NationStates Jolt Archive

Found this on politicalcartoons.com.
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7BEB9B83DC-A057-4963-82EA-72ABC2B79067%7D.gif

And I decided to create this:
http://fapfap.org/libertariancomic.gif

Now, discuss. Please tell me. Why is a political philosophy about complete "voluntariness, without coercision" any different from anarchism?

Libertarians are just Anarcho-capitalists. Anarchist, but with an emphasis on the need for a government authority to enforce business agreements (in other words a "purely" capitalist economy, without any socialist influence whatsoever). The "Libertarian" bit is just a euphemism to avoid the negative connotation of being an 'anarchist.' Or at least, some political movement of people who didn't realize where their ideas were coming from (primarily anarchism) and how their ideals were just a branch of anarchism, not an entirely new political sect.

And other than their stances on gun control, they are, by no means "classical liberals", as classical liberals were utilitarian, which is in direct opposition to libertarianism's anarchist ideology of how liberty should never be restricted, not even for the common good.

Now, discuss. Please tell me. Why is a political philosophy about complete "voluntariness, without coercision" any different from anarchism?
Because in Libertarianism, there is still a government that is limited to protecting people's basic rights, making and enforcing a limited number of laws and providing a military for national defense. That's it.

That is not anarchy in any sense of the word.

Because in Libertarianism, there is still a government that is limited to protecting people's basic rights, making and enforcing a limited number of laws and providing a military for national defense. That's it.

That is not anarchy in any sense of the word.

Liberals only think in absolutes, which is why they can't distinguish between small government and no government. It's either big or none.

OMG

Episode III is an anti-libertarian movie!

Sorry! Couldn't resist! LOL

Actually, libertarians aren't against taxes completely. They would rather a much more fair system was put in, however.

Actually, libertarians aren't against taxes completely. They would rather a much more fair system was put in, however.
Very true...and the most fair system I've seen yet is the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/).

Seriously... the limited government has to support itself somehow. Why not a retail sales tax with necesseties untaxed? It's fair to the poor, rich, middle class...and best of all -- it's voluntary.

I don't know if the tax should fall solely on consumption unless the tax only applied to individuals. Corporations that consume large amounts and drive the economy would be harshly penalized for buying American products due to a quantity tax.

I don't know if the tax should fall solely on consumption unless the tax only applied to individuals. Corporations that consume large amounts and drive the economy would be harshly penalized for buying American products due to a quantity tax.
Nope, because raw materials used for production of goods aren't taxed either.

Nope, because raw materials used for production of goods aren't taxed either.

I like the sound of this system. The less and fairer taxes and government pork the better! :cool:

Found this on politicalcartoons.com.
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7BEB9B83DC-A057-4963-82EA-72ABC2B79067%7D.gif

And I decided to create this:
http://fapfap.org/libertariancomic.gif

.....they are, by no means "classical liberals", as classical liberals were utilitarian, which is in direct opposition to libertarianism's anarchist ideology of how liberty should never be restricted, not even for the common good.

Actually, the utilitarians were known as the "Modern Liberals"; they surfaced just after the initial rise of the First Industrial Revolution around 1760-80. Classical Liberalism, the set of ideals held by Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and Adam Smith - among others - is the anarcho-capitalist economic ideology that we see today as Libertarianism. The rise of Classical Liberalism was much earlier, as a refutation of Mercantilism, which is why it is called "Classical."

I am a huge proponent for the fair tax, mostly because I think the government should be quite small, but also because it's more based on the views of the original intent of the founding fathers. Interestingly enough, in the Constitution it states that a direct tax (that is, a tax that takes money directly from a person such as an income tax), should only be used in dire circumstances (such as war, depression, etc.). The rest of the time an indirect (sales, luxury, etc.) should be levied to run the normal affairs of the government. If I had the choice income tax would be 0%, and the only government spending would be towards defense, law & order, transportation and education. Limited spending in other areas.

I'm not even a libertarian either. Go fair tax!

I like the sound of this system. The less and fairer taxes and government pork the better! :cool:
Read the FAQ on the site. I'm positive you'll love it even more after you learn about the rest of the idea. :)

Liberals only think in absolutes, which is why they can't distinguish between small government and no government. It's either big or none.

That, my friend, is a bigoted generalization. Nobody will take you seriously when you're saying things like that.

That, my friend, is a bigoted generalization. Nobody will take you seriously when you're saying things like that.

Sorry I haven't gotten a chance to generalize in a while so I decided to this time.

I like the sound of this system. The less and fairer taxes and government pork the better! :cool:

Which is also why our house and senate will fight it tooth and nail. It takes away the money they can use to buy votes, line their pockets, and force the population to be dependent on them and them alone.

That, my friend, is a bigoted generalization. Nobody will take you seriously when you're saying things like that.

I disagree. I think he's serious.

OMG

Episode III is an anti-libertarian movie!

Sorry! Couldn't resist! LOL

No one quoted this :(

Now I'm sad.

*goes puts his jokes away*

Liverbreath']Which is also why our house and senate will fight it tooth and nail. It takes away the money they can use to buy votes, line their pockets, and force the population to be dependent on them and them alone.

Actually, the actual percentage for fairtax would be determined so it would be revenue-neutral. therefore it wouldnt take any money away from them.

No one quoted this :(

Now I'm sad.

*goes puts his jokes away*

I ignored it because I saw episode three as more of an anti-totalitarian movie...

The sith did end up seizing complete control of the galaxy....not a very libertarian thing to do...

Because in Libertarianism, there is still a government that is limited to protecting people's basic rights, making and enforcing a limited number of laws and providing a military for national defense. That's it.

That is not anarchy in any sense of the word.

Right. Libertarian is just a bit of a colloquialism. Like how in America the phrase "I couldn't care less" became "I could care less" or "each more _____ than the last" became "each more ______ than the next." Libertarian is the American word for what was originally known as a Libertine in the works of Marquis de Sade.

In a libertine society rich people force poor people to pay for the cost of policing them. Otherwise they'd have to hire private security firms which would be a lot more expensive.

In a libertine society rich people force poor people to pay for the cost of policing them. Otherwise they'd have to hire private security firms which would be a lot more expensive.

By your definition, a Libertine society is just what we have today. . . the rich forcing the poor to pay for the cost of (way over)policing them. :headbang:
When you consider that Duh Gubmint is the largest organised criminal group in the country, and that unless we, as a people, unite to deny these ciminals access to the funding they need to continue their unlawful, un-Constitutional crusade against the citizens, nothing will ever change. . .

In a libertine society rich people force poor people to pay for the cost of policing them. Otherwise they'd have to hire private security firms which would be a lot more expensive.

Pfft. Thats even more bigoted than that liberal comment.

And God forbid the people want a small goverment. Yeh, I bet the world would end or something like that if something as terrible as a small goverment happened.

Now, discuss. Please tell me. Why is a political philosophy about complete "voluntariness, without coercision" any different from anarchism?


an·ar·chy ( P )
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

an·ar·chist ( P )
n.
An advocate of or a participant in anarchism.

lib·er·tar·i·an ( P )
n.
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will.

libertarianism
n : an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism ( P )
n.
The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
The quality of being utilitarian: housing of bleak utilitarianism.


I hope this dictionary definitions help to clarify your issues. As is clearly stated, Anarchy is a lack of government altogether. Libertarianism is minimizing government and its roles, also the maintenance of free speech. Utilitarianism is simply judging anything but it's intrinsic value as labeled by usefulness.

If Libertarianism is Anarchy for rich people, then Representative Democracy is just Democracy for stupid people, Socialism is just Communism for confused people, etc etc.

Libertarians are just Anarcho-capitalists. Anarchist, but with an emphasis on the need for a government authority to enforce business agreements (in other words a "purely" capitalist economy, without any socialist influence whatsoever).

Yeah. That's a slightly big difference there, don't you think? I could just say, anarcho-capitalists are just nazis, but with an emphasis on more widespread gun use.

It's easy to say one thing is another when you leave out major distinctions.

Sure there are similarities, but there are similarities between practically all political beliefs.

And God forbid the people want a small goverment. Yeh, I bet the world would end or something like that if something as terrible as a small goverment happened.

Yeah. I mean, what would we do without the bureaucracy!? :p

What is a libertarian?

live our lives in peace perhaps?

Liberals only think in absolutes, which is why they can't distinguish between small government and no government. It's either big or none.
There aren't many people left who actually work for a small government any more. Liberals may have been fans of large government social programs ever since FDR, but even Republicans have put alot of distance between the 'smaller, less intrusive government' they espouse and the large amount of regulation and government spending they have been promoting. The small government people may have once been the right wing, but now they're more of the far corner.

The small government people may have once been the right wing, but now they're more of the far corner

Well, I like the corner. Good company, lots of room.

Seriously, I will maintain that “real” right wingers are for small government. The neo conservatives have hijacked the Republican party and we want it back darn it!

I've never understood why libertarians believe that 'law and order' should be pubically funded. Following the classical economic models that underpin libertarianism, it seems like a privatized police/military system would be more effective/efficient/fair.

I've never understood why libertarians believe that 'law and order' should be pubically funded. Following the classical economic models that underpin libertarianism, it seems like a privatized police/military system would be more effective/efficient/fair.

Indeed. And some do support that idea...but few of them do so in public. Its too radical, one would simply be labeled an extremist. Better to bring that idea in afterwards; roughly when there are no official avenues of bringing grievences to light because what little government there is is owned by private interests.

Like all idealogies, I find that Libertarianism is best taken in small doses. Limiting government is of course better than letting it run wild. But extremes are inherantly unstable; the more "pure" a libretarian government we have, the more likely it is to simply fall apart into corruption and greed.

No system is perfect, because humans are not perfect themselves; they could hardly expect their creations to be so, right? Thus conflict; competition. I find that a constant conflict between ideals produces the right balance of statism and freedom to allow people to live in realitive peace and grow with the times.

Competition is healthy where power is concerned, because absolute power...well, you know the pithy saying. Without an impetus for change, improvement, creation of new and better policies, those in power simply stop improving, stop changing. Why change when you're on top and enjoying power? This goes for libretarianism as much as statists! This goes for private firms and governments, all made up of very failable, very HUMAN people.

How much power can a government have to reign in a multinational corp that is "breaking the rules"? Well, that's a question of state power. How much power is enough, too much? That varies, doesn't it? Without a balance that can change with the times, libretarianism is just as bad as ANY OTHER IDEAL. Its an ideal, not a reality.

That's the problem with the idealology; it does not take into account the changing nature of the human reality. It simply rambles on about its ideals, oblivious.

That's why I will never ascribe to it, nor do I really support their "agenda" as such. Policy by policy, I will find what seems right. Nothing more or less. Perhaps in that...I'm an idealist? ;)

I like the dollar signs on the dude's tie; that was a nice touch. I wouldn't mind having a tie like that. I hope I wasn't supposed to take that as an insult.

