NationStates Jolt Archive

Yay, we've got the original name back. Alas, all the content is gone, so here we go again with all the "Anarcho-capitalism is not the most oxymoronic pile of steaming horse-shit ideology in the world" posts. Come one, come all, join in the chaos!

Pope Vassilly Deferens the first, last and always.

Good. Let's just watch out for those "anarcho"-capitalists. There are a few at this forum that always give me trouble.

Heh. Yeah.

Here's a post directly copied from http://www.blackcrayon.com/

Hagbard Celine's Definitions and Distinctions

From: The Illuminatus! Trilogy by RAWislon and R. Shea

FREE MARKET

That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.

THE STATE

That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).

TAX

That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.

PRIVILEGE

From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

USURY

That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

LANDLORDISM

That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

TARIFF

That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.

POLITICAL CAPITALISM

That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

CONSERVATISM

That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.

LIBERALISM

That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden."

SOCIALISM

The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.

ANARCHISM

That organization of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege.

RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate.

LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.

There is no anarchist Right and most anarchists on the left oppose the concept of a market. The ones that don't would agree with your definition of anarchism, though.

Here's a post directly copied from http://www.blackcrayon.com/

Hagbard Celine's Definitions and Distinctions

From: The Illuminatus! Trilogy by RAWislon and R. Shea


Let me stop you right there and point out you're quoting from a satirical work. A great book, yes, a textbook of ideology, no.

Vas.

"We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth..." -- Pablo Picasso

If the Illuminatus! Trilogy is satire (a fictitious analogy in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit) then it is merely an 800 page lie which exposes the truth.

Certainly, we can ignore most of the crazy bits about worldwide conspiracies and uber-intelligent dolphins, but once we get beyond the window dressing, the philosophy, the ideology if you will, is a rock-solid exposition of anarchist politics , general semantics, and quantum psychology.

The works of Robert Anton Wilson, William S. Burroughs, CrimethInc. and Hakim Bey are the basis of my own anarchist convictions. Their works ARE my textbooks, much moreso than the boring, ancient crap from Bakunin et. al.

Good. Let's just watch out for those "anarcho"-capitalists. There are a few at this forum that always give me trouble.

We don't give you trouble because we disgree, we give you trouble because ou say stupid things.

"We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth..." -- Pablo Picasso

If the Illuminatus! Trilogy is satire (a fictitious analogy in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit) then it is merely an 800 page lie which exposes the truth.

Certainly, we can ignore most of the crazy bits about worldwide conspiracies and uber-intelligent dolphins, but once we get beyond the window dressing, the philosophy, the ideology if you will, is a rock-solid exposition of anarchist politics , general semantics, and quantum psychology.

The works of Robert Anton Wilson, William S. Burroughs, CrimethInc. and Hakim Bey are the basis of my own anarchist convictions. Their works ARE my textbooks, much moreso than the boring, ancient crap from Bakunin et. al.

*nods*

Eerily similar to myself... really eerily...

We don't give you trouble because we disgree, we give you trouble because ou say stupid things.

You aren't anarchist, though. At least concede that.

You aren't anarchist, though. At least concede that.

I've got nothing to concede. You might argue that I present arguments that are not compatable with anarchist theory at times, but anarchism is a philosohpy. One can call oneself an anarchist if one lives by anarchist philosohpy. Attending rallies and protests does not make one an anarchist. Nor does reading the writings of anarchists of the past. At the same time a person can be an anarchist without attending rallies or protests and even (though less so) without reading or having read the writings of anarchists of the past.

I call myself an anarchist because I believe that ideally anarchism is the best form of social organization and because I live by an anarcho-pacificst philosophy. It seems to me that you call yourself an anarchist because you believe passionately that the state is a danger to its citizens. I won't argue for or against that, but I will say that that is not the only prerequisite to being an anarchist.

I've got nothing to concede. You might argue that I present arguments that are not compatable with anarchist theory at times, but anarchism is a philosohpy. One can call oneself an anarchist if one lives by anarchist philosohpy. Attending rallies and protests does not make one an anarchist. Nor does reading the writings of anarchists of the past. At the same time a person can be an anarchist without attending rallies or protests and even (though less so) without reading or having read the writings of anarchists of the past.

I call myself an anarchist because I believe that ideally anarchism is the best form of social organization and because I live by an anarcho-pacificst philosophy. It seems to me that you call yourself an anarchist because you believe passionately that the state is a danger to its citizens. I won't argue for or against that, but I will say that that is not the only prerequisite to being an anarchist.

If you're an anarcho-pacifist, how do you plan on keeping your prescious property out the hands of the poor and starving?

Letila, are you suggesting might makes right?

If you're an anarcho-pacifist, how do you plan on keeping your prescious property out the hands of the poor and starving?

You are remarkably dense. Anarcho-pacifism is essentially just an extension of pacifism. The free market doesn't conflict with the ideals of pacfism or Anarchy as long as property is voluntarily respected. I'm not at my house right now, but when I next get on there I'll send you something about the difference between voluntarily respected property and property protected by force.

You are remarkably dense. Anarcho-pacifism is essentially just an extension of pacifism. The free market doesn't conflict with the ideals of pacfism or Anarchy as long as property is voluntarily respected. I'm not at my house right now, but when I next get on there I'll send you something about the difference between voluntarily respected property and property protected by force.

Capitalist property is not voluntary. Do you believe that the poor and hungry choose to be poor and hungry?

Capitalist property is not voluntary. Do you believe that the poor and hungry choose to be poor and hungry?

There is no such thing as "Capitalist property." Property is exactly the same in Capitalism as anywhere else. An example of voluntarily accepted property is the fruit of a person's which everyone agree is rightfully that person's. An example of property that is defended by force is taxes. As in the post from earlier, taxes are used to pay for more coersion to get more taxes. Voluntarily accepted property can exist in a Capitalist free market easily. The poor and hungry and poor and hungry because of the influence of coersion on the free market.

Capitalist property is not voluntary. Do you believe that the poor and hungry choose to be poor and hungry?
In a free market/capitalist system, yes. Yes they do. They may not realize the choices they made led them to that state, but the choices were theirs to make.

In a free market/capitalist system, yes. Yes they do. They may not realize the choices they made led them to that state, but the choices were theirs to make.

Just like how the rich chose to be born into rich families.

There is no such thing as "Capitalist property." Property is exactly the same in Capitalism as anywhere else. An example of voluntarily accepted property is the fruit of a person's which everyone agree is rightfully that person's. An example of property that is defended by force is taxes. As in the post from earlier, taxes are used to pay for more coersion to get more taxes. Voluntarily accepted property can exist in a Capitalist free market easily. The poor and hungry and poor and hungry because of the influence of coersion on the free market.

Inheritance is not the fruit of your labor.

Just like how the rich chose to be born into rich families. While being born into a poor family is not exactly helpful, it is possible to become rich from a poor family. The "rags to riches" phrase didn't just appear from nowhere; C. F. Greenhill is one person who filled out the rags to riches ideal. He went from a sweeper to president of a company.

Inheritance is not the fruit of your labor. But it was the fruit of the person's who gave it to you labor. They chose, indirectly or directly, to give the inheriter the inheritence.

While being born into a poor family is not exactly helpful, it is possible to become rich from a poor family. The "rags to riches" phrase didn't just appear from nowhere; C. F. Greenhill is one person who filled out the rags to riches ideal. He went from a sweeper to president of a company.

I'm going to let you in on a little-known secret: The Soviet Union had social mobility, too. It was definitely possible to go from the bottom to the top. That didn't change the fact that it was authoritarian.

But it was the fruit of the person's who gave it to you labor. They chose, indirectly or directly, to give the inheriter the inheritence.

Then you concede that capitalism doesn't necessary reward hard work and punish laziness?

well back onto the treadmill. hi all - long time, no anarcho-arguing.

no gods, no masters

I'm going to let you in on a little-known secret: The Soviet Union had social mobility, too. It was definitely possible to go from the bottom to the top. That didn't change the fact that it was authoritarian. That doesn't change the fact that you can go from the bottom to top in a capitalist society either.


Then you concede that capitalism doesn't necessary reward hard work and punish laziness? It rewards hard work no matter who does it, and it punishes laziness for a variety of people. Many of the people who win the lottery end up poor again, despite winning millions upon millions of dollars.

Good. Let's just watch out for those "anarcho"-capitalists. There are a few at this forum that always give me trouble.

Well anarcho-capitalism makes more sense really, but you know....

Well anarcho-capitalism makes more sense really, but you know....

I know all about how you gave up on the fight for freedom and equality, Eridanus.

That doesn't change the fact that you can go from the bottom to top in a capitalist society either.

You were using social mobility to justify capitalism. I pointed out the USSR had it, too.

It rewards hard work no matter who does it, and it punishes laziness for a variety of people. Many of the people who win the lottery end up poor again, despite winning millions upon millions of dollars.

And what about those people who are rich due to inheritance? What about the people who work for long hours in sweatshops?

You were using social mobility to justify capitalism. I pointed out the USSR had it, too. It doesn't matter what the Soviet Union had; I can probably find something from the Motherland that is similar to just about any system.

And what about those people who are rich due to inheritance? The people who are rich due to inheritence are rich because of the generosity of another. However, it is quite possible that they can end up poor, just as people who win the lottery have shown.

What about the people who work for long hours in sweatshops?People who work in sweatshops are there because they chose to be there, unless they were forced into slavery, and as such can not complain. They voluntarily took the job, just as people voluntarily buy stuff. If I got a dead-end job, it'd be my fault, not society's fault.

People who work in sweatshops are there because they chose to be there, unless they were forced into slavery, and as such can not complain. They voluntarily took the job, just as people voluntarily buy stuff. If I got a dead-end job, it'd be my fault, not society's fault.

That's where you're wrong. The people at the sweatshops are usually poor, at least compared to the US and have to be there to feed their families. If they choose not to work in a sweatshop, they starve. It is not voluntary. Neither is capitalism in the US.

That's where you're wrong. The people at the sweatshops are usually poor, at least compared to the US and have to be there to feed their families. If they choose not to work in a sweatshop, they starve. It is not voluntary. Neither is capitalism in the US.

But thier work ethics are being rewarded. Thier families are being fed, which is a good thing, and if they work harder then it is possible that they can gain material goods. Most of these poor people lived under terribly opressive regimes that uber-raped the economy.

isn't anarcho-capitalism more free since you have more economic freedom?

But thier work ethics are being rewarded. Thier families are being fed, which is a good thing, and if they work harder then it is possible that they can gain material goods. Most of these poor people lived under terribly opressive regimes that uber-raped the economy.

While people who have never worked a day in their lives have millions of dollars, these people work in sweatshops just to survive. They work much harder than the mansion-dwelling capitalists and get paid far less.

They still do live under oppressive regimes, like China, for example. Did you know that the average wage of a Pakistani garmet worker is 23¢ or that 40% of Mexicans are below the poverty line while 1% own 40% of the wealth? Is that your idea of work ethic being rewarded?

isn't anarcho-capitalism more free since you have more economic freedom?

If you're rich, it does. If you have to work for someone to survive, it would be hell on earth.

Hi, how is everybody? The discussion on the various Anarcho-X seems to be getting pretty deep in here. My question (not pointed, not biased and not meant to be inflammatory) is: what do each of you do to live by and forward your philosophy and does it make you happy? After all, what is the point of being free from authority if you're just going to find new things to be miserable about?

"Anarcho"-capitalism is authoritarian. If you live by it, others suffer for it. That is why we oppose it.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is authoritarian.

No, it's not.

Anarchocommunism is authoritarian. Someone or some group has to decide what will be produced by the community.

It is a contradiction in terms.

Capitalist property is not voluntary. Do you believe that the poor and hungry choose to be poor and hungry?

Non sequitur.

Anarchocommunism is authoritarian. Someone or some group has to decide what will be produced by the community.

This may come as a shock, but you are that somebody. The members of the community choose what will be produced by the community. Last time I checked, capitalism was based on something called a market that was intended to give the consumer influence on what is produced.

The difference here is that the consumer actually participates in the decision-making process. It is capitalism, not anarcho-communism, where the average person spends 8 hours a day taking orders.

While people who have never worked a day in their lives have millions of dollars, these people work in sweatshops just to survive. But the people who have millions and never worked a day tend to squander thier money.


They still do live under oppressive regimes, like China, for example. Did you know that the average wage of a Pakistani garmet worker is 23¢ or that 40% of Mexicans are below the poverty line while 1% own 40% of the wealth? Is that your idea of work ethic being rewarded? The reason why much of this occurs is because of government interferance with economies; authoritan regimes or those that have welfare state ideas tend to do less well than the more capitalistic states.

Aside from that, a few economists predict areas such as Africa can have the same standard of living as America by 2050. The one thing they say must happen is that Moore's Law must continue to hold true; that is, every 18 months the number of transistors on a proccesor (Or was it something else?) must double. The reason is that as worker productivity increases, wages will increase (though they increase slower than productivity. If productivity falls then wages fall slower.), and the use of computers has increased productivity in America by 17% since 2000. This is a record, I think, and economists hope that computers will catch on in the backwater parts of the world.

If you're rich, it does. If you have to work for someone to survive, it would be hell on earth. It cold be for a CEO too. Consider this: you have to make an important decision that could, if you are in a large enough company, put thousands out of work, cost you your job, and ruin your reputation.

This may come as a shock, but you are that somebody.

This may come as a shock, but I'm not. There MUST be an overall board or government to say what is produced, when it is produced, how much is produced, and to whom it will be distributed--regardless of what some people think might be done otherwise. Despite your whining, Mises, et al showed this.

The members of the community choose what will be produced by the community. Last time I checked, capitalism was based on something called a market that was intended to give the consumer influence on what is produced.

And they do.

The difference here is that the consumer actually participates in the decision-making process.

Yes--that's capitalism.

It is capitalism, not anarcho-communism, where the average person spends 8 hours a day taking orders.

Ah. So you just don't like having to work to survive. Tell you what: why don't you stop breathing for a while and then tell me how much you really like that you are FORCED to breathe to live, m'kay?

Hint: grow up.

isn't anarcho-capitalism more free since you have more economic freedom?

no. 'economic freedom' is a loaded term. it doesn't refer to freedom per se, but to a sort of 'freedom' that can only be exercised by a tiny minority of the population: namely the ability for the owners of the means of production and distribution to use their ownership to expropriate value. and under capitalism it is impossible for everyone to be a capitalist. any 'freedom' that structurally cannot be exercised by everyone in a society is not freedom at all.

actually an anarchist economy would be more free than a capitalist one ('anarcho' in front or not) in exactly the same way that a democracy is politically more free than a dictatorship. ownership of the means of production and distribution - and therefore power - would no longer be held by a tiny minority. economic relations would be between free equals rather than between order-givers and order-followers.

if we are to take this deffinician of "free market" at it's face value:

"FREE MARKET

That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion"

it becomes quite clear that while capitolism might be possible in such a free market, it is highly unlikely
that a free market is possible in capitolism owing to
its intrinsicly coercive and deceptive nature!

=^^=
.../\...

(btw: "taking orders" is not a deffinician of work found
either in physics nor in nature. nor is it a prerequisite
of, nor contributer to, survival in any other context then
the well wishes of human society. the self restraint to
avoid causing unneccessary harm on the other hand is.
something that is concealed rather then encouraged by the
circular logic of SYMBOLIC personal gain at the expense
of REAL shared and environmental loss)

=^^=
.../\...

Excuse me for invading your thread, but I have a question here:

Assuming that your computers are bought, isn't buying computers supporting the capatilists and therefore anti-anarchist?

Not a flame, but just a question...

and in anarchist news: sherman austin is out of jail now. unfortunately he has a couple years of probation ahead of him, with terms that will probably be read to deny him the ability to associate with other anarchists. he may be out of jail, but the fight isn't over. free sherman!

Assuming that your computers are bought, isn't buying computers supporting the capatilists and therefore anti-anarchist?

yes and no. we live in a society completely surrounded by capitalist and authoritarian institutions. we could make the choice to avoid them as best we can and live in inward focused communes. but it is far more important to most of us to do what we can to bring about the change we want to see in the world. and that means interacting with it. if we just turn our backs on class society, we turn our backs on all the people we leave behind and allow the capitalists and the authoritarians to win outright. so we make some concessions to the current system and then use every opportunity to organize against it.

Well, I understand you. I was just wondering, it just seemed hypocritical in my opinion...

Letila, I had hoped this little break in our discussions would have given you time to reconsider some of your sillier cliches, it would seem it hasn't. Ah, well.

The phrase "in capitalism you work or starve" is true. Just as the phrase "in socialism/ecoism/fascism/communism/monarchism you work or starve" is true. Work is necessary to continue life. Food must be grown, water must be purified, shelter must be constructed.

In a free market you have 2 choices: do all these yourself, or persuade someone else to do them for you (usally by barter or via some medium of exchange). In socialism, depending on the exact system, either you still have the 2 choices of do it yourself or persuade someone else to, in which case stop whining, or you can exploit, yes EXPLOIT, other peoples' labour without their consent, in which case you are an uncivilised brute.

As for inheritance your petty jealousy is beneath you. So what if someone is born rich? Some people are born handsome or athletic or otherwise gifted. Personally I'd rather be me than Paris Hilton anyway. Other posters have demonstrated the validity of inheritance and the validity of rent etc follows from similar arguments and is left as an exercise to the reader.

That's where you're wrong. The people at the sweatshops are usually poor, at least compared to the US and have to be there to feed their families. If they choose not to work in a sweatshop, they starve. It is not voluntary. Neither is capitalism in the US.

In fact, in recent years in the US, due to the Walmart effect, the average worker is doing more work for less money and less benefits. Capitalism has consistently proved that, while a minority can achieve upward mobility, the relative increase in the wealth of the elites generally leads to a comparative impoverishment of the majority of the population.

D.

In fact, in recent years in the US, due to the Walmart effect, the average worker is doing more work for less money and less benefits. Capitalism has consistently proved that, while a minority can achieve upward mobility, the relative increase in the wealth of the elites generally leads to a comparative impoverishment of the majority of the population.

D.
The US is not a free market, it is a mercantilist welfare state. To judge "capitalism" (which means everything to everyone) by a state where a third of your income is confiscated by the govt and there are over 70 000 pages of coercively enforced regulations is absurd. A real free market has always achieved the opposite of what you claim. Criticism I can stand, lies I cannot.

isn't anarcho-capitalism more free since you have more economic freedom?

Look into Kropotkin's theory of a non-monetary economy (outlined in "The Conquest of Bread") and then come back to me.

Vas.

PS. OK, to be a little less dismissive, it's simply this:
No money and free distribution. Far more free than any form of exchange.

Well, I understand you. I was just wondering, it just seemed hypocritical in my opinion...

The question of hypocrisy is not a useful one. We are anarchists - in that we aim to work towards an anarchist society. We are not in an anarchist society, thus we are forced, by a system we did not choose and do not support, to make use of things produced in this system. There are those who drop out, live in a tree and live only on lettuces that have died of natural causes, but, while that might suit them, it's not for everyone. Anarchism is about maximising freedom, in a non-anarchist system it's about making choices about what maximises our freedom. We follow laws we disagree with when the alternative is prison - no freedom. We use things produced by capitalist companies when the alternative is not to have them - less freedom. We work for capitalist companies (well, some might) when the alternative is not to have any money - less freedom. It's quite simple, most anarchists are realistic and pragmatic, we don't care about the judgements of those who oppose us anyway.

Vas.

The US is not a free market, it is a mercantilist welfare state. To judge "capitalism" (which means everything to everyone) by a state where a third of your income is confiscated by the govt and there are over 70 000 pages of coercively enforced regulations is absurd. A real free market has always achieved the opposite of what you claim. Criticism I can stand, lies I cannot.

This is nonsense, as the success of Walmart is not due to tax or the government, but on the ultra-capitalist policies of union bashing, insecure employment, removal of benefits, reduction of wages and the use of economies of scale to destroy competitors. That's capitalism. Workers in more socialist countries, for example Sweden, have a far higher general standard of living due to restrictions on capitalism. Compare and contrast the actions of Swedish companies in their home country and in the US.

Vas.

no. 'economic freedom' is a loaded term. it doesn't refer to freedom per se, but to a sort of 'freedom' that can only be exercised by a tiny minority of the population: namely the ability for the owners of the means of production and distribution to use their ownership to expropriate value.

Tiny minority? Oh, you confuse "everyone" with "tiny minority". Silly you.


and under capitalism it is impossible for everyone to be a capitalist.

Utter lie.

any 'freedom' that structurally cannot be exercised by everyone in a society is not freedom at all.

Which is why you can't be free in a communist society.

actually an anarchist economy would be more free than a capitalist one ('anarcho' in front or not) in exactly the same way that a democracy is politically more free than a dictatorship.]/quote]

A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.

[QUOTE=Free Soviets]ownership of the means of production and distribution - and therefore power - would no longer be held by a tiny minority.

You keep thinking that owning something = bad. How stupid.

economic relations would be between free equals rather than between order-givers and order-followers.

Does McDonald's tell you to buy the Big Mac, or do you tell McDonald's to keep making Big Macs with your purchase of them?

Look into Kropotkin's theory of a non-monetary economy (outlined in "The Conquest of Bread") and then come back to me.


Oh, you mean barter, which would kill the economy.

Hint: read Mises and Rothbard.

Oh, you mean barter, which would kill the economy.

Read the whole message, a non-monetary economy is not based on barter, it's based on free distribution. Completely different concept. And yes, it would kill the economy as we understand it now, because profit would be impossible.

Vas.

This is nonsense, as the success of Walmart is not due to tax or the government, but on the ultra-capitalist policies of union bashing, insecure employment, removal of benefits, reduction of wages and the use of economies of scale to destroy competitors. That's capitalism. Workers in more socialist countries, for example Sweden, have a far higher general standard of living due to restrictions on capitalism. Compare and contrast the actions of Swedish companies in their home country and in the US.
Why can Walmart reduce wages and remove benefits? Because jobs are scarce. Why are jobs scarce? I think you know the answer to that.

Economies of scale are also distorted by govt. Increasing size can make you more efficient but it can also make you less efficient, extra bureacracy, management removed from shop floor, less flexible etc. At the moment the optimal level for a company is large enough to meet screeds of regulations and deal with the paperwork, hire armies of accountants to navigate the taxcode and hire lobbyists to buy political favours. The tax/regulation structure causes inflated size in business. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a business being big IF that is the optimum size. You're wrong in thinking the biggest company wins, there's no good reason to believe that.

Sweden was extremely free market until the last few decades. Since it went socialist it has petered out. It's well off because of its market past, not its socialist present. Do you want to emulate a country where an unemployed alcoholic gets more on welfare than an engineer earns after taxes? That's just sick.

Why can Walmart reduce wages and remove benefits? Because jobs are scarce. Why are jobs scarce? I think you know the answer to that.

It is in the interest of any capitalist to keep jobs scarce, thus allowing less payment of workers, less benefits and greater profits. Profit is the motivating factor of capitalism, everything else - wages, restrictions on working hours, benefits - are a result of left-wing campaigners, anarchists among them. So called "anarcho-capitalism" would simply release companies from any obligations to their workers or the environment.

Economies of scale are also distorted by govt. Increasing size can make you more efficient but it can also make you less efficient, extra bureacracy, management removed from shop floor, less flexible etc. At the moment the optimal level for a company is large enough to meet screeds of regulations and deal with the paperwork, hire armies of accountants to navigate the taxcode and hire lobbyists to buy political favours. The tax/regulation structure causes inflated size in business. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a business being big IF that is the optimum size. You're wrong in thinking the biggest company wins, there's no good reason to believe that.

Oh for jeebus sake, you've got it completely upside-down. The modern representative state was created by the middle classes to defend their property from both attempts by the aristocracy to reclaim it and also to prevent the working classes from taking their share. The state is the servant of capital, if you disestablish the state without removing capitalism, you'll have exactly the same result as removing capitalism without removing the state (Soviet communism) - the system returns to the state capitalist model. State begets capitalism like capitalism begets the state. Those who think you can have liberty and capital are following themselves, with capital, you will always see the "haves" controlling the "have nots".

Sweden was extremely free market until the last few decades. Since it went socialist it has petered out. It's well off because of its market past, not its socialist present. Do you want to emulate a country where an unemployed alcoholic gets more on welfare than an engineer earns after taxes? That's just sick.

Did I say I did? I'm an anarchist, dufus. I made a very specific point about workers welfare in the same companies under one system versus another. Try to stick to context.

Vas.

It is in the interest of any capitalist to keep jobs scarce, thus allowing less payment of workers, less benefits and greater profits. Profit is the motivating factor of capitalism, everything else - wages, restrictions on working hours, benefits - are a result of left-wing campaigners, anarchists among them. So called "anarcho-capitalism" would simply release companies from any obligations to their workers or the environment.

Marxist nonsense. While employers might benefit as a group from persistent unemployment they have strong incentives to chissel on the deal. Imagine all employers agreed to keep unemployment at 10%. Well, now every employer has all this cheap labour to hire so he might as well hire a few extra himself and let everyone else keep to their quota. But everyone will do this leading to full employment. There is no "class conspiracy" you paranoid loser. People will employ workers and give them benefits because of competition for labour, competition which is catasrophically curtailed by govt interference.

Compare to prices of apples, say. While all apple growers might benefit from universally reducing output or a rising prices they can't do it becasue each individual has incentive to chisel on the deal until the market equilibrium is reached. The ONLY way this works is if you have a STATE to enforce the deal.

The rest of your post was jabbering nonsense. If you have intelligent criticism go ahead. Your ignorance of economics is making you seem foolish.

Read the whole message, a non-monetary economy is not based on barter, it's based on free distribution. Completely different concept. And yes, it would kill the economy as we understand it now, because profit would be impossible.

It would kill any economy, period. There would be no way to determine what processes to use to produce, as there's no market.

Appendix Zain -- Property and Privilege

Property is theft. -- P.J. Proudhon

Property is liberty. -- P.J. Proudhon

Property is impossible. -- P.J. Proudhon

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with the subscripts attached for maximum clarity.

"Property1 is theft" means that property1 created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction.

"Property2 is liberty" means that property2, that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people's interests are co-mingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by the parties to it, can true independence be achieved.

