Paddy: Look at a country like Somalia where there is no effective ordering force.

Right, Somalia, where they have no armed men relentlessly patrolling the streets.

The rest of your comment is nothing more than an elaborate argument from intimidation combined with a shorter appeal to the majority. As for what you appreciate, you’re welcome to fund that — on your own dime and on your own property. What I don’t appreciate is that I am forced to pay for what you appreciate — “services” that I never asked for, don’t want, and will be more than glad to do without.

... Well, I'm not sure what you mean to say here. Of course there's no inherent positive obligation to put the work into making people leave. Hey, you could

... . . . ... Mike, Well, O.K., I don't think you'll get any argument from Sheldon about that, and I know you won't get any from me. You know that nobody in

... I agree that it makes a difference whether the intruder is doing so merely *without prior permission*, or whether the intruder is doing so *against your

... Sure, but one of the economic consequences would be taking reasonable steps to actually close off the space that you don't want open to the public. If you

... I think the link you're looking for is (note capitalization). I'm glad that Ron Paul made the effort to write

... Anthony, Well, speaking broadly for the moment, isn't it the case that the aggressiveness of trespass depends, in part, on how intrusive the trespass is?

truecrimson:

The thing people like you miss about “wage slavery” is that dividing labor and making payment with a medium of exchange is the only successful alternative to grow your own, and barter.

What does “dividing labor” have to do with an objection to the critique of “wage slavery”? Hardly anybody who talks about “wage slavery” — certainly not the communists — is against a division of labor per se. The argument is about how labor ought to be divided, and on what terms. The proposal is not for everybody to do identical work or for the worker-occupied factories to all make the same products. The alternatives to wage slavery that are proposed are for workers to gain ownership of the means of production and exchange goods amongst themselves, rather than mediating their economic relationships through bosses and financiers.

Also, what does “making payment with a medium of exchange” have to do with the critique of wage slavery? Communists generally don’t want much in the way of quid-pro-quo exchange, but it’s not mainly because of their critique of “wage slavery.” (It’s based on some other things, e.g. their critique of commodity fetishism.) And there are many non-communist anticapitalists who oppose wage slavery but have no fundamental problem with payment with a medium of exchange (Proudhon was trying to start a bank, for Pete’s sake). The issue for them, again, isn’t the existence of money; it’s the control of money and property by the State and a select class of capitalists favored by the State. For the mutualists, the upshot isn’t the eradication of exchange, payment, money, or credit; it’s the decentralization of control over exchange, payment, money, and credit. What we’re after isn’t the end of “making payment with a medium of exchange,” but rather patterns of payment and exchange where workers make the decisions and keep the profits, rather than being handed down directives and receiving fixed wages for time served.

HTH.

Comrade Berkman:

Why does Kevin Carson claim to support the I.W.W. yet defend wage labor and absentee landlordism?

Um.

You’re new here, aren’t you?

Berkman considered mutualism/individualism seriously flawed

Of course he did. That’s why he wasn’t a mutualist or an individualist. But the point of mentioning his reception of mutualism was not to reopen the argument about whether mutualism is a good idea or not. It was to reply to your silly assertion that mutualists and individualists are not part of “actual historical anarchism,” but rather are newcomers “infiltrating” the movement. That’s certainly not how it seemed to actual historical anarchists like Berkman, in spite of very real and deep disagreements.

That said, even if the point of the discussion were to reopen the issue of mutualism and its critics, the arguments you raise here are astonishingly awful arguments. Berkman thought it seriously flawed. Well, so what? You’ve got an appeal to authority, but where’s the argument? (Maybe it’s hiding somewhere next to Kevin Carson’s esoteric tracts defending absentee landlordism.) “Most Anarchists following Bakunin” thought it flawed. Well, so what? I don’t know whether “following” is supposed to mean that you’re referring to Bakuninist Anarchists, or to Anarchists who came, historically, after Bakunin, but in either case, even if true, this at best a crude appeal to the majority. If I wanted to decide arguments based on authority, tradition, and majority opinion, I’d be a fucking Republican.

... Do you really need me to sit here and explain the fallacy of complex question to you, or how the obvious implicature of the "and" in your question is that