Still, I think the best part is the lack of a punchline. Cartoon strips are supposed to have punchlines, you know. It's sort of what makes them funny.

I like the dollar signs on the dude's tie; that was a nice touch. I wouldn't mind having a tie like that. I hope I wasn't supposed to take that as an insult.
Of course it was intended as an insult.

I'd expand upon this statement, but I'd probably get forumbanned for flaming. :p

"the United States is the only country in history that has ever used its own monogram as a symbol of depravity"

I like the dollar signs on the dude's tie; that was a nice touch. I wouldn't mind having a tie like that. I hope I wasn't supposed to take that as an insult.

Still, I think the best part is the lack of a punchline. Cartoon strips are supposed to have punchlines, you know. It's sort of what makes them funny.

If you find a tie like that...let me know...Telegram or something.
I want one...

If you find a tie like that...let me know...Telegram or something.
I want one...
http://www.wallstreetcreations.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/displayleaf/sid/154132666249692637960/str_id/1/lh/h-0,c-9,l-26/pos/5

http://www.wallstreetcreations.com/images/product-l/TB101-l.jpg

Because in Libertarianism, there is still a government that is limited to protecting people's basic rights, making and enforcing a limited number of laws and providing a military for national defense. That's it.

That is not anarchy in any sense of the word.
Thankfully I read this before posting myself ... exactly right

Here's some even better ones. :D

http://www.wildties.com/ww/viewCategory,0,83

http://www.wildties.com/vimages/ties/XR331316.jpg http://www.wildties.com/vimages/ties/RM151439.jpg http://www.wildties.com/vimages/ties/NL200351.jpg http://www.wildties.com/vimages/ties/RM140010.jpg http://www.wildties.com/vimages/ties/RM138110.jpg http://www.wildties.com/vimages/ties/WT100300.jpg

There's a bunch more at that link.

Thankfully I read this before posting myself ... exactly right
I'm glad that someone is actually reading my posts. :D

Is it just me or has Shrubby been noticably absent since his initial hit-and-run post? ;)

I'm glad that someone is actually reading my posts. :D

Is it just me or has Shrubby been noticably absent since his initial hit-and-run post? ;)
Well I did ... deffinatly (specialy sense I lean libertarian ... not too heavy but some)

Those who make generalizations about libertarians usually don't know what they're talking about. In the US there are a lot of people who use that word to describe themselves. Some are all-out anarcho-capitalists with a comprehensive grasp on anarcho-capitalist theory. Most are not. Some vote Republican, some vote Libertarian, a few vote Democratic, some mix it up, and some refuse to patricipate altogether. Many (I assume most) do not support the current Iraq war. There are some though, who think liberty's so great that 'we' should spread it around the world. More serious libertarians hold unpopular views on history. Few think Lincoln was greatest man to walk the Earth since Jesus. In fact, many see him as one of the worst tyrants in history. FDR, Wilson, Johnson and many others aren't often well loved. Some think Regan was a great president, but others strongly disagree. Some have a thorough understanding of economics, while others share the same vauge notions of most Americas. I think this the major cause of several differences. All would like to see lower government spending and taxes.

To my knowledge, there is a distinct differance between libertarians and full anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians still seek to use government, in a limited role. Anarcho-capitalists, however, essentially would place all governmental responsibilities within the private sector. This is often the source of confusion. To add more to it, anarcho-chapitalists aren't really traditional anarchists at all. Most anarchists lean socialist and advocate the complete eradication of the class system. Anarcho-capitalists would vehemently oppose this.

Those who make generalizations about libertarians usually don't know what they're talking about. That's true. You could also replace liberatarians with just about anything and you'd be right. Plus the fact that these words mean completely different things in different countries… liberal being a particular source of US/Europe confusion.

No one quoted this :(

Now I'm sad.

*goes puts his jokes away*


I was totally going to quote it. love me.

I was totally going to quote it. love me.

:fluffle: All is forgiven.

President Shrub, you would do well to learn the definition of limousine liberal (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=limousine+liberal&r)

To my knowledge, there is a distinct differance between libertarians and full anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians still seek to use government, in a limited role. Anarcho-capitalists, however, essentially would place all governmental responsibilities within the private sector. This is often the source of confusion. To add more to it, anarcho-chapitalists aren't really traditional anarchists at all. Most anarchists lean socialist and advocate the complete eradication of the class system. Anarcho-capitalists would vehemently oppose this.I describe myself as a libertarian, but I don't expect people to know my positions based on that one word. I don't call myself an anarcho-capitalist even though I consider stateless society ideal. I take the classical liberal view that government is a necessary evil, but I don't think this necessity is law of nature but a reflection of the state of society. It's not realistic to think that man can change the laws of nature, including human nature, but society is changing every day. I can give a better solution for just about every problem government ostensibly solves, but these are things that cannot happen overnight. However, the state of our society requires that we be cautious when dismantling the beast. Total destruction of the state today, would not result in complete freedom tomorrow (unless everybody agreed with me). I prefer to devote more time determining what actions will be most beneficial for the freedom and prosperity of myself, my family, my countrymen, and fellow humans around the world, than arguing over whether or not freedom of movement can be achieved when all the streets are privately owned. That's probably the biggest difference between me and an anarcho-libertarian. Any other differences between a strong libertarian like myself and a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist are fairly subtle and rather unimportant.

Anarcho-capitalists and so-called right-wing libertarians don't generally recognize that there is a class system in the west, at least not the way socialists see it, so there is nothing to destroy. The anarcho-communists seem to believe that ideal society requires the destruction of the institution of private property. People like me don't think it's realistic that strict limits on private property can be met without government, but that is what they believe. There have been serious anarchists who've deeply explored several aspects of the multiple flavors of anarchism, and have come to the conclusion that there are many ways for humans to achieve there individual and collective goals without need for a state - meaning that without a government telling people what they can and can't do, they will compete and cooperate as they see fit.

The LP does take a lot from anarchism, but it is not really anarchist. Anarchism is specifically against capitalism, for one.

Yeah. Generally people who consider themselves true anarchists don't want to be ruled by anyone, and they don't see much difference between being ruled by your boss and being ruled by the government.

The LP does take a lot from anarchism, but it is not really . Anarchism is specifically against capitalism, for one.

You may be against capitalism, but are you against a free-market concept, meaning freedom to go and trade/buy products from anywhere? That seems like it would be a "freedom" issue, and therefore appealing to Anarchism.

Seriously, I will maintain that “real” right wingers are for small government. The neo conservatives have hijacked the Republican party and we want it back darn it!

I completely agree. I'm so frustrated with the current trend of the Republican party, that I may actually register independent or even libertarian. The problem with the latter option is that while I may be very libertarian economically (I want to abolish all tariffs and most government intervention in the economy), socially I'm slightly authoritarian (but pretty much centrist). So, I'm stuck right now.

If I may offer my two cents about Anarchism and why I don't like it:

Some of you are probably aware that I'm an Objectivist, which means, in effect, that I'm an individualist to a fanatic degree. I do not find the idea of living my life for others to be particularly tasteful or even virtuous, and I likewise abhor the idea of others living their lives for mine. Many people have equated this philosophical viewpoint as being an endorsement of anarchy, but this is hardly the case.

Anarchy is the idea [as I'm sure you know] that there should be no government. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the view that each should defend himself via the use of physical force against others whenever he feels it's necessary and without any objective standards like justice, crime, or proof.

It's a blatant contradiction to assert one's right to forcibly defend himself while demanding that others refrain from organizing to protect themselves.

Anarchists pretend to be individualists; they're not. Philosophically, Objectivism views Anarchy as the opposite of individualism, as it's main modern popularizer, Karl Marx, makes clear: Anarchism is an expression of Utopian collectivism. The theory of Anarchism ignores the fact that honest disagreement and deliberate evil will always exist between men; it does not grasp the need of any mechanism to enable real human beings to live together in harmony.

Some of you are probably aware that I'm an Objectivist, which means, in effect, that I'm an individualist to a fanatic degree.

Are you a free-market capitalist? It seems to me that an objectivist like yourself would find the emphasis on the individual (with all the freedom to make one's own decisions) in a capitalist society to be appealing.

It's a blatant contradiction to assert one's right to forcibly defend himself while demanding that others refrain from organizing to protect themselves.

Furthermore, anarchism contradicts itself once more in believing that, while each individual should have a choice (or free-will), the individual inherently will not violate the tenets of anarchism and forcible accept the chaotic, unorganized society.

Anarchism asks the impossible. It demands that humans transcend their nature, which, while possible for a few, as a whole will fail.

If I may offer my two cents about Anarchism and why I don't like it:

Some of you are probably aware that I'm an Objectivist, which means, in effect, that I'm an individualist to a fanatic degree. I do not find the idea of living my life for others to be particularly tasteful or even virtuous, and I likewise abhor the idea of others living their lives for mine. Many people have equated this philosophical viewpoint as being an endorsement of anarchy, but this is hardly the case.

Anarchy is the idea [as I'm sure you know] that there should be no government. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the view that each should defend himself via the use of physical force against others whenever he feels it's necessary and without any objective standards like justice, crime, or proof.

It's a blatant contradiction to assert one's right to forcibly defend himself while demanding that others refrain from organizing to protect themselves.

Anarchists pretend to be individualists; they're not. Philosophically, Objectivism views Anarchy as the opposite of individualism, as it's main modern popularizer, Karl Marx, makes clear: Anarchism is an expression of Utopian collectivism. The theory of Anarchism ignores the fact that honest disagreement and deliberate evil will always exist between men; it does not grasp the need of any mechanism to enable real human beings to live together in harmony.


I get what you are saying … so would you say that libertarianism lies on the individualism “side” of the scale (meaning it associates closer with individualism then with the socialistic (or anarchistic) side of things?

You may be against capitalism, but are you against a free-market concept, meaning freedom to go and trade/buy products from anywhere? That seems like it would be a "freedom" issue, and therefore appealing to Anarchism.

The free market is only free to the rich. The poor are at the mercy of corporations.

Libertarianism is more in line with individualism, yes; I would say as a general rule it's policies are appropriate in that they tend to account for the rights of the individual. Still, I'm hestitant to throw my lot in with any political party, as even the Libertarians have a few items in their agenda which I don't particularly like. Still, it's small apples compared to what the two 'major' parties are doing.

Libertarianism is more in line with individualism, yes; I would say as a general rule it's policies are appropriate in that they tend to account for the rights of the individual. Still, I'm hestitant to throw my lot in with any political party, as even the Libertarians have a few items in their agenda which I don't particularly like. Still, it's small apples compared to what the two 'major' parties are doing.
I understand and I thought so too I just wanted to make sure (helps if I have things organized in my head to understand where people are coming from generally) I understand not a complete lineup of ideologies but the same general Idea

The free market is only free to the rich. The poor are at the mercy of corporations.

