1) Where can I find this definition of capital expounded?
2) I'm still having trouble reconciling this definition of "division of labor" with the reality that everyone is not always (perhaps rarely ever) capable of producing everything they need and want to survive and thrive. Unless you're saying that the more complex modern comforts (e.g. air conditioning, electricity, etc.) we have today would not exist in this "post-insurrectionary society" (at least, not as we're accustomed to them now).
3) So, people should only produce what they need and no more? Perhaps that's a bit of a loaded question. If profit (which you've defined her as surplus) is the problem, does that make it bad or unwanted according to your philosophy? How does future planning effect the perception of what is considered surplus/profit? Can a person grow/collect more food, firewood, water, etc. than they presently need in preparation for a future time when those things might be unavailable?
Regarding "value," I subscribe to the subjective theory of value, which essentially states *my* judgement of the usefulness of some thing at a particular time to me defines, for me, the "value" associated with that item. Your judgement of the usefulness of that same thing to you may differ from mine. For example, I'm in the desert and suffering from dehydration. You, on the other hand, are in a cool, comfortable setting with a quenched thirst. While we both objectively "value" water as a necessity to our biology, I, at that very moment, "value" water more than you as my life, at that very moment, requires that I consume some right away while you could literally go without water for days before being in a similar predicament. In short, we all attribute some "value" to things (or none at all) based on our subjective determination of that thing's utility to us or its likelihood of satisfying some want or need of ours at a particular time relative to other things. Now that you know what "value" means to me, could you define "value" as it fits your philosophy?
4) I think this particular point is one we will likely never see eye-to-eye on but I'm interested in your response. There are almost certainly going to be people who won't gift anything at all (what is the "punishment" for that? Is there one? How will "we" know if people are producing and keeping surplus? How is it determined what "surplus" is? These are honest question, though I know they are sometimes bait. Again, just looking for your take on it.) but I recognize that's not enough to say "oh this won't work." It's essentially the inverse of the free-rider principle that statists try to challenge ancaps on. My real contention here is the assertion that abundance will be a reality. My issue is two-fold: 1) surplus is considered profit (this is perhaps negated by your clarification to an earlier point) so there wouldn't be any abundance produced from the start, and 2) even if you allow surplus because it's not profit under some circumstances, where is this abundance coming from and how is anything close to the appropriate distribution known? (I guess that's a total of 3 points) Is there a "gift place" (analogous to a market place) where people can go to find things they want/need that other people created? Is the implication then that people *must* produce surplus "gifts" because there are people that need some of these things to survive but are incapable for whatever reason of producing these things themselves? How does thinking in terms of abundance and fecundity overcome the reality of people being unequal in terms of capability, thus some will necessarily depend on others for survival? Wouldn't the producers that are being depended upon to produce surplus gifts wield power over the dependent (if not in practice, in principle?)? Perhaps I'm way out in left field on this from your perspective (that's my assumption, anyway) so where have I gone wrong? I'm most interested in the last three questions in particular.
5) Here is another point you and I are bound to endless disagreement. To live (that is, to not die) a person must consume a minimum amount of food and water and protect themselves from the weather in a manner compatible with our biology. No philosophy can change that. Whether living under a dictatorship, republic or anarchy (of your variety), a person must work. That is a fact of our existence. Work must be done to produce the things that sustain our lives. I suppose that should make us a slave to our biology. I'm almost certain we disagree on the definition or concept of something in here but it isn't obvious to me other than perhaps what qualifies as "work."
Thanks for responding. I hope you'll continue.
