Our Political Positions

Hess, i should point out that the figures for the royal family are appauling. The royal family costs 100x more to maintain than the irish President, and not to mention that they cost more money per person than the NHS.

Depends on whose money you think is being spent, if you include all the money they make themselves and the money they generate though their enterprises plus company bills and ignoring the mass profits then yes they most likely are dealing in much greater amounts of money then the Irish President is personally, however unlike yourself I have not dedicated time to studying in detail the incomes and out goings of the Irish President compared with that of our Monarchy so I can’t make a definitive comparison.

In regard to the ownership of land and property my own reply is: "Go for it." Say hypothetically your Grandfather owned a watch and that watch though any number of circumstances came to be of great personal significance to him and his family, he would then want to give it to his son, and then after many years from the son to the grandson and so on. Now, at a certain point it is found at this watch holds a great deal of worth in capital and interest with the people, and the current holders of the watch chose to give it to a museum and the museum gives them a large amount of money.
At this point the family becomes wealthy and famous, and their grandchildren are now secure as is their family line. Now having provided this test case I pose my questions, who gets to decide if this is too much money to inherit? surly that office would carry a great deal of corruption, I mean everyone is born to some level of wealth, who gets to decide how much is too much? What happens to the money, what happens to the children of families which are considered to have too much? What is the human effect on the people you do this to?

Now the point I say and ask these things is that as soon as you say wealth should be detracted from the wealthy someone needs to be chosen to decide who has too much and when to take the money? When the child is born? What about the Mother and Father who earned the money? The experience of having your money taken from you simply for the crime of being born to a successful family would be horrific, it would be soul crushing to think that if you do to well the state will simply take your prosperity from you, especially when we know that the leaders of this nation will themselves be living in a great deal of luxury as leaders tend do to do, so you can imagine the resentment that would build up.
The abolition of wealth from specific people is and would feel like a punishment to them, simply to have this done to you for being born would be horrifically unfair as you have done nothing beyond that.

It should be seperated when the person who "earned said wealth dies. All inherinece shall go to the community. YOU did not earn your parents farm.

As for "stealing your property", private property IS theft, it is theft from the working people.

It's working people who payed for it. A person inherits their families money and property as the person that has died wanted to leave things to the people close to him not random people.

I dont care if that person wanted whatever, the people that recieve it did not earn it.

The working class did not pay for it, the working class worked under the owners, who stole there surplus labor to expand there private property to exploit the working class more.

If the person that inherited the farm works the farm, then it is possession. Thus they keep it.
Only when the owner of the farm employs other people to work the farm at an expense of what their labor is worth does it become theft.

You should make a distinction between property by use and occupancy which would be legitimate and property thanks to a piece of paper that is enforced at gunpoint by the state which would be illegitimate.

But under your Political model nobody would actually stop people for hiring help at their farm.

If two people worked a farm then they would have a mutual interest in its success, and they would both equally be owners.

Buy if I hired a subordinate would an angry mob materialize outside of my door or something?

Maybe.

Edit: I just noticed you used the word "hire", which implies that there is a wage payer and a wage receiver. (i.e Hierarchy)
Such a relationship wouldn't be Anarchistic.

It's sounds like there are stricter laws in anarchism than I initially thought. It's not like I forced this guy to work for me he choose to help me I just had a lot of crops this year and though he should be compensated for his effort.

IIRC anarchistic society would be voluntary, so you could join an anarchist community where this wouldnt be tolerated. But if you would like to form your own community based on capitalistic principles this would be allowed, except if you claim the farmland as your own without you having the ability to claim it by use or occupancy by yourself or by people employed by you as regulated by the conventions of your capitalist community.

If he helps you harvest your crops both of you should ether be equally compensated or compensated base on the amount of work you did. (Varies from Anarchist to Anarchist.)
You can't sit on your ass all day and while he does most of the work and claim the majority of the reward by saying "It's MY farm.", because in an Anarchistic system everyone who works the farm would by default be part owner.

Exactly I plowed, planted, and cared for the plants by myself. He just helped me pick the crop so I should get most of the profit from selling the crops.

So long as hes fully compensated for the work he put in, and didn't work under conditions that were not voluntary. (His options were work at "your" farm or starve.)
Yea.

Lenin Cat, I have a few questions for you.

1. How old are you?

2. While sitting in a modern nation using a computer that you/your family presumably bought , do you ever stop and think that you may be completely contradicting your own beliefs by merely existing? It would be really funny if you were over weight, because you know it all belongs to the people I take what I need blablabla

3. What makes you think people will just keep working while they know they can never accomplish anything by doing it? When they know that getting a education has no real economic purpose, nobody in the non existant anarcho communist government will punish them for doing nothing , and no reward is in line for doing your best in your workplace.

Any sort of non-authoritarian communist system is just ASKING to fail. So many ways to fail... by god.

No, Lenincat is not overweight (Check out the pictures section), and he spends the vast majority of his time studying. Forgot what courses he is taking, but he studies damn hard. He is a perfect example of what a Communist-Youth should strive to be like, in my opinion.

*Edited, misread the last part of what Lamp said.

From what I gather in an anarcho-communist community you could still be asked to leave when you constantly show a disregard to do any labour when you are physically/mentally capable of doing so. But I could be wrong about this.

Also how do you think sites such as wikipedia get the amount of content they have? There are no rewards in place for doing your best or doing anything, and still wikipedia manages to outclass encyclopedias that require payment to access and have a payed staff?
And how do you think the non-profit sector manages to contribute more to the GDP of many Western countries, than for example the banking industry ,the construction industry or the utilities industry, while they primarily run on volunteers.

I think he studies way too hard that he's forgotten how human nature works.