Is that why the standard of living for the poor in countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and now China has become much higher (even as high as European countries) with the introduction of free-market policies? Before that said countries were in deep poverty. In fact the percentage of impoverished in China has nearly halved in recent years. What about the many African nations and North Korea that had the opportunity to do the same but chose to have command economies. Their standard of living has actually decreased.

Just a thought...

I hope this dictionary definitions help to clarify your issues. As is clearly stated, Anarchy is a lack of government altogether. Libertarianism is minimizing government and its roles, also the maintenance of free speech. Utilitarianism is simply judging anything but it's intrinsic value as labeled by usefulness.
Actually, anarchy, at least traditionally, means the lack of any form of hierarchy. It is thus opposed to the state as well as any private form of hierarchy, like wage labour. In common speech it has come to mean "no government", but there's a lot more to anarchist theory than that.

Anarchism makes a distinction between "private property" and "personal posessions". Private property includes things like means of production and land. These are the things that give people power over other people if they own them. No one should have power over anybody else, and therefore Anarchists are opposed to private property. They are, however, not opposed to personal posessions like, say, books, digital watches, combs.

It is here that the main distinction with ("Modern" American) Libertarianism and "Anarcho"-capitalism lies. These ideologies have no problem with people owning land or means of production. In fact, owning these things is a basic human right in Libertarian ideology.

Libertatians expect freedom to come through an economy that's driven by private property and competition. Anarchists, on the other hand, want an economy based on cooperation, the abolition of private property ("The workers must seize the means of production!") and bottom-up democracy.

Is that why the standard of living for the poor in countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and now China has become much higher (even as high as European countries) with the introduction of free-market policies? Before that said countries were in deep poverty. In fact the percentage of impoverished in China has nearly halved in recent years. What about the many African nations and North Korea that had the opportunity to do the same but chose to have command economies. Their standard of living has actually decreased.

coughsweatshopcough

coughsweatshopcough

*cough* people have economic independence so that can buy goods they need without oppressive government regimes telling them what to do, therefore breaking the grip the elite have on the working class *cough*

:D

coughsweatshopcough
I certainly hope that's not your whole argument.

My boyfriend has made quite a convincing argument that extreme libertarianism (not the more moderate or partial versions) is really just a way for teenagers to avoid growing up. It basically boils down to "My money! My stuff! Mine! Mine! Mine! Don't touch anything of mine! It's MINE!"

You pretty much nailed it Melkor Unchained. I was a firm believer in Anarchism back in my teenage days. I suppose reality set in at some point.

Anyway, I just wanted to add that Anarchism would be a very nice way to live in a small society. But I agree it's doomed to fail for a society of more than maybe a thousand individuals.
It's not that anarchism is radically different from Democracy. Anarchists will get together and decide on things that affect more than just a individual. A very good thing when it works, but as far as I've seen it practice, it does have a tendency to be hijacked by assholes. Contrary to what some people may think, this doesn't involve gangs of thugs, but usually a couple of well educated - and often well meaning - individuals who talk people into submission. But the result is equally unbearable.
Anyway, I just wanted to let people know Anarchism has nothing to do with a lack of social structure. Ideally it's meant as a system that gives everyone an equal say. And sure, it works great amongst friends or likeminded individuals.

The free market is only free to the rich. The poor are at the mercy of corporations.In your anarchy, how are goods, services, and labor distributed?

My boyfriend has made quite a convincing argument that extreme libertarianism (not the more moderate or partial versions) is really just a way for teenagers to avoid growing up. It basically boils down to "My money! My stuff! Mine! Mine! Mine! Don't touch anything of mine! It's MINE!"
Oh come on, you just had to say that around me, didn't you! Grr!

Very true...and the most fair system I've seen yet is the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/).

Seriously... the limited government has to support itself somehow. Why not a retail sales tax with necesseties untaxed? It's fair to the poor, rich, middle class...and best of all -- it's voluntary.

Yes, but then most people stop buying most of the things that are taxed. Then the government has to up the taxes on those things to get enough money. Then more people stop buying. Then the government has to up the taxes again........

Eventually there is no money.

And it isn't really all that fair. You still end up with exactly what libertarians already complain about - the rich paying pretty much all the cost of running the government, however much that may be.

Edit: Besides, why the hell should taxes be voluntary. Everyone benefits from the services provided by them - even if it is just military/police/etc. protection. Why should you voluntarily pay for that? It's like saying you should voluntarily pay for your car, but you should still get it even if you don't pay for it.

coughsweatshopcoughWould you rather work in a 'sweat shop' or die from an easily preventable diesease?

Interestingly enough, in the Constitution it states that a direct tax (that is, a tax that takes money directly from a person such as an income tax), should only be used in dire circumstances (such as war, depression, etc.). The rest of the time an indirect (sales, luxury, etc.) should be levied to run the normal affairs of the government.

Interestingly enough, we have these crazy things called ammendments...

It seems everyone is in agreeance that a smaller government is better. But does anyone stop to think about the good aspects of having more money invested into our government? A lot of excess government money goes to small farms that couldn't sustain themselves without help, urban schools that couldn't buy books otherwise, and other projects that aren't necessary and wouldn't make the cut if the government had less money...but yet help thousands of people every year.

Interestingly enough, we have these crazy things called ammendments...
Just because we pass Amendments doesn't mean they all necessarily make sense, and it doesn't automatically validate the text of this Amendment as being particularly justified or objectively correct. I would like to invoke the 18th Amendment to illustrate my point.

I've never understood why libertarians believe that 'law and order' should be pubically funded. Following the classical economic models that underpin libertarianism, it seems like a privatized police/military system would be more effective/efficient/fair.

Yes, and a privatized fire protection service as well!

Oh, wait, that's a big part of the reason that the Chicago fire ocurred....

Surprise surprise! People don't live in isolation!

Yes, but then most people stop buying most of the things that are taxed. Then the government has to up the taxes on those things to get enough money. Then more people stop buying. Then the government has to up the taxes again........

Not true. In fact, indirect taxes are so subtle, most people won't even take notice of them because they are just added to the price of the actual product. People aren't going to stop buying food and consumer products just because they have to pay a few extra cents.

Interestingly enough, we have these crazy things called ammendments...

I was only illustrating the original intent of the founding fathers in comparison to how far we've strayed from their ideas. Granted, many ammendments are definitely necessary (most notably the Bill or Rights), however I think that government taxation has strayed too far.

Edit: Besides, why the hell should taxes be voluntary. Everyone benefits from the services provided by them - even if it is just military/police/etc. protection. Why should you voluntarily pay for that? It's like saying you should voluntarily pay for your car, but you should still get it even if you don't pay for it.

They aren't voluntary. Unless you grow your own food (even then you have to buy seeds and such) and live in a mudhole, at some point you will need to buy something, and pay the sales tax.

In your anarchy, how are goods, services, and labor distributed?

Stateless communism, gift economy.

Would you rather work in a 'sweat shop' or die from an easily preventable diesease?

Would you rather do slave labor or be executed for disobedience?

Yes, but then most people stop buying most of the things that are taxed. Then the government has to up the taxes on those things to get enough money. Then more people stop buying. Then the government has to up the taxes again........

Eventually there is no money.

And it isn't really all that fair. You still end up with exactly what libertarians already complain about - the rich paying pretty much all the cost of running the government, however much that may be.

Edit: Besides, why the hell should taxes be voluntary. Everyone benefits from the services provided by them - even if it is just military/police/etc. protection. Why should you voluntarily pay for that? It's like saying you should voluntarily pay for your car, but you should still get it even if you don't pay for it.Everyone does not benefit from the spending of tax money. Overall, there is a net loss. When a $50,000 bomb that you helped pay for explodes killing 19 innocent children on the other side of the world, that doesn't help me much.

Stateless communism, gift economy.

What's going to compel people to comply with this gift economy, when there's no government (however small) to enforce it?

Yes, and a privatized fire protection service as well!

Oh, wait, that's a big part of the reason that the Chicago fire ocurred....

Surprise surprise! People don't live in isolation!

Right, but if we recognize fire protection as a necessary public good, why don't libertarians recognize other things that can be said to be public goods? Why not say enviromental protection? I don't see a qualitative difference here. Both are situations of externalities. It's certainly true that a private fire sector would be more 'economic efficient' in libertarian discourse, but one could say the same about enviroment. Or schooling. Or, for that matter, welfare. We can certainly imagine a system where the externalities of having no welfare system would be best served by government involvement.

Would you rather work in a 'sweat shop' or die from an easily preventable diesease?

Do you really think a job in a sweat shop is going to keep you from getting that same disease?

Just because we pass Amendments doesn't mean they all necessarily make sense, and it doesn't automatically validate the text of this Amendment as being particularly justified or objectively correct. I would like to invoke the 18th Amendment to illustrate my point.

Of course it doesn't mean that they make sense.

However, I hear people calling themselves libertarians whining all the time that income tax is unconstitutional. At the moment, that simply isn't true, no matter what the original text may have said.

Not true. In fact, indirect taxes are so subtle, most people won't even take notice of them because they are just added to the price of the actual product. People aren't going to stop buying food and consumer products just because they have to pay a few extra cents.

They aren't voluntary. Unless you grow your own food (even then you have to buy seeds and such) and live in a mudhole, at some point you will need to buy something, and pay the sales tax.

The "fair tax" specifically states that necessities, such as food, would not be taxed.

Try again?

Everyone does not benefit from the spending of tax money. Overall, there is a net loss. When a $50,000 bomb that you helped pay for explodes killing 19 innocent children on the other side of the world, that doesn't help me much.

The possibility that there is a "net loss" as you call it doesn't change the fact that you do benefit from many government expenditures. For instance, you benefit from police and fire protection.

Right, but if we recognize fire protection as a necessary public good, why don't libertarians recognize other things that can be said to be public goods?

And that is the ultimate question, now isn't it!?

We can all agree (for the most part) that the government should be there to serve and protect the people. The arguments aren't over that fact, but over what constitutes necessary protection.

'Libertarianism is anarchy for rich people'. What rubbish!

The "fair tax" specifically states that necessities, such as food, would not be taxed.

I never said I'm a die-hard "far-tax" advocate. I support the idea, as being a step in the right direction, and most clauses of it I agree with.

Anyway, even without food taxed people are still going to buy other consumer products. Your argument is still not valid.

Try again.