"Property3 is impossible" means that property3 (=property1) creates so much conflict of interest that society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties 1 and 3 as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle. He also foresaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos.

It is averred, of course, that property2 will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most alleged libertarians -- especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand -- is to assume that all property1 is property2. The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, "Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?" If it be the former, it is property2 and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property1 and represents theft.

[From: The Illuminatus! Trilogy]

CAPITALISM

The term 'capitalism' is as semantically unstable as the term 'liberalism' and will rarely mean the same thing for two people in an argument -- or even an agreement -- or even for one person in a private monolog from one moment to the next.

Even its denotations diverge:

denotation

1.

The private ownership of the means of production by individuals. (See IDEOLOGICAL CAPITALISM.)

(Please note that this is the one and only definition of capitalism that could count as ideological. All others are economic, strategic, or emotional.)

(Note also that "corporate capitalism" -- the private ownership of the means of production by collectives -- is not the same thing. Under the State, a corporation is a collective entity that is treated as an individual person. The State-sanctioned corporation is not a person in any moral sense, but is merely a legal fiction created to shield individual persons from responsibility for the actions of the entity that generates their profits. See POLITICAL CAPITALISM.)

2.

Profit from capital -- in contrast to compensation for labor.

3.

An economic system based on prioritizing profit and prioritizing capital.

connotation

1.

A commercial economy -- a market where the emphasis is on commerce and profit.

2.

Any system that prioritizes capital over labor.

3.

A free market in labor, in the context of a monopoly on capital. (Tucker)

[See the various essays on capitalism at BlackCrayon.com.]

bkMarcus

IDEOLOGICAL CAPITALISM

Ideologically, then, the term 'capitalism' can be understood to mean the rejection of the Marxist thesis. Ideological capitalism is the position that private individuals can legitimately own the means of production: sewing machines and spades, tractors and factories.

By this meaning, ideological capitalism is solidly in keeping with philosophical individualism, which rejects the very existence of "society" as the sort of entity that could own anything. Collective ownership -- in the ideological sense -- depends on philosophical collectivism.

bkMarcus, Reluctant Capitalist


ECONOMIC CAPITALISM

Economic capitalism is a free market in privately held property titles, including titles for "infrastructural capital" (technology) and "natural capital" (land).

It is often called 'laissez-faire capitalism' or sometimes 'pure capitalism' or even 'true capitalism' by those who want to tie the economic concept back to the ethical position of ideological capitalism.

(Contrast with POLITICAL CAPITALISM.)

bkMarcus, Reluctant Capitalist

Your property is that which you control the use of. If most things are controlled by individuals, individually or in voluntary association, a society is capitalist. If such control is spread fairly evenly among a large number of people, the society approximates competitive free enterprise -- better than ours does. If its members call it socialist, why should I object?

Socialism is dead. Long live socialism.

David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism


If commercial activity were unregulated and absolutely unsubsidized, it could depend upon only one factor for success -- pleasing customers.

Karl Hess, "The Death of Politics", Playboy, March 1969


The market economy is the social system of the division of labor under private ownership of the means of production. Everybody acts on his own behalf; but everybody's actions aim at the satisfaction of other people's needs as well as at the satisfaction of his own. Everybody in acting serves his fellow citizens. Everybody, on the other hand, is served by his fellow citizens. Everybody is both a means and an end in himself, an ultimate end for himself and a means to other people in their endeavors to attain their own ends.

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

POLITICAL CAPITALISM

That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

The Illuminatus! Trilogy


Political capitalism is my term for what anarcho-capitalists call "State Capitalism" -- government run for the benefit of private capitalists.

(I use the term 'political capitalism' in part to contrast political means with economic means, and in part to avoid confusion with the term 'State Capitalism' as it was used by anti-Soviet leftists, who claimed that the Soviet Union could not properly be seen as communist or even anti-capitalist because the state monopoly had taken over the role of the capitalist in exploiting the proletariat, rather than abolishing the role and liberating the proletariat.)

Political capitalism is anti-competitive because established capitalists use the coercive power of the State to curtail entrepreneurial competition. Notice that political capitalism is incompatible with a free market.

bkMarcus, Reluctant Capitalist

(Imperialism, mercantilism, protectionism, and statist, so-called "free trade" treaties (e.g., NAFTA) are all examples of political capitalism. So is "Corporate Capitalism": the State-sanctioned corporation is a legal fiction created to shield individual persons from responsibility for the actions of the entity that generates their profits.)

bkMarcus

Thatcherism is all too similar to Reaganism: free-market rhetoric masking statist content.

Murray N. Rothbard,
Making Economic Sense,
Chapter 62:Mrs. Thatcher's Poll Tax

Big business in America today and for some years has been openly at war with competition and, thus, at war with laissez-faire capitalism. Big business supports a form of state capitalism in which government and big business act as partners.

[...]

This is not to say that economic bigness is bad. It isn't, if it results from economic efficiency. But it is bad if it results from collusion with political, rather than with economic power.

Karl Hess, "The Death of Politics", Playboy, March 1969

The Divine Right of Capital
GNN, July 6, 2004

Author of the groundbreaking The Divine Right of Capital, Marjorie Kelly is the founder of Business Ethics magazine and a leader in the corporate reform movement. Kelly argues that blind devotion to short-term profits for stockholders over the well-being of everyone else is equivalent to corporate feudalism. She says nothing short of a peaceful democratic revolution in American business can save global capitalism from itself:

GNN: How did you start down this path?

Kelly: When I started Business Ethics I thought that socially responsible business people changing their own companies was how we could transform capitalism. But I no longer believe that. I believe that the problems are at the systems level.

What’s wrong comes down to one thing: that is the corporate mandate to maximize returns to shareholders, and that includes making CEOs rich. The system is designed to make a few people rich - the very wealthy, the one percent who own half the stock and the CEOs who own the companies.

Disparities in wealth are not an accidental by-product of the system, they are the direct result of the system design. It is a system designed by the few, for the few."

GNN: Tell me about the metaphor of a corporate aristocracy that you use in your book.

Kelly: This goes back to the time of kings and nobles when a very few people held all the wealth and power, and that was how the world was supposed to be. We moved into a new world of democracy, but we have only democratized government. We have yet to democratize economics.

The hallmark of democracy is equality. The hallmark of artistocracy is privilege. Privilege comes from the root word, privus, which means private law. It benefits a few people and not everyone else. In a corporation, only those who own stock vote. This is the private law. Since the wealthiest one percent own half of all stock, they have control over corporations. The more wealthy you are, the more wealth you have. That is privilege under a financial aristocracy.

[...]

It’s time for a new revolution.

We democratized government in 1776, it’s time we democratized economics. Employees ought to be able to impeach their CEO. Employees ought to be able to have a stake in their company. If a company is going to have massive lay-offs that are going to affect a community, the community ought to have a say in that - democratic input into corporate decisions.

It would kill any economy, period. There would be no way to determine what processes to use to produce, as there's no market.

That is an idea at the core of non-monetary non-Capitalist society, that the market isn't necessary. People will produce what they need to survive and what they want to be happy regardless of whether they have money (which is just a representitive for utility and only acts as a medium of exchange) or not. There was no science of economics until the free market appeared. "The economy" did not exist until Capitalism began spreading through Europe. Reverting to a non-monetary (or at the very least non-monopolistic monetary) system would in fact destroy the concept of the economy, but it wouldn't matter. People survive for thousands of years without an economy as we think of it now and there is no reason to believe they couldn't do so again.

With that said, however, the idea of an entirely non-monetary system is no more functional or desirable than a simple and truly free market. The concept of the free market include the free exchange of moneys. In most countries today there is only one currency and larger organizations such as the EU are attempting to create regional currencies. Certainly there are advantages (for the government) to the creation of a universal currency, but a monopoly on currency acts like any other monopoly. By monopolizing the production and manipulation of currency and demanding taxes to support this endevour governments maintain their interference with the free market. By removing governmental interference within a society of free rationalists and allowing for the production of currency by anyone a truly free market could be created. The free market is a self correcting system and tends to work toward greatest efficiency and greatest output. When monopolies form individuals can affect the workings of the market to create greater individual profits but with an otherwise universally bad result. Ideally, in a free society monopolies would not form. Of course that's an ideal, but like everything else we are discussing here ideals are as good as anything else for now. If the time comes that an anarcho-capitalist society is to be implemented it will become meaningful to discuss how a society would maintain its free nature, but in the mean time discussing the workings of such a society is enough.

It would kill any economy, period. There would be no way to determine what processes to use to produce, as there's no market.

People would discuss need. There would be a communal meeting or something along those lines.

Tiny minority? Oh, you confuse "everyone" with "tiny minority". Silly you.

We don't all own businesses.

Utter lie.

Hardly. Why aren't the people in third world countries starting their own businesses instead of working in sweatshops if anyone can do it?

The US is not a free market, it is a mercantilist welfare state. To judge "capitalism" (which means everything to everyone) by a state where a third of your income is confiscated by the govt and there are over 70 000 pages of coercively enforced regulations is absurd. A real free market has always achieved the opposite of what you claim. Criticism I can stand, lies I cannot.

And yet when capitalism was less regulated, it was even worse. Haven't you ever heard of The Jungle?

There is no "class conspiracy" you paranoid loser.

The rest of your post was jabbering nonsense. If you have intelligent criticism go ahead. Your ignorance of economics is making you seem foolish.

Goodbye troll. Anyone who claims to be an anarcho-anything, yet denies there's a "class conspiracy", when it's staring them in the face, it's obviously bizarrely deluded and possibly insane. While the goddess welcomes your introduction of irrationality, you have nothing to offer a debate other than insults. Go talk to someone who wants to listen.

Vas.

1. People would discuss need. There would be a communal meeting or something along those lines.

2. We don't all own businesses.

3. Hardly. Why aren't the people in third world countries starting their own businesses instead of working in sweatshops if anyone can do it?

4. And yet when capitalism was less regulated, it was even worse. Haven't you ever heard of The Jungle?
1. Not enough. Say your making a railway and there's a mountain in the way. Do you go over it, around it, or through it? On the market you do what's cheapest. Without a market you don't know and end up wasting scarcer resources and ultimately this is what destroys wealth. Efficiency is still important even without the price system to gauge it by, except now you have to guess.

2. You own something. You could own a business if you are honest and work hard, at least in a free market you could where there are not mountains of regulaiton.

3. It pays better than being self employed.

4. Free markets do better than socialist planners assuming everything else is the same. Comparing the unregulated stone age with regulated 21st century is unscientific, to put it kindly.

Goodbye troll. Anyone who claims to be an anarcho-anything, yet denies there's a "class conspiracy", when it's staring them in the face, it's obviously bizarrely deluded and possibly insane. While the goddess welcomes your introduction of irrationality, you have nothing to offer a debate other than insults. Go talk to someone who wants to listen.

Vas.
Sorry, I was out of line. But still there is no class conspiracy and you will only generate a distorted and hate filled world view by believing there is.

Goodbye troll. Anyone who claims to be an anarcho-anything, yet denies there's a "class conspiracy", when it's staring them in the face, it's obviously bizarrely deluded and possibly insane. While the goddess welcomes your introduction of irrationality, you have nothing to offer a debate other than insults. Go talk to someone who wants to listen.

Vas.
Sorry, I was out of line. But still there is no class conspiracy and you will only generate a distorted and hate filled world view by believing there is.

And yet when capitalism was less regulated, it was even worse. Haven't you ever heard of The Jungle?

Letila, I know your heart is in the right place. I know you only want to right the wrongs of this fucked-up society we all struggle to live in, but adding more regulations to the mountains of regulations already in place is completely anathema to the spirit of anarchism.

What you advocate is not an-archy (the absence of hierarchy). Who will enforce your regulations? The state? The society? Who watches the watchmen?

"Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden." [Illuminatus!]

The above quote uses the term "liberal" in the modern American sense of the word. The modern American sense of the word has been distorted from its original meaning. For example, the 19th-century liberal held the same principles as the 20th-century individualist libertarian -- freedom from coercion on both personal and economic matters.

As the term 'liberal' changed in the 20th century, from designating an individualist philosophy to something more collectivist (and influenced significantly by moderate forms of state socialism), the term Classical Liberalism was used to indicate the pre-collectivist liberalism of the previous century.

Unfortunately, contemporary use of the term Classical Liberalism seems to emphasize economic freedom over civil liberties.

Even more unfortunate is the common association of Classical Liberalism with conservative politics.

Here's another quote (yes, another one!) to explain this more eloquently than I ever could:

The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term "liberal" in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.

It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the convservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desireable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
(from the preface to the 1956 American paperback edition)

It would kill any economy, period. There would be no way to determine what processes to use to produce, as there's no market.

If the economy is the transfer of wealth, then yes. But the market is simply a monetary term for supply and demand. Free distribution would be based on need first, followed by desirability. Demand would remain, and supply would be tailored towards demand - without the deliberate imposition of shortage common in modern capitalism. For example, we have, in the EU, an organisation that will remove produce from the market, that will tell producer to limit their produce below their capacity, to retain the price. In other cases, there is over production leading to massive waste, due to large scale operations such as supermarkets bulk-buying produce at greatly reduced price to sell to market that does not want the entire produce.

Free distribution is not only completely sustainable, it would actually lead to greater production by removing the capitalist need for shortage, and more targetted production by producing exactly what a society needs and wants (and, before anyone tries the usual criticism, putting some stock into storage for a "rainy day" is a societal need included in the above).

All critiques of a non-monetary system are based in the monetary system and it's associated preconceptions. Looked at with an open mind, it makes very clear and simple sense.

Vas.

Letila, I know your heart is in the right place. I know you only want to right the wrongs of this fucked-up society we all struggle to live in, but adding more regulations to the mountains of regulations already in place is completely anathema to the spirit of anarchism.

It was an example. I don't actually advocate it, but I was demonstrating what unregulated capitalism is like.

1. Not enough. Say your making a railway and there's a mountain in the way. Do you go over it, around it, or through it? On the market you do what's cheapest.

Christ, this is exactly what's wrong with capitalism. What's cheapest is not necessarily best - skimping on safety, destroying the environment, exploiting workers - all these reduce costs. Economies of scale can make the least efficient methods the cheapest, again, look at large supermarket chains. Rather than sourcing their supplies locally, they're supplied from a central storage system. This means that produce is collected from point a, shipped hundreds of miles (thousands if it's the US) to point b and then shipped out to point c. It's often the fact that point a and point c are near each other. Economies of scale in capitalism generally involve massive waste. And, do you know where they make the cheapest roads in the world? Burma/Myanmar, because they use their population as slave labour.

2. You own something. You could own a business if you are honest and work hard, at least in a free market you could where there are not mountains of regulaiton.

First, bollox. You're more likely to own a business if you already have capital. A truly free market is impossible unless you impose a level playing field to begin with - imposing socialism. Trade between unequal partners is not trade, it's highway robbery. Secondly, if you won a business, you are required to hire people to make it run (unless all businesses are one-man operations), making you their master. Anarchism has no masters, thus capitalism - owning businesses - is incompatible with anarchism.

3. It pays better than being self employed.

Only through the generation of profit - creaming off the surplus value of what your workers create over what they are paid - exploitation, which is incompatible with anarchism.

4. Free markets do better than socialist planners assuming everything else is the same. Comparing the unregulated stone age with regulated 21st century is unscientific, to put it kindly.

That depends completely on what your measure is. Growth is only one measure, education, health, life expectancy, social freedom - all these are stronger in countries like Holland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark - all democratic socialist to a greater or lesser degree - than in more capitalist economies like the US.

Vas.

Sorry, I was out of line. But still there is no class conspiracy and you will only generate a distorted and hate filled world view by believing there is.

It's quite simple to prove - the US election. Two candidates with any chance of winning, both rich, both connected with rich dynasties (Bush a member of one, Kerry married into one), both attended Ivy League schools, basically - both members of the US elite. Compare this to the average black youth in the US - more likely to end up in prison, more likely to live in an environment of drugs and crime, more likely to be born into a family on welfare, less likely to go to college, etc. There is a class war going on with the elites versus the rest. Unless you realise that and take up the fight, you're completely deluded and nothing even close to an anarchist.

No war but the class war.

Vas.

That is an idea at the core of non-monetary non-Capitalist society, that the market isn't necessary.

That idea is a load of crap.

People will produce what they need to survive and what they want to be happy regardless of whether they have money (which is just a representitive for utility and only acts as a medium of exchange) or not.

Money is more than a medium of exchange insofar as metal is used. Gold was money. It was also jewelry, decorations, etc.

And just how much can people produce in a non-market system? What sort of subsistence-level life will they have, if that?

There was no science of economics until the free market appeared. "The economy" did not exist until Capitalism began spreading through Europe. Reverting to a non-monetary (or at the very least non-monopolistic monetary) system would in fact destroy the concept of the economy, but it wouldn't matter. People survive for thousands of years without an economy as we think of it now and there is no reason to believe they couldn't do so again.

At what quality of life? Do we want to go back to those times?

With that said, however, the idea of an entirely non-monetary system is no more functional or desirable than a simple and truly free market.

Actually, a truly free market is desirable. For if it is not truly free, then force is involved.

The concept of the free market include the free exchange of moneys. In most countries today there is only one currency and larger organizations such as the EU are attempting to create regional currencies. Certainly there are advantages (for the government) to the creation of a universal currency, but a monopoly on currency acts like any other monopoly. By monopolizing the production and manipulation of currency and demanding taxes to support this endevour governments maintain their interference with the free market. By removing governmental interference within a society of free rationalists and allowing for the production of currency by anyone a truly free market could be created.

Of course. There's also the monetary interference of the government just printing money as it desires, causing inflation.

The free market is a self correcting system and tends to work toward greatest efficiency and greatest output. When monopolies form individuals can affect the workings of the market to create greater individual profits but with an otherwise universally bad result. Ideally, in a free society monopolies would not form.

Well, they could in a natural, but not coercive, sense.

Of course that's an ideal, but like everything else we are discussing here ideals are as good as anything else for now. If the time comes that an anarcho-capitalist society is to be implemented it will become meaningful to discuss how a society would maintain its free nature, but in the mean time discussing the workings of such a society is enough.

Insofar as is possible.

Actually, a truly free market is desirable. For if it is not truly free, then force is involved.

There is force in capitalism. How else do you think property is enforced?

That idea is a load of crap.

Indepth political argument from you as well. Good stuff. Free exchange happens already - voluntary activity, filesharing, freeware, etc. The market is not necessary, it's an imposed system for the profit of others.

And just how much can people produce in a non-market system? What sort of subsistence-level life will they have, if that?

Exactly the same, if not more. Supply and demand are not functions of the market, the market is simply the current method of linking the two - it is the middle man of economics. Free distribution simply removes the middle man for the benefits of the majority rather than the minority.

Actually, a truly free market is desirable. For if it is not truly free, then force is involved.

A truly free market is impossible. How do you force someone to pay without the threat of force? In a free society, given the choice of paying for something or legimitately getting it free, what do you think most people will choose? If the conditions exist wherein both anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are possible, simple logic dictates that people will opt for a free distribution system over a market system when given the choice.

Of course. There's also the monetary interference of the government just printing money as it desires, causing inflation.

If you actually look, that rarely happens anymore, instead we have governments getting increasingly into hock to private companies through part-privatisation (particularly in the UK), wasting public money, as companies realise they no longer need their creation - the modern state. "Representative" government is the product of capitalism, not an obstacle.

Vas.

It would kill any economy, period. There would be no way to determine what processes to use to produce, as there's no market.

People would discuss need. There would be a communal meeting or something along those lines.

And there would be a majority vote or something along those lines. Or a committee which listened and decided. GOVERNMENT.


Tiny minority? Oh, you confuse "everyone" with "tiny minority". Silly you.

We don't all own businesses.

But we could if we wanted to.


Utter lie.

Hardly. Why aren't the people in third world countries starting their own businesses instead of working in sweatshops if anyone can do it?

Because their government has either recently come out of colonial rule or interferes too much in the economy or they haven't industrialized enough. There are a multitude of variables.


The US is not a free market, it is a mercantilist welfare state. To judge "capitalism" (which means everything to everyone) by a state where a third of your income is confiscated by the govt and there are over 70 000 pages of coercively enforced regulations is absurd. A real free market has always achieved the opposite of what you claim. Criticism I can stand, lies I cannot.


And yet when capitalism was less regulated, it was even worse. Haven't you ever heard of The Jungle?

Yes. That was during a time of a lot of regulation, AAMOF. And payoffs. Kickbacks. Governmental corruption. Tamany Hall.

Goodbye troll. Anyone who claims to be an anarcho-anything, yet denies there's a "class conspiracy", when it's staring them in the face, it's obviously bizarrely deluded and possibly insane.

Anyone who claims anything about a class conspiracy yet

1. Cannot provide evidence of it
2. Can't evidence describe what "class" is

is obviously deluded and quite stupid.

If the economy is the transfer of wealth, then yes. But the market is simply a monetary term for supply and demand. Free distribution would be based on need first, followed by desirability.

Say I need a cornea for cataracts. Does free distribution imply forced distribution?

Demand would remain, and supply would be tailored towards demand - without the deliberate imposition of shortage common in modern capitalism.

Oh--you mean that scarcity wouldn't happen? Bub, reality says that things are scarce. Live with it.

For example, we have, in the EU, an organisation that will remove produce from the market, that will tell producer to limit their produce below their capacity, to retain the price.

Yes, we have that in the US, too. It's called farm subsidies. And it's crap.

In other cases, there is over production leading to massive waste, due to large scale operations such as supermarkets bulk-buying produce at greatly reduced price to sell to market that does not want the entire produce.

They then find out that they shouldn't sell those things.

Free distribution is not only completely sustainable, it would actually lead to greater production by removing the capitalist need for shortage,

There is no such need.

and more targetted production by producing exactly what a society needs and wants (and, before anyone tries the usual criticism, putting some stock into storage for a "rainy day" is a societal need included in the above).

Needs and wants can ONLY be found through a market.

All critiques of a non-monetary system are based in the monetary system and it's associated preconceptions. Looked at with an open mind, it makes very clear and simple sense.

No, it doesn't. You've obviously left your mind so open that your brain has fallen out.

There is force in capitalism. How else do you think property is enforced?

Ah, the idiot speaks again.

Tell me--do you know the difference between initiatory and retaliatory force, hmmm?

Get back to me when you do.

Until then, you're dismissed to think about why you would use force to keep someone from killing you. Remember: YOUR BODY IS YOUR PROPERTY.

That idea is a load of crap.

Indepth political argument from you as well.

It is. Thank you.

Good stuff. Free exchange happens already - voluntary activity, filesharing, freeware, etc. The market is not necessary, it's an imposed system for the profit of others.

Ah, but the market IS there already. False analogy.


And just how much can people produce in a non-market system? What sort of subsistence-level life will they have, if that?

Exactly the same, if not more.

Then show it.

Supply and demand are not functions of the market, the market is simply the current method of linking the two - it is the middle man of economics. Free distribution simply removes the middle man for the benefits of the majority rather than the minority.

The market benefits all. Free distribution benefits no one. Because in the end--no one will want to produce anything. They will have no means to calculate how efficacious a method of production is. They will not be able to gauge anything.


Actually, a truly free market is desirable. For if it is not truly free, then force is involved.

A truly free market is impossible.

Of course it's not.

How do you force someone to pay without the threat of force?

Ah, you and Letila. A pair of morons. Can't grasp the difference between initiatory and retaliatory force. Freedom means that people would not use INITIATORY force. Somehow, that mind-bogglingly simple concept escapes you.

In a free society, given the choice of paying for something or legimitately getting it free, what do you think most people will choose?

They would get it for free IFF the person distributing gives it away. But people have to know what methods of production to use. Only a market can give them any notion of efficiency.

If the conditions exist wherein both anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism are possible, simple logic dictates that people will opt for a free distribution system over a market system when given the choice.

anarchocommunism isn't about free-distribution.


Of course. There's also the monetary interference of the government just printing money as it desires, causing inflation.

If you actually look, that rarely happens anymore,

Except, you mean, that it has happened in Japan and the US.

instead we have governments getting increasingly into hock to private companies through part-privatisation (particularly in the UK), wasting public money, as companies realise they no longer need their creation - the modern state.

We never needed it to begin with.

"Representative" government is the product of capitalism, not an obstacle.

No. It's the product of Enlightenment thinking and has become an obstacle.

Ah, the idiot speaks again.

You're lucky I'm an anarchist because that was a flame.

Until then, you're dismissed to think about why you would use force to keep someone from killing you. Remember: YOUR BODY IS YOUR PROPERTY.

There is a huge difference between your body and a transnational corporation, particularly in the types of relationships ownership of each generates.

In addition, I would use force to keep someone from killing me because I don't enjoy being killed, not because of some notion of property. People are not property, they are thinking beings.

Say I need a cornea for cataracts. Does free distribution imply forced distribution?

No, but unlike capitalism, you can get one without having to worry about poverty.

Oh--you mean that scarcity wouldn't happen? Bub, reality says that things are scarce. Live with it.

Last time I checked, there was enough food for us all to live. There is no scarcity other than what capitalists generate.

Needs and wants can ONLY be found through a market.

Hardly. People can discuss issues such as need without a market.

And there would be a majority vote or something along those lines. Or a committee which listened and decided. GOVERNMENT.

That isn't a government, unless a corporation telling you what to do is a government as well. You seem to think that anything that makes decisions is a government. How is voting a government but ordering workers around not?

But we could if we wanted to.

Sure. Everyone just prefers to take orders all day rather than start their own business. Do you really believe that people choose unemployment over starting their own businesses?

Because their government has either recently come out of colonial rule or interferes too much in the economy or they haven't industrialized enough. There are a multitude of variables.

I suppose the US taking advantage of low wages isn't one of them.

Yes. That was during a time of a lot of regulation, AAMOF. And payoffs. Kickbacks. Governmental corruption. Tamany Hall.

Then can you name a time when capitalism wasn't regulated?

We don't all own businesses.
But we could if we wanted to.

yes, but then we would have socialism.

to make things clearer, we cannot all be capitalists. we cannot all make a living purely through ownership of the means of production. it is impossible. to make a living by merely owning the means of production and distribution requires you to get others to work for you and pay them less than the value they produce - to charge them rent in order to use 'your property'. that requires the existence of at least two distinct classes: owners and workers. it also requires that workers make up the vast majority of the population and owners make up a tiny elite. there is no other way for capitalism to exist.

