Somehow, I stumbled onto the Borders Union website. Who knew?

I thought they had a lot of good things to say about the "alleged" working poor. Read up and explain it away, free marketers!

<a href='http://www.bordersunion.org/BB-viewtopic-t-1012-view-previous.html' target='_blank'>http://www.bordersunion.org/BB-viewtopic-t...w-previous.html</a>

joebordenrebel Wrote:Somehow, I stumbled onto the Borders Union website. Who knew?

I thought they had a lot of good things to say about the "alleged" working poor. Read up and explain it away, free marketers!

<a href='http://www.bordersunion.org/BB-viewtopic-t-1012-view-previous.html' target='_blank'>http://www.bordersunion.org/BB-viewtopic-t...w-previous.html</a>

I thought Sowell's comments were intersting.

I didn't know there was a union either. Funny thing is, when I was frustrated at work a few years back, I thought about quitting and working at Border's for a while. Seemed like an easy job. But, I didn't know if I'd fit into the environment of all the tatooed folks. Do you think that the cost of tatoos has outpaced inflation? Is tatooing and removal part of the benefits they want?

Really makes you wonder how folks can be so oppressed in our democracy.

Power to the People!

It's amusing how the poster (on the union site) with the handle dogma rants about "right-wing bullsh*t", yet complains about the Medicare, social security, federal and state taxes he has to pay. :rolleyes:

Oh, and them calling each other 'comrades' is a nice - and predictable - touch. I'm guessing if I looked around the site long enough, I'll catch a Che Guevara avatar somewhere.

The fact of the matter is that a Borders clerk is a low-paying job because the supply of people that are willing and able to do that job is enormous. The schooling requirements to shelve books, stock CDs, and run a register are very low. The stress associated with these things are low as well. As with any job, a certain dollar amount equilizes the demand and availability of these jobs. If it's $8 per hour, then it's $8 per hour. Meanwhile, the posters on the Union website would prefer government to step in and artificially raise those wages through the roof... eventually resulting in unemployment, of course. One only has to look at the Workers Paradises known as Germany, France, et al, to see that such constant regulations create an unemployment rate consistently in double-digit percentages.

joebordenrebel,

I only drive by this board once in a while, yet I can generally gather where some people stand on a lot of ideological issues. But I admit that I have no idea where you stand. You sport an Anarchist logo, which - to me - signifies the complete abolishment of government and coercion, and pretty much has an affinity to privatize everything under the sun (they, in effect, make Ayn Rand look like a tax n' spend liberal).

Yet, what I generally notice from you is quite the opposite. For instance, I assume from your last line in this thread that you are against free market economics? So, what is your alternative? Top-down force? Stifling government regulations and tariffs? Doubling the minimum wage? If I'm off-base, then I apologize. Maybe I just hadn't done well enough back in PolySci to understand some of the terminology well enough. But I wouldn't mind a summary in how you reconcile sporting an "I'm a Big Bad Anarchist" logo with what appears to be a yearning for a nanny-state government at the same time.

"But I wouldn't mind a summary in how you reconcile sporting an "I'm a Big Bad Anarchist" logo with what appears to be a yearning for a nanny-state government at the same time."

I have a lot of the same questions about your Libertarian Party ideology, Mo, but you asked first so I'll answer.

I think that the proper aspiration for any society is anarchosyndicalism.

"Anarchism is a definite intellectual current in the life of our times, whose adherents advocate the abolition of economic monopolies and of all political and social coercive institutions within society. In place of the present capitalistic economic order Anarchists would have a free association of all productive forces based upon co-operative labour, which would have as its sole purpose the satisfying of the necessary requirements of every member of society, and would no longer have in view the special interest of privileged minorities within the social union." --Rudolph Rocker

So I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that just because I support co-operative labor means that I yearn for a "nanny state."

You can read more about it here:

<a href='http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html' target='_blank'>http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocke...rocker_as1.html</a>

Thanks for the response.

I actually wouldn't mind a more "layman's" description of Rocker's gobbledegook, but I think I'm getting the idea. Where I get confused is if someone wants to "opt out" of this communal co-operative labor. Case in point: Let's assume there exists a village (i.e. The Farm) where everyone agrees to work as a collective. Private property is nonexistent. Everyone does their own division of labor, and whatever they produce is thrown in a big pile and is accessable by everyone. This Farm is fine as long as everyone is 'okay' with it. But let's suppose Mr. X works particularly hard, notices others are leeching off his work, and decides he's had enough and deserves more for his intensive work? Since the Farm won't allow his keeping a private stash of his stuff, he can move to another village and break free from the Farm.

In the society of Rocker (and apparently, yours), does Mr. X have the opportunity to forgo collectivist co-operative labor, and pursue more individualistic goals? If the answer is 'no', then this is a nanny state-style communism. You have no choice but to comply (or get severly punished). If Mr. X can leave, then Mr. X still answers to himself and thus owns his own path.

So, having said all that, while you support co-operative labor (which is fine... the Amish are very much like this), would someone be permitted to opt out (like the Amish), or must everyone be required to fit into this mold? If, say, an Amish woman decides the communal Amish life is not for her, she can leave the sect. Her peers may frown on her, but she can go in whatever direction she likes. If she can't, then I don't see the "free association" described in Rudolph Rocker's quote.


To answer your question, I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party. I don't even subscribe to all their platforms to the fullest. I have (small "l") libertarian beliefs, but mainly I just favor government with limited intrusion in your personal, financial, and bedroom matters. To find out more, check out the Cato Institute or the Ludwig von Mises websites. If you see what you believe may be a contradiction in one of my posts, then by all means ask me about it (like I asked you about it).

Well, I'm still trying to put a lot of it into layman's terms for myself. Sorry for the disconnect. I have considered myself an anarchist for a couple of years now and am learning more about it all the time but I am by no means a master of the subject.

I found another interesting anarchist tonight in John Zerzan:

<a href='http://www.primitivism.com/zerzan.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.primitivism.com/zerzan.htm</a>

Now, there are two main strains of anarchism, as far as I can tell. The first advocates the use of terrorism and mayhem (the one most people associate with "real anarchy"); the second is a pacifist strain of collectivism (much like the Amish communities).

The most successful anarcho-syndicalist effort was in Pre-Franco Spain. Luckily, the United States teamed up with the Fascists to end that experiment.

To answer your "who's going to take out the garbage" question, I would think opting out would certainly be anyone's choice, as the central organizing precept of any anarchist (sometimes better read as democratic) commune is freedom.

As soon as I set up my own commune, I'll let you know about the particulars. :D

Anarchy--Belief that an ideal human society should have no organized government, often accompanied by a practical disregard for the authority of existing governments and by a proposal for abolishing them. Prominent modern anarchists include Godwin, Proudhon, and Bakunin.

Recommended Reading: Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread (Black Rose, 1989); Todd May, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (Penn. State, 1994); Michael Taylor, Community, Anarchy and Liberty (Cambridge, 1983); and Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism (California, 1998).