Do you really think a job in a sweat shop is going to keep you from getting that same disease?Yes, because in my scenario the wage earned in the sweat shop helps the worker avoid being as malnourished as he would otherwise be, thereby allowing him to maintain a better immune system and prevent disease. Whatever the case, employers are at least going to try and keep employees from dying of easily preventable causes.

the more "pure" a libretarian government we have, the more likely it is to simply fall apart into corruption and greed.


wow, i had to laugh at this comment. U have it totally backwards, the bigger the govt we have, the WAY more likely it is to fall apart into corruption and greed, like we have today.

The founding fathers knew that big govt was never the solution to any problems. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "The government that is big enough to provide you with everything you need is also big enough to take away everything you have. The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

I never said I'm a die-hard "far-tax" advocate. I support the idea, as being a step in the right direction, and most clauses of it I agree with.

Anyway, even without food taxed people are still going to buy other consumer products. Your argument is still not valid.

Try again.

So you don't believe in capitalism and basic economics?

Please do explain to the economists why all of their theories are incorrect.

Meanwhile, I'll look at the economics that have always occurred and remember the fact that, other than necessities (which would not be taxed under this system), people buy things based largely on price. If the price goes up, demand goes down. Some simply can't afford it at all, and the others tend to think that whatever it provides isn't worth the increased cost.

Yes, because in my scenario the wage earned in the sweat shop helps the worker avoid being as malnourished as he would otherwise be, thereby allowing him to maintain a better immune system and prevent disease. Whatever the case, employers are at least going to try and keep employees from dying of easily preventable causes.

Your scenario does not accurately describe sweatshops, which don't pay enough to keep someone from being malnourished. And what little immunity they may gain by the very small amount of food they can afford to get will be counteracted (if not completely overwhelmed) by the increased strain on their bodies due to lack of sleep and stress.

And your last sentence is patently incorrect. Sweatshops generally involve simple jobs that anyone can do. As long as there are more people to fill the ranks, employers aren't going to give a shit if their employees die. If they did, they wouldn't be running sweatshops in the first place.

wow, i had to laugh at this comment. U have it totally backwards, the bigger the govt we have, the WAY more likely it is to fall apart into corruption and greed, like we have today.

Is the government the only thing that can be corrupt?

Extreme libertarianism would lead to society being ruled by the corruption and greed of whoever is rich and controls most of the resources. Big government leads to corruption and greed of the government (often the same as "whoever is rich").

This is why the ideal most likely lies somewhere in between.

The possibility that there is a "net loss" as you call it doesn't change the fact that you do benefit from many government expenditures. For instance, you benefit from police and fire protection.
That is your opinion. A tax for fire departments is one of the most defensible of all taxes for reasons similar to those for laws requiring liability insurance. If taxes were limited to only such defensible things, I wouldn't mind paying them so much. Police forces are less defensible. A great deal of a police deparment budgets goes to enforcing laws I find unecessary. The strict enforcement of drug prohibition doesn't do any of us any good. I'd rather have no police at all.

Anyway, all i want to say is that the federal govt spends 1 million dollars every 5 seconds. Now, the current US population is 295 million. If our govt stopped spending 1 million dollars every 5 seconds, and paid it all back to us,the citizens, we'd all be millionaires in less than a HALF HOUR.

Extreme libertarianism would lead to society being ruled by the corruption and greed of whoever is rich and controls most of the resources.

Way to actually study how a real free market would work. The consumer would actually have the most power. I can't think of anything more democratic than that in a capitalist society.

That is your opinion.

Do you deny that you benefit from fire protection? (And think about all of the people who lost everything in the Chicago fire before you answer)

Do you deny that you benefit from police protection? Or would you prefer that we have no way of enforcing laws against theft and murder?

The fact that you disagree with some of the things done with the money does not in any way negate the fact that you do benefit from those things which objectively benefit everyone. It has nothing to do with opinion - you simply want to change the subject.

It is like me saying "This soup has corn in it! I don't like corn! Therefore this soup has no nutritional value whatsoever! It's poison!!!!!"

Do you deny that you benefit from fire protection? (And think about all of the people who lost everything in the Chicago fire before you answer)

Do you deny that you benefit from police protection? Or would you prefer that we have no way of enforcing laws against theft and murder?

The fact that you disagree with some of the things done with the money does not in any way negate the fact that you do benefit from those things which objectively benefit everyone. It has nothing to do with opinion - you simply want to change the subject.

It is like me saying "This soup has corn in it! I don't like corn! Therefore this soup has no nutritional value whatsoever! It's poison!!!!!"

The point is that these things could be done way more efficiently and for less money if they would privatized.

Your scenario does not accurately describe sweatshops, which don't pay enough to keep someone from being malnourished. And what little immunity they may gain by the very small amount of food they can afford to get will be counteracted (if not completely overwhelmed) by the increased strain on their bodies due to lack of sleep and stress.If that is the case, they should not work in sweat shops. If they are literally forced to, that is slave labor and not something I support. Otherwise, they're free to do as they choose.

And your last sentence is patently incorrect. Sweatshops generally involve simple jobs that anyone can do. As long as there are more people to fill the ranks, employers aren't going to give a shit if their employees die. If they did, they wouldn't be running sweatshops in the first place.Sure they give a shit. It takes time to find and train new employes, and the more you lose time that takes. It may well be true that they don't actually personally care about the health of their employees, but ignoring such things is not good for business.

The issue of sweat shop labor is a fairly complicated one. I very rarely hear about specific cases, but without knowing specific details I can't really render serious judgement. It generally is a good thing for the employed, but only because the alternative sucks so much, and that has much to do with government. Often, the government will grant the employer more legal power than the employee. I don't find this acceptable.

Way to actually study how a real free market would work. The consumer would actually have the most power. I can't think of anything more democratic than that in a capitalist society.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Way to actually study history. You know what happened when companies were less regulated? Wage laborers were basically slaves to the companies they worked for. They had no way of getting away from that job, and no way of improving their work conditions so that people getting injured on the job wasn't a constant factor. The companies didn't pay enough to get by, so the worker was forced to go into debt to the company just to survive. Either that, or the company would only pay in credit that allowed the person only to shop in the company's own store - a luxury that was revoked, of course, if they left the job.

We must remember that corporations, as entities, are essentially psychotic. Individual human beings mean nothing - it all comes down to the bottom line - making profits. If profits can be attained by essentially reducing human beings to slave labor, they do so.

As for the consumer having the most power, that is really funny. In pure capitalism, the person with the most resources has the most power. In any society, most people worry just about living, not about having power.

The point is that these things could be done way more efficiently and for less money if they would privatized.

And then things happen like the Chicago fire, where an ENTIRE CITY burned to the ground because the private fire companies sat back and watched the first few buildings, which they had not been paid to protect, burn to the ground. Then, by the time the fire started spreading to buildings they were supposed to protect, it had gotten out of control and nothing could be done.

If that is the case, they should not work in sweat shops. If they are literally forced to, that is slave labor and not something I support. Otherwise, they're free to do as they choose.

You are so very naive. The fact that you have had what you need in life does not mean that everyone has. For some, such a job is the only possible work they can find. Changing isn't an option because then they really would starve.

Sure they give a shit. It takes time to find and train new employes, and the more you lose time that takes.

Apparently, you missed my post. These jobs are unskilled labor. Training is basically "Go do this." The end.

It may well be true that they don't actually personally care about the health of their employees, but ignoring such things is not good for business.

Like I said, as long as there are others to fill the seats, not really. The company only cares about the bottom line - and the bottom line is increased if they can pay almost nothing in wages.

Often, the government will grant the employer more legal power than the employee. I don't find this acceptable.

That's a very un-libertarian viewpoint. The laws that give the employee more power are often the laws that extreme libertarians rant so much against.

Way to actually study history. You know what happened when companies were less regulated? Wage laborers were basically slaves to the companies they worked for. They had no way of getting away from that job, and no way of improving their work conditions so that people getting injured on the job wasn't a constant factor. The companies didn't pay enough to get by, so the worker was forced to go into debt to the company just to survive. Either that, or the company would only pay in credit that allowed the person only to shop in the company's own store - a luxury that was revoked, of course, if they left the job.

We must remember that corporations, as entities, are essentially psychotic. Individual human beings mean nothing - it all comes down to the bottom line - making profits. If profits can be attained by essentially reducing human beings to slave labor, they do so.

As for the consumer having the most power, that is really funny. In pure capitalism, the person with the most resources has the most power. In any society, most people worry just about living, not about having power.

Right on! The textbook description of capitalism is wildly overoptimistic. To put it another way: "It looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in practice."

As for the consumer having the most power, that is really funny. In pure capitalism, the person with the most resources has the most power. In any society, most people worry just about living, not about having power.

I love when people act like companies only need to produce and not actually sell their goods ..... as if the act of just controlling a resource makes them rich ..... you know, someone has to be willing to purchase that resource, and how can a company sell its product if all its customers are too poor to buy it?

And then things happen like the Chicago fire, where an ENTIRE CITY burned to the ground because the private fire companies sat back and watched the first few buildings, which they had not been paid to protect, burn to the ground. Then, by the time the fire started spreading to buildings they were supposed to protect, it had gotten out of control and nothing could be done.

yes, im sure a modern day city, today, would actually be able to burn all the way down to the ground. Also, you dont look at the technology factor back then.

anyway, fire protection could easily be made a voluntary purchase.

I love when people act like companies only need to produce and not actually sell their goods ..... as if the act of just controlling a resource makes them rich ..... you know, someone has to be willing to purchase that resource, and how can a company sell its product if all its customers are too poor to buy it?

I haven't done any such thing, but you have fun with that strawman.

While you're at it, please explain how and when the only possible customers were ever wage laborers.

yes, im sure a modern day city, today, would actually be able to burn all the way down to the ground.

If you allowed it to burn out of control for a while first, it absolutely could. Why do you think forest fires cause so much destruction every year? Oh, wait, it couldn't possibly be that we aren't able to stop it, could it?

anyway, fire protection could easily be made a voluntary purchase.

Sure, if you don't mind that living next to someone who decided not to buy it makes yours pretty much useless and guarantees that, should they have a fire in their home, yours will catch on fire as well.

Do you deny that you benefit from fire protection? (And think about all of the people who lost everything in the Chicago fire before you answer)No, did you even read what I said?
Do you deny that you benefit from police protection? Or would you prefer that we have no way of enforcing laws against theft and murder?How are these laws enforced by police? Police do not prevent theft or murder. In some ways they indirectly encourage theft and murder, and sometimes they commit these crimes themselves. Did you know that before there were any real federal law enforcement officers in the US that private industry provided the services that are now the duty of the FBI?