Anyone who claims anything about a class conspiracy yet

1. Cannot provide evidence of it

Pay attention, I already have.

2. Can't evidence describe what "class" is

A class - a section of society distinguished by their economic status and the power relations associated with that:
1. Upper class - hereditary position attended by a concept of god-given authority (largely obselete in modern society).
2. Middle classes - capitalist property owners, landlords, proprietors. Power derived from ownership of the means of production, as well as political power granted by sponsorship of political parties.
3. Professional classes - section of the working classes that considers itself middle class - those with skill that give them a position of authority in society due to their skill, but generally no real power (unless they become actual middle class through the acquisition of capital) - teachers, doctors, lawyers.
3. Working classes - those who do not own capital property, often not owning their personal property either (mortgage, debts, etc). Typified by working for others, no power granted by the system - power only seized through solidarity and activism.

is obviously deluded and quite stupid.

Troll.

Vas.

Ah, but the market IS there already. False analogy.

The market doesn't just "exist", the market is enforced - for example, legal cases against those who fileshare, talk of cases against open source software because it's "un-american", legal action against squatters, privatisation of public infrastructure, etc.

The market benefits all. Free distribution benefits no one. Because in the end--no one will want to produce anything. They will have no means to calculate how efficacious a method of production is. They will not be able to gauge anything.

This is complete nonsense. Money is not the be all and end all. Opportunity cost, product resulting from effort, all of these are true measures of efficacy. If Bob produced ten loaves of bread a day with one method and Tim produces fifty, then Tim's method is most likely more efficient (if all other factors are the same). By your argument, it's fundamentally impossible to start up a new business - new businesses are based on estimates and rarely reach their actual financial value for a long period. The efficacy of the business must be measured by non-market factors.

Ah, you and Letila. A pair of morons. Can't grasp the difference between initiatory and retaliatory force. Freedom means that people would not use INITIATORY force.

Bullshit. The threat of retaliatory force, which would be constant if never actualised, is coercion. It's a slippery slop from using coercion to defend the market to creating a state - it's exactly how the state was formed.

They would get it for free IFF the person distributing gives it away. But people have to know what methods of production to use. Only a market can give them any notion of efficiency.

Rubbish, the market simply quantifies opportunity cost, which can easily be quantified in personal or social costs rather than monetary. You're completely obsessed with the method and not the fundamentals.

anarchocommunism isn't about free-distribution.

How the hell would you know? The theory of anarchist communism was outlined in "the Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin, as was the economic priniciple of free distribution.

Vas.

That idea is a load of crap.

Boy, you really set me in my place on that one.

Money is more than a medium of exchange insofar as metal is used. Gold was money. It was also jewelry, decorations, etc.

And just how much can people produce in a non-market system? What sort of subsistence-level life will they have, if that?

Jewelry isn't money. Gold can be made into both money and jewelry, but in transforming from gold ore into either coins or rings it becomes that thing and nothing else.

What reason would a person have to stop producing, even when cut off entirely from the rest of society? There is no reason to believe that a group of people without a market could not produce the same goods without the intent of selling them.

At what quality of life? Do we want to go back to those times?

The quality of life changed primarily not because of the advent of Capitalism, but because of a rapid increase in technology, primarily communication technology.



Actually, a truly free market is desirable. For if it is not truly free, then force is involved.

I fail to see how that differentiates itself from what I said.

Of course. There's also the monetary interference of the government just printing money as it desires, causing inflation.

There's more involved than that and I really don't feel like going into it right now.

I would like to offer the position of "Champion of Libertovania" to BAAWA since he has consistently and intelligently defended everything we stand for and brought joy to my heart or something.

Christ, this is exactly what's wrong with capitalism. What's cheapest is not necessarily best - skimping on safety, destroying the environment, exploiting workers - all these reduce costs. Economies of scale can make the least efficient methods the cheapest, again, look at large supermarket chains. Rather than sourcing their supplies locally, they're supplied from a central storage system. This means that produce is collected from point a, shipped hundreds of miles (thousands if it's the US) to point b and then shipped out to point c. It's often the fact that point a and point c are near each other. Economies of scale in capitalism generally involve massive waste. And, do you know where they make the cheapest roads in the world? Burma/Myanmar, because they use their population as slave labour.
Cheapest isn't always best but when it comes to deciding whether to make steel or aluminium cars it is. People don't do what's cheapest, they do what gives them most satisfaction. Cost is just one factor in that. If it was cheaper for supermarkets to do things locally they would. It obviously isn't, probably due to administration costs and irregularity of supply. Do you know what "economies of scale" means?

First, bollox. You're more likely to own a business if you already have capital. A truly free market is impossible unless you impose a level playing field to begin with - imposing socialism. Trade between unequal partners is not trade, it's highway robbery. Secondly, if you won a business, you are required to hire people to make it run (unless all businesses are one-man operations), making you their master. Anarchism has no masters, thus capitalism - owning businesses - is incompatible with anarchism.
If I had to quote one phrase to represent all that's wrong with ansoc it would be this one. You don't win a prize though. Trade between unequal partners..... What? What a silly notion. If I knew whose ass you pulled that out of I might be able to correct you but as far as I see it's a ridiculous and unjustified assertion. Without a market you can't even measure equality of wealth! Anarchism has no masters? If your wife threatens not to have sex if you don't cut the grass is that hierarchy? If someone doesn't want to be raped is that hierarchy? I'd like you to define "hierarchy" so I can tear it to shreds, please.

Only through the generation of profit - creaming off the surplus value of what your workers create over what they are paid - exploitation, which is incompatible with anarchism.
If a sick person in you corporation - er, sorry, commune - eats food you've grown is that exploitation and thus incompatible with "anarchism"?

That depends completely on what your measure is. Growth is only one measure, education, health, life expectancy, social freedom - all these are stronger in countries like Holland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark - all democratic socialist to a greater or lesser degree - than in more capitalist economies like the US.

Why are they stronger? Because these countries used to have freeish markets. Stronger than where? That place with a real free market? Where's that then? Lets see where Denmark is in 20 years time.

Earlier apology withdrawn. You're clueless.

A class - a section of society distinguished by their economic status and the power relations associated with that:
1. Upper class - hereditary position attended by a concept of god-given authority (largely obselete in modern society).
2. Middle classes - capitalist property owners, landlords, proprietors. Power derived from ownership of the means of production, as well as political power granted by sponsorship of political parties.
3. Professional classes - section of the working classes that considers itself middle class - those with skill that give them a position of authority in society due to their skill, but generally no real power (unless they become actual middle class through the acquisition of capital) - teachers, doctors, lawyers.
3. Working classes - those who do not own capital property, often not owning their personal property either (mortgage, debts, etc). Typified by working for others, no power granted by the system - power only seized through solidarity and activism.

5. Racket classes - those who play tennis, badminton and squash.

What do you hope to achieve by grouping people together into meaningless bundles? Class analysis has no use because people don't act as classes, they act as individuals. Who says, "well, I don't want to do this but I'll take one for my class"? What are you, Hindu?

yes, but then we would have socialism.

to make things clearer, we cannot all be capitalists. we cannot all make a living purely through ownership of the means of production. it is impossible. to make a living by merely owning the means of production and distribution requires you to get others to work for you and pay them less than the value they produce - to charge them rent in order to use 'your property'. that requires the existence of at least two distinct classes: owners and workers. it also requires that workers make up the vast majority of the population and owners make up a tiny elite. there is no other way for capitalism to exist.
There's no contradiction in owning shares and working too. Besides, he means any individual could own a business. You are confusing yourself by mixing up the free market system, which you call capitalism, with owners of capital, capitalists. This is a deliberate ploy to insinuate that the free market = rule by capitalists - it isn't. Besides, everyone is a capitalist since they own at least one means of production, their own body, and probably many other tools too.

Cheapest isn't always best but when it comes to deciding whether to make steel or aluminium cars it is.

No it isn't, numerous other factors, separate from cost, are involved - ease of mining, ease of use in production, weight of metal, etc, etc, etc.

People don't do what's cheapest, they do what gives them most satisfaction.

Exactly, which is why a non-monetary system would work.

Cost is just one factor in that. If it was cheaper for supermarkets to do things locally they would. It obviously isn't, probably due to administration costs and irregularity of supply. Do you know what "economies of scale" means?

Yes, it means that, because they're big, inefficiency isn't a major problem. The reason local sourcing is more expensive than centralised supply is simply this: it grants the supermarkets greater bargaining power in negotiations with farmers. It eradicates location as a factor in negotiations, as transport of goods is largely constant wherever the producer is. Small shops will prefer the local producer, giving the farmer the ability to ask for a better price. The supermarkets don't care, literally bullying the farmers into reducing their price. Another example of capitalism impoverishing rather than enriching workers.

If I had to quote one phrase to represent all that's wrong with ansoc it would be this one. You don't win a prize though. Trade between unequal partners..... What? What a silly notion. If I knew whose ass you pulled that out of I might be able to correct you but as far as I see it's a ridiculous and unjustified assertion.

As outlined above. A supplier negotiates with a small shop. They're largely equal, the farmer can get a decent price for his goods. A supplier negotiates with a supermarket chain, the chain is all powerful, it doesn't need this supplier, just the cheapest. The supermarket is powerful enough to rob the farmer of his produce at an unfair price, because the alternative is starvation.

Without a market you can't even measure equality of wealth!

Great! Wealth is a bullshit concept. The question needn't be how rich I am, it should be whether or not I have enough to eat, somewhere to live, clothes to wear and a reasonable level of comfort and enjoyment. These are easy to measure, wealth is a pointless abstract.

Anarchism has no masters? If your wife threatens not to have sex if you don't cut the grass is that hierarchy? If someone doesn't want to be raped is that hierarchy? I'd like you to define "hierarchy" so I can tear it to shreds, please.

A person or group having coercive power over a larger group.

If a sick person in you corporation - er, sorry, commune - eats food you've grown is that exploitation and thus incompatible with "anarchism"?

No, it's a fundamental principle of anarchism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Why are they stronger? Because these countries used to have freeish markets. Stronger than where? That place with a real free market? Where's that then? Lets see where Denmark is in 20 years time.

You've completely ignored the context of my statement. Try reading what I wrote.

Earlier apology withdrawn. You're clueless.

You're still a troll. If I were a billy-goat, I'd be scared.

Vas.

What do you hope to achieve by grouping people together into meaningless bundles? Class analysis has no use because people don't act as classes, they act as individuals. Who says, "well, I don't want to do this but I'll take one for my class"? What are you, Hindu?

Of course people act as classes. Look at any tax debate and you'll see it. Look at any political party and how they tailor their policies. Class is everywhere. It's like saying that it's useless to categorise people by race when combatting racism, or categorise people by gender when combatting sexism. Anarchists combat classism, the concentration of power in the hands of certain economic groups, with the view of abolishing class and hierarchy.

And, if you can't understand this, then leave. This is the Anarchist Thread. It's not the "Abuse an anarchist thread". If you can't grasp that we have well thought out, historically-based, concepts and ideas, then just go away.

Vas.

There's no contradiction in owning shares and working too. Besides, he means any individual could own a business. You are confusing yourself by mixing up the free market system, which you call capitalism, with owners of capital, capitalists.

Perhaps any individual can own a business, but not everyone can individually own a business. This is the point. Perhaps, initially, the opportunity exists for all, but the first one to succeed will automatically gain power over others who become his employees. If, as "anarcho-capitalists" outline, there is not state to restrict the market, the only people with power are those who run businesses. They will form militias to protect their business and their contracts, they will write the rules for their employees, they will control the wages and the conditions of their employees - in other words, they become little states themselves - exactly as they did at the birth of capitalism. And this, in turn, led to capitalists co-operating to form states - individual militias became police forces, employment rules became laws, etc. In other words, for the upteenth time, capitalism creates the state.

Vas.

Ah, the idiot speaks again.

You're lucky I'm an anarchist because that was a flame.

So what?


Until then, you're dismissed to think about why you would use force to keep someone from killing you. Remember: YOUR BODY IS YOUR PROPERTY.

There is a huge difference between your body and a transnational corporation,

Not in terms of property rights there isn't.

In addition, I would use force to keep someone from killing me because I don't enjoy being killed, not because of some notion of property.

And why don't you enjoy being killed? Because YOUR LIFE IS YOUR PROPERTY!

Your life and your body are YOUR PROPERTY. That's one of the reasons why murder and rape are wrong.


Say I need a cornea for cataracts. Does free distribution imply forced distribution?

No,

Then it's not a need-based system, is it?

but unlike capitalism, you can get one without having to worry about poverty.

Explain how.


Oh--you mean that scarcity wouldn't happen? Bub, reality says that things are scarce. Live with it.

Last time I checked, there was enough food for us all to live.

Last time I checked, someone had to grow that food. Idiots who deny scarcity deny the crux of supply/demand and have no clue as to economics.


Needs and wants can ONLY be found through a market.

Hardly. People can discuss issues such as need without a market.

Hardly. They will have no basis for efficiency. No basis for alternatives. No basis for anything.


And there would be a majority vote or something along those lines. Or a committee which listened and decided. GOVERNMENT.

That isn't a government,

Yes, that is. It has a monopoly on using initiatory force (since that will have to be used to make the people comply with the production orders) in that geographic area, and dispenses the laws and justice. It is a government.

Workers consent to work at a place.


But we could if we wanted to.

Sure.

Glad you agree.


Because their government has either recently come out of colonial rule or interferes too much in the economy or they haven't industrialized enough. There are a multitude of variables.

I suppose the US taking advantage of low wages isn't one of them.

No, it's not.


Yes. That was during a time of a lot of regulation, AAMOF. And payoffs. Kickbacks. Governmental corruption. Tamany Hall.

Then can you name a time when capitalism wasn't regulated?

Have you so soon forgotten the examples I have given in the past?

We don't all own businesses.

But we could if we wanted to.

yes, but then we would have socialism.

No, we wouldn't.

to make things clearer, we cannot all be capitalists.

Sure we can. What idiot told you that we can't? Marx? Kropotkin? Proudhon?

we cannot all make a living purely through ownership of the means of production.

Ah. I see your problem: you don't know what capitalism is.

it is impossible. to make a living by merely owning the means of production and distribution requires you to get others to work for you

No it doesn't. If it does, then all of the sole-proprietorships all over the world NO LONGER EXIST.

Idiot.

and pay them less than the value they produce

LTV. Refuted to death.

- to charge them rent in order to use 'your property'. that requires the existence of at least two distinct classes: owners and workers.

And if the owner is the only worker?

it also requires that workers make up the vast majority of the population and owners make up a tiny elite. there is no other way for capitalism to exist.

Ah. I see another problem: jealousy.

No it doesn't. If it does, then all of the sole-proprietorships all over the world NO LONGER EXIST. And if the owner is the only worker?


If you use your property, it's not capital property, it's personal property. If you charge someone else to use it, either through rent or the retention of profit, it's capital. Thus, if you're a business of one, then you're not a capitalist.

Ah. I see another problem: jealousy.

More complete nonsense and one of the most ridiculous charges put against leftists. More often than not, principled leftwingers sacrifice the possibility of material gain through their activism. I know I have. Redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest is not likely to benefit me all that much, I want to live in a world without poverty. That is where my selfishness begins and ends, I don't want people starving in Africa, or dying from lack of medicine, I don't want to see homeless people begging. I am not jealous of the ultra-rich, I am disgusted by them. I do not want to be one of them, I want to take their money and give it to others who need it.

Vsa.

I wouldn't mind you disagreeing with me on value judgements but when you just plain don't understand facts it's very frustrating. Fine, another economics class. Pay attention this time.
No it isn't, numerous other factors, separate from cost, are involved - ease of mining, ease of use in production, weight of metal, etc, etc, etc.
If something is easier to mine it will cost less, see? These things get factored into the price. They are AUTOMATICALLY included. That's WHY the price structure is efficient and irreplaceable.

Exactly, which is why a non-monetary system would work.

If by "work" you mean bring the entire species to the brink of starvation, yes. Sometimes I think this really would please the AnSoc collective, everyone equally dead.


Yes, it means that, because they're big, inefficiency isn't a major problem. The reason local sourcing is more expensive than centralised supply is simply this: it grants the supermarkets greater bargaining power in negotiations with farmers. It eradicates location as a factor in negotiations, as transport of goods is largely constant wherever the producer is. Small shops will prefer the local producer, giving the farmer the ability to ask for a better price. The supermarkets don't care, literally bullying the farmers into reducing their price. Another example of capitalism impoverishing rather than enriching workers.

They are big BECAUSE they are efficient. Big businesses that are inefficient lose more money than small inefficient ones. It's efficiency, not size, that is important.


As outlined above. A supplier negotiates with a small shop. They're largely equal, the farmer can get a decent price for his goods. A supplier negotiates with a supermarket chain, the chain is all powerful, it doesn't need this supplier, just the cheapest. The supermarket is powerful enough to rob the farmer of his produce at an unfair price, because the alternative is starvation.

If the farmer didn't like the price he'd do some other job, there'd be less farmers and the rest would get a better price. The farmer isn't a one dimentional robot, he farms because that's the most profitable job available (unless he does it for personal pleasure, but the market accounts for such things)


Great! Wealth is a bullshit concept. The question needn't be how rich I am, it should be whether or not I have enough to eat, somewhere to live, clothes to wear and a reasonable level of comfort and enjoyment. These are easy to measure, wealth is a pointless abstract.
I have a level of comfort and enjoyment of 6. What on Earth do you mean easy to measure? All you need is a cup o' soup, a blanket and a doorway to shelter in and you can beg for these on the street. You want anything else then earn it. Other people don't exist to provide you with your "needs", they aren't clay for you to mould. Stop whinging and take some responsibility for your own predicament, crybaby.

A person or group having coercive power over a larger group.

Define coercion. For instance, your employer doesn't coerce you, he offers you money. Is this where you make the ridiculous assertion that firing someone is coercion?

No, it's a fundamental principle of anarchism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Either you are going to enforce this, in which case your claim to love liberty is exposed as a lie, or you are not, in which case it isn't a fundamental principle but merely a personal preference akin to saying "everyone will voluntarily learn to juggle."

If you use your property, it's not capital property, it's personal property. If you charge someone else to use it, either through rent or the retention of profit, it's capital. Thus, if you're a business of one, then you're not a capitalist.

Capital is a tool of production. Land, machinery, hammers are capital, as is your body.

Capital is a tool of production. Land, machinery, hammers are capital, as is your body.

Christ, this is the ANARCHIST thread. Follow the anarchist definition of capital property or fuck off. It's that simple. Deliberately using a different definition is not debating, it's just stupid.

Vas.

Christ, this is the ANARCHIST thread. Follow the anarchist definition of capital property or fuck off. It's that simple. Deliberately using a different definition is not debating, it's just stupid.

Vas.
Troll!

When you use ordinary words like "capital" is a strange way you can "prove" anything.

Define the word "cheese" to mean rock. The moon is made of cheese.

By putting forward dumb definitions of capital you confuse things to deliberately make misleading claims. It's intellectually dishonest. If you have to resort to such tricks to make your point there obviously isn't much intellectual content in them.

I wouldn't mind you disagreeing with me on value judgements but when you just plain don't understand facts it's very frustrating. Fine, another economics class. Pay attention this time.

Don't fucking patronise me, dickhead. Economics is not a science, it's a philosophical and ideological battleground.

If something is easier to mine it will cost less, see? These things get factored into the price. They are AUTOMATICALLY included. That's WHY the price structure is efficient and irreplaceable.

That's why the price structure is inadequate and simplistic. Something may be easier to mine because it's in the middle of a national park, an historical monument or on the land of a group of indigenous people whose rights are easy to violate. Ask the people of Chiapas. Monetary costs do not take into account environmental or social costs unless they're imposed by government. Removing the state while retaining capitalism would simply remove any restrictions aimed at protecting people or the environment.

If by "work" you mean bring the entire species to the brink of starvation, yes. Sometimes I think this really would please the AnSoc collective, everyone equally dead.

This is, quite simply, the most moronic attempt at debating I've ever seen. Hmm, so, your point is, if you take away money, food will stop growing, or people will forget how to farm and run factories. Complete and utter horseshit.

They are big BECAUSE they are efficient. Big businesses that are inefficient lose more money than small inefficient ones. It's efficiency, not size, that is important.

Efficiency in one way is not efficiency in all. Walmart is efficient at squeezing suppliers and exploiting the workforce, impoverishing everyone except its shareholders. Et voila - the problem with capitalism in a nutshell. Unrestrained capitalism will enrich the few and impoverish the many. It is only through social restrictions that this is not the case. The five-day week, the eight-hour day, health and safety - all of these are the result of union campaigns, NOT the goodwill of capitalists.

If the farmer didn't like the price he'd do some other job, there'd be less farmers and the rest would get a better price. The farmer isn't a one dimentional robot, he farms because that's the most profitable job available (unless he does it for personal pleasure, but the market accounts for such things)

Et voila - imposed scarcity. One less farmer, less food production, more profit, more starvation.

I have a level of comfort and enjoyment of 6. What on Earth do you mean easy to measure? All you need is a cup o' soup, a blanket and a doorway to shelter in and you can beg for these on the street. You want anything else then earn it. Other people don't exist to provide you with your "needs", they aren't clay for you to mould. Stop whinging and take some responsibility for your own predicament, crybaby.

My "predicament" is perfectly fine, thank you very much. The "predicament" of those less fortunate than me is of concern to me. I do not like a society that destroys the less fortunate - a massive proportion of homeless people anywhere in the world are mentally ill.

Define coercion. For instance, your employer doesn't coerce you, he offers you money. Is this where you make the ridiculous assertion that firing someone is coercion?

In a society with sufficient social safeguards, such as welfare, social healthcare, etc, people are less coerced into working than they would be in unrestrained capitalism. In the latter situation, where you have to work to eat, then the threat of being fired is coercion, as it was in the past and is in many countries in the world.

Either you are going to enforce this, in which case your claim to love liberty is exposed as a lie, or you are not, in which case it isn't a fundamental principle but merely a personal preference akin to saying "everyone will voluntarily learn to juggle."

Anarchism does not contain within it the ability to enforce anything. Your basic understanding is completely lacking in any rational thought. Simply put, if an anarchist society comes to exist, then there is no need to enforce what the members of that society have adopted as their basic principles. If the people of that society do not adopt it, then an anarchist society will not exist, so the issue doesn't arise.

Vas.

Troll!

When you use ordinary words like "capital" is a strange way you can "prove" anything.

Idiot. This is an anarchist thread, we are using the definition of capital property as defined by Proudhon, as outlined previously in the thread, as you know very well and as you're incapable of arguing rationally.

Vas.

It seems as though some folks in this discussion don't really know what the hell they are yammering about. Again, I feel the need to define terms before launching into a discussion. It must be all that Western philosophy I've read.

Eastern people understand ambiguity and embrace it. Unfortunately, we Westerners need to pin it all down. Just remember, once you name a thing, a little bit of it dies; the ideal form is condensed into a few syllables and locked into a prison of circumscribed meaning. All of the glorious messiness of reality is ignored. The map is not the territory.

"Anarchy" is a Greek word: An=without, archy=rulers. That's it. That's all it means. It does not preclude organization. It only precludes a priveleged class of ruling elites.

Anarchy is the idea that "government" should be organically grown from the grassroots, not forced down our throats from on high.

So, an Anarchist society would organize itself without a hierarchy, that is to say the pyramid structures common to governments and corporations would look more like pancakes --- flattened flow charts of power: interdependnet networks of interested parties mutually aiding each other to "get the job done" without some lazy bastard with a whip telling us to work faster. I'm getting poetic here, so let me rephrase this a little....

Aw, fuck it. I tried to be academic in my response, but I can't help myself... I'm an artist, not a scholar. Instead of me trying to explain it, I'll post the definitions of Anarchy from www.blackcrayon.com. (Damn, I love that website. I ought to mutually aid that guy somehow.)

ANARCHISM

That organization of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege.

RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate.

LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.

The Illuminatus! Trilogy
------------

Anarchism is a negative; it holds that one thing, namely government, is bad and should be abolished. Aside from this defining tenet, it would be difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold. Just as atheists might support or oppose any viewpoint consistent with the non-existence of God, anarchists might and indeed do hold the entire range of viewpoints consistent with the non-existence of the state.

Anarchist Theory FAQ or
Instead of a FAQ, by a Man Too Busy to Write One
by Bryan Caplan Version 5.2
------------

This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.

Individual Liberty by Benjamin Tucker,
"State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein they differ."
------------

The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.

Emma Goldman, "What is Anarchy?"
------------

ANARCHISM, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

Prince Peter Kropotkin, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910
------------

(an·ar·chism Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-)

1. a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
------------

Anarchists believe that the highest attainment of humanity is the freedom of the individual to express himself, unhindered by any form of repression or control from without. The belief that all governments rest on violence to control their subjects.

1984 Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia
------------

Anarchism is grounded in a rather definite social-psychological hypothesis: that forceful, graceful and intelligent behaviour occurs only when there is an uncoerced and direct response to the physical and social environment; that in most human affairs, more harm than good results from compulsion, top-down direction, bureaucratic planning, pre-ordained curricula, jails, conscription, states.

Paul Goodman,
Like A Conquered Province, 1965
Chapter 6: "Is American democracy viable?"
------------

OK? So, now you know. That's what we're talking about. Debating the finer points of the economic system which may or may not evolve from a non-hierarchical society is somewhat a waste of time. In fact, given the wide variety of possible organizational structures which could arise from non-coercive, non-hierarchical societies, the concurrent economic structures which would follow from such organizations of society would be amazingingly diverse, creative, and unprecedented.

Personally, I envision pockets/networks/fractals of freely flowing markets and anti-markets interacting without the threat of force to hinder their movements. Let all your borders be pourous. Peace be with you. Blessed be.

How hard can it be to understand? Capitalism is authoritarian. If someone claimed they were "anarcho"-feudalist, they would be laughed off the messageboard, yet here, we are expected to take "anarcho"-capitalism seriously.

