricks."
but even the most collectivist form of anarchy (literally called collectivist anarchy) even holds this ability as its highest standard. Please research something before you try to debate about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
If I was a worker who didn't want to share my property with the collective, what would happen? Would I be listened to and allowed to do so? What if a majority of individuals felt this way? Would the controlling minority forcibly take it from them? Then if so in all instances this minority is effectively a new government by redistributing resources, stealing from some to give to others. I'm not into using ad hominem's.
From the wikipedia page: 'Once collectivization takes place, money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined'' - so a central authority would do this, assuming all power? How long would it take to abolish all money? How would labour notes be arranged? By a central authority, thereby offering no different a solution to the previous one.
'Bakunin's socialism seeks... equality in the social rights of every individual from birth; in particular, equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor' - Equality truly doesn't exist. And even if it did there would be no incentive to produce anything long term, some individuals will have a lust for power and seek to be unequal in relation to others. The need to obtain power doesn't look to be in any way peaceful.
Have you read The Gulag Archipelago. I think you will reply that what occurred is either distorted and wouldn't happen under collectivist anarchism, and that the mass deaths of millions of individuals didn't occur? 'But that wasn't true [insert buzzword here!]'
I can give you something we do agree on: Intellectual Property is a fiction, as it is not tangible.
As I have stated, you have a preconceived set of values and ideals, so do I, these do not meet in all ways and will not be changed, therefore there is no point in continuing this.
"As I have stated, you have a preconceived set of values and ideals, so do I, these do not meet in all ways and will not be changed, therefore there is no point in continuing this."
My values and ideals change through debate and understanding of other viewpoints, do not force your unchanging nature onto me.
Who would decide what is personal vs private property? A central authority? Seems like this debate is fictitious also.
Even if it wasn't, if I (and lets say 5,000 others) in a location where collectivist-anarchism prevails didn't want to give up our private property, what would the 'democratic' collectivist-anarchist group do? Looks like as stated in the divided island parable, you would invade and kill them (as the private property owners wouldn't just let you take it). Logic implies this system is in no way better than what we have today, perhaps even worse.
I do not have an unchanging nature, the only constant is change, I'm only saying your personal identity has been integrated into this ideology, and ideology that embraces mass violence and oppression under the guise of a 'collective'. If test scores were collectivized, as shown, the top students would eventually stop taking the tests as their individuality would have been removed, hence productivity decreases.
There would not be a mass flooding from the voluntarist side. With voluntarism there would be no need to live rigidly in one defined area, many would and could live in the collectivist area; whereas the opposite could not be true because violence would be enacted. This is because competing currencies would exist (crypto) so there is nobody forcing you to use a particular one.
Why would you wish to be on Steemit, a platform which you could state as capitalist, and whom those that had the incentive initially have gained the majority of followers and power? Does this not contradict with your values?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property
alright well, I don't have enough time to answer these basic questions. Please read up on it yourself, its faster either way.
"Why would you wish to be on Steemit, a platform which you could state as capitalist, and whom those that had the incentive initially have gained the majority of followers and power? Does this not contradict with your values?"
"oh man you are eating the food you made under feudalism and wearing the rags it gave you, you can't want capitalism hahaha I win"
"If I gave away my car, I would feel even more guilty. When I go to visit peasants in southern Colombia, they don't want me to give up my car. They want me to help them. Suppose I gave up material things -- my computer, my car and so on -- and went to live on a hill in Montana where I grew my own food. Would that help anyone? No." - Chomsky
"I can give you something we do agree on: Intellectual Property is a fiction, as it is not tangible."
All property is fiction.
"'Bakunin's socialism seeks... equality in the social rights of every individual from birth; in particular, equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor' - Equality truly doesn't exist. And even if it did there would be no incentive to produce anything long term, some individuals will have a lust for power and seek to be unequal in relation to others. The need to obtain power doesn't look to be in any way peaceful."
https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
https://theredphoenixapl.org/2011/06/02/the-human-nature-argument/
"From the wikipedia page: 'Once collectivization takes place, money would be abolished to be replaced with labour notes and workers' salaries would be determined'' - so a central authority would do this, assuming all power? How long would it take to abolish all money? How would labour notes be arranged? By a central authority, thereby offering no different a solution to the previous one."
The workers themselves are the authority, there is no centralised authority needed to do this. The labor notes are arranged by the workers themselves and managed through labor unions of direct democracy. Again it is anarchist, so only those who wish to take part in this form of society will, and those who do not will likely join in with other groups.
"All other points are null and void. "
The economic system is the system of control over the means of production. The monetary system can change all it wants, but the economic system will be the same. Your points are all moot.
"Comparing two rather outdated systems using federal reserve notes of paper printed out of thin air by a central authority does not produce freedom or overall prosperity, real purchasing power decreases per year due to the increasing supply."
the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The monetary system doesn't cause this, it just accelerates it.