The fact that you disagree with some of the things done with the money does not in any way negate the fact that you do benefit from those things which objectively benefit everyone. It has nothing to do with opinion - you simply want to change the subject.While there are many things that most people would regard as a benefit, it's still a matter of opinion. Increased measurable wealth is widely considered a benefit while decreased wealth and death are considered losses. Beyond that, there's less agreement. First off, whether or not the police service that my taxes pay for actually makes me safer is more-or-less a matter of opinion (in my opinion it doesn't, while in yours it does). Second, the value of one's own safety is wholly subjective, as is the value of one's own wealth. Some people ride motorcycles on crowded urban freeways with no helmet. Others only drive vehicles with the highest safety ratings and avoid urban freeways as much as possible. Some people will pay an extra $1500 for ABS and other safety features on a new car, while others will buy the same car without those features to save the money.

It is like me saying "This soup has corn in it! I don't like corn! Therefore this soup has no nutritional value whatsoever! It's poison!!!!!"
No, it's really not like saying that. Although the nutritional value of corn is still a matter of informed opinion, in that it's something people don't all agree on.

No, did you even read what I said?

If you don't dispute that people are benefited by these things, then it isn't really an opinion, now is it?

The opinion is what portions are benefits, not whether there are any at all.

I think many Libertarians do not reallize that any kind of forced taxation interferes with the idea of laissez fair. I know that the term "laissez fair" is generally used to refer to a government that does not interfere in buissiness. Note here, however, that I use the term to refer a society that general does not engage in any of force against the freedome to make agreements or the freedome to refrain from doing so. I prefer to use the term in this manner because the classic agruements for laissez fair support only the idea of laissez fair as defined above. Let me show why this is so.

A classic laissez fair argument:
Assuming that individuals are generally intellegent, (If this is not so, then it is probably even more difficult to achieve the goals for which the people severally strive by using force, because of the stubbornness of the unintellegent.) they will make descisions which facilitate the achievement of their goals. Furthermore, they will make agreements which fascilitate the the achievement of the goals of all involved in such agreements and which discourage such actions of their neighbors which may interfere with the achievement of their goals. Therefore, it is unwise to use violent force (in this case defined as force which against individuals who have not made a previous agreement allowing for such force.) to interfere with any agreement or to force any agreement as a means to fascilitate the achievement of the goals for which the people severally strive.

Note that the arguement is not complete if one exchanges the word agreement for trade or purchase. The goals for which some individuals strive are not always served by any government which forces their participation through taxation. For example, some individuals may prefer to support a government which helps achieve their goal of collectivization. These individuals are currently hindered from doing so in capitalist nations such as the United States because of forced participation in a generally non-collectivized society. Such a society only adheres to the concept of laissez fair more than the generally socialized nation of the People's Republic of China because it allows the citizens as a whole, through democracy, to decide what type of society would best serve the goals of the majority.

You are so very naive. The fact that you have had what you need in life does not mean that everyone has. For some, such a job is the only possible work they can find. Changing isn't an option because then they really would starve.Yet my scenario where the person dies because he does not work at a sweat shop is unrealistic? Do you always assume people who disagree with you are naive? Get the hell over yourself.



Apparently, you missed my post. These jobs are unskilled labor. Training is basically "Go do this." The end

Like I said, as long as there are others to fill the seats, not really. The company only cares about the bottom line - and the bottom line is increased if they can pay almost nothing in wages..Replacing your workforce is never free, and the more often you have to do it, the more it will cost you. And if your employees keep dying, new ones will stop showing up even if you can offer them 10 times what they can earn elsewhere.



That's a very un-libertarian viewpoint. The laws that give the employee more power are often the laws that extreme libertarians rant so much against.It's only un-libertarian in the way you misunderstand it. What I'm talking about is that in places where there is sweatshop labor, the ordinary are often extremely limited in the private property they may own and thus are unable to earn a living on their own. An example might be a subsitance farmer who is not allowed to own enough land to be profitable as a farmer and whose mineral and drilling rights belonged to foreign coproations before he was born. I'm not talking about restrictive labor laws.

Besides, socialism has better music than capitalism. The Internationale and Imagine pwn the mainstream music industry.

**laughs** I was wondering if this would happen, and it did! I'm so utterly amused.

This thread DIED for almost an entire day after my post waaay back a few pages ago, then slowly rebuilt steam as people could safely ignore it as it got buried. Even now, no one has touched on it in their posts, it was completely ignored. As well it should have been ;)

Idealism will always beat pragmatism simply because people think its FUN to live by an invisible set of rules. I'm no different, but I invite you all to laugh at us along with me. :)

Yet my scenario where the person dies because he does not work at a sweat shop is unrealistic?

No, it isn't. Of course, assuming that the person will have a better immune system and be able to afford all the necessities working at a sweatshop is incredibly naive.

Do you always assume people who disagree with you are naive? Get the hell over yourself.

No, I assume those who act as if those who are impoverished somehow have access to all the choices they have are naive - because they are. Someone who is impoverished doesn't have their choice of jobs - they have to take whatever comes along. Missing work is, of course, not an option - as they are barely scraping by in the first place. Neither is working a minimum of hours. When are they supposed to look for better jobs then? What if there are no better jobs available to them in their area? Are the impoverished really to be expected to somehow come up with the money necessary to pack up and move?

Replacing your workforce is never free, and the more often you have to do it, the more it will cost you.

Of course, as long as the bottom line is higher than it would be paying a decent wage, the company has no reason to change.

And if your employees keep dying, new ones will stop showing up even if you can offer them 10 times what they can earn elsewhere.

Yes, that is why it actually happens in these areas.....Oh wait, it doesn't. People who are desparate don't have the luxuries we have. They don't have the luxury of picking and choosing. (And you say you aren't naive).

It's only un-libertarian in the way you misunderstand it. What I'm talking about is that in places where there is sweatshop labor, the ordinary are often extremely limited in the private property they may own and thus are unable to earn a living on their own.

Last I checked, everyone is limited in the private property they may own. You have to have money to get private property. Thus, the impoverished are obviously more limited in the private property they may own. You have to have a job to get money. And, for many, the only jobs available are the ones you swear up and down nobody would take (never mind that they do).

So you don't believe in capitalism and basic economics?

Are you on drugs? Where did you get this idea from? I simply stated that I am not sure whether I would endorse every facet of the "fair-tax" idea. To be specfic, I would consider placing a small tax on "necessities" rather than leaving it untaxed. Chill out for a second, and think about what I'm saying. You basic objection to the "fair-tax" system is that if for some reason (you cite the increasing expense of consumer goods) people stop buying goods then the system will fail. I share this concern as well (probably not to the extent you do but to a certain degree), and would advocate a small "backup" tax on the "necessity" goods, such as food. But let's be rational and consider the "fair-tax" as it is. Essentially, I think you would agree, it is a national sales tax (with exception to food, etc.). Now lets consider the states in the U.S. that already have a sales tax. Oh wait, they nearly all of them do (with exception of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon who don't have a true state-wide sales tax). All the "fair-tax" would do was more or less nationalize the sales tax. I know that's an oversimplification, but it works for our purposes right now. Since the sales tax is relatively successful as it is, I am not as wary as you about the dangers the "fair-tax" would introduce. Perhaps you can explain your fears a bit more rationally...

Please do explain to the economists why all of their theories are incorrect.

Don't need to, I agree with most of them.

Meanwhile, I'll look at the economics that have always occurred and remember the fact that, other than necessities (which would not be taxed under this system), people buy things based largely on price. If the price goes up, demand goes down. Some simply can't afford it at all, and the others tend to think that whatever it provides isn't worth the increased cost.

If this were true, there would be a widespread panic in the states which already have a sales tax. There isn't. Furthermore, wouldn't an increase in income tax have a similar impact as your "doomsday " predicts (considering an income tax takes from a person's ability to buy the necessities and luxury items)?

You seem like an angry person...
In the meantime I suggest you let the bulging vessels on your head revert back to their normal size.

You basic objection to the "fair-tax" system is that if for some reason (you cite the increasing expense of consumer goods) people stop buying goods then the system will fail.

Not really. My objections are much more complicated that that. First of all, the system doesn't end up being any more fair than anything currently is. The main issue people have with the current system is that the rich pay more taxes. Even under the so-called "fair-tax" system, this would still occur. Another objection is that people (first those who truly can't afford more than the necessities) will not buy the items. Thus, the original sales tax won't be high enough to bring in the revenue expected, so it must be raised. Then there are more people in the bracket who can't afford to pay for the goods, so they get dropped out. Then the tax must be raised again, and so on. In the end, those with more money will actually end up paying an even greater percentage of the taxes than they do now.

I share this concern as well (probably not to the extent you do but to a certain degree), and would advocate a small "backup" tax on the "necessity" goods, such as food.

How would that small "backup" be guarranteed to be enough to run government? If it were, it would have to be huge, and we'd have people who couldn't afford food - not the best idea - and the reason that food is declared exempt. Thus, another problem with the system - there is no way to be sure that there will be enough money to run the government. Only spending on the necessities is really predictable. Consumer spending changes with all sorts of factors. However, we can be fairly certain that mean income isn't going to change horribly (and, if it does, we're in trouble).

Finally, there's the historical issue. Why do we even have an income tax? Well, the more "voluntary" taxes weren't working. Income tax was instituted and things started running. The problem here isn't that we have an income tax, it is the fact that government spending has become horribly bloated and people are pissed of about how large the income tax is.

But let's be rational and consider the "fair-tax" as it is. Essentially, I think you would agree, it is a national sales tax (with exception to food, etc.). Now lets consider the states in the U.S. that already have a sales tax. Oh wait, they nearly all of them do (with exception of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon who don't have a true state-wide sales tax). All the "fair-tax" would do was more or less nationalize the sales tax. I know that's an oversimplification, but it works for our purposes right now. Since the sales tax is relatively successful as it is, I am not as wary as you about the dangers the "fair-tax" would introduce. Perhaps you can explain your fears a bit more rationally...

Very few states rely soley on sales tax for their income, with most states also having an income tax. These states do not have to fund a military.

The states that do rely soley on sales tax already have a very high sales tax. Those that live within them, when it is possible, go outside the state (or onto Indian Reservations) or on the internet to buy many goods, especially those that are more expensive. People from outside the state rarely buy goods there if they can help it.

Let's also remember that this national sales tax would be on top of any other sales tax, and would certainly be quite a bit higher than state sales taxes. THis would be true even if the government were trimmed down quite a bit.

Furthermore, wouldn't an increase in income tax have a similar impact as your "doomsday" predicts (considering an income tax takes from a person's ability to buy the necessities and luxury items)?

Not in the least. Most people are going to make the highest income they can, regardless of how much it is being taxed. No one is going to say to themselves "If I make a higher income, I'll be paying more tax. I guess I won't try to make more money," because, even if it is being taxed at a high rate, more income still means more coming home.

You seem like an angry person...

Not in the least.

...
So are people who work in sweat shops better off than they would be if they did not work in them?