How hard can it be to understand? Capitalism is authoritarian. If someone claimed they were "anarcho"-feudalist, they would be laughed off the messageboard, yet here, we are expected to take "anarcho"-capitalism seriously.

At this point it is worth mentioning the book, "The Stone Canal" by Ken McLeod, which illustrates perfectly what an "anarcho-capitalist" society would look like and how ridiculous it is to try to work towards it (particularly the very end).

Vas.

If you use your property, it's not capital property, it's personal property. If you charge someone else to use it, either through rent or the retention of profit, it's capital. Thus, if you're a business of one, then you're not a capitalist. In your own definition, you are still wrong. A business is for the generation of wealth. A business of one man still is striving to trade/provide a service for cash. This is not opression. After all, these transactions are voluntary. You don't have to buy anything if you don't want.

Redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest is not likely to benefit me all that much Nor will it help anyone. You are now robbing people by forcibly removing the wealth of people. It doesn't matter where the money goes, you still robbed someone.

I want to live in a world without poverty. That is where my selfishness begins and ends No one wants to live in a world with poverty, no matter how selfish.

I don't want people starving in Africa, or dying from lack of medicine, I don't want to see homeless people begging. Funny you say this, as I said earlier in this thread (and it appears to have been ignored) is that via the use of technology, some economists predict that by 2050 Africa can have the same standard of living as America. This comes from raising worker productivity, which is now going up in several nations. African and South American workers have had productivity decline since 1980, which means wages fall.

I am not jealous of the ultra-rich, I am disgusted by them. I do not want to be one of them Why are you disgusted by them? What have they done to you? You are using emotions in your arguements, and emotions often override logic.

I want to take their money and give it to others who need it. What right do you have to forcibly take money from someone? The same right as anyone (government included): none, even if for a good cause. It is thier money, they have the right to do what they want with it. Maybe I should steal your car and send it to Africa, maybe all your material belongings. After all, the people in Africa sure are so deserving that thievery is now morally right if it goes to them.

Why are you disgusted by them? What have they done to you? You are using emotions in your arguements, and emotions often override logic.


They live off the the labor of, quite literally, the entire world. When I think of them sitting in their huge mansions never experiencing the agony of the children in sweatshops that made them rich, it infuriates me. It shows me just how much BS the status quo tells us about social equality and freedom.

They live off the the labor of, quite literally, the entire world. When I think of them sitting in their huge mansions never experiencing the agony of the children in sweatshops that made them rich, it infuriates me. It shows me just how much BS the status quo tells us about social equality and freedom.You, as Dischordiac was, are thinking with your emotions and not with logic. Can you be 100% sure that all businessmen never experienced poverty? 100% sure that they don't play an important role in a corporation? No, you can't.

CEOs can be very mentally distressed at the decisions they have to make. While the average guy in poverty has to worry about making enough to survive, a CEO has to worry about decisions that could cause many people to slide into poverty by making them lose jobs, destroy his reputation as a good businessman, and basicly screw over many more than just himself.

You, as Dischordiac was, are thinking with your emotions and not with logic. Can you be 100% sure that all businessmen never experienced poverty? 100% sure that they don't play an important role in a corporation? No, you can't.

So people's pain and suffering doesn't matter? If you want to be completely logical, there's no reason to worry about anything. Things have meaning because of emotion. While some businessmen have experienced poverty, that doesn't justify their absurd wealth.

CEOs can be very mentally distressed at the decisions they have to make. While the average guy in poverty has to worry about making enough to survive, a CEO has to worry about decisions that could cause many people to slide into poverty by making them lose jobs, destroy his reputation as a good businessman, and basicly screw over many more than just himself.

But is that 100 times harder than the workers' jobs? A CEO can survive a failing business better than a worker. The worker doesn't have the money a CEO has and losing their job is much worse for them.

So people's pain and suffering doesn't matter?When did I say that?

If you want to be completely logical, there's no reason to worry about anything. If we wanted to be completely logical, we'd have uber opression by the majority. After all, 2 > 1, and if the needs of 2 are met, we have helped the greater number of people.

While some businessmen have experienced poverty, that doesn't justify their absurd wealth. It doesn't; but what justifies removing his wealth?

But is that 100 times harder than the workers' jobs? A CEO can survive a failing business better than a worker. It could possibly be 100 times as hard; if a worker screws up, he loses his job. If a CEO screws up, he and his workers lose jobs. The peer pressure from workers employed by the CEO can be quite harsh I'd imagine.

The worker doesn't have the money a CEO has and losing their job is much worse for them. But yet there are many jobs the average worker can fulfill; as long as they can do physical labor, they will be able to find work, no matter how bad they find the work.

It doesn't; but what justifies removing his wealth?

What if his wealth were obtained through slavery? You'd agree that it should be removed, right? If the workers are being robbed in a sense, it's the same principle.

But yet there are many jobs the average worker can fulfill; as long as they can do physical labor, they will be able to find work, no matter how bad they find the work.

They shouldn't have to work jobs they hate to survive. Life shouldn't be spent suffering.

It doesn't; but what justifies removing his wealth?

the fact that his wealth was 'earned' on the basis of theft. he did not have a legitimate claim to own the means of social production, and therefore did not have a legitimate claim to a percentage of the wealth generated by that production.

all private property (anarchist definition) originates from theft and it is upheld by extortion and threat of violence. even if it were possible for individuals to legitimately own social property, all currently existing private property is the product of historically recent thefts and murders and is maintained under threat of force. but beyond that, no individual can have a legitimate claim to sole ownership of things that must, by their very nature, be used by others. the means of social production can only be owned socially. to have it any other way is to demand the existence of privilege and injustice.

Take that, cappie!

Anarchy sucks. 'Nuff said!

They shouldn't have to work jobs they hate to survive. Life shouldn't be spent suffering.


From whence comes the should/shouldn't?

From whence comes the should/shouldn't?

It's really my personal view, I guess.

Anyone who claims anything about a class conspiracy yet

1. Cannot provide evidence of it

Pay attention, I already have.

Where?



2. Can't evidence describe what "class" is

A class - a section of society distinguished by their economic status

Inherently subjective and leads to contradictory notions. Useless.

and the power relations associated with that:

Inherently subjective and leads to contradictory notions. Useless.

1. Upper class - hereditary position attended by a concept of god-given authority (largely obselete in modern society).

Translation: jealousy.

2. Middle classes - capitalist property owners, landlords, proprietors. Power derived from ownership of the means of production, as well as political power granted by sponsorship of political parties.

Translation: Someone has something I want and won't give it to me, so I will throw a fit.

3. Professional classes - section of the working classes that considers itself middle class - those with skill that give them a position of authority in society due to their skill, but generally no real power (unless they become actual middle class through the acquisition of capital) - teachers, doctors, lawyers.

Translation: I think there are some useless people who should go on the "B" ship.


3. Working classes - those who do not own capital property, often not owning their personal property either (mortgage, debts, etc). Typified by working for others, no power granted by the system - power only seized through solidarity and activism.

Translation: Let's all have a pity-party for people who I think should take whatever they want and don't have.

Ah, but the market IS there already. False analogy.


The market doesn't just "exist",

Never said that it just did.

the market is enforced - for example, legal cases against those who fileshare, talk of cases against open source software because it's "un-american", legal action against squatters, privatisation of public infrastructure, etc.

There's no such thing as "public infrastructure", though.

And so what if the market is enforced? You enforce your right to your body by denying it to others. And you're going to insinuate that such is *wrong*?


The market benefits all. Free distribution benefits no one. Because in the end--no one will want to produce anything. They will have no means to calculate how efficacious a method of production is. They will not be able to gauge anything.

This is complete nonsense.

Of course it's not. It's Mises, Rothbard, David Ramsay Steele, etc. Mises, et al, showed that economic calculations are worthless, if not impossible, without a market system.

Money is not the be all and end all. Opportunity cost, product resulting from effort, all of these are true measures of efficacy.

And how are those measured without a market?

If Bob produced ten loaves of bread a day with one method and Tim produces fifty, then Tim's method is most likely more efficient (if all other factors are the same).

That's using a market process.

By your argument, it's fundamentally impossible to start up a new business

Wrong.

- new businesses are based on estimates and rarely reach their actual financial value for a long period. The efficacy of the business must be measured by non-market factors.

Prove it.



Ah, you and Letila. A pair of morons. Can't grasp the difference between initiatory and retaliatory force. Freedom means that people would not use INITIATORY force.


Bullshit.

Bullshit.

The threat of retaliatory force, which would be constant if never actualised, is coercion.

Bullshit.

It's a slippery slop from using coercion to defend the market to creating a state - it's exactly how the state was formed.

No, it's not. There were states LONG BEFORE market economies existed, idiot. States arose from the idea of a tribal leader from hunter-gatherer times.


They would get it for free IFF the person distributing gives it away. But people have to know what methods of production to use. Only a market can give them any notion of efficiency.

Rubbish, the market simply quantifies opportunity cost, which can easily be quantified in personal or social costs rather than monetary.

Show it.


anarchocommunism isn't about free-distribution.

How the hell would you know?

Because I know where it leads.

A book can claim anything. Kropotkin was flat-out wrong in thinking it could be free-distribution. How are things going to be produced?

That idea is a load of crap.

Boy, you really set me in my place on that one.

I wasn't talking about you.


Money is more than a medium of exchange insofar as metal is used. Gold was money. It was also jewelry, decorations, etc.

And just how much can people produce in a non-market system? What sort of subsistence-level life will they have, if that?

Jewelry isn't money.

Gold jewelry is made from gold (tautology)
Gold was used as money (and still is) (historical fact)
Therefore, gold jewelry is made from the same thing as money was.

QED

Does that syllogism spell it out clearly enough for you? Must I draw you a picture?

Gold can be made into both money and jewelry, but in transforming from gold ore into either coins or rings it becomes that thing and nothing else.

Rings can be pawned or melted down and used for coinage.

Didn't you think of that?

What reason would a person have to stop producing, even when cut off entirely from the rest of society?

Hmmmmm?

There is no reason to believe that a group of people without a market could not produce the same goods without the intent of selling them.

There's no reason to believe that they would be able to produce enough.


At what quality of life? Do we want to go back to those times?

The quality of life changed primarily not because of the advent of Capitalism, but because of a rapid increase in technology,

...because of capitalism.


Actually, a truly free market is desirable. For if it is not truly free, then force is involved.

I fail to see how that differentiates itself from what I said.

I was echoing your sentiments. Can't a person do that?

Of course people act as classes.

Of course they don't.

EACH PERSON IS AN INDIVIDUAL. And people don't all think in lockstep. "Classes" require that they do. Reality shows that they don't.

Of course they don't.

EACH PERSON IS AN INDIVIDUAL. And people don't all think in lockstep. "Classes" require that they do. Reality shows that they don't.

Each person does not act like an individual at all times, fashion proves that, advertising proves that, the popularity of anything shows that. Tell any advertising executive that there's no such thing as class, or any political analyst, and they'll laugh you out of the room.

The example I gave earlier, which you ignored, is the US election. How many non-rich, non-college graduate, non-WASP persons are there with a chance to win the US election? How many have there ever been? One, JFK, the one exception that proves the rule.

Absolutely every political decision related to tax and welfare screams "class system" - entreprenuer, middle income, ordinary working man - these all refer to classes - capitalist, professional and working.

Vas.

Translation: jealousy.

Translation: Someone has something I want and won't give it to me, so I will throw a fit.

Translation: I think there are some useless people who should go on the "B" ship.

Translation: Let's all have a pity-party for people who I think should take whatever they want and don't have.

So you don't care that some people have vastly superior living conditions simply by being born into rich families?

Of course it's not. It's Mises, Rothbard, David Ramsay Steele, etc. Mises, et al, showed that economic calculations are worthless, if not impossible, without a market system.

But anarcho-communists don't consider their arguments valid. We have shown capitalism to be authoritarian. That certainly hasn't changed your mind on it.

And how are those measured without a market?

Communication.

...because of capitalism.

Actually, the quality of life is still pretty bad for many people, such as those who work in capitalist sweatshops.

There's no such thing as "public infrastructure", though.

What? This is just stupid, public infrastructure refers to nationalised industries. Just because you don't know what I mean by a term doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And so what if the market is enforced? You enforce your right to your body by denying it to others. And you're going to insinuate that such is *wrong*?

You really couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag, could you? Capital property is not the same as personal property - that which you own and use. That distinction is made and done. Now grow up and debate like an adult.

Of course it's not. It's Mises, Rothbard, David Ramsay Steele, etc. Mises, et al, showed that economic calculations are worthless, if not impossible, without a market system.

Did they really, good for them. I disagree.

And how are those measured without a market?

Quite easily, as the market is simply a quantification of the measurement. The measurement must be made to put a value on it, thus the market is simply the language and not the logic.

That's using a market process.

No, that's using simple mathematics. 10 > 5.

Wrong.

Prove it.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Amazing, profound and incisive debatting there.

No, it's not. There were states LONG BEFORE market economies existed, idiot. States arose from the idea of a tribal leader from hunter-gatherer times.

Not by the modern understanding of a state. There were kingdoms or principalities or fiefdoms, not states.

A book can claim anything. Kropotkin was flat-out wrong in thinking it could be free-distribution. How are things going to be produced?

How do I make bread in a market economy - I mix flour, water, baking pouder, maybe some sugar and salt, I put the mixture into the oven, et voila.

How do I make bread in a non-monetary system - I mix flour, water, baking pouder, maybe some sugar and salt, I put the mixture into the oven, et voila.

There ya go - production methods remain the same, the motivating factor changes from monetary reward to social value. Which is a good thing.

Vas.

But anarcho-communists don't consider their arguments valid. We have shown capitalism to be authoritarian. That certainly hasn't changed your mind on it.

I'm sorry, when did you show that? You've said it a number of times, and ignored a number of explanations of how you are wrong, but you've never shown anything.

Actually, the quality of life is still pretty bad for many people, such as those who work in capitalist sweatshops.

It really is amazing, but even those working in sweatshops today are better off than the average serf before Capitalism. The quality of life has improved universally, but for some that isn't very meaningful. Keep in mind that homeless people in the U.S. today are better off than kings in Medieval Europe.

It really is amazing, but even those working in sweatshops today are better off than the average serf before Capitalism.

Complete nonsense, try reading about sweatshops in Latin America or Asia before you spout such nonsense. Simple facts, such as fresh air and fresh food, were often better for agrarian serfs than those forced to work 18 hours a day in cramped conditions for inadequate food.

The quality of life has improved universally, but for some that isn't very meaningful. Keep in mind that homeless people in the U.S. today are better off than kings in Medieval Europe.

Again, crap. Kings in medieval Europe had enough food, had warm lodgings and had all the entertainment they want. Living in a cardboard box and surviving on scraps and the small amount begging can allow you to buy doesn't compare in any way, shape or form with the luxury afforded to kings. In most cases, the ill-health of medieval kings was due to over-indulgence.

Vas.

Christ, this is the ANARCHIST thread. Follow the anarchist definition of capital property or fuck off. It's that simple. Deliberately using a different definition is not debating, it's just stupid.

Vas.

So only Proudhon's definition works? What about Murray Rothbard's or Hans-Hermann Hoppe's?

the fact that his wealth was 'earned' on the basis of theft.

Show it.

he did not have a legitimate claim to own the means of social production, and therefore did not have a legitimate claim to a percentage of the wealth generated by that production.

Why not?

all private property (anarchist definition)

You mean the Proudhonian stolen concept definition.


In this article, I shall confine myself to the analysis of a single principle — a single fallacy — which is rampant in the writings of the neo-mystics and without which their doctrines could not be propagated.

We call it "the fallacy of the stolen concept."

To understand this fallacy, consider an example of it in the realm of politics: Proudhon's famous declaration that "All property is theft."

"Theft" is a concept that logically and genetically depends on the antecedent concept of "rightfully owned property" — and refers to the act of taking that property without the owner's consent. If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as "theft." Thus, the statement "All property is theft" has an internal contradiction: to use the concept "theft" while denying the validity of the concept of "property," is to use "theft" as a concept to which one has no logical right — that is, as a stolen concept.

All of man's knowledge and all of his concepts have a hierarchical structure. The foundation or ultimate base of this structure is man's sensory perceptions; these are the starting points of his thinking. From these, man forms his first concepts and (ostensive) definitions — then goes on building the edifice of his knowledge by identifying and integrating new concepts on a wider and wider scale. It is a process of building one identification upon another — of deriving wider abstractions from previously known abstractions, or of breaking down wider abstractions into narrower classifications. Man's concepts are derived from and depend on earlier, more basic concepts, which serve as their genetic roots. For example, the concept "parent" is presupposed by the concept "orphan"; if one had not grasped the former, one could not arrive at the latter, nor could the latter be meaningful.

The hierarchical nature of man's knowledge implies an important principle that must guide man's reasoning: When one uses concepts, one must recognize their genetic roots, one must recognize that which they logically depend on and presuppose.

Failure to observe this principle — as in "All property is theft" — constitutes the fallacy of the stolen concept.

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html

No it doesn't. If it does, then all of the sole-proprietorships all over the world NO LONGER EXIST. And if the owner is the only worker?
If you use your property, it's not capital property, it's personal property.
Let's say you are a restauranteur.

You own the restaurant and the items in it (stoves, etc).

The stoves, building, etc. are CAPITAL PROPERTY and PERSONAL PROPERTY. YOU OWN THEM.

And if you're a business of 1, you are a capitalist. You own the means of production. That's all that's needed.


Ah. I see another problem: jealousy.
More complete nonsense and one of the most ridiculous charges put against leftists.
No, it's quite accurate. If not, then why all the screaming and crying about "people earning too much (as if there's some objective stardard of "too much") and how "unfair" it is to earn profit and how profit is "theft".

Jealousy. That's all it is. Pure and simple.

More often than not, principled leftwingers sacrifice the possibility of material gain through their activism.
...and want to FORCE others to do the same. That's bad.
I know I have. Redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest is not likely to benefit me all that much, I want to live in a world without poverty.
You certainly won't get that in any socialist/communist/collectivist system.
That is where my selfishness begins and ends, I don't want people starving in Africa, or dying from lack of medicine, I don't want to see homeless people begging.
Good on you. Don't force others to contribute to your causes.
I am not jealous of the ultra-rich, I am disgusted by them. I do not want to be one of them, I want to take their money and give it to others who need it.
So you want to steal from them. How--immoral.

Don't fucking patronise me, dickhead. Economics is not a science, it's a philosophical and ideological battleground.

Economics is a science.


"The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed."

http://www.mises.org/epofe.asp

IOW: praxaeology.

How hard can it be to understand? Capitalism is authoritarian. If someone claimed they were "anarcho"-feudalist, they would be laughed off the messageboard, yet here, we are expected to take "anarcho"-capitalism seriously.

Just as you expect us to take the self-contradictory piece of crap called anarchocommunism seriously.

Anarchocommunism is authoritarian. No one should take it seriously.

Translation: jealousy.

Translation: Someone has something I want and won't give it to me, so I will throw a fit.

Translation: I think there are some useless people who should go on the "B" ship.

Translation: Let's all have a pity-party for people who I think should take whatever they want and don't have.

So you don't care that some people have vastly superior living conditions simply by being born into rich families?

Nope. Neither should you. It's not your business. Keep your nose out of it.

Your position is the same as the KKK: the believe that because a person is born of a black/jewish/catholic family, that said person is automatically bad. You believe that being born of a wealthy family is bad. Same damned position, Letila. How does it feel to make the same stupid errors in logic and reasoning as the KKK?


Of course it's not. It's Mises, Rothbard, David Ramsay Steele, etc. Mises, et al, showed that economic calculations are worthless, if not impossible, without a market system.

But anarcho-communists don't consider their arguments valid.

Anarchocommunism is also self-contradictory and authoritarian, as has been shown.


And how are those measured without a market?

Communication.

Of?


...because of capitalism.

Actually, the quality of life is still pretty bad for many people, such as those who work in capitalist sweatshops.

Would you rather they starved?

Let's say you are a restauranteur.

You own the restaurant and the items in it (stoves, etc).

The stoves, building, etc. are CAPITAL PROPERTY and PERSONAL PROPERTY. YOU OWN THEM.

And if you're a business of 1, you are a capitalist. You own the means of production. That's all that's needed.

Here, you work instead of getting money off the labor of others.

No, it's quite accurate. If not, then why all the screaming and crying about "people earning too much (as if there's some objective stardard of "too much") and how "unfair" it is to earn profit and how profit is "theft".

Jealousy. That's all it is. Pure and simple.

I could care less whether I have a million dollars or not. I just can't stand the thought of people being born into extreme wealth while there are people in sweatshops working for long hours in terrible working conditions for low pay.

So you want to steal from them. How--immoral.

They got their money from the labor of the workers. Without someone to do work, they wouldn't have gotten any money. They let workers operate capital. That is not working. They are basically stealing from workers.

There's no such thing as "public infrastructure", though.
What? This is just stupid, public infrastructure refers to nationalised industries.
The "public" cannot own anything, really. Just because you can't grasp that doesn't make my point invalid.


And so what if the market is enforced? You enforce your right to your body by denying it to others. And you're going to insinuate that such is *wrong*?
You really couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag, could you?
You really couldn't think logically and rationally to save your life, could you?

Capital property is not the same as personal property
It can be, as I have shown. Now grow up and debate like an adult.


Of course it's not. It's Mises, Rothbard, David Ramsay Steele, etc. Mises, et al, showed that economic calculations are worthless, if not impossible, without a market system.
Did they really, good for them. I disagree.
That's your problem.


And how are those measured without a market?

Quite easily, as the market is simply a quantification of the measurement. The measurement must be made to put a value on it, thus the market is simply the language and not the logic.

And how do you measure it without a market? Answer the question.


That's using a market process.
No, that's using simple mathematics. 10 > 5.
That's using a market process.

Amazing how you never bother to give me some reason to not just give you one-liner retorts.


No, it's not. There were states LONG BEFORE market economies existed, idiot. States arose from the idea of a tribal leader from hunter-gatherer times.

Not by the modern understanding of a state.

Ah, so you're shifting the goalposts. tsk-tsk.

A kingdom is still a state. A principality is still a state. A feifdom is still a state. An empire is an overarching state.

Get it?


A book can claim anything. Kropotkin was flat-out wrong in thinking it could be free-distribution. How are things going to be produced?
How do I make bread in a market economy - I mix flour, water, baking pouder, maybe some sugar and salt, I put the mixture into the oven, et voila.

Doesn't answer the question.

How do I make bread in a non-monetary system - I mix flour, water, baking pouder, maybe some sugar and salt, I put the mixture into the oven, et voila.

Doesn't answer the question.

Nope. Neither should you. It's not your business. Keep your nose out of it.

Your position is the same as the KKK: the believe that because a person is born of a black/jewish/catholic family, that said person is automatically bad. You believe that being born of a wealthy family is bad. Same damned position, Letila. How does it feel to make the same stupid errors in logic and reasoning as the KKK?

I don't consider them automatically bad. They can give up their wealth and actually contribute something. I don't hate someone for being rich. I oppose them because they got it from the workers. The workers actually produce what we need but get paid much less.

If they choose not to work, they are lazy, plain and simple. They can't possibly claim to have earned their money if they are millionaires. What have they done? Found a company? Provide factories? Can't workers do that?

Anarchocommunism is also self-contradictory and authoritarian, as has been shown.

As though "anarcho"-capitalism isn't. Capitalism has clear distinctions between those who take orders and those who follow them, sound very authoritarian to me.

Would you rather they starved?

Capitalism isn't preventing them from starving. They managed to survive before capitalism existed there. Even if the alternative to sweatshops is much worse, that doesn't mean sweatshops are good. It just shows that people will tolerate bad conditions if the alternative is starvation.

Let's say you are a restauranteur.

You own the restaurant and the items in it (stoves, etc).

The stoves, building, etc. are CAPITAL PROPERTY and PERSONAL PROPERTY. YOU OWN THEM.

And if you're a business of 1, you are a capitalist. You own the means of production. That's all that's needed.
Here, you work instead of getting money off the labor of others.
So?

No, it's quite accurate. If not, then why all the screaming and crying about "people earning too much (as if there's some objective stardard of "too much") and how "unfair" it is to earn profit and how profit is "theft".

Jealousy. That's all it is. Pure and simple.
I could care less whether I have a million dollars or not.
Then don't complain about other people having it.

I just can't stand the thought of people being born into extreme wealth while there are people in sweatshops working for long hours in terrible working conditions for low pay.
Then that's YOUR problem and YOU have to deal with it WITHOUT FORCING others to use the same methods as you.

Your argument boils down to "I don't like it. It upsets me. Therefore, it's wrong." Well that's the same argument the fundies give for why homosexuality is wrong and why evolution is false. I doubt you buy those arguments, do you?

So why expect others to buy your variant?


So you want to steal from them. How--immoral.
They got their money from the labor of the workers. Without someone to do work, they wouldn't have gotten any money. They let workers operate capital. That is not working. They are basically stealing from workers.

No, they aren't. The LTV has been refuted to death. Learn it.

Nope. Neither should you. It's not your business. Keep your nose out of it.

Your position is the same as the KKK: the believe that because a person is born of a black/jewish/catholic family, that said person is automatically bad. You believe that being born of a wealthy family is bad. Same damned position, Letila. How does it feel to make the same stupid errors in logic and reasoning as the KKK?
I don't consider them automatically bad.
Yes, you do. Or else you wouldn't be complaining about it now would you?

Actions betray your true feelings.

If they choose not to work, they are lazy, plain and simple. They can't possibly claim to have earned their money if they are millionaires.

Sure they can.

You can't possibly claim to have ownership of your body just because you were born with it, can you? I mean, someone can just take your corneas for cataract surgery and you can't do a thing about it because you don't own your corneas, do you? You were just born having corneas. It's not your fault.
(See how stupid your argument is when it is taken to logical extension?)
What have they done? Found a company? Provide factories? Can't workers do that?
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. That's something you need to grow the hell up and learn.


Anarchocommunism is also self-contradictory and authoritarian, as has been shown.
As though "anarcho"-capitalism isn't. Capitalism has clear distinctions between those who take orders and those who follow them, sound very authoritarian to me.