Last I checked, everyone is limited in the private property they may own. You have to have money to get private property. Thus, the impoverished are obviously more limited in the private property they may own. You have to have a job to get money. And, for many, the only jobs available are the ones you swear up and down nobody would take (never mind that they do).Do you really think that's what I was talking about? I'm talking about <b>legal barriers</b> to private property ownership. I suppose you believe that such things don't matter to poor people, since they're so poor they can't possibly afford to ever own anything, right?

Just forget it.

Hahahaha, apparently I'm rich because I believe in the freedom to live ones own life by ones own terms.

Thats good to know, I'll keep it in mind the next time the bus is late or my freezer starts to run a bit short.

Hahahaha, apparently I'm rich because I believe in the freedom to live ones own life by ones own terms.

Thats good to know, I'll keep it in mind the next time the bus is late or my freezer starts to run a bit short.

Me too. Will those who are arguing that Libertarians are rich Anarchists please inform me where my riches are? I seem to have misplaced them.

Me too. Will those who are arguing that Libertarians are rich Anarchists please inform me where my riches are? I seem to have misplaced them.Everybody knows that only rich people support economic freedom. You two must be exceptions to the rule ...just like me.

But I'm going to get to work on changing that. Maybe if I spent less time arguing with 13 year-olds on the internet...

So are people who work in sweat shops better off than they would be if they did not work in them?

Debateable. It depends on what is considered important. People working in sweatshops may be better off than those with no job at all, depending on how you measure it, but are in a very shitty situation and have essentially no chance whatsoever to improve it.

Do you really think that's what I was talking about? I'm talking about <b>legal barriers</b> to private property ownership.

No, I didn't think it was what you were talking about. I was simply pointing out that there are always limits on property ownership. It is no secret that once the corrupt gain power, they tend to do what they can to ensure that they keep it.

I suppose you believe that such things don't matter to poor people, since they're so poor they can't possibly afford to ever own anything, right?

I think those in poverty have little time to ponder it. They do what they can to eek by and, if they are lucky enough to have hope, hope that things will somehow get better. However, if we allow corporations to continue exploiting them, laws won't matter - they simply won't have the funds to own anything substantial.

Me too. Will those who are arguing that Libertarians are rich Anarchists please inform me where my riches are? I seem to have misplaced them.

You certainly aren't in poverty. If you were, you wouldn't be able to grace us with your presence here. To many people in this world, you are very rich indeed.

You certainly aren't in poverty. If you were, you wouldn't be able to grace us with your presence here. To many people in this world, you are very rich indeed.


The argument is that Libertarianism is Anarchism for the rich, and I am not by no means rich. I am certainly low income - in fact I am rather close the poverty line for Japan.

The argument is that Libertarianism is Anarchism for the rich, and I am not by no means rich. I am certainly low income - in fact I am rather close the poverty line for Japan.

Again, to a very large portion of the world, you are rolling in money. The fact that you even have access to a computer (much less time to use it) is demonstrative of this fact.

Again, to a very large portion of the world, you are rolling in money. The fact that you even have access to a computer (much less time to use it) is demonstrative of this fact.
That argument does not work to support the original statement that "Libertarianism is Anarchy for the Rich" because based on that definition of wealth almost all Anarchists are rich as well.

As a student of economic and political theory, libertarianism is very appealing indeed. Any suggestion that "libertarianism is anarchy for rich people" is frankly daft. Anarchy, as denoted by Proudhron, is the bottom-up imposition of communal government, which Marx discussed in 'Das Kapital'. Those who live in impoverished, heavily work-orientated neighbourhoods will have no time for and little positive experience of community self-determination.

Secondly, the notion of economic freedom being largely for the benefit of big business is something of a misnomer. Whilst it undoubtedly does have significant advantages (however, the 'trickle down' approach by Friedman does tend to counteract this in socio-economic terms) for transnational corporations, the abolition of tax and/or the massive extension of the personal allowance coupled with market choice-based reform of monopolised public services will give the poorest in society chances they have never experienced before, and will end the ludicrous situation we have in Britain where those on the minimum wage pay 20% income tax.

Libertarianism does have some unfortunate obstacles to implementation, but it can safely be said that it is most certainly NOT anarchy for the bourgeoisie.

That is your opinion. A tax for fire departments is one of the most defensible of all taxes for reasons similar to those for laws requiring liability insurance. If taxes were limited to only such defensible things, I wouldn't mind paying them so much. Police forces are less defensible. A great deal of a police deparment budgets goes to enforcing laws I find unecessary. The strict enforcement of drug prohibition doesn't do any of us any good. I'd rather have no police at all.

And Libetarians wonder why their ideals aren't widely accepted...

Secondly, the notion of economic freedom being largely for the benefit of big business is something of a misnomer. Whilst it undoubtedly does have significant advantages (however, the 'trickle down' approach by Friedman does tend to counteract this in socio-economic terms) for transnational corporations, the abolition of tax and/or the massive extension of the personal allowance coupled with market choice-based reform of monopolised public services will give the poorest in society chances they have never experienced before, and will end the ludicrous situation we have in Britain where those on the minimum wage pay 20% income tax.

Bravo. I happen to believe in the "trickle down" theory of economics (or as I like to say "the wave" concept--ie the rich the crest of the wave, and everyone else rides the wave and benefits), but I completely agree with your view on taxation. For the same reason why Democracy has consistently shown itself to be the instigator of prosperity and liberation for the lower class (freedom), so too does the libertarian (or more properly conservative) style of government with low taxes and low spending coupled with free-market policies, will provide ECONOMIC freedom for the lower classes.

Bravo. I happen to believe in the "trickle down" theory of economics (or as I like to say "the wave" concept--ie the rich the crest of the wave, and everyone else rides the wave and benefits), but I completely agree with your view on taxation. For the same reason why Democracy has consistently shown itself to be the instigator of prosperity and liberation for the lower class (freedom), so too does the libertarian (or more properly conservative) style of government with low taxes and low spending coupled with free-market policies, will provide ECONOMIC freedom for the lower classes.

hooray! (cheers for libertarianism)

Yes I must agree, Libertarianism sounds very appealing, Hoover's Libertarian policies did wonders to lift the great depression.

Yes I must agree, Libertarianism sounds very appealing, Hoover's Libertarian policies did wonders to lift the great depression.

What's funny was that Hoover didn't even crash the market. It crashed on its own. His hands off policy was also making it recover too. That recovery was stifled when FDR introduced his economic policies. Those sucked. If he had just left well enough alone, our economy would've recovered faster and it wouldn't have needed a war to bring us out of that depression.

Yes I must agree, Libertarianism sounds very appealing, Hoover's Libertarian policies did wonders to lift the great depression.

Hmm. Nothing like good 'ol fashioned sarcasm. :D

However, I would like to refute your claim that Hoover implemented libertarian policies. I would argue that Hoover did absolutely NOTHING. He was apathetic to his response to growing economic hardship (and let me remind you this was in a time where government protection of competition was virtually unknown--something most modern libertarians acknowledge as vital nowadays), rather than libertarian. The economy suffered due to completely unrestrained cutthroat economics hearkening back to the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution Era.

Irrelevent example, as modern day economic libertarianism prevents the coporatist and anti-competition practices that plagued our country previously. This is much like how our current stock market has better restraints and regulations to prevent a widespread crash (such as the one that led to the Great Depression).

Nice try. :p

What's funny was that Hoover didn't even crash the market. It crashed on its own. His hands off policy was also making it recover too. That recovery was stifled when FDR introduced his economic policies. Those sucked. If he had just left well enough alone, our economy would've recovered faster and it wouldn't have needed a war to bring us out of that depression.

I agree that Hoover did not single-handedly cause the Great Depression (I attribute that to a number of factors--corporations crushing competition due to no regulation, and corrupt stock market speculation, all of which have incidentally been fixed since then). I think nowadays a hands off policy can help the U.S. recover from a recession, but some action, definitely not what FDR chose, but nonetheless certain action needed to be taken to drag our country out of the depression.

Another point. War does tend to help the economy, but it also causes inflation, so its sort of like playing with fire...

Yes I must agree, Libertarianism sounds very appealing, Hoover's Libertarian policies did wonders to lift the great depression.

Hoover was actually doing the right thing originally. He just got crucified like any politician lucky enough to be in power when a major crisis started would be. He was pressured into what later became FDR's nouveau socialism that, by the way, did nothing to solve the depression (unemployment rates never improved until the war broke out). Hoover had it right when he was originally encouraging top businessmen to not drop out of the market and to keep spending. There is no magic fix to a depression. HOWEVER, market confidence is NECESSARY to have any chance of getting out of it, and that was the correct approach Hoover had initially been taking. Nevertheless, FDR, in his and his brain-tank's almost complete ignorance of actual economics, screwed over the economy even more than it had been with his USSR-like price controls, incomprehensible massive regulations of industry, and siphoning off of valuable laborers to do "public works." Not to mention the fact that FDR ushered in the failed welfare state that we have come to know today in the U.S.

Heh, sorry, I just hate when people try to bash Hoover, when he was only trying to take the correct course of action during a depression.

Yes I must agree, Libertarianism sounds very appealing, Hoover's Libertarian policies did wonders to lift the great depression.
Freidman provided an explanation for the Great Depression that has nothing to do with economic policy. The problem was monetary policy. In the second half of the 1920's, the U.S. government did not increase the stock of money whatsoever. It should have increased the stock of money 3-5% each year adjusted for any change in population. A comparitive decrease in the stock of money caused velocity (the speed at which money is spent) to plummit. This decrease in velocity ruined the stability of both the Stock Market and the Banks leading to a drastic decrease in investor confidence. Remember that through most of the 20's investor confidence was extremely high. The shift from extremely high to relatively low levels of investor confidence caused the Stock Market crach of 1929 and the run on the banks of 1930. The run on the banks in 1930 directly caused the great depression. Although the banks were able to repay 85% of their debt, liquidation of their assets took away all the money borrowed for mortgages on homes and farms, small buissiness loans etc. ruining the most vital personal investments of millions of individuals and throwing the nation into poverty.

That argument does not work to support the original statement that "Libertarianism is Anarchy for the Rich" because based on that definition of wealth almost all Anarchists are rich as well.

*shrug* I didn't make the first post, so I don't really care to support it.

Most extremist political views are the luxury of those with money. The people who have to struggle are generally too focused on just getting by.

And Libetarians wonder why their ideals aren't widely accepted...

That's not a Libertarian ideal. Many Libertarians support public police. Anarcho-capitalists are the ones who support private police along with some extreme Libertarians.

That argument does not work to support the original statement that "Libertarianism is Anarchy for the Rich" because based on that definition of wealth almost all Anarchists are rich as well.

:D I wondered if anyone would catch that.

Another point. War does tend to help the economy, but it also causes inflation, so its sort of like playing with fire...