Communism has clear distinctions between those who take orders (the producers) and those who give them (the group which decides who produces what where). Sounds very authoritarian to me.

Would you rather they starved?
Capitalism isn't preventing them from starving. They managed to survive before capitalism existed there.
Yet now they survive more easily.

Even if the alternative to sweatshops is much worse, that doesn't mean sweatshops are good. It just shows that people will tolerate bad conditions if the alternative is starvation.
So would you rather they starved?

Yes, you do. Or else you wouldn't be complaining about it now would you?

Actions betray your true feelings.

I consider someone who lives off inheritance to be lazy. That doesn't mean they can't redeem themselves by actually making some form of contribution.

You can't possibly claim to have ownership of your body just because you were born with it, can you? I mean, someone can just take your corneas for cataract surgery and you can't do a thing about it because you don't own your corneas, do you? You were just born having corneas. It's not your fault.
(See how stupid your argument is when it is taken to logical extension?)

I certainly don't pretend I worked hard to have a body. That is what I'm getting at. I'm criticizing the claim that capitalism rewards hard work. It clearly doesn't.

Communism has clear distinctions between those who take orders (the producers) and those who give them (the group which decides who produces what where). Sounds very authoritarian to me.

Actually, in communism, everyone has a say in what is produced and everyone produces something. There are no people who do nothing but produce or nothing but request (unless they simply can't work).

So would you rather they starved?

I don't think you get it. The working conditions are terrible. The fact that people work in sweatshops isn't surprising if the alternative is starvation. The fact is that it's virtually indistinguishable from slavery.

So?

It shows capitalism rewards laziness.

Then don't complain about other people having it.

I will complain as long as there are people who have to choose between brutal working conditions and death in the same world as people with millions of dollars.

Then that's YOUR problem and YOU have to deal with it WITHOUT FORCING others to use the same methods as you.

Your argument boils down to "I don't like it. It upsets me. Therefore, it's wrong." Well that's the same argument the fundies give for why homosexuality is wrong and why evolution is false. I doubt you buy those arguments, do you?

So why expect others to buy your variant?

Imagine yourself in the place of a sweatshop worker. You have a choice between working in a sweatshop making trendy shoes and starving. Elsewhere, rich kids who have never worked a day in their lives received wealth from the sale of these shoes. Would you honestly claim that is a good system?

No, they aren't. The LTV has been refuted to death. Learn it.

See above.

Yes, you do. Or else you wouldn't be complaining about it now would you?

Actions betray your true feelings.
I consider someone who lives off inheritance to be lazy.
Why? They did EARN that money, after all. Being a loved child IS earning it, despite your continued denial of that FACT.

That doesn't mean they can't redeem themselves by actually making some form of contribution.
...to what YOU want, right?

You can't possibly claim to have ownership of your body just because you were born with it, can you? I mean, someone can just take your corneas for cataract surgery and you can't do a thing about it because you don't own your corneas, do you? You were just born having corneas. It's not your fault.
(See how stupid your argument is when it is taken to logical extension?)
I certainly don't pretend I worked hard to have a body.
No--you INHERITED it, as it were. You have no right to your own body. You must give your body away!

See how much fun it is when your argument is taken to its logical extension?

That is what I'm getting at. I'm criticizing the claim that capitalism rewards hard work.
Where was this claim made?


Communism has clear distinctions between those who take orders (the producers) and those who give them (the group which decides who produces what where). Sounds very authoritarian to me.
Actually, in communism, everyone has a say in what is produced and everyone produces something.
Actually, in communism--they don't. There's a group which decides above the objections of anyone else, and then the production happens. There are order-givers and order-takers. AUTHORITARIAN.


So would you rather they starved?
I don't think you get it.
So would you rather they starved?

I will ask until you answer.


So?
It shows capitalism rewards laziness.
Prove it.


Then don't complain about other people having it.
I will complain as long as there are people who have to choose between brutal working conditions and death in the same world as people with millions of dollars.
Then I will point out your jealousy, lack of maturity and lack of mental acumen.

Then that's YOUR problem and YOU have to deal with it WITHOUT FORCING others to use the same methods as you.

Your argument boils down to "I don't like it. It upsets me. Therefore, it's wrong." Well that's the same argument the fundies give for why homosexuality is wrong and why evolution is false. I doubt you buy those arguments, do you?

So why expect others to buy your variant?
Imagine yourself in the place of a sweatshop worker.
Answer the question. Dodging with pointless attempts at analogies won't work.


No, they aren't. The LTV has been refuted to death. Learn it.
See above.
That didn't show that the LTV was not refuted. Of course, I know that it has been.

So only Proudhon's definition works? What about Murray Rothbard's or Hans-Hermann Hoppe's?

Stop twisting what I said. This is an anarchist board, we're using the Proudhon definition. In that context, no, other definitions that say something different don't work because any discussion requires acceptance of the terms. If you want to continue to debate this, you must accept what I mean, rather than rejecting what I mean by dint of your own terms. Disagree with the theory all you like, but you have to accept what the theory is before you can disagree with it.

Vas.

Property rights imply that there is a such thing as a legitimate owner of property. (There is, but for all intents and purposes there isn't. I will explain that in my next post, I want to get this one in before the thread moves again.)

Your position is the same as the KKK: the believe that because a person is born of a black/jewish/catholic family, that said person is automatically bad. You believe that being born of a wealthy family is bad. Same damned position, Letila. How does it feel to make the same stupid errors in logic and reasoning as the KKK?

No, actually, your logic is that of the KKK - that because someone is born into certain circumstances, they deserve to have a better life than others born into different circumstances. You're an elite supremacist, just as the KKK are white supremacists. You regard people from rich families as deserving their wealth and position and, often, political power simply because of what they were born as.

Your logic is twisted, anarchists do not believe people born into wealth are "bad" any more than an anti-racist believes white anglo-saxons are "bad" or protestants are "bad". Rather, we oppose the unfair advantages given to them simply because of the circumstances of their birth. The KKK, like you, fight for the dominance of one group over the other, anarchists, on the other hand, fight for the equality of all.

Anarchocommunism is also self-contradictory and authoritarian, as has been shown.

No, as has been SAID. Not much of a scientist, are you? Prove your contention.

Would you rather they starved?

No, we'd rather they rise up and take over the factory - as they're doing in Argentina on a massive scale (The National Movement of Recovered Companies (MNER) (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Occupy_Resist_Argentina.html))

Vas.

By saying that property rights don't exist, I mean that fundamentally. The laws of a particular country are clear about what a legitimate owner is. But the reason that the law states that is because it's most convenient for the people who make the laws.

Wayyyy back in history there was Person A and Person B. (Obviously there were more than these two people, but I'm making an analogy.) Person B killed person A and took Person A's land and property. Yes, Person B stole. Then Person B died and left this property to whomever, and they died, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that all property was either stolen, or gotten as a result of being stolen. If a jewel thief invests in a restaurant, while the restaurant may be a legitimate business, it was only started as a result of theft. This is called money laundering.
The living descendant of Person A (assuming that Person A and his descendants all gave to their children) is the rightful owner of Person A's property. However, it is impossible to determine who that person is, and what share of Person B's property was Person A's.
Now, the rich can do whatever is most convenient for them to do, which is declare that all thieving must stop, but they don't have any basis other than convenience for stating that.

Oh, and a quote that I like which I admit I'm taking out of context.

"The slave-owner can whip his refractory slave to death - the capitalist can starve him to death." - Harriet Beecher Stowe, from "Uncle Tom's Cabin"

The "public" cannot own anything, really. Just because you can't grasp that doesn't make my point invalid.

You don't HAVE a point, you're arguing with the use of a common term. Your dispute may be with the reality of nationalised industry and public ownership, but so what? You simply quibbled with a term.

It can be, as I have shown. Now grow up and debate like an adult.

You haven't shown a goddamn thing, you idiot, you've simply used a different definition. Now either accept the terms or fuck off. It's simply childish to pretend that your debating by changing terms.

And how do you measure it without a market? Answer the question.

Quite simply by time, effort and social value. It doesn't have to be quantified in monetary terms. Do I want to spend two hours digging in the garden, or two hours cleaning the house? The opportunity cost of digging in the garden is two hours cleaning. Which takes more effort compared with my personal feelings about the outcome? Would I rather a clean house or a dug garden? Opportunity cost is quite straightforward, monetary values skews the field.

A simple example - How to deal with traffic problems.
Invidual perspective: I want to get from a to b the fastest way possible.
Socially beneficial solution: ban cars and increase the amount of public transport, providing fast moving, mass serving transport with minimal traffic problems, also reducing polution and freeing up social space on the roads.
Market solution: Sell more cars - increasing polution, increasing traffic problems to the eventual gridlock, requiring more roads eating into social spaces.
The market solution fails completely to deal with the problem, but it's driven by profit, not by any real willingness to solve issues.

That's using a market process.

No, it isn't, you idiot. Mathematics are not the market process, the market process simply uses mathematics.

Ah, so you're shifting the goalposts. tsk-tsk.

A kingdom is still a state. A principality is still a state. A feifdom is still a state. An empire is an overarching state.

Again with the attempts to win points by quibbling with the terms. I referred to the modern city state, which grew with the development of the middle classes and the birth of capitalism. I obviously did not mean other forms of statehood that predated the middle classes.


Doesn't answer the question.
Doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does. If you want a different answer, try asking a proper question. Bread is made in exactly the same way in a market system as it would be in a non-market system.

Vas.

Don't fucking patronise me, dickhead. Economics is not a science, it's a philosophical and ideological battleground.

Whether you call it a science or not depends what you mean by science. It is a valid body of truth and all rational people would accept much or most of it if they weren't emotionally attatched to rejecting it for ideological reasons. It's hard to explain things at such a simplistic level without being patronising.


That's why the price structure is inadequate and simplistic. Something may be easier to mine because it's in the middle of a national park, an historical monument or on the land of a group of indigenous people whose rights are easy to violate. Ask the people of Chiapas. Monetary costs do not take into account environmental or social costs unless they're imposed by government. Removing the state while retaining capitalism would simply remove any restrictions aimed at protecting people or the environment.

Environmental costs are (or should be in a real market) included in the price. If you pollute someone's property you owe them compensation. "Social" costs are an absurdity.


This is, quite simply, the most moronic attempt at debating I've ever seen. Hmm, so, your point is, if you take away money, food will stop growing, or people will forget how to farm and run factories. Complete and utter horseshit.

Definition of market is property rights. Money isn't even a necessary element of a market. Without propery rights the incentive to work is diminished which leads to poverty. How can I not patronise you if you spout such nonsense?



Efficiency in one way is not efficiency in all. Walmart is efficient at squeezing suppliers and exploiting the workforce, impoverishing everyone except its shareholders. Et voila - the problem with capitalism in a nutshell. Unrestrained capitalism will enrich the few and impoverish the many. It is only through social restrictions that this is not the case. The five-day week, the eight-hour day, health and safety - all of these are the result of union campaigns, NOT the goodwill of capitalists.

Good will has nothing to do with it. You clearly understand nothing. You're just embarrassing yourself here.


Et voila - imposed scarcity. One less farmer, less food production, more profit, more starvation.

How is someone giving up farming "imposed" scarcity? Again, a comprehension deficit on your part.



My "predicament" is perfectly fine, thank you very much. The "predicament" of those less fortunate than me is of concern to me. I do not like a society that destroys the less fortunate - a massive proportion of homeless people anywhere in the world are mentally ill.

Then do something about it instead of bleating. Just don't rob me to do it. You don't seem to grasp that free markets and charity are not exclusive.


In a society with sufficient social safeguards, such as welfare, social healthcare, etc, people are less coerced into working than they would be in unrestrained capitalism. In the latter situation, where you have to work to eat, then the threat of being fired is coercion, as it was in the past and is in many countries in the world.

I asked you to define coercion not wank over state socialism. Can you define it in a way that threatening to fire someone is coercion but threatening to quit your job or leave your girlfriend isn't? Let me just make sure I've got my seatbelt on.... Okay, go.


Anarchism does not contain within it the ability to enforce anything. Your basic understanding is completely lacking in any rational thought. Simply put, if an anarchist society comes to exist, then there is no need to enforce what the members of that society have adopted as their basic principles. If the people of that society do not adopt it, then an anarchist society will not exist, so the issue doesn't arise.
So you accept that capitalism and anarchism are compatible. Good.

Now, are you saying that you wouldn't enforce a prohibition on rape?

Whether you call it a science or not depends what you mean by science. It is a valid body of truth and all rational people would accept much or most of it if they weren't emotionally attatched to rejecting it for ideological reasons. It's hard to explain things at such a simplistic level without being patronising.

It is a body of OPINION, not "truth" (and any claim to truth is fundamentally unscientific, go read some Popper).

Environmental costs are (or should be in a real market) included in the price. If you pollute someone's property you owe them compensation.

In a perfect world. And, more often that not, it's non-property such as air or water that is most polluted.

"Social" costs are an absurdity.

In what way? Constructing a motorway through a public park involves a social cost, impacting on the health and well-being of the society that makes use of the park. The fact that unrestrained capitalists like yourself regard them as an absurdity is exactly why real anarchists reject capitalism.

Definition of market is property rights. Money isn't even a necessary element of a market. Without propery rights the incentive to work is diminished which leads to poverty. How can I not patronise you if you spout such nonsense?

Petty, childish petulance. Property rights are NOT an incentive to work, if they were, the fact that they are retained by the minority and not the working majority would mean the majority would not work. It's quite obvious to anyone working for a business that makes a profit which is distributed between the shareholders and not the workers that they would get more if the profit was shared between the workers. That is an incentive. Workers' control of the means of production would immediately improve the lot of the workers. Having a personal stake in the business is a very powerful incentive. Obviously you have no experience of anything different. If that's so, I pity you, because you have missed the joy of working somewhere with workers' solidarity and personal incentives. Working for profit alone is dehumanising.

Good will has nothing to do with it. You clearly understand nothing. You're just embarrassing yourself here.

What the hell are you talking about? You are starting to rant and make no sense. Social concessions were dragged out of capitalists over the past century or so. Of course goodwill had nothing to do with them, I said that.

How is someone giving up farming "imposed" scarcity? Again, a comprehension deficit on your part.

It was previously stated that scarcity is not the fault of capitalism, yet also stated that farms should close if they're not making enough money. More farms would quite clearly impact on any scarcity of food, yet the economic conditions are such that to retain profits, a greater element of scarcity is needed. Less food, higher price - imposed scarcity.

Then do something about it instead of bleating. Just don't rob me to do it. You don't seem to grasp that free markets and charity are not exclusive.

Charity is the perpetuation of poverty through limited alleviation rather than eradication.

I asked you to define coercion not wank over state socialism. Can you define it in a way that threatening to fire someone is coercion but threatening to quit your job or leave your girlfriend isn't? Let me just make sure I've got my seatbelt on.... Okay, go.

Learn to read.

So you accept that capitalism and anarchism are compatible. Good.

No, learn to read. If capitalism exists, then anarchism does not. It's quite simple, they're so completely incompatible that they can't exist in the same space.

Now, are you saying that you wouldn't enforce a prohibition on rape?

Now you're just being completely stupid, but that doesn't surprise me.

Vas.

It is a body of OPINION, not "truth" (and any claim to truth is fundamentally unscientific, go read some Popper).

Popper isn't the authority you think he is. Mathematics isn't scientific but it is still a body of truth, or at least valid inferences. "higher prices cause a drop in demand" is true whether you call it scientific or not. The fact that some people might dispute it does not mean it isn't true. "Unscientific" does not mean "invalid".


In a perfect world. And, more often that not, it's non-property such as air or water that is most polluted.

Water should be property. Air isn't but your lungs are. If you pollute you should pay damages to those whose bodies and properties are harmed.


In what way? Constructing a motorway through a public park involves a social cost, impacting on the health and well-being of the society that makes use of the park. The fact that unrestrained capitalists like yourself regard them as an absurdity is exactly why real anarchists reject capitalism.

And the health and well being of the society that makes use of the roads? The notion of public property is foolish. You couldn't build a road through a private park without the park owner's permission.


Petty, childish petulance. Property rights are NOT an incentive to work, if they were, the fact that they are retained by the minority and not the working majority would mean the majority would not work. It's quite obvious to anyone working for a business that makes a profit which is distributed between the shareholders and not the workers that they would get more if the profit was shared between the workers. That is an incentive. Workers' control of the means of production would immediately improve the lot of the workers. Having a personal stake in the business is a very powerful incentive. Obviously you have no experience of anything different. If that's so, I pity you, because you have missed the joy of working somewhere with workers' solidarity and personal incentives. Working for profit alone is dehumanising.

The workers could buy the business or start one themselves. Nobody could object. Of course secure property rights provide an incentive to work. The rest of your post was too confused to merit comment.



What the hell are you talking about? You are starting to rant and make no sense. Social concessions were dragged out of capitalists over the past century or so. Of course goodwill had nothing to do with them, I said that.

Please stop using the word "social", it doesn't add any knowledge. Competition between employers is a better way to generate "concessions" than enforcing at gunpoint. If you're going to praise state violence against employers you shouldn't call yourself an anarcho-anything.


It was previously stated that scarcity is not the fault of capitalism, yet also stated that farms should close if they're not making enough money. More farms would quite clearly impact on any scarcity of food, yet the economic conditions are such that to retain profits, a greater element of scarcity is needed. Less food, higher price - imposed scarcity.

And less scarcity of whatever the farmer makes instead of food. What's your point here? You say you reject economics and then come out with the worst economic argument I've heard in my life.


Charity is the perpetuation of poverty through limited alleviation rather than eradication.

What's the difference between alleviation and eradication?



Learn to read.

Okay I will. Now can you define coercion please?


No, learn to read. If capitalism exists, then anarchism does not. It's quite simple, they're so completely incompatible that they can't exist in the same space.

Fine. I'm an anti-state libertarian. So if people voluntarily respect each other's property that isn't anarchism? Blatent hypocracy.

Water should be property. Air isn't but your lungs are. If you pollute you should pay damages to those whose bodies and properties are harmed.

If water was property, we'd have to pay to use it. If you're poor, then you couldn't. That's not fair at all.

What's the difference between alleviation and eradication?

Anarchism will actually get rid of poverty and it's causes. Charity just lessens it.

Fine. I'm an anti-state libertarian. So if people voluntarily respect each other's property that isn't anarchism? Blatent hypocracy.

But they don't. I have to be forced to not use land owned by someone else. I have to be forced not to keep a product I made for myself rather than let the capitalist take and sell it. These things require force in the form of police, private security, etc.

If water was property, we'd have to pay to use it. If you're poor, then you couldn't. That's not fair at all.

You do pay through taxes. Modern water systems require filters, pipes etc. These things require maintainance. "Not fair! Not fair!" Not fair would be making someone else pay for your use of these facilities.


Anarchism will actually get rid of poverty and it's causes. Charity just lessens it.

That's an empty statement. Isn't Ansoc ltd founded on charity? What is the difference between communal sharing and private charity?


But they don't. I have to be forced to not use land owned by someone else. I have to be forced not to keep a product I made for myself rather than let the capitalist take and sell it. These things require force in the form of police, private security, etc.
My point is that if people voluntarily respected property rights and "capitalism" you, as an anarchist, would have to accept that. There are pacifist anarcho-capitalists as I've told you before. Please tell me you understand this simple concept just to let me know you are capable of absorbing new facts.

Certain products in and of themselves have a higher demand than others. If both food and cellphones are scarce, people are going to be demanding food much more than they'll demand cellphones. This is because food is a biological necessity, cellphones aren't. Therefore, the farmer in question is going from producing food, which is in higher demand and a biological necessity, to something else which is most likely less important and not a biological necessity. The point, therefore, is that simply because that former farmer is producing something else (assuming he can find a job) that doesn't mean it's either as useful or as necessary.

Certain products in and of themselves have a higher demand than others. If both food and cellphones are scarce, people are going to be demanding food much more than they'll demand cellphones. This is because food is a biological necessity, cellphones aren't. Therefore, the farmer in question is going from producing food, which is in higher demand and a biological necessity, to something else which is most likely less important and not a biological necessity. The point, therefore, is that simply because that former farmer is producing something else (assuming he can find a job) that doesn't mean it's either as useful or as necessary.
If people are demanding food more than cellphones then it will be more profitable to make food than cellphones.

It might be more profitable for a farmer (as in an individual farmer) to make cellphones, like if everyone already had enough food but not everyone had cellphones.

If people are demanding food more than cellphones then it will be more profitable to make food than cellphones.

It might be more profitable for a farmer (as in an individual farmer) to make cellphones, like if everyone already had enough food but not everyone had cellphones.

Certainly it could be more profitable for the farmer to make cellphones instead of food, but it has yet to occur in history that people have had enough food. Don't get me wrong, currently there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, but not everyone has access to it for various reasons.

I agree that if people in an anarchist society would respect property rights then it would be an anarcho-capitalist society, however there isn't really a reason for them to do so other than to say "we're an anarcho-capitalist society."

You do pay through taxes. Modern water systems require filters, pipes etc. These things require maintainance. "Not fair! Not fair!" Not fair would be making someone else pay for your use of these facilities.

Good point, but I'd still have to pay in capitalism, perhaps even more.

That's an empty statement. Isn't Ansoc ltd founded on charity? What is the difference between communal sharing and private charity?

This explains the difference: http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70744

My point is that if people voluntarily respected property rights and "capitalism" you, as an anarchist, would have to accept that. There are pacifist anarcho-capitalists as I've told you before. Please tell me you understand this simple concept just to let me know you are capable of absorbing new facts.

Yes, but it would be like people voluntarily submitting to slavery. It would technically be slavery, but it is nothing like how slavery really works.

Good point, but I'd still have to pay in capitalism, perhaps even more.

More likely less.


This explains the difference: http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70744

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. I still don't think it will eliminate poverty but rather create it.


Yes, but it would be like people voluntarily submitting to slavery. It would technically be slavery, but it is nothing like how slavery really works.
I'm not sure if the notion of voluntary slavery makes sense.

I'm not sure if the notion of voluntary slavery makes sense.

I don't see how voluntary wage labor can make sense.

I don't see how voluntary wage labor can make sense.
I go for a job. Agree with the wage I am effectively selling my labour for. I apply for it.

I go for a job. Agree with the wage I am effectively selling my labour for. I apply for it.

And what happens if you choose not to sell your labor?

And what happens if you choose not to sell your labor?

Then no one gives you anything. If you put nothing in, you get nothing out. Seems reasonable to me.

And what happens if you choose not to sell your labor?
Why would I apply for a job if I didn't to sell my labour.

But as Our Earth said. Put nothing in, get nothing out.

You could either starve or set up your own business.

Experience has taught me I am no salesman, so I choose to sell my labour.

Then no one gives you anything. If you put nothing in, you get nothing out. Seems reasonable to me.

But you have to give up your freedom when you work. The rich don't have to get jobs to survive. Is that fair?

But you have to give up your freedom when you work. The rich don't have to get jobs to survive. Is that fair?
They do though.

But you have to give up your freedom when you work. The rich don't have to get jobs to survive. Is that fair?

It'll surprise you to know that many rich people had to actually work for what they got.

*gasp*

They just chose the right field to work in that would give them so much $$$.

It'll surprise you to know that many rich people had to actually work for what they got.

*gasp*

They just chose the right field to work in that would give them so much $$$.

In other words, they got lucky. Is that supposed to impress me?

In other words, they got lucky. Is that supposed to impress me?

Very few people get rich by being lucky. The vast majority of self-made people are smart and created a product or service that people were willing to pay for that was not alreadying being provided and in doing so was able to capitalize on a large demand with small supply.

In other words, they got lucky. Is that supposed to impress me?
No. But then they aren't trying to do that.

Even though many are rich try luck/circumstance of birth. There are many who actually work to get rich.

Very few people get rich by being lucky. The vast majority of self-made people are smart and created a product or service that people were willing to pay for that was not alreadying being provided and in doing so was able to capitalize on a large demand with small supply.
Like the person who came up with direct debit?

Luck plays at least a small part in every success story. In order to have a product that people want, you have to have a little bit of luck in order for them to buy it. Even the most brilliant of ideas won't necessarily be successful if not for luck.

Very few people chooses to work for a wage. If it's between working or starving, very few people will choose starving. The reason isn't because starving is necessarily the worse choice, but because mother nature provides us with a mechanism that lets us know that we're hungry, and instinct to make us consume food.
For this reason, telling someone "work for me or I'll beat and/or I'll kill you" is the same as "work for me or starve to death" because the end result is the same. Both instances exploit the person's instinct to survive.

Furthermore, no one has yet to tell me what a legitimate owner of property is and give a reason other than what's most convenient for them.

I'm all for a Truly Free Market, something that hasn't existed anywhere but in the imagination. I'm opposed to any sort of heirarchy, from Corporate Boardrooms to Socialist Central Planning Committees. I envision loose networks of individuals coming together to do what they will, then moving on to the next thing. It doesn't need to get much more complicated than that. Unfortunately, what we have now is so far from what I envision, it would take generations to get there. In the meantime, I think I'll make some snide comments about Capitalists!

And the LazyFatBastard said, Capitalsim is, "What you get for what you've got. If you've got nothing, you must be lazy and stupid, so you deserve to die anyway. If you're rich, you must be a good person. Even if you did make all your money by forcing children to work 16 hours a day making ammo for AK-47s. Lazy little bastards deserved what they got - a short, miserable life of slavery. Hey Mr President, can you start another war for me?"

Play Monopoly, and you'll notice that one person ends up with the lot, while everyone else gets totally fucked because they were too stupid/lazy to land on Park Avenue first.

I am poor because I was born this way and refuse to play the games of my fathers. I want new games. The old ones are too toxic.

In conclusion, those Anarchists who would build for themselves a "socialist" economy should go build it for themselves. Those Anarchists who would build a "capitalist" economy should go and do it. Arguing between the two extremes is a pointless waste of time. Go find those who agree with your vision and build your corner of the world. Stop trying to convert everybody. You're Anarchists, not fucking Hare Krishna's! (Unless, of course you're Anarcho-Krishna's -- whatever floats your soap.)


The rest of us Anarchists, who would rather live in a society free of markets, committees, demanding supplies, know-it-all central planners, BigBosses, etc. will avoid you freaks like the plague and go over there across the hills, past the river and down by the lake. We'll set up our tents and have a picnic of berries, bread and beer. If any of you property-holding types (personal, private, etc.) stumble upon our camp and try to recruit us into slavery to the "means of production" we'll throw a monkeywrench at you, hop on our bikes and get all nomadic on your ass. Movin' on... one step ahead of authoritarianism. Hobos, tramps, and drop-outs UNITE! (Or don't! Mind your own beeswax, buddy!)

"As for us, He has appointed the job of permanent unemployment.

If he wanted us to work, after all,
He would not have created this wine.

With a skinfull of this, Sir,
would you rush out to commit economics?"

--Jalaloddin Rumi, Diwan-e Shams

Very few people get rich by being lucky. The vast majority of self-made people are smart and created a product or service that people were willing to pay for that was not alreadying being provided and in doing so was able to capitalize on a large demand with small supply.

They may have invented the product, but workers made it while sacrificing their freedom.

In conclusion, those Anarchists who would build for themselves a "socialist" economy should go build it for themselves. Those Anarchists who would build a "capitalist" economy should go and do it. Arguing between the two extremes is a pointless waste of time. Go find those who agree with your vision and build your corner of the world. Stop trying to convert everybody. You're Anarchists, not fucking Hare Krishna's! (Unless, of course you're Anarcho-Krishna's -- whatever floats your soap.)

Hey, this is Nationstates, arguing ideology is the whole point. And, realistically, I don't think any one of us has any expectation that we'll change the other's mind. However, those others reading might learn something. And it's good practice for the book I plan to write :-)

Vas.

You're writing a book, too? What's it going to be called and about?

Popper isn't the authority you think he is.

Popper is exactly the authority I think he is, don't make assumptions.

"higher prices cause a drop in demand" is true whether you call it scientific or not. The fact that some people might dispute it does not mean it isn't true. "Unscientific" does not mean "invalid".

The fact that it's quite often untrue makes it complete invalid. Higher prices do NOT always cause a drop in demand - price inflation usually leads to wage inflation as people seek more money to pay for the higher prices. Christ, you're arguing with me without even sticking to the basics of economic theory.

Water should be property.

To whom does it belong?

Air isn't but your lungs are. If you pollute you should pay damages to those whose bodies and properties are harmed.

Who, in this beautiful anarcho-capitalist society, is going to make that true? Without a state enforcing certain standards, they will not be followed as the only motivating factor in unrestrained capitalism is profit.

And the health and well being of the society that makes use of the roads? The notion of public property is foolish. You couldn't build a road through a private park without the park owner's permission.

You talk complete shite sometimes. Public property is usually held, on behalf of the public, by the state. Unfortunately, too many states have no respect for that fact and are far too free in selling off public property.

The workers could buy the business or start one themselves. Nobody could object.

The fact that they don't own the means of production tends to stop that. Worker owned businesses and co-operatives are often crushed by larger businesses.

Of course secure property rights provide an incentive to work.

Health, security and wellbeing are the most common incentives for the average working person. You really have no knowledge of human nature, do you?

The rest of your post was too confused to merit comment.

Sorry if you can't keep up, I can use words with fewer syllables if you like.

Please stop using the word "social", it doesn't add any knowledge.

Fucking Thatcher.

Competition between employers is a better way to generate "concessions" than enforcing at gunpoint. If you're going to praise state violence against employers you shouldn't call yourself an anarcho-anything.

Fine, ignore history. And who said anything about state violence, you idiot, I was referring to union activism - Mayday, Haymarket, the Wobblies.

And less scarcity of whatever the farmer makes instead of food. What's your point here?

India: biggest growth in industry is in the service sector, drawing people from the land where they used to produce food. Large sectors of the Indian population live and die on insufficient levels of food. By draining the agricultural sector of workers, less food is produced, deliberately creating a scarcity which leads to the death of people.

You say you reject economics and then come out with the worst economic argument I've heard in my life.

I don't "reject" economics, you moron, I reject the idea that what you consider true economics is scientific and anything other than ideologically driven opinion.

What's the difference between alleviation and eradication?

To trot out an old cliche - "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat forever" (or, more acurately, stop supplying weapons to the man's government and stop polluting the sea and let the poor bugger fish like his ancestors have been doing for centuries).

Okay I will. Now can you define coercion please?

Main Entry: co·er·cion
Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion —see also DEFENSE, DURESS —compare UNDUE INFLUENCE

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Fine. I'm an anti-state libertarian. So if people voluntarily respect each other's property that isn't anarchism? Blatent hypocracy.

Yup, right there. Rejection of property is fundamental to anarchism, if people volutarily respect each other's property, it's something else - most likely impossible. "People" don't voluntarily respect each other's property now and never have done.

Vas.

You're writing a book, too? What's it going to be called and about?

I haven't started it yet, so I'm not sure yet :-) I definitely intend to write something about anarchism, but, right now, I'm busy with union activity and human rights journalism.

Vas.

Stop twisting what I said.

I'm not. I asked a valid question.

This is an anarchist board, we're using the Proudhon definition.

WHY? Why must we ONLY use that definition? Is not Hans-Hermann Hoppe an anarchist? Was not Murray Rothbard an anarchist? Why ONLY Proudhon?

Please answer my question.

Your position is the same as the KKK: the believe that because a person is born of a black/jewish/catholic family, that said person is automatically bad. You believe that being born of a wealthy family is bad. Same damned position, Letila. How does it feel to make the same stupid errors in logic and reasoning as the KKK?
No, actually, your logic is that of the KKK
No, actually it's not. We'll see why.

- that because someone is born into certain circumstances, they deserve to have a better life than others born into different circumstances. You're an elite supremacist,
You were born with 2 eyes. Some people weren't born with any eyes at all. You feel you deserve to keep your eyes. That makes you an ELITE SUPREMACIST. Eye oppressor! Eye oppressor!

How does it feel?

IOW: don't make stupid arguments which just kill your stance.

Your logic is twisted, anarchists do not believe people born into wealth are "bad" any more than an anti-racist believes white anglo-saxons are "bad" or protestants are "bad".
Load of crap. Letila certainly believes they are bad, as well as other collectivists so believe. If they didn't, then they wouldn't rail against it.

Rather, we oppose the unfair
Unfair = BAD.

Q E D.


Anarchocommunism is also self-contradictory and authoritarian, as has been shown.
No, as has been SAID. Not much of a scientist, are you? Prove your contention.
Already have.


Would you rather they starved?
No, we'd rather they rise up and take over the factory - as they're doing in Argentina on a massive scale (The National Movement of Recovered Companies (MNER))
And how well is that going?

The "public" cannot own anything, really. Just because you can't grasp that doesn't make my point invalid.
You don't HAVE a point, you're arguing with the use of a common term. Your dispute may be with the reality of nationalised industry and public ownership, but so what? You simply quibbled with a term.
So what?


It can be, as I have shown. Now grow up and debate like an adult.
You haven't shown a goddamn thing,
Except that I have. Now grow up and debate like an adult.


And how do you measure it without a market? Answer the question.
Quite simply by time, effort and social value.
And what is "social value"?
It doesn't have to be quantified in monetary terms. Do I want to spend two hours digging in the garden, or two hours cleaning the house? The opportunity cost of digging in the garden is two hours cleaning.
And vice-versa.

You're still using market processes.

Which takes more effort compared with my personal feelings about the outcome? Would I rather a clean house or a dug garden? Opportunity cost is quite straightforward, monetary values skews the field.
Of course it doesn't.

A simple example - How to deal with traffic problems.
Privatize the roads. Simple.

Invidual perspective: I want to get from a to b the fastest way possible. Socially beneficial solution: ban cars
That wouldn't be socially beneficial.

and increase the amount of public transport,
Nor would that.

providing fast moving, mass serving transport with minimal traffic problems, also reducing polution and freeing up social space on the roads.
....and wreck the economy with higher taxes and kill an entire industry. GOOD JOB!

Market solution:
Privatize the roads. Get rid of idiotic regulations. Engine efficiency will increase. Pollution will go down. More roads can be built. Congestion eliminated.

Don't try for your doom-and-gloom hollywood crap. I'm not buying it.

BAAWA
That's using a market process.
No, it isn't, you idiot.
Yes it is, you idiot.

Mathematics are not the market process, the market process simply uses mathematics.
So what?


Ah, so you're shifting the goalposts. tsk-tsk.

A kingdom is still a state. A principality is still a state. A feifdom is still a state. An empire is an overarching state.

Again with the attempts to win points by quibbling with the terms.
Nope. You misused the term.

I referred to the modern city state,
AFTER I pointed out your misuse.

which grew with the development of the middle classes and the birth of capitalism. I obviously did not mean other forms of statehood that predated the middle classes.
That wasn't obvious.

Privatize the roads. Simple.

Then how will poor people get anywhere? They won't be able to pay.

You were born with 2 eyes. Some people weren't born with any eyes at all. You feel you deserve to keep your eyes. That makes you an ELITE SUPREMACIST. Eye oppressor! Eye oppressor!

How does it feel?

I could understand if you were talking about genetic engineering or something, but having eyes doesn't grant you power the way having millions of dollars does. You can be born blind and still hold a lot of power if you are super-rich.

Load of crap. Letila certainly believes they are bad, as well as other collectivists so believe. If they didn't, then they wouldn't rail against it.

I'm not a collectivist.

La la la.

WHY? Why must we ONLY use that definition? Is not Hans-Hermann Hoppe an anarchist? Was not Murray Rothbard an anarchist? Why ONLY Proudhon?

Please answer my question.

Because this is the Anarchist Thread, where you have come to discuss anarchism with anarchists (either that, or you're a troll, your call). The acceptance of the working definitions of capital vs personal property are necessary to the debate. Attempting to score points by rejecting the working definitions is simply ignorant, petty and irritating.

Vas.

You were born with 2 eyes. Some people weren't born with any eyes at all. You feel you deserve to keep your eyes. That makes you an ELITE SUPREMACIST. Eye oppressor! Eye oppressor!

Bigot. Obviously you regard people with eyes as being superior to those without, so you're a bigot prejudiced against the blind. Keep going, you're compounding your reputation nicely.

Load of crap. Letila certainly believes they are bad, as well as other collectivists so believe. If they didn't, then they wouldn't rail against it.

No, you idiot sectarian, we (leftists, not collectivists - get your terms right, communism is different to collectivism) rail against wealth, not the wealthy, unless the wealthy make specific use of their wealth to persecute, coerce or attack others.

And how well is that going?

Very well.

Vas.

Privatize the roads. Simple.
Then how will poor people get anywhere? They won't be able to pay.
Why wouldn't they?

You were born with 2 eyes. Some people weren't born with any eyes at all. You feel you deserve to keep your eyes. That makes you an ELITE SUPREMACIST. Eye oppressor! Eye oppressor!

How does it feel?
I could understand if you were talking about genetic engineering or something, but having eyes doesn't grant you power the way having millions of dollars does. You can be born blind and still hold a lot of power if you are super-rich.
So what? That doesn't negate the fact that you were born with the eyes or born to having the money. Address the point.

Load of crap. Letila certainly believes they are bad, as well as other collectivists so believe. If they didn't, then they wouldn't rail against it.
I'm not a collectivist.
Communism of ANY flavor, including the self-contradictory anarcho, is collectivism.

Because this is the Anarchist Thread,

And Rothbard was and Hoppe is an anarchist. Get it?

If you don't like it, then frankly you're a troll.

Get it?

Attempting to ignore any anarchist who doesn't use YOUR pet definition is infantile and fallacious.

Get it?

You were born with 2 eyes. Some people weren't born with any eyes at all. You feel you deserve to keep your eyes. That makes you an ELITE SUPREMACIST. Eye oppressor! Eye oppressor!
Bigot.
Not in the least.

Obviously you regard people with eyes as being superior to those without,
Actually, I don't. But some without eyes or sight would like to be able to see, and you have the ability to. You should feel guilty that you can see. Shame!

It's the same argument that you and Letila put forth. It's your problem that you don't like the wording now. Get over it.


Load of crap. Letila certainly believes they are bad, as well as other collectivists so believe. If they didn't, then they wouldn't rail against it.
No, you idiot sectarian,
Yes, you idiot sectarian collectivist. Communism/Socialism of ANY flavor is collectivist.

That's the definition. If you don't like it, then you're just a troll.

Popper is exactly the authority I think he is, don't make assumptions.

Okay.


The fact that it's quite often untrue makes it complete invalid. Higher prices do NOT always cause a drop in demand - price inflation usually leads to wage inflation as people seek more money to pay for the higher prices. Christ, you're arguing with me without even sticking to the basics of economic theory.

The phrase you're looking for is "all else being equal". Then higher prices cause fall in demand.


To whom does it belong?

Water can be owned. If I build a reservoir I own the water. Rivers should be owned too then they could ration the water for irrigation, drinking etc and control pollutants.


Who, in this beautiful anarcho-capitalist society, is going to make that true? Without a state enforcing certain standards, they will not be followed as the only motivating factor in unrestrained capitalism is profit.

No it isn't.


You talk complete shite sometimes. Public property is usually held, on behalf of the public, by the state.

Any other anarchists agree with this?


The fact that they don't own the means of production tends to stop that. Worker owned businesses and co-operatives are often crushed by larger businesses.

Becuase they're inefficient. The workers own themselves and can borrow money to fund their new business, same as the "capitalists".



Health, security and wellbeing are the most common incentives for the average working person. You really have no knowledge of human nature, do you?

Says the guy who thinks folk are only interested in profit.


Sorry if you can't keep up, I can use words with fewer syllables if you like.

The less you say the better.


Fucking Thatcher.

Fucking Stalinist.


Fine, ignore history. And who said anything about state violence, you idiot, I was referring to union activism - Mayday, Haymarket, the Wobblies.

Unions can exist in free markets as long as they are non-coercive. As for history try reading "Capitalism and the historians" edited by F.A. Hayek.


India: biggest growth in industry is in the service sector, drawing people from the land where they used to produce food. Large sectors of the Indian population live and die on insufficient levels of food. By draining the agricultural sector of workers, less food is produced, deliberately creating a scarcity which leads to the death of people.
Deliberately? So it's a coordinated effort to starve themselves? I don't know the details. References?



I don't "reject" economics, you moron, I reject the idea that what you consider true economics is scientific and anything other than ideologically driven opinion.

Then you are mistaken.

To trot out an old cliche - "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat forever" (or, more acurately, stop supplying weapons to the man's government and stop polluting the sea and let the poor bugger fish like his ancestors have been doing for centuries).

First you guys complain that people have to work to get stuff. Then you complain that people get stuff they don't work for. Which is it to be?

Main Entry: co·er·cion
Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion —see also DEFENSE, DURESS —compare UNDUE INFLUENCE

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
So an "implied threat of reprisal" is coercion. Thus threatening to break up with your girlfriend is coercion. Would there be no break ups in "anarchy"? Can you give me a coherent definition of coercion that means firing someone is coercion but breaking up with them isn't, or are you happy to stand by the claim that breaking up is a form of coercion? You need to think about the phrase "freedom of association".


Yup, right there. Rejection of property is fundamental to anarchism, if people volutarily respect each other's property, it's something else - most likely impossible. "People" don't voluntarily respect each other's property now and never have done.

You understand nothing. Instead of making real arguments you just label something as "unanarchist" (by your definition) and therefore it's bad. You wouldn't last 5 minutes in Anarchy. You'd get shot in the face by some shopkeepers for stealing radiohead albums and make up.

Bigot. Obviously you regard people with eyes as being superior to those without, so you're a bigot prejudiced against the blind. Keep going, you're compounding your reputation nicely.

Ha ha. You're such a fool.

Suppose that there were a standard capitalist economy in which a class of wealthy capitalists owned the means of production and hired the rest of the population as wage laborers. Through extraordinary effort, the workers in each factory save enough money to buy out their employers. The capitalists' shares of stock change hands, so that the workers of each firm now own and control their workplace. Question: Is this still a "capitalist society"? Of course; there is still private property in the means of production, it simply has different owners than before. The economy functions the same as it always did: the workers at each firm do their best to enrich themselves by selling desired products to consumers; there is inequality due to both ability and luck; firms compete for customers. Nothing changes but the recipient of the dividends.

This simple thought experiment reveals the dilemma of the anarcho- socialist. If the workers seize control of their plants and run them as they wish, capitalism remains. The only way to suppress what socialists most despise about capitalism - greed, inequality, and competition - is to force the worker-owners to do something they are unlikely to do voluntarily. To do so requires a state, an organization with sufficient firepower to impose unselfishness, equality, and coordination upon recalcitrant workers. One can call the state a council, a committee, a union, or by any other euphemism, but the simple truth remains: socialism requires a state.

Here is what "anarcho"-socialism is. The Anarcho-Statists of Spain by Bryan Caplan.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/spain.htm

Here is what "anarcho"-socialism is. The Anarcho-Statists of Spain by Bryan Caplan.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/spain.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/spainrebut.html is a detailed reply to that. As far as I'm aware, Caplan has been too cowardly to respond- unless you can tell me different.

And Rothbard was and Hoppe is an anarchist. Get it?

If you don't like it, then frankly you're a troll.

Get it?

Attempting to ignore any anarchist who doesn't use YOUR pet definition is infantile and fallacious.

Get it?
Well, at least your lot seem to have stopped frivolously claiming Tucker.

But the vast majority of the world's population (of those who have heard of anarchism) would use Dischordiac's defination, including those opposed to the ideology.

Why would you possibly want to be called something, that identifies you, to most people, as signed up to a political ideology you profess to despise?

Laissez faire capitalists would be a much more instantly recognisable description of your viewpoint. Or does that stir up too many images of kids being sent up chimneys in Victorian times?

Well, at least your lot seem to have stopped frivolously claiming Tucker.

But the vast majority of the world's population (of those who have heard of anarchism) would use Dischordiac's defination, including those opposed to the ideology.

Would they?

Why would you possibly want to be called something, that identifies you, to most people, as signed up to a political ideology you profess to despise?

How so?

Laissez faire capitalists would be a much more instantly recognisable description of your viewpoint. Or does that stir up too many images of kids being sent up chimneys in Victorian times?

I recognize anarchocapitalism quite easily, as well as the definition of property. Trouble is: Discordiac is using the Proudhonian crap exclusively, and forgetting that there are other anarchists who disagree with that definition. That is counting the hits and ignoring the misses, as it were. That is a fallacy.

Would they?Absolutely. When's the first time the phrase "anarcho-capitalist" was used outside the U.S.?



How so?When the UK press talk about anarchists, they're not referring to your ideology. And from what I've seen, the rest of Europe is the same.



I recognize anarchocapitalism quite easily, as well as the definition of property. Trouble is: Discordiac is using the Proudhonian crap exclusively, and forgetting that there are other anarchists who disagree with that definition. That is counting the hits and ignoring the misses, as it were. That is a fallacy.That's because you follow the ideology. I'm arguing it's misleading to non-politicos. And I would argue that "anarcho-capitalism" is a name with hardly any political pedigree. While there are historical anarchists who'd differ from the Proudhonian view (Tucker's invididualist anarchism being an example) they still didn't call themselves capitalists. And it just leads to attempts to claim people who were never yours in the first place- see Libertovania's laughable attempt to claim the Levellers were anarcho-capitalists.

I never claimed that. I don't generally call myself an "anarchist" but that doesn't mean I won't use it, depends on the audience. I do reject the idea that ansoc ltd is interested in liberty or statelessness.

Why wouldn't they?

If it costs money to use roads, then you wouldn't be able to if you are poor, unless you were willing to spend your paycheck just getting to work. The poor would get even poorer and the rich would get even richer, all through force to make the poor pay for the use of the roads.

Water can be owned. If I build a reservoir I own the water. Rivers should be owned too then they could ration the water for irrigation, drinking etc and control pollutants.

But there would be more freedom if it was owned communally. It could be rationed and kept unpolluted through communal management, anyway.

Fucking Stalinist.

Stalin was an authoritarian like you who believed that the few should live off the labor of the many. Whether the state or corporations should control the means of production isn't as important as the advocation of violence and hierarchy.

Deliberately? So it's a coordinated effort to starve themselves? I don't know the details. References?

It's more a blunder due to flaws in the market.

You understand nothing. Instead of making real arguments you just label something as "unanarchist" (by your definition) and therefore it's bad. You wouldn't last 5 minutes in Anarchy. You'd get shot in the face by some shopkeepers for stealing radiohead albums and make up.

There would be no shops like that in anarchism and I have no interest in Radiohead or make up.

So what? That doesn't negate the fact that you were born with the eyes or born to having the money. Address the point.

I agree that it's unfair that some people are born without eyes, but that doesn't mean that all forms of inequality are now exceptable. By your reasoning, there's nothing wrong with racial discrimination because it's just being born a certain way.

Communism of ANY flavor, including the self-contradictory anarcho, is collectivism.

I certainly don't regard the group as more important than the individual. I simply see the advantages of coöperation over competition.

I agree that it's unfair that some people are born without eyes, but that doesn't mean that all forms of inequality are now exceptable. By your reasoning, there's nothing wrong with racial discrimination because it's just being born a certain way.

No, by his reasoning you should have no problem with racism, since you think it is ok to dislike those who, through circumstance of birth, were born into wealthy families.

As an anarchist, I would agree that public property is usually held on the public's behalf by the state. However, as Dischordiac said, for whatever reason, the state doesn't do this well. Most anti-communists believe (and I apologize for thinking the ones in this thread do so, correct me if you don't) that the state will inevitably become corrupt. This may or may not be true, but I admit that it is certainly incredibly likely, therefore doing things without there being a state is a better idea.

How can a private authority legitimately claim to own a river? And, also, how is rationing something consistent with capitalism?

The more collateral a person has, the more likely they will be to get a loan. Therefore, it is much more likely for a rich person to get a loan than a poor person. Surely you recognize this?

Free-market people tend to think that there should be no trade barriers. Does this extend to things like heroin and crack-cocaine?

And no one has yet to justify the idea of private property, or, more accurately, the idea of private property as it currently stands - "no more stealing!"

Would they?
Absolutely. When's the first time the phrase "anarcho-capitalist" was used outside the U.S.?
Certainly at least when Hans-Hermann Hoppe has used it.
http://www.hanshoppe.com

How so?
When the UK press talk about anarchists, they're not referring to your ideology.
That's like saying that just because catholicism isn't protestantism, then protestantism is an invalid form of xerism. Talk about fallacious!


I recognize anarchocapitalism quite easily, as well as the definition of property. Trouble is: Discordiac is using the Proudhonian crap exclusively, and forgetting that there are other anarchists who disagree with that definition. That is counting the hits and ignoring the misses, as it were. That is a fallacy.
That's because you follow the ideology. I'm arguing it's misleading to non-politicos.
They should do the research, shouldn't they? It's like saying that atheism being the lack of belief in a god or gods is misleading to all the idiots who've been brainwashed into thinking that atheism = communism or atheism = immorality or atheism = outright denial that any god exists.

And I would argue that "anarcho-capitalism" is a name with hardly any political pedigree. While there are historical anarchists who'd differ from the Proudhonian view (Tucker's invididualist anarchism being an example)
Or Lysander Spooner.

they still didn't call themselves capitalists. And it just leads to attempts to claim people who were never yours in the first place- see Libertovania's laughable attempt to claim the Levellers were anarcho-capitalists.
I'm not him, though.

No, by his reasoning you should have no problem with racism, since you think it is ok to dislike those who, through circumstance of birth, were born into wealthy families.

I don't hate rich people unless they refuse to contribute to society.

I don't hate rich people unless they refuse to contribute to society.
And what must they do to contribute to society?

And what must they do to contribute to society?

Labor. If they expect people in third world countries to work for 12+ hours a day in appalling conditions, they should be willing to do the same. If they don't, they shouldn't subject others to such conditions.

No, by his reasoning you should have no problem with racism, since you think it is ok to dislike those who, through circumstance of birth, were born into wealthy families.

Again, this is arse over tit. Wealth brings elevated position, thus, YOU are arguing that people deserve special status because of the economic conditions of their birth. By extention, you are arguing that Ethopians deserve to starve, that Afghanis deserve to be killed by militias, that etc, etc. Wealth is NOT a physical condition, like having eyes, it's simply an economic rule allowing the passing on of privilege from one generation to the next. It's no different saying that the elites have a right to pass on their wealth than it is saying that white people had a right to pass on their supremacy over the black majority in South Africa.

I'll say it again, opposing classism is exactly the same as opposing racism or sexism.

Vas.

Certainly at least when Hans-Hermann Hoppe has used it.
http://www.hanshoppe.com

Sheesh, the first line: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, is Professor of Economics at UNLV. Las Vegas is, as far as I remember, INSIDE the United States. In fact, the only instance I know of the term being used (without quotation marks) by a European is Ken McLeod's sci-fi work, "The Stone Canal", a fabulous illustration of how bad an idea it is.

That's like saying that just because catholicism isn't protestantism, then protestantism is an invalid form of xerism. Talk about fallacious!

No, honey, it's like saying that just because someone doesn't believe in Jesus, he can't be an Xtian.

They should do the research, shouldn't they? It's like saying that atheism being the lack of belief in a god or gods is misleading to all the idiots who've been brainwashed into thinking that atheism = communism or atheism = immorality or atheism = outright denial that any god exists.

No, it's like telling an atheist that you're an atheist because you don't believe in YHWH, even though you sacrifice virgins to Odin every weekend.

Or Lysander Spooner.

I shall allow someone with more information than I have to hand to field this one for me - http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG7.html

Vas.

Certainly at least when Hans-Hermann Hoppe has used it.
http://www.hanshoppe.com
Sheesh, the first line: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, is Professor of Economics at UNLV. Las Vegas is, as far as I remember, INSIDE the United States.
http://www.hanshoppe.com/bio/index.php


Professor Hoppe was born on September 2, 1949, in Peine, West Germany. He attended the Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, the Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/M, and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, for studies in Philosophy, Sociology, History, and Economics. He earned his Ph.D. (Philosophy, 1974) and his “Habilitation” (Sociology and Economics, 1981), both from the Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main.

He taught at several German universities as well as at the Johns Hopkins University Bologna Center for Advanced International Studies, Bologna, Italy. In 1986, he moved from Germany to the United States, to study under Murray Rothbard. He remained a close associate of Rothbard until his death in January, 1995.

An Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, he is currently Professor of Economics at UNLV, Senior Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

In addition to his recent English-language books, Professor Hoppe is the author of Handeln und Erkennen (Bern 1976); Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung (Opladen 1983); Eigentum, Anarchie und Staat (Opladen 1987) and numerous articles on philosophy, economics and the social sciences.

You were saying something?


That's like saying that just because catholicism isn't protestantism, then protestantism is an invalid form of xerism. Talk about fallacious!
No, honey, it's like saying that just because someone doesn't believe in Jesus, he can't be an Xtian.
No honey, it's not like that at all. It's a No True Scotsman fallacy. Deal with it.


They should do the research, shouldn't they? It's like saying that atheism being the lack of belief in a god or gods is misleading to all the idiots who've been brainwashed into thinking that atheism = communism or atheism = immorality or atheism = outright denial that any god exists.
No, it's like telling an atheist that you're an atheist because you don't believe in YHWH, even though you sacrifice virgins to Odin every weekend.
No, it's not like that at all. It's exactly like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Or Lysander Spooner.
I shall allow someone with more information than I have to hand to field this one for me - http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG7.html
Not convincing. Got anything else?

http://www.hanshoppe.com/bio/index.php
You were saying something?

What part of "When's the first time the phrase "anarcho-capitalist" was used outside the U.S.?" are you having trouble with?

No honey, it's not like that at all. It's a No True Scotsman fallacy. Deal with it.

No, it's not like that at all. It's exactly like a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Ooh, you deserve a prize for being the first person to use this old cliche. Quite simply, it's not. Anarchism is anti-capitalist, that's not a characteristic (which is what the "No True Scotsman" is about), it's a fundamental part. Saying it's possible to combine anarchism with capitalism is more like "No true Scotsman is born outside Scotland", which is not a fallacy, it's the defining characteristic.

Not convincing. Got anything else?

The man's own words are good enough for me, but I might be able to arrange a seance. On second thoughts...

Vas.

http://www.hanshoppe.com/bio/index.php
You were saying something?
What part of "When's the first time the phrase "anarcho-capitalist" was used outside the U.S.?" are you having trouble with?
Professor Hoppe was born on September 2, 1949, in Peine, West Germany. He attended the Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, the Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/M, and the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, for studies in Philosophy, Sociology, History, and Economics. He earned his Ph.D. (Philosophy, 1974) and his “Habilitation” (Sociology and Economics, 1981), both from the Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main.

He taught at several German universities as well as at the Johns Hopkins University Bologna Center for Advanced International Studies, Bologna, Italy. In 1986, he moved from Germany to the United States, to study under Murray Rothbard. He remained a close associate of Rothbard until his death in January, 1995.

An Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, he is currently Professor of Economics at UNLV, Senior Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

In addition to his recent English-language books, Professor Hoppe is the author of Handeln und Erkennen (Bern 1976); Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung (Opladen 1983); Eigentum, Anarchie und Staat (Opladen 1987) and numerous articles on philosophy, economics and the social sciences.
What part of that don't you understand?


No honey, it's not like that at all. It's a No True Scotsman fallacy. Deal with it.

No, it's not like that at all. It's exactly like a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Ooh, you deserve a prize for being the first person to use this old cliche.
What cliche?

Quite simply, it's not.
Quite simply, it is.

Anarchism is anti-capitalist,
It's no more anticapitalist than atheism is communist.

Try again, smooth-brain.


Not convincing. Got anything else?
The man's own words
More like words with spin.

As an anarchist, I would agree that public property is usually held on the public's behalf by the state. However, as Dischordiac said, for whatever reason, the state doesn't do this well. Most anti-communists believe (and I apologize for thinking the ones in this thread do so, correct me if you don't) that the state will inevitably become corrupt. This may or may not be true, but I admit that it is certainly incredibly likely, therefore doing things without there being a state is a better idea.
The state = coercive monopoly. Coercive monopolies = bad. Ergo, the state = bad.

How can a private authority legitimately claim to own a river?
How can a "public" one?

And, also, how is rationing something consistent with capitalism?
Depends on who is doing the rationing.

The more collateral a person has, the more likely they will be to get a loan. Therefore, it is much more likely for a rich person to get a loan than a poor person. Surely you recognize this?
Not necessarily.

Free-market people tend to think that there should be no trade barriers. Does this extend to things like heroin and crack-cocaine?
Sure.

And no one has yet to justify the idea of private property, or, more accurately, the idea of private property as it currently stands - "no more stealing!"
Insofar as...what?

I don't hate rich people unless they refuse to contribute to society.
And what must they do to contribute to society?
Labor.
So someone who doesn't labor doesn't contribute to society?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stephen Hawking doesn't labor (physically). Yet he contributes to society.

You are thus refuted.

No, by his reasoning you should have no problem with racism, since you think it is ok to dislike those who, through circumstance of birth, were born into wealthy families.
Again, this is arse over tit. Wealth brings elevated position, thus, YOU are arguing that people deserve special status because of the economic conditions of their birth.
Nope. What's being argued is that people should be able to keep what is theirs or what is given to them. Y'know: property rights.

Or don't you think you should be able to give something of yours to someone else? By your reasoning, you shouldn't be able to.

Nope. What's being argued is that people should be able to keep what is theirs or what is given to them. Y'know: property rights.

Why should they keep what is theirs? Because they own it? That's circular reasoning, using property rights to defend property rights.

So someone who doesn't labor doesn't contribute to society?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stephen Hawking doesn't labor (physically). Yet he contributes to society.

You are thus refuted.

Thinking is still work. I'd like to see your average rich kid living on inheritance come up with stuff as brilliant as he does. In addition, he isn't exactly able to labor physically while the rich kid can when they get older.

Given the fact that they live off of child labor, I personally think they should spend a day in a sweatshop before receiving their inheritance. Maybe that will teach them a little about the effects of capitalism.

Nope. What's being argued is that people should be able to keep what is theirs or what is given to them. Y'know: property rights.
Why should they keep what is theirs?
Why shouldn't they?

[snip strawman]


So someone who doesn't labor doesn't contribute to society?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stephen Hawking doesn't labor (physically). Yet he contributes to society.

You are thus refuted.
Thinking is still work.
Notice how I said "doesn't labor (physically). I put that in there because you mentioned "sweatshops".

Or are you that illiterate?

I'd like to see your average rich kid living on inheritance come up with stuff as brilliant as he does.
More jealousy.

In addition, he isn't exactly able to labor physically while the rich kid can when they get older.
Irrelevant.

Given the fact that they live off of child labor,
Given that such is an ad hom fallacy.

I personally think they should spend a day in a sweatshop before receiving their inheritance.
I personally don't care what you think.

Maybe that will teach them a little about the effects of capitalism.
Sweatshops != effect of capitalism.

Why shouldn't they?

Because this ownership is just a concept in capitalism. Capitalism says they "own" it. In reality, they simply have someone on their side using force to enforce that ownership. It comes down to "might makes right".

Notice how I said "doesn't labor (physically). I put that in there because you mentioned "sweatshops".

Or are you that illiterate?

He can't work physically. I never said that you had to work physically whether you could or not.

Sweatshops != effect of capitalism.

Let me guess, they are because of state intervention and capitalists just happen to reap the benefits of their cheap labor.

Nope. What's being argued is that people should be able to keep what is theirs or what is given to them. Y'know: property rights.

Property "rights" that create elites are no different to racial or gender superiority. Kings had a divine "right" to rule, white people had a "right" to own slaves - slaves were their property. "Rights" are nothing but the accepted rules of society and can be changed when they prevent equality.

Or don't you think you should be able to give something of yours to someone else? By your reasoning, you shouldn't be able to.

You obviously have the analytical ability of a small child. The anarchist position is that no-one should own what they don't use and others need, not that no-one should own anything. But, continue to enjoy your ignorance, it seems to please you.

Vas.

Labor. If they expect people in third world countries to work for 12+ hours a day in appalling conditions, they should be willing to do the same. If they don't, they shouldn't subject others to such conditions.
Do you hate terminally ill people, then? They clearly exploit us since they don't contribute their labour.

In favour of property:

1./ Entitlement: Each individual should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of his own labour. By transforming natural resources individuals can justly aquire ownership over them. If I irrigate a field how can anyone justly use it contrary to my will? If I draw water from the stream who else can justly drink of it without my approval? To confiscate the fruits of another's labour against his will is to use him as an ends to your means, violating his individuality and effectively using him as a slave.

This is clearly similar to or the same as the classical "mixing of labour" justification.

2./ Productivity: Property rights allow the "invisible hand" of the market to come into play. The incentive structure of the market encourages production and innovation which allows massive expansion of wealth. The price structure serves to efficiently and easily coordinate the activities of all the economic actors. The division of labour also contributes to expanding wealth.

3./ Stewardship: Owners have an incentive to serve as good stewards over their property ensuring that natural resources are not senselessly and short sightedly plundered like fishes are and buffalo used to be.

4./ Liberty/Responsibility: Private property allows a great deal of individual freedom. Leftist critics say that it reduces freedom since you cannot use others' property but one could respond that by that argument prohibiting rape reduces liberty since you are no longer "free" to have sex with any woman you want, wheras clearly prohibiting rape increases liberty.

Let's say I wanted to sail around Britain. The resources required in order to build a sailboat (wood or fibreglass, sails etc) are scarce whether there's private property or not. In the leftist world I may be doing the community a great disservice by appropriating these resources for my own purposes and they may not allow me to use them, or may "legitimately" run off with my half built boat while I sleep. With private property though I can aquire legitimate ownership of the resources and persue my goal peacefully and without making anybody worse off.

Of course, I alone shoulder the costs of my actions so responsibility is also encouraged. Private property encourages responsibility by requiring people to face the consequences of their actions and does not allow them to live parasitically at the expense of others.

5./ Peace and tolerance: I can't remember whether it was Bastiat or Von Mises who said "when goods don't cross borders armies will". Trade encourages peaceful cooperation as opposed to violent confrontation. Economic competition replaces political (violent) competition. Tolerance is also advanced. Anybody who refuses to deal with Gays/Jews/Blacks/Catholics puts himself at a competitive disadvantage and will be less wealthy as a result. Commerce has a civilising effect on those who engage in it.

6./ Dispersal of power: In the economic sphere power is decentralised so that people have reasonable safeguards against being exploited or dominated by a single person or body.

7./ Planning: In the world of private property people can form and execute plans. They can assemble all the various resources required for their goals with reasonable assurances that those resources will not be siphoned off by someone else. In the world where everything is held in common the plumber doesn't know if someone will take his van while he's inside fixing the pipes.

If you don't have property.....

1/ Exploitation: People are able to take what someone else made whether they agree or not. This is unfair and immoral and is equivalent to slavery.

2/ Production declines, innovation ceases, lack of coordination leads to inefficiency.

3/ Resources are plundered since you need to use them before someone else. Land is overgrazed, animals are overhunted, fish are overfished, forests are cleared with no replanting. Nobody has any reason to look after things.

4/ You can't do anything without your communes' permission (since everything needs resources and they won't let you "waste" them), people act irresponsibly because they aren't held responsible for their actions.

5/ Warfare and racial strife. People complain about foreigners coming here and taking "our" jobs/homes etc. An exapmle of this is the hostility towards immigration caused by the welfare state. ("They're taking our benefits"). The laissez faire 19th century was peaceful, the 20th century was marked by the wars of the socialists in Germany and the USSR.

6/ There is a great danger even in anarcho-communism that the communes will act as states. It is inconceivable to me that a body which runs all your economic decisions will not also regulate your personal life (there are always people who want to do this and this leaves them an easy channel.)

7/ You are hesitant to start a new venture as you never know when your equipment will be switched towards achieving a different goal.

This is why property is essential for peace, liberty and progress. Anyone who denies property rights is, however unwittingly, the enemy of these goals. This is all academic though, in real life if you try to take someone's property they'll work to prevent you, govt or not. People recognise property.

Do you hate terminally ill people, then? They clearly exploit us since they don't contribute their labour.

Why do you bother asking questions when you already know the answers? It's childish and petty. Anarchists have an issue with people who refuse to contribute the labour they can contribute. As you know well, anarcho-communism is based on the fundamental principle of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

Vas.

1./ Entitlement: Each individual should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of his own labour. By transforming natural resources individuals can justly aquire ownership over them. If I irrigate a field how can anyone justly use it contrary to my will? If I draw water from the stream who else can justly drink of it without my approval? To confiscate the fruits of another's labour against his will is to use him as an ends to your means, violating his individuality and effectively using him as a slave.

Are you completely stupid? Really, I ask because you've shown an amazingly dense perspective here and a fundamental inability to comprehend the most basic of concepts. Anarchism is opposed to CAPITAL property - that which you own, but DO NOT USE, preferring to charge others for its use. If YOU do the work, that's not a problem. If you profit from the work of others, that's exploitation. The rest of your nonsense is snipped because it's all based on this fundamental error.

Vas.

Hello all you anarchists dudes and dudettes, I have a suggestion: for those living in the US or UK or other Western Capitilist nations why not move? I know you wish to change the place you are in now but let me explain: if you move to a country which will be more responsive to anarchist ideals (perhaps one in Scandenavia and get it to take them up then you will finaly have an example of a working anarchist state. You can then return to your nation of origin (which will probably be slightly more left wing by that time anyway due to the slow but steady march to the left) and use the country you made anarchist as an example and show how happy the people are. Then, with probably a good deal of media coverage on the country more and more people will start thinking: "Hey, that anarchist stuff sounds like a good idea. Those Denmarkians are sure having a good time..."

It would be a bit of a convert one country and convert another one with half the effort deal.

I somehow doubt that the Scandinavian countries could easier be made anarchistic then other western nations. Due to the huge state apparatus they have there.

Are you completely stupid? Really, I ask because you've shown an amazingly dense perspective here and a fundamental inability to comprehend the most basic of concepts. Anarchism is opposed to CAPITAL property - that which you own, but DO NOT USE, preferring to charge others for its use. If YOU do the work, that's not a problem. If you profit from the work of others, that's exploitation. The rest of your nonsense is snipped because it's all based on this fundamental error.

Arguing with you really is tiresome. If I build a machine then it's mine (assuming I wasn't working for someone else at the time). Then, rather than use the machine I rent it out to keep doing what I'm good at, building machines. Eventually I might be able to live on the rent from the machines, why shouldn't I? Does the other guy own the machine? Of course not. There's no qualitative difference between "capital" (by your lame definition) and non-capital property. You're just inventing a difference to justify your anarcho-totalitarianism.

Hello all you anarchists dudes and dudettes, I have a suggestion: for those living in the US or UK or other Western Capitilist nations why not move? I know you wish to change the place you are in now but let me explain: if you move to a country which will be more responsive to anarchist ideals (perhaps one in Scandenavia and get it to take them up then you will finaly have an example of a working anarchist state. You can then return to your nation of origin (which will probably be slightly more left wing by that time anyway due to the slow but steady march to the left) and use the country you made anarchist as an example and show how happy the people are. Then, with probably a good deal of media coverage on the country more and more people will start thinking: "Hey, that anarchist stuff sounds like a good idea. Those Denmarkians are sure having a good time..."

It would be a bit of a convert one country and convert another one with half the effort deal.
Would you tell the Jews in the 30s, "hey, if you don't like it just move out of Germany"?

I somehow doubt that the Scandinavian countries could easier be made anarchistic then other western nations. Due to the huge state apparatus they have there.

Actually, the high level of unionisation in Scandinavian countries does make it more possible. The state apparatus could easily be taken over by the unions and control be localised. It would be a lot easier than starting from scratch.

Oh, and worth pointing out:
http://www.christiania.org/

Vas.

Arguing with you really is tiresome. If I build a machine then it's mine (assuming I wasn't working for someone else at the time). Then, rather than use the machine I rent it out to keep doing what I'm good at, building machines. Eventually I might be able to live on the rent from the machines, why shouldn't I? Does the other guy own the machine? Of course not. There's no qualitative difference between "capital" (by your lame definition) and non-capital property. You're just inventing a difference to justify your anarcho-totalitarianism.

If that was what actually happened, it wouldn't be capitalism. What happens now -
A man builds a machine, which is bought by a capitalist, who hires other people to work it for him, thus profitting from the labour of the machine-maker and the workers.

In a non-monetary system, a man builds a machine (because most inventors do not do so for profit, they do so because they are inventors), it's used in a communal factory. The use profits the commune, including the man who built the machine, in equal measure and on an ongoing basis.

The question of who "owns" the machine is no longer valid. If it's in use producing something of use to the commune, including the creator, the "ownership" doesn't matter. If, instead, the creator decided to keep it to himself, then it's his possession. The ONLY time there would be an issue would be if he charged for its use, thus turning his possession into capital property and exploiting those who used it.

Vas.

Would you tell the Jews in the 30s, "hey, if you don't like it just move out of Germany"?

Thank you.

Vas.

If that was what actually happened, it wouldn't be capitalism. What happens now -
A man builds a machine, which is bought by a capitalist, who hires other people to work it for him, thus profitting from the labour of the machine-maker and the workers.

In a non-monetary system, a man builds a machine (because most inventors do not do so for profit, they do so because they are inventors), it's used in a communal factory. The use profits the commune, including the man who built the machine, in equal measure and on an ongoing basis.

The question of who "owns" the machine is no longer valid. If it's in use producing something of use to the commune, including the creator, the "ownership" doesn't matter. If, instead, the creator decided to keep it to himself, then it's his possession. The ONLY time there would be an issue would be if he charged for its use, thus turning his possession into capital property and exploiting those who used it.

This is the same situation just shifted because the capitalist who buys the stuff buys it with money *that he earned or that was freely given to him*. It may be the case that the money was originally stolen but you'd have to prove this beyond reasonable doubt to have a case.

To expand on the above what happens when property in capital is denied?

1/ EXPLOITATION: The guy who builds the machine (or pays for it) has it stolen from him.

2/ Production declines, capital stock is underproduced leading to long term poverty, innovation ceases in capital production, capital producers face coordination problems (what to make for who)

3/ Capital is plundered, land is overgrazed etc

4/ You can't start an enterprise which requires capital without the communes' permission

5/ Settling who gets to use what capital leads to partisan strife - white/black, jew/gentile, local/foreign etc.

6/ The commune controls production leading inevitably to totalitarianism, small scale and large scale democracy will end up the same way, regulation your life.

7/ You never know when capital will be confiscated.

Actually, the high level of unionisation in Scandinavian countries does make it more possible. The state apparatus could easily be taken over by the unions and control be localised. It would be a lot easier than starting from scratch.

Oh, and worth pointing out:
http://www.christiania.org/

Vas.

Granted. But I do not think that it would nessasarily be any easier then other western countries.

Would you tell the Jews in the 30s, "hey, if you don't like it just move out of Germany"?


Yes as then they would not have died in the Halocaust...

Hey it was just a suggestion, to get America anarchist would probably be harder than some other countries and if you got one of them you would have an example to show how great it is.

Personaly BTW I am a socialist.

This is the same situation just shifted because the capitalist who buys the stuff buys it with money *that he earned or that was freely given to him*. It may be the case that the money was originally stolen but you'd have to prove this beyond reasonable doubt to have a case.

To expand on the above what happens when property in capital is denied?

1/ EXPLOITATION: The guy who builds the machine (or pays for it) has it stolen from him.

No, the guy who builds the machine either keeps it himself or shares it with the commune. Learn to fucking read, please.

2/ Production declines, capital stock is underproduced leading to long term poverty, innovation ceases in capital production, capital producers face coordination problems (what to make for who)

Bollix, production increased in Catalonia. Co-operative industries have proved to be perfectly efficient, just incapable of defeating bloated multinationals.

3/ Capital is plundered, land is overgrazed etc

Sorry, have you just shifted to talking about capitalism where capital is actually plundered and land is overgrazed? Use, use, use until it's all gone.

4/ You can't start an enterprise which requires capital without the communes' permission

A. You are part of the commune, you play a part in the decision.
B. You are not part of the commune, you must persuade the commune it's a good idea. Not that different from any investor really.

5/ Settling who gets to use what capital leads to partisan strife - white/black, jew/gentile, local/foreign etc.

That's just complete nonsense.

6/ The commune controls production leading inevitably to totalitarianism, small scale and large scale democracy will end up the same way, regulation your life.

Complete crap, this is what will happen with capitalism. Just in case you're not quite up on what the terms mean, totalitarianism is the control of the minority by the majority. Capitalism, with bosses and workers, where bosses control the workers, is totalitarian. True communism, where the commune is democratic and association is free (thus, people can join the commune if they want to work within it or two communes can associate and diversify production while sharing resources), thus making a shift to totalitarianism impossible.

7/ You never know when capital will be confiscated.

Capital will never be "confiscated" because property won't exist anymore. You cease to use land that may be productive, someone else will. You come back and shout "that's my land", the answer: land belongs to us all, but come and join us, we'll work together to produce more far more quickly than you can on your own and we'll all benefit.

Vas.

Granted. But I do not think that it would nessasarily be any easier then other western countries.

Well, Christiania is in Denmark, so it might be slightly easier, though different places have different elements of ease. It would be easier to set up communes in less populated areas, like the West of Ireland or Northern Canada.

Vas.

First quick one. I never claimed that.You said that classical liberalism and neoliberal economics were the same thing and went on to sayI would take Locke and the Levellers (not the folk-punk group) as the originators of classical liberalism Shall we accept I'm right, you're wrong and move on?Certainly at least when Hans-Hermann Hoppe has used it.
http://www.hanshoppe.comSo being charitable 1976 at the earliest. And it's never been accepted into popular usage, so you're essentially saying that the person who coined the phrase also legitimises it's usage. A bit like Christians who use the Bible as proof of Christianity's rightness.

That's like saying that just because catholicism isn't protestantism, then protestantism is an invalid form of xerism. Talk about fallacious!No, it's like saying that the Moonies aren't Christians because the world's population don't recognise them as such.


They should do the research, shouldn't they? It's like saying that atheism being the lack of belief in a god or gods is misleading to all the idiots who've been brainwashed into thinking that atheism = communism or atheism = immorality or atheism = outright denial that any god exists.No, because atheist is recognised in general usage as meaning disbelief in God. Anarcho-capitalist isn't recognised outside a handful of Economics Professors and bored rich kids. And if the vast majority of people don't recognise the use of a word then it has no real meaning.

"When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.' (Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)




Or Lysander Spooner.Who was also not a capitalist.

No, the guy who builds the machine either keeps it himself or shares it with the commune. Learn to fucking read, please.

So if I have a machine I want to use later my choices are 1/ keep it inactive in my home 2/ give it up completely. Obviously I'll choose 1 and thus waste a resource. Why can't I 3/ allow someone else to use it in exchange for part of what he produces with it?

Bollix, production increased in Catalonia. Co-operative industries have proved to be perfectly efficient, just incapable of defeating bloated multinationals.

I read somewhere about a cooperative venture where the workers went on strike against themselves. Utterly hilarious. In the long run they are less efficient.

Sorry, have you just shifted to talking about capitalism where capital is actually plundered and land is overgrazed? Use, use, use until it's all gone.

Then how come we're running out of fish but not cows. You don't understand the free market at all. It isn't a crime but it will lead to you getting spanked all over the place when you try to argue economics. I'm embarrassed for you.

A. You are part of the commune, you play a part in the decision.
B. You are not part of the commune, you must persuade the commune it's a good idea. Not that different from any investor really.

A. If the vote is tied I'll have the deciding vote. That's not enough to protect freedom. B. Of course.

That's just complete nonsense.

People do complain about immigrants "taking our benefits". Collective decision making leads to partisanship, obviously.

Complete crap, this is what will happen with capitalism. Just in case you're not quite up on what the terms mean, totalitarianism is the control of the minority by the majority. Capitalism, with bosses and workers, where bosses control the workers, is totalitarian. True communism, where the commune is democratic and association is free (thus, people can join the commune if they want to work within it or two communes can associate and diversify production while sharing resources), thus making a shift to totalitarianism impossible.
Totalitarianism is nothing to do with majority/minority. The radical democratisation of the state which you support will lead to totalitarianism. Radical localised super-efficient regulation of every aspect of your life. Political correctness gone mad. All derogatory words will be banned and all recreational drugs too, can't have stoned workers doing less than their fair share! Like it or not, I know you don't, this is where it will end up. People will seek to control each other if you give them a channel to do it.

Capital will never be "confiscated" because property won't exist anymore. You cease to use land that may be productive, someone else will. You come back and shout "that's my land", the answer: land belongs to us all, but come and join us, we'll work together to produce more far more quickly than you can on your own and we'll all benefit.
Property as a legal concept wouldn't exist but things would still be there and you'd engage in legalised theft. Of course, when I shift my cows to a different field in order to let the first one recover you'll immediately take it over for your purposes. "Weren't using it, weren't using it!" Thief!

There were libertarians long before 1976. Henry David Thoreau, Herbert Spencer and Gustav de Molinari are obvious 19th century ones. Spooner was libertarian. He objected to rent etc but accepted people's right to it, he just thought such people were foolish.

The levellers helped start the liberal movement which was later articulated and developed by Locke. That they don't agree with all the modern libertarian positions doesn't alter the fact that they led to it's development. Newtonian mechanics doesn't agree with quantum mechanics but qm was still an elaboration on earlier ideas.

Why shouldn't they?
Because this ownership is just a concept in capitalism. Capitalism says they "own" it. In reality, they simply have someone on their side using force to enforce that ownership. It comes down to "might makes right".
No, it doesn't. You own your body, for example.

In reality, it comes down to hypothetical contracts (I realize that contractarianism is too intellectual for you to grasp, but do try to keep up) that we make with each other to refrain from certain activities.


Notice how I said "doesn't labor (physically). I put that in there because you mentioned "sweatshops".

Or are you that illiterate?
He can't work physically. I never said that you had to work physically whether you could or not.
You mentioned that the people who inheret money just by being born into it should "labor" because then they will "understand what it's like to be in a sweatshop". Now if your phrases do not connote physical labor, I do not know what else they connote.


Sweatshops != effect of capitalism.
Let me guess, they are because of state intervention and capitalists just happen to reap the benefits of their cheap labor.
No.

Nope. What's being argued is that people should be able to keep what is theirs or what is given to them. Y'know: property rights.
Property "rights" that create elites are no different to racial or gender superiority.
The right to keep what you earn or what is given to you DOES NOT create elites.

Kings had a divine "right" to rule,
No, they arrogated that to themselves.

white people had a "right" to own slaves - slaves were their property.
No, they arrogated that to themselves.

"Rights" are nothing but the accepted rules of society and can be changed when they prevent equality.
What is it about being able to keep what you earn or what is given to you that prevents equality?

Answer: NOTHING!

I realize that you think that equality means that everyone has the same amount of money and same amount of misery, but equality actually means politically equal, and especially NOT metaphysically equal.


Or don't you think you should be able to give something of yours to someone else? By your reasoning, you shouldn't be able to.
You obviously have the analytical ability of a small child. The anarchist position is that no-one should own what they don't use
Proudhon: Property is theft.

Ownership entails property.
If you own something and use it, it is your property.
But property = theft.
And that is bad.
Therefore, you have the analytical ability of a small child.

1./ Entitlement: Each individual should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of his own labour. By transforming natural resources individuals can justly aquire ownership over them. If I irrigate a field how can anyone justly use it contrary to my will? If I draw water from the stream who else can justly drink of it without my approval? To confiscate the fruits of another's labour against his will is to use him as an ends to your means, violating his individuality and effectively using him as a slave.
Are you completely stupid? Really, I ask because you've shown an amazingly dense perspective here and a fundamental inability to comprehend the most basic of concepts. Anarchism is opposed to CAPITAL property - that which you own, but DO NOT USE, preferring to charge others for its use. If YOU do the work, that's not a problem. If you profit from the work of others, that's exploitation. The rest of your nonsense is snipped because it's all based on this fundamental error.

From the notion of capital goods one must clearly distinguish the concept of capital[2]. The concept of capital is the fundamental concept of economic calculation, the foremost mental tool of the conduct of affairs in the market economy. Its correlative is the concept of income.

The notions of capital and income as applied in accountancy and in the mundane reflections of which accountancy is merely a refinement, contrast the means and the ends. The calculating mind of the actor draws a boundary line between the consumer's goods which he plans to employ for the immediate satisfaction of his wants and the goods of all orders--including those of the first order[3] --which he plans to employ for providing by further acting, for the satisfaction of future wants. The differentiation of means and ends thus becomes a differentiation of acquisition and consumption, of business and [p. 261] household, of trading funds and of household goods. The whole complex of goods destined for acquisition is evaluated in money terms, and this sum--the capital--is the starting point of economic calculation. The immediate end of acquisitive action is to increase or, at least, to preserve the capital. That amount which can be consumed within a definite period without lowering the capital is called income. If consumption exceeds the income available, the difference is called capital consumption. If the income available is greater than the amount consumed, the difference is called saving. Among the main tasks of economic calculation are those of establishing the magnitudes of income, saving, and capital consumption.

The reflection which led acting man to the notions implied in the concepts of capital and income are latent in every premeditation and planning of action. Even the most primitive husbandmen are dimly aware of the consequences of acts which to a modern accountant would appear as capital consumption. The hunter's reluctance to kill a pregnant hind and the uneasiness felt even by the most ruthless warriors in cutting fruit trees were manifestations of a mentality which was influenced by such considerations. These considerations were present in the age-old legal institution of usufruct and in analogous customs and practices. But only people who are in a position to resort to monetary calculation can evolve to full clarity the distinction between an economic substance and the advantages derived from it, and can apply it neatly to all classes, kinds, and orders of goods and services. They alone can establish such distinctions with regard to the perpetually changing conditions of highly developed processing industries and the complicated structure of the social cooperation of hundreds of thousands of specialized jobs and performances.

Looking backward from the cognition provided by modern accountancy to the conditions of the savage ancestors of the human race, we may say metaphorically that they too used "capital." A contemporary accountant could apply all the methods of his profession to their primitive tools of hunting and fishing, to their cattle breeding and their tilling of the soil, if he knew what prices to assign to the various items concerned. Some economists concluded therefrom that "capital" is a category of all human production, that it is present in every thinkable system of the conduct of production processes--i.e., no less in Robinson Crusoe's involuntary hermitage than in a socialist society--and that it does not depend upon the practice of monetary calculation[4]. This is, however, a confusion. [p. 262] The concept of capital cannot be separated from the context of monetary calculation and from the social structure of a market economy in which alone monetary calculation is possible. It is a concept which makes no sense outside the conditions of a market economy. It plays a role exclusively in the plans and records of individuals acting on their own account in such a system of private ownership of the means of production, and it developed with the spread of economic calculation in monetary terms[5].

Modern accountancy is the fruit of a long historical evolution. Today there is, among businessmen and accountants, unanimity with regard to the meaning of capital. Capital is the sum of the money equivalent of all assets minus the sum of the money equivalent of all liabilities as dedicated at a definite date to the conduct of the operations of a definite business unit. It does not matter in what these assets may consist, whether they are pieces of land, buildings, equipment, tools, goods of any kind and order, claims, receivables, cash, or whatever.

It is a historical fact that in the early days of accountancy the tradesmen, the pacemakers on the way toward monetary calculation, did not for the most part include the money equivalent of their buildings and land in the notion of capital. It is another historical fact that agriculturists were slow in applying the capital concept to their land. Even today in the most advanced countries only a part of the farmers are familiar with the practice of sound accountancy. Many farmers acquiesce in a system of bookkeeping that neglects to pay heed to the land and its contribution to production. Their book entries do not include the money equivalent of the land and are consequently indifferent to changes in this equivalent. Such accounts are defective because they fail to convey that information which is the sole aim sought by capital accounting. They do not indicate whether or not the operation of the farm has brought about a deterioration in the land's capacity to contribute to production, that is, in its objective use value. If an erosion of the soil has taken place, their books ignore it, and thus the calculated income (net yield) is greater than a more complete method of bookkeeping would have shown.

It is necessary to mention these historical facts because they influenced the endeavors of the economists to construct the notion of real capital.

The economists were and are still today confronted with the superstitious belief that the scarcity of factors of production could be brushed away, either entirely or at least to some extent, by increasing [p. 263] the amount of money in circulation and by credit expansion. In order to deal adequately with this fundamental problem of economic policy they considered it necessary to construct a notion of real capital and to oppose it to the notion of capital as applied by the businessman whose calculation refers to the whole complex of his acquisitive activities. At the time the economists embarked upon these endeavors the place of the money equivalent of land in the concept of capital was still questioned. Thus the economists thought it reasonable to disregard land in constructing their notion or real capital. They defined real capital as the totality of the produced factors of production available. Hairsplitting discussions were started as to whether inventories of consumers' goods held by business units are or are not real capital. But there was almost unanimity that cash is not real capital.

Now this concept of totality of the produced factors of production is an empty concept. The money equivalent of the various factors of production owned by a business unit can be determined and summed up. But if we abstract from such an evaluation in money terms, the totality of the produced factors of production is merely an enumeration of physical quantities of thousands and thousands of various goods. Such an inventory is of no use to acting. It is a description of a part of the universe in terms of technology and topography and has no reference whatever to the problems raised by the endeavors to improve human well-being. We may acquiesce in the terminological usage of calling the produced factors of production capital goods. But this does not render the concept of real capital any more meaningful.

The worst outgrowth of the use of the mythical notion of real capital was that economists began to speculate about a spurious problem called the productivity of (real) capital. A factor of production is by definition a thing that is able to contribute to the success of a process of production. Its market price reflects entirely the value that people attach to this contribution. The services expected from the employment of a factor of production (i.e., its contribution to productivity) are in market transactions paid according to the full value people attach to them. These factors are considered valuable only on account of these services. These services are the only reason why prices are paid for them. Once these prices are paid, nothing remains that can bring about further payments on the part of anybody as a compensation for additional productive services of these factors of production. It was a blunder to explain interest as an income derived from the productivity of capital[p. 264][6].

No less detrimental was a second confusion derived from the real capital concept. People began to mediate upon a concept of social capital as different from private capital. Starting from the imaginary construction of a socialist economy, they were intent upon defining a capital concept suitable to the economic activities of the general manager of such a system. They were right in assuming that this manager would be eager to know whether his conduct of affairs was successful (viz., from the point of view of his own valuations and the ends aimed at in accordance with these valuations) and how much he could expend for his wards' consumption without diminishing the available stock of factors of production and thus impairing the yield of further production. A socialist government would badly need the concepts of capital and income as a guide for its operations. However, in an economic system in which there is no private ownership of the means of production, no market, and no prices for such goods the concepts of capital and income are mere academic postulates devoid of any practical application. In a socialist economy there are capital goods, but no capital.

The notion of capital makes sense only in the market economy. It serves the deliberations and calculations of individuals or groups of individuals operating on their own account in such an economy. It is a device of capitalists, entrepreneurs and farmers eager to make profits and to avoid losses. It is not a category of all acting. It is a category of acting within a market economy.

-----------------

[1]. Capital goods have been defined also as produced factors of production and as such have been opposed to the nature given or original factors of production, i. e., natural resources (land) and human labor. This terminology must be used with great caution as it can be easily misinterpreted and lead to the erroneous concept of real capital criticized below.

[2]. But, of course, no harm can result if, following the customary terminology, one occasionally adopts for the sake of simplicity the terms "capital accumulation" (or "supply of capital," "capital shortage," etc.) for the terms "accumulation of capital goods," "supply of capital goods," etc.

[3]. For this man these goods are not goods of the first order, but goods of a higher order, factors of further production.

[4]. Cf. e.g., R. v. Strigl, Kapital und Produktion (Vienna, 1934), p. 3.

[5]. Cf. Frank A. Fetter in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. III, 190.

[6]. Cf. below, pp. 526-534.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap15sec2.asp

There were libertarians long before 1976. Henry David Thoreau, Herbert Spencer and Gustav de Molinari are obvious 19th century ones. Spooner was libertarian. He objected to rent etc but accepted people's right to it, he just thought such people were foolish.

The levellers helped start the liberal movement which was later articulated and developed by Locke. That they don't agree with all the modern libertarian positions doesn't alter the fact that they led to it's development. Newtonian mechanics doesn't agree with quantum mechanics but qm was still an elaboration on earlier ideas."All the great establisments, of every kind, now in the hand of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons; who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for the wages of another" (Lysander Spooner, Letter to Cleveland)

"The earth was made a common treasury for everyone to share" (John Lilliburne of the Levellers)

So we're not talking about elaborations of Spooner and the Leveller's ideas, but a complete break from them.

So if I have a machine I want to use later my choices are 1/ keep it inactive in my home 2/ give it up completely. Obviously I'll choose 1 and thus waste a resource. Why can't I 3/ allow someone else to use it in exchange for part of what he produces with it?

Who says it has to be inactive in your home? And 2 contains 3, you fool. Granting the co-operative its use in return for an equal share of the production is exactly that, except without the market as intervention.

I read somewhere about a cooperative venture where the workers went on strike against themselves. Utterly hilarious.

I read in lots of places about one of the biggest power companies in the world going bust because the whole thing was corrupt. Gut-bustingly hilarious.

In the long run they are less efficient.

Prove it. Co-operatives have been around for hundreds of years. They may not be capable of major growth, like capitalist companies (as they tend to be non-profit), but they're usually perfectly efficient. They are not, however, able to compete against the likes of Walmart, who can use their massive size to undercut perfectly effecient businesses.

Then how come we're running out of fish but not cows.

Where? I think you'll find that countries in Africa experiencing massive desertification are really short of cows. Ireland, on the other hand, is not. This is, quite simply, a perfect example of how stupid capitalist policy destroyed large sections of the agricultural world, by refusing to take local differences into account, preferring to go for the more efficient option of using the same methods everywhere. Also, I don't get your point, over-fishing proves my point. Enough cows in some countries means nothing.

You don't understand the free market at all. It isn't a crime but it will lead to you getting spanked all over the place when you try to argue economics. I'm embarrassed for you.

I understand it perfectly, having studied, I simply have a very different interpretation of it. Mine, you see, is based on REALITY. Yours, on the other hand, is based on some pipe dream of "pure" capitalism that defies the historical experience of capitalism in the past. At least my pipe dream is something new, not a radical redefinition of something everyone can see in front of their face.

A. If the vote is tied I'll have the deciding vote. That's not enough to protect freedom. B. Of course.

Then what's your point? If the principle of negotiation with the commune is the same as negotiation with an investor, only the implications and priorities are different, then your point is null and void.

People do complain about immigrants "taking our benefits". Collective decision making leads to partisanship, obviously.

What "people" do in a non-collective situation (right now) tells us little or nothing about what they will do when invested with real power.

Totalitarianism is nothing to do with majority/minority. The radical democratisation of the state which you support will lead to totalitarianism. Radical localised super-efficient regulation of every aspect of your life. Political correctness gone mad. All derogatory words will be banned and all recreational drugs too, can't have stoned workers doing less than their fair share! Like it or not, I know you don't, this is where it will end up. People will seek to control each other if you give them a channel to do it.

EXACTLY, you complete moron, which is WHY direct democracy, with no leadership and universal sovereignty, is the BEST option, because it prevents elites from taking over and controlling people.

Property as a legal concept wouldn't exist but things would still be there and you'd engage in legalised theft. Of course, when I shift my cows to a different field in order to let the first one recover you'll immediately take it over for your purposes. "Weren't using it, weren't using it!" Thief!

Idiot, your understanding of agriculture is obviously as well-developed as that of anarchism. Leaving a field fallow counts as usage. Non-usage would be very clear and very obvious and would, of course, be open to challenge by a person with a prior claim.

But, fundamentally, your understanding of how most people live is completely flawed. The vast majority of people live their lives by the rules of the society they live in, if the rules change, they adapt, and it's only when the rules seriously impact on their well-being that they rebel. If an anarchist society comes about, it's because people have rebelled and decided they want it. The idea that any more than a small minority would refuse to have anything to do with communes is ridiculous. As I've said before, free association would mean that people could come and go from communes, move to different ones, set off on their own for a while. But, the idea that there would be thousands of "individuals" fighting off the marauding anarchists coming to take their land is insane and completely unrealistic.

Vas.

The levellers helped start the liberal movement which was later articulated and developed by Locke. That they don't agree with all the modern libertarian positions doesn't alter the fact that they led to it's development. Newtonian mechanics doesn't agree with quantum mechanics but qm was still an elaboration on earlier ideas.

That's just stupid, anarchism grew out of non-conformist Christian sects, that does not make either those sects anarchist in retrospect, nor all anarchists Christian.

Vas.

for few or no persons; who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for the wages of another"

But if they did he would accept that, exactly like I said.

There is a break with parts of the ideas but mostly it is the same.

The right to keep what you earn or what is given to you DOES NOT create elites.

In a capitalist society where wealth brings priviledge, that is EXACTLY what it does.

No, they arrogated that to themselves.
No, they arrogated that to themselves.

Just as people arrogated property rights to themselves. I don't get what you're trying to say, property rights are somehow natural? No, they're part of a social contract, just as other rights such as that of kings or to have slave were, that can be accepted or rejected by society.

What is it about being able to keep what you earn or what is given to you that prevents equality?

Answer: NOTHING!

The fact that there isn't a level playing field, that priviledge brings its own rewards and wealth creates elites. If everyone started out with nothing and received the same renumeration for time worked, that would be less of an issue. That doesn't happen. Members of the elites are appointed boards of companies without ever doing a spot of real work and get paid multiples of the wages of workers for doing shag all.

I realize that you think that equality means that everyone has the same amount of money and same amount of misery, but equality actually means politically equal, and especially NOT metaphysically equal.

Except the two can not be divided. Wealth brings power. If I have more food than you do, I can trade food for your work, I have power over you. Thus, we're not equal. In the US, it's patently obvious that wealth brings political power. Campaign funding makes presidents.

Proudhon: Property is theft.

Ownership entails property.
If you own something and use it, it is your property.
But property = theft.
And that is bad.
Therefore, you have the analytical ability of a small child.

Congratulations for completely missing Proudhon's point(s). If you'd actually read the book, or even the summary earlier in this thread, you'd know where you're wrong. But you consistently refuse to grasp the simplest of concepts: ANARCHISTS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PROPERTY YOU USE - WHICH IS A POSSESSION - AND THAT WHICH YOU CHARGE OTHERS FOR ITS USE - WHICH IS CAPITAL PROPERTY. Your continued attempts to score points while ignoring that basic principle makes you look ridiculously foolish.

Vas.

But if they did he would accept that, exactly like I said.

There is a break with parts of the ideas but mostly it is the same.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Accepting people who do other than that which you advocate doesn't mean you agree with it, it's called freedom - that which you imply wouldn't exist in anarchism.

Vas.

That's just stupid, anarchism grew out of non-conformist Christian sects, that does not make either those sects anarchist in retrospect, nor all anarchists Christian.

I said classic liberalism was ORIGINATED BY levellers, Locke etc. As in "has origins in" or "grew out of".

I started to reply to your above post but this is getting boring and time consuming and is going nowhere. Do what you like without a govt. If you take anything of mine you'll regret it.

Spas

Proudhon: Property is theft.

Ownership entails property.
If you own something and use it, it is your property.
But property = theft.
And that is bad.
Therefore, you have the analytical ability of a small child.

There is a massive difference between property you use and property you own but don't use. Capitalist generates an authoritarian relationship and allows you to make money off of others' labor and Proudhon's use-based ownership doesn't. You own only what you use in anarchism.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Accepting people who do other than that which you advocate doesn't mean you agree with it, it's called freedom - that which you imply wouldn't exist in anarchism.

So can I hire and fire, buy and sell, rent and hire? If not then you deny the freedom you claim to uphold. If so then you admit that the free market is anarchism. This is the contradiction in the anarcho-plunderism you are tyring to sell.

So can I hire and fire, buy and sell, rent and hire? If not then you deny the freedom you claim to uphold. If so then you admit that the free market is anarchism. This is the contradiction in the anarcho-plunderism you are tyring to sell.

You can do what you like, but you need two sides to your market. How do you plan to enforce contracts?

*Visions of Spas in his little shop down the road from the communes village as dust gathers on the small amount of produce for sale, the "help wanted" sign peeling off the window, with the happy sounds of the communal food-hall wafting in through the window along with the delicious smells of the wide variety of foods from the co-operative kitchen*

Vas.

So can I hire and fire, buy and sell, rent and hire? If not then you deny the freedom you claim to uphold. If so then you admit that the free market is anarchism. This is the contradiction in the anarcho-plunderism you are tyring to sell.

So can I control my own life and not have to choose between taking orders and starving? If so then you admit that stateless communism is anarchism. This is the contradiction in the anarcho-plunderism you are tyring to sell.

The right to keep what you earn or what is given to you DOES NOT create elites.
In a capitalist society where wealth brings priviledge, that is EXACTLY what it does.
Nope. Does no such thing.


No, they arrogated that to themselves.
No, they arrogated that to themselves.

Just as people arrogated property rights to themselves.
Nope.
http://www.againstpolitics.com/jan_narveson/narveson_first_comers.html


What is it about being able to keep what you earn or what is given to you that prevents equality?

Answer: NOTHING!
The fact that there isn't a level playing field,
There is a level playing field.


I realize that you think that equality means that everyone has the same amount of money and same amount of misery, but equality actually means politically equal, and especially NOT metaphysically equal.
Except the two can not be divided.
Thus showing that you don't even know what metaphysically equal means.

Wealth brings power. If I have more food than you do, I can trade food for your work, I have power over you. Thus, we're not equal.
I am a breadmaker. I need shoes. You are a cobbler. You need bread. We trade for each. Each of us gets what we want, yet each of us had POWER OVER THE OTHER, just as in your example (even though you can't see it).


Proudhon: Property is theft.

Ownership entails property.
If you own something and use it, it is your property.
But property = theft.
And that is bad.
Therefore, you have the analytical ability of a small child.
Congratulations for completely missing Proudhon's point(s)
Congratulations on lying. I put Proudhon's point perfectly.

If you'd actually read the book, or even the summary earlier in this thread, you'd know where you're wrong. But you consistently refuse to grasp the simplest of concepts: ANARCHISTS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PROPERTY YOU USE - WHICH IS A POSSESSION - AND THAT WHICH YOU CHARGE OTHERS FOR ITS USE - WHICH IS CAPITAL PROPERTY.
Read the above passage from Human Action to find out why you're wrong.

Also, I use my car, but I can let someone use it for a fee. What is it then? It is possession or capital property? By your reasoning, it MUST BE ONE OR THE OTHER.

Proudhon: Property is theft.

Ownership entails property.
If you own something and use it, it is your property.
But property = theft.
And that is bad.
Therefore, you have the analytical ability of a small child.
There is a massive difference between property you use and property you own but don't use.
No, there isn't.

Capitalist generates an authoritarian relationship
No, it doesn't.

and allows you to make money off of others' labor and Proudhon's use-based ownership doesn't.
Proudhon states that ALL property is theft.

And there's nothing wrong with making money off of others' labor. NOTHING.

You own only what you use in anarchism.
Wrong.

Proudhon states that ALL property is theft.

"He was denouncing the property of the man who uses it to exploit the labour of others without any effort on his own part, the property that is distinguished by interest, usury and rent, by the impositions of the non-producer upon the producer. Toward property regarded as 'possession', the right of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needed to work and live, Proudhon had no hostility; he regarded it as a necessary keystone of liberty." (Woodcock, 1956, p. 45)

And there's nothing wrong with making money off of others' labor. NOTHING.

Shouting won't make us agree. Here you've moved from debating to simply shouting your opinion. We disagree, that's why we're anarchists.

Vas.

No, it doesn't.

So if I have to choose between taking orders and starving, that isn't authoritarian?

Proudhon states that ALL property is theft.

And his definition of property isn't the same as yours.

And there's nothing wrong with making money off of others' labor. NOTHING.

It's called theft. Ever hear of burgulars?

How sad it must be to constantly resort to misrepresenting your opponent to win a point. It's like Zionists screaming "anti-semite" to all those who question their policies.

Hands up all those who have actually read "What is property?" from cover to cover. I have, I know what it's about and, while it says that "Property is theft", it does so having very specifically defined what is meant by property - excluding possessions.

Kropotkin continues this line of thought in "Conquest of Bread" -
"It is in much the same fashion that the shrewd heads among the middle classes reason when they say, 'Ah, Expropriation! I know what that means. You take all the overcoats and lay them in a heap, and every one is free to help himself and fight for the best.'

"But such jests are irrelevant as well as flippant. What we want is not a redistribution of overcoats, although it must be said that even in such a case, the shivering folk would see advantage in it. Nor do we want to divide up the wealth of the Rothschilds. What we do want is so to arrange things that every human being born into the world shall be ensured the opportunity in the first instance of learning some useful occupation, and of becoming skilled in it; next, that he shall be free to work at his trade without asking leave of master or owner, and without handing over to landlord or capitalist the lion's share of what he produces. As to the wealth held by the Rothschilds or the Vanderbilts, it will serve us to organize our system of communal production. "

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch4.html.

OK, so it stops here. Either accept the distinction between private (capital) property and personal property/possession, which is what we mean, or just give up. Because, quite simply, it's gotten pathetic.

Vas.

Proudhon states that ALL property is theft.
He was denouncing the property of the man who uses it to exploit the labour of others without any effort on his own part, the property that is distinguished by interest, usury and rent, by the impositions of the non-producer upon the producer.
Proudhon: Property is theft.

Doesn't leave much to the imagination, does it?

Toward property regarded as 'possession', the right of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needed to work and live, Proudhon had no hostility; he regarded it as a necessary keystone of liberty." (Woodcock, 1956, p. 45)
Then property is not theft.

Can't have it both ways. A = A. A != ~A.


And there's nothing wrong with making money off of others' labor. NOTHING.
Shouting won't make us agree.
Whining about how unfair it is that someone has a penny more than you won't make me agree with you, either.

No, it doesn't.
So if I have to choose between taking orders and starving, that isn't authoritarian?
You have a choice between allowing your autonomic functions to work, or attempting to stop them consciously. In the former, you are obeying the functions.

Isn't that authoritarian?


Proudhon states that ALL property is theft.
And his definition of property isn't the same as yours.
His is warped and self-contradictory.


And there's nothing wrong with making money off of others' labor. NOTHING.
It's called theft. Ever hear of burgulars?
Oh yes: communists.

However, I would think that you would be intelligent enough to understand the context we were continuing was in a workplace situation. I apparently was mistaken to think that you were intelligent enough to grasp that.

How sad it must be to constantly resort to misrepresenting your opponent to win a point.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Hands up all those who have actually read "What is property?" from cover to cover. I have, I know what it's about and, while it says that "Property is theft", it does so having very specifically defined what is meant by property - excluding possessions.
Then it is warped and useless.

QED.

Because possessions ARE property.

OK, so it stops here. Either accept the distinction between private (capital) property and personal property/possession,
There is no distinction. False dichotomy.

Now I get to ask you why you don't accept the definition of capital provided by Mises. Either accept it or STFU.

See how it works?

Then it is warped and useless.

QED.

Because possessions ARE property.


There is no distinction. False dichotomy.


I said hands up the people who HAD read the book. You, very obviously, haven't. And, like all empty vessels...

Now I get to ask you why you don't accept the definition of capital provided by Mises. Either accept it or STFU.

What's the name of the thread? Shut up or put up (a valid argument within the terms of the debate).

Vas.

Alas, because then there'd be a killfile for the trolls.

Vas.

Then it is warped and useless.

QED.
Because possessions ARE property.
There is no distinction. False dichotomy.
I said hands up the people who HAD read the book.
Ha! Elitism!


Now I get to ask you why you don't accept the definition of capital provided by Mises. Either accept it or STFU.
What's the name of the thread?
what about it?

Shut up or put up (a valid argument within the terms of the debate).
I have. Why don't you address the definition of capital that Mises provided, and is/was agreed upon by Hoppe and Rothbard, who are and were anarchists, respectively.

Tell me, have you ever read Human Action? How about For A New Liberty? Democracy: The God That Failed? The Market For Liberty?

Alas, because then there'd be a killfile for the trolls.


Troll:
According to Discordiac, a troll is anyone who disagrees with Discordiac.

Whining little brat. Grow up.