Wartime, even according to Keynes - who in the words of the grandfather of libertarianism Milton Friedman was "wrong on just about everything" - is dire for decent economics. Being a Brit, our government in WW1 was quite happy to plunge people into economic austerity whilst borrowing masses of money, in the belief that not only would it temporarily prop the economy up - but it would negate any devaluation of the gold standard (which in itself was horrific for free trade and wages).

And Libetarians wonder why their ideals aren't widely accepted...

I'd also like to take cautious issue with this post, in response to comments made about privatising the police force. The problem for the police is not just that many of the laws (enforcing vs. so-called 'victimless crimes') are sloth in terms of social progression and standstill in neccessity, but that the force is monopolised by nature.
When you have a force which is wholly unaccountable (hence also the race issues prevalent in America), it will not respond positively to any beneficial changes. This is what Malthaus called "the curse of lacklustre motive". Why bother to reform for the better if central government is still going to issue monetary hand-me-downs?
I can't claim to be the greatest advocate of a privatised police force (indeed, I'm against the idea for numerous reasons), but bold steps in the name of accountability, market-based reform and eliminating unneccessary laws can only be for the better. And contrary to the sneeriness in that post, those ideals are not only "widely accepted" but yearned for.

Most extremist political views are the luxury of those with money. The people who have to struggle are generally too focused on just getting by.

Somebody doesn't know their history! Whether you agree with Marx or not, the seven stages of history he outined in 'Das Kapital' suggest that history moves forward through class revolution (Trotsky: "class is the locomotive of history"). This has been proven the case time and time again.

Your first statement is equally incorrect. The locaquious gentlemen in the American Senate and our Parliament/Lords are loaded with money. Yet they all hold relatively centrist, unadventurous views to maintain their stranglehold on the populace. Provisional policies for eternal rule - how ridiculous is that?

Somebody doesn't know their history! Whether you agree with Marx or not, the seven stages of history he outined in 'Das Kapital' suggest that history moves forward through class revolution (Trotsky: "class is the locomotive of history"). This has been proven the case time and time again.

Yes, and it is generally a middle class that leads revolution. Very, very rarely do the lowest classes do so.

Your first statement is equally incorrect. The locaquious gentlemen in the American Senate and our Parliament/Lords are loaded with money. Yet they all hold relatively centrist, unadventurous views to maintain their stranglehold on the populace. Provisional policies for eternal rule - how ridiculous is that?

Wow, you have very poor reading comprehension. I said that people with extremist views tend to have money, not that all who have money hold extremist views. Please do try again.

...
Police forces are less defensible. A great deal of a police deparment budgets goes to enforcing laws I find unecessary. The strict enforcement of drug prohibition doesn't do any of us any good. I'd rather have no police at all.And Libetarians wonder why their ideals aren't widely accepted...I don't wonder that. I understand that the typical American would find a police-less world a frightening concept. I grew up in the same world you did and it has taken me years to reach my current conclusions. I don't expect others to get here any faster, if they ever do at all. I'm asserting the police do more harm than good overall, I don't expect many to agree, but if I had a choice I would not pay for it.

My statement was a response to the claim that I benefit from how my tax money's spent. I'm saying that I don't benefit, that I would be better off without a police force. Such judgements are inherently subjective because we all have different values and perspectives, therefore I cannot 'prove' that I do not benefit and nobody can prove that I do.

My statement was a response to the claim that I benefit from how my tax money's spent. I'm saying that I don't benefit, that I would be better off without a police force. Such judgements are inherently subjective because we all have different values and perspectives, therefore I cannot 'prove' that I do not benefit and nobody can prove that I do.

And yet ignoring the fact that you have already admitted that you benefit from fire protection - thus you benefit from your tax money being spent. The fact that you don't think the police force benefits you has no bearing on whether or not other programs do.

Dempublicents1:
You've said that you don't support the OP's assertion that "Libertarianism is Anarchism for the rich". However when I said there are Libertarians who are not rich, you disagreed (by stating that I am rich, by your standards - due to my having access to a computer).

As I see it, either you agree with the OP that Libertarianism is a philosophy of the rich or you agree with me that it is not. I don't understand how you can claim you disagree with both the OP and myself.
Can you please explain?

Found this on politicalcartoons.com.
http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7BEB9B83DC-A057-4963-82EA-72ABC2B79067%7D.gif

And I decided to create this:
http://fapfap.org/libertariancomic.gif

Now, discuss. Please tell me. Why is a political philosophy about complete "voluntariness, without coercision" any different from anarchism?

Libertarians are just Anarcho-capitalists. Anarchist, but with an emphasis on the need for a government authority to enforce business agreements (in other words a "purely" capitalist economy, without any socialist influence whatsoever). The "Libertarian" bit is just a euphemism to avoid the negative connotation of being an 'anarchist.' Or at least, some political movement of people who didn't realize where their ideas were coming from (primarily anarchism) and how their ideals were just a branch of anarchism, not an entirely new political sect.

And other than their stances on gun control, they are, by no means "classical liberals", as classical liberals were utilitarian, which is in direct opposition to libertarianism's anarchist ideology of how liberty should never be restricted, not even for the common good.

Well because, Anrchism is a Purely Communist Ideology. Those who tend to be "anarcho-capitalists" as you said, mostly become Conservatives when they realize anarchy is real crap and illusion/poison for the people. Second of all, Capitalism and Anarchy don't fit together, because Capitalism is a Democratic and Pro-Law and Order System as for Anarchy, it is a anti-free market, anti-order, made for weaks/criminals and unstable system.


Sirvian Prime Minister

-snip-Libertarianism does have some unfortunate obstacles to implementation, but it can safely be said that it is most certainly NOT anarchy for the bourgeoisie.

but anarchism is the logical end result of libertarian reasoning:
Libertarians:
To be free is to be free of human intervention to do what I will
Freedom is intrinsically good
Laws always restrict freedom
This obviously leads us to the conclusion that the best society is the most free society, and that in order to be maximally free, there will be no laws.

As for the 'bourgeois' question, it seems obvious that in a society without 'laws' as such (other than 'natural' law, though I disagree with this concept) those with the most capital/control of the means of production (the bourgeoisie by definition) will have the most power and ability to shape society. This seems self-evident to me: if the only political action is in economic exchange (which is implied in libertarianism; all political action is privatised into private entities), than those most able to execercise economic exchanges will have the most power. In a libertarian society, as an individual's wealth goes up, his ability to dominate that society goes up as well.

but anarchism is the logical end result of libertarian reasoning:
Libertarians:
To be free is to be free of human intervention to do what I will
Freedom is intrinsically good
Laws always restrict freedom
This obviously leads us to the conclusion that the best society is the most free society, and that in order to be maximally free, there will be no laws.



While in certain ways this seems true to me, I don't think they'd like true anarchy. But extreme libertarianism, especially in the economic sense, means if you have money and resources, do what you will. If you don' have them, oh well, I guess you're screwed. Too bad.

Dempublicents1:
You've said that you don't support the OP's assertion that "Libertarianism is Anarchism for the rich". However when I said there are Libertarians who are not rich, you disagreed (by stating that I am rich, by your standards - due to my having access to a computer).

As I see it, either you agree with the OP that Libertarianism is a philosophy of the rich or you agree with me that it is not. I don't understand how you can claim you disagree with both the OP and myself.
Can you please explain?

Libertarianism is a philosophy of those who have money and time. Those who have neither can't really bother with philosophy at all.

"Rich" is a subjective term. I was simply pointing out that, to many in this world, you are incredibly rich. OP claimed that libertarianism is anarchy for the rich. I would claim that both views are views espoused by those who have money.

If people are intelligent than an individual's wealth can only increase if he/she does good for society. I consider it entirely permissible for people who have contributed enough to society to gain a great deal of wealth to have more power. Secondly, wealth is not the only means to power. Even in a market society, there are other ways to gain influence. In fact, according to Freidman, unequal wealth is very important to the spread of unpopular ideas, and therefore the ability of the common man to gain influence. In a market society, a supporter of an unpopular idea merely has to gain a wealthy patron in order to have access to a wide audience through advertising and publishing of books etc. Although no such system necessarily exists within a non-market society, Freidman admits that it is not impossible to create one. What Freidman misses, however, is that in any society that encourages free speech the spread of ideas and thus the ability of common men to gain influence is relatively easy.

Finally, I absolutely agree with you, Mallberta, that the essential arguments behind Libertarianism lead to Anarchism, although this does not mean in any way that Libertarians are Anarchists. In assuming that people are intelligent enough to make any economic agreement, I believe that one must also assume that individuals are also intelligent enough to freely agree to laws which aid in the achievement of their goals. It is, therefore, ignorant to say that society needs any rules other than those upon which individuals have freely agreed.

If people are intelligent than an individual's wealth can only increase if he/she does good for society. I consider it entirely permissible for people who have contributed enough to society to gain a great deal of wealth to have more power.
I do as well, this is the essence of Rawls' 'Difference Principle'. However, this doesn't really tell us much about libertarianism as such, because it's perfectly possible, even likely, that wealth in a libertarian society would not be in any real way linked to 'social contribution' (though I don't understand what you mean by this, in a libertarian society ALL legitimate actions are social contributions, though obviously I think this is a problematic statement).

Secondly, wealth is not the only means to power. Even in a market society, there are other ways to gain influence. In fact, according to Freidman, unequal wealth is very important to the spread of unpopular ideas, and therefore the ability of the common man to gain influence. In a market society, a supporter of an unpopular idea merely has to gain a wealthy patron in order to have access to a wide audience through advertising and publishing of books etc.
I think this reinforcement my point, however, that the wealthy will have a greater ability to control societies. The rich still obviously have greater politic authority; politics is dominated by a wealthy oligarchy. Moreover, the principles of capitalism make it unlikely that unpopular ideas would actually be published (especially because these unpopular ideas would never really be able to manifest in a meaningful way: no political change is possible, because essentially no politics exists).

Although no such system necessarily exists within a non-market society, Freidman admits that it is not impossible to create one. What Freidman misses, however, is that in any society that encourages free speech the spread of ideas and thus the ability of common men to gain influence is relatively easy.

I don't really think so. The more you make the medium of speech privately owned, the more diffcult it is for those without access to this medium to actually get a message across.

In assuming that people are intelligent enough to make any economic agreement, I believe that one must also assume that individuals are also intelligent enough to freely agree to laws which aid in the achievement of their goals. It is, therefore, ignorant to say that society needs any rules other than those upon which individuals have freely agreed.

I dont really think this is true: economic agreements don't take any intelligence per se, at least not as I see it. 'Work or starve' is not really a choice that takes much deliberation, for example.

Finally, I don't believe that the concept of 'natural rights' is necessarily valid, nor do I think social contract in general can be considered something 'freely agreed upon' in the language of libertarian/liberal discourse. Tacit agreement does not constitute consent, in my view at least.

I didn't make the first post, so I don't really care to support it.]

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]Libertarianism is a philosophy of those who have money and time. Those who have neither can't really bother with philosophy at all.

"Rich" is a subjective term. I was simply pointing out that, to many in this world, you are incredibly rich. OP claimed that libertarianism is anarchy for the rich. I would claim that both views are views espoused by those who have money.

If I understand you correctly, you've said:

1) The OP is incorrect. (You don't support his statement. Extremist philosophies such as Libertarianism are the realm of the middle class not the rich.)
2) The OP is patially correct. (Both Libertarianism and Anarchy are philosophies of the subjectively rich)
and
3) The OP is completely correct. (Libertarianism is a philosophy of the subjectively rich.)

:confused:

If I understand you correctly, you've said:

Close, but not quite.

1) The OP is incorrect. (You don't support his statement. Extremist philosophies such as Libertarianism are the realm of the middle class not the rich.)

No, they are the realm of the middle class and upper class. Anyone with enough money to get by on may end up espousing libertarian ideals, although the level of money may end up altering the reasoning behind such a viewpoint.

2) The OP is patially correct. (Both Libertarianism and Anarchy are philosophies of the subjectively rich)

This is certainly true. Of course, I would add the caveat that those who we would consider very wealthy are much, much more likely to espouse libertarian viewpoints than anarchistic.

Yes, and it is generally a middle class that leads revolution. Very, very rarely do the lowest classes do so.

Wow, you have very poor reading comprehension. I said that people with extremist views tend to have money, not that all who have money hold extremist views. Please do try again.

Firstly, and crucially, middle classes by their very nature tend not to lead revolutions hence the derogatory slang hurled towards them. Governments tend to govern for the vocal majority, hence you have centrism which is the realm of the middle classes. As the middle classes have power in most countries, it is difficult to imagine them wishing to rebel.

Secondly, and less crucially, if you use patently awkward phrasing you are bound to get misrepresentation of your views. If you wish to discuss poor reading comprehension, you can do that with my doctorate in english literature. You have a tendency to be thoroughly rude on these forums, and thereby avoid the relevant issues raised. And, if you are still intent on me 'trying again', then your statement is still absurd and wrong. If you would be so kind as to stick closer to the subject discussed ie. libertarianism, not your egotistical rudeness - then I am sure the frequent posters on this site will be delighted.

but anarchism is the logical end result of libertarian reasoning:
Libertarians:
To be free is to be free of human intervention to do what I will
Freedom is intrinsically good
Laws always restrict freedom
This obviously leads us to the conclusion that the best society is the most free society, and that in order to be maximally free, there will be no laws.

As for the 'bourgeois' question, it seems obvious that in a society without 'laws' as such (other than 'natural' law, though I disagree with this concept) those with the most capital/control of the means of production (the bourgeoisie by definition) will have the most power and ability to shape society. This seems self-evident to me: if the only political action is in economic exchange (which is implied in libertarianism; all political action is privatised into private entities), than those most able to execercise economic exchanges will have the most power. In a libertarian society, as an individual's wealth goes up, his ability to dominate that society goes up as well.

These are genuine concerns you raise, and I hope that I can dispel some. The statement you put forward vis-a-vis a definition of libertarianism is quite dubious, particularly when denoting laws. Most libertarians (or, at least, most sensible ones!) tend to agree that there is a point to legalistic constraint, and that there ought to be a foundation of law ('natural law', as you put it).

The question you ask about the bourgeoisie controlling the means of production must have some caveats attached. The middle classes, or upper middle classes, depending on how you define the bourgeoisie, cannot control the means of production. This is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning you put forward. In order for production to occur, a set of preconditions must occur such as labour, machinery, natural resources etc. which ALL depend on those in supposedly lower classes. The bourgeoisie have the mediating influence on the meand of production, but by no means have control on it.

In a libertarian society, their grip is steadily lessened. By allowing greater economic flexibility and scrapping most tax, the working class have a greater genuine liberation. By loosening restrictions, the working class suddenly have much more choice over where they work and the middle classes are forced to recognise this by bartering deals with an individual member of the proletariat. By doing this, they lose any decent sense of proprietership and most certainly have their power to exploit reduced - often without realising it!

I hope this helps.

And also, the bottom segment of post 145 is worth reading regarding the increasing influence of the common man under libertarianism.

but anarchism is the logical end result of libertarian reasoning:
Libertarians:
To be free is to be free of human intervention to do what I will
Freedom is intrinsically good
Laws always restrict freedom
This obviously leads us to the conclusion that the best society is the most free society, and that in order to be maximally free, there will be no laws.

There's an intrinsic difference between Anarchism and extreme libertarianism (the definition you gave in the above quote), and it is this. Libertarians want liberty, where as Anarchism emphasizes lawlessness. You may think this difference is negligable, but think again. There are many laws that, while they restrict certain freedoms, serve more as a protection of liberty. For example, copyright and patent laws protect people's rights to their own creations and prevent others from profiting by stealing. Another example would be the Bill of Rights, a set of amendments to the Constitution designed to maintain the liberty of all Americans. These sort of laws, while restrictive, provide MORE freedom, than if they were to be abolished. Anarchism would be against even such laws, and a governining body, which is where you have to draw the line. Even extreme libertarianism would not end up being anarchism, because it defies the tenets of libertarianism to begin with.

No, they are the realm of the middle class and upper class. Anyone with enough money to get by on may end up espousing libertarian ideals, although the level of money may end up altering the reasoning behind such a viewpoint.

I think in certain cases this is not true. Of course you will always have cases of your "self-serving libertarian", as you have with any other political ideology, but for many people (myself included), we believe that libertarianism in economics and/or social issues actually helps those who are struggling in society. I'm sure you've read plenty of my posts on economic liberationism, and whether you agree with me or not, you cannot say that I am not thinking about those who live in poverty. I am a Conservative, therefore not a pure libertarian, but I believe economic libertarianism is the BEST way to achieve prosperity for the poor both in Western culture, but more significantly in the Third World.

Secondly, and less crucially, if you use patently awkward phrasing you are bound to get misrepresentation of your views. If you wish to discuss poor reading comprehension, you can do that with my doctorate in english literature.

You may have a doctorate in english literature, but we are talking about a very basic sentence here. By your reading, if I were to say:

Republicans tend to be white Christians

You would interpret that as meaning that all white Christians are Republican.

You have a tendency to be thoroughly rude on these forums, and thereby avoid the relevant issues raised.

Really? I don't generally get this complaint. In fact, I've been told exactly the opposite. Could it, in fact, be that you find any opposition to your views to be "thoroughly rude"? And do remember your first post to me began with a thoroughly rude and completely unfounded statement.

If you would be so kind as to stick closer to the subject discussed ie. libertarianism, not your egotistical rudeness - then I am sure the frequent posters on this site will be delighted.

Wow. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Seriously, I am quite sarcastic, but rarely if ever rude. And notice that the only comment I did make to you that might be viewed as rude was in response to a much more rude post that you made.

Meanwhile, I have pointed out that it is only the extreme end of libertarianism that I have any problem with - and it is all I will argue with.

I think in certain cases this is not true.

Of course there will be certain cases that are different. We are talking about generalizations here, and there are always exceptions.

Of course you will always have cases of your "self-serving libertarian", as you have with any other political ideology, but for many people (myself included), we believe that libertarianism in economics and/or social issues actually helps those who are struggling in society. I'm sure you've read plenty of my posts on economic liberationism, and whether you agree with me or not, you cannot say that I am not thinking about those who live in poverty. I am a Conservative, therefore not a pure libertarian, but I believe economic libertarianism is the BEST way to achieve prosperity for the poor both in Western culture, but more significantly in the Third World.

You misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that there are no libertarians who believe that the policies they espouse would help those in poverty. I was suggesting that libertarianism tends to be a viewpoint espoused by those who are not, themselves, impoverished.

I do as well, this is the essence of Rawls' 'Difference Principle'. However, this doesn't really tell us much about libertarianism as such, because it's perfectly possible, even likely, that wealth in a libertarian society would not be in any real way linked to 'social contribution' (though I don't understand what you mean by this, in a libertarian society ALL legitimate actions are social contributions, though obviously I think this is a problematic statement).
I don't think that all actions are social contributions. If people are intellegent, however, actions that could lead to the gain of wealth and power will generally be social contributions. This does not exclude the possibility that people will make mistakes, thus allowing some actions which contribute to an individuals wealth and power to detract from society. Mistakes, however, tend to correct themselves over time among intellegent individuals, because we learn from our mistakes.


I think this reinforcement my point, however, that the wealthy will have a greater ability to control societies. The rich still obviously have greater politic authority; politics is dominated by a wealthy oligarchy. Moreover, the principles of capitalism make it unlikely that unpopular ideas would actually be published (especially because these unpopular ideas would never really be able to manifest in a meaningful way: no political change is possible, because essentially no politics exists).



I don't really think so. The more you make the medium of speech privately owned, the more diffcult it is for those without access to this medium to actually get a message across.
The point is that in a society with some very wealthy individuals, the only thing necessary to gain access to highly publicized media is to gain the patronage of one wealthy individual. The publications would not even have to be profitable if one can get that wealthy individual to be an avid enough supporter of one's otherwise unpopular ideas. You are right that, overall, this does mean that the wealthy have more access to power. My overall point is that, if people are intellegent, the wealthy have earned this increased access, and that, although the wealthy have more access to power, even the poorest of the poor are not at all entirely excluded from power.


I dont really think this is true: economic agreements don't take any intelligence per se, at least not as I see it. 'Work or starve' is not really a choice that takes much deliberation, for example.
Not all economic agreements require a great deal of intellegence. This, however, does not mean that the assumption of intellegence does not also imply the ability of individuals to make descisions regarding the rules under which they live.

Finally, I don't believe that the concept of 'natural rights' is necessarily valid, nor do I think social contract in general can be considered something 'freely agreed upon' in the language of libertarian/liberal discourse. Tacit agreement does not constitute consent, in my view at least.
I completely agree with you on this point. I believe that the assumption that every individual naturally agrees to the same legal system is, in fact, the essential problem with libertarianism. This is why I am an anarchist.

Of course there will be certain cases that are different. We are talking about generalizations here, and there are always exceptions.

Very well. But I think generalizations are dangerous and innacurate. They have been used throughout history as tools to promote racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. I think you should stick with analyzing libertarianism for what it is and how it functions--not who endorses it.

You misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that there are no libertarians who believe that the policies they espouse would help those in poverty. I was suggesting that libertarianism tends to be a viewpoint espoused by those who are not, themselves, impoverished.

I could say the same thing about most left-wingers. They are usually, rich and therefore don't mind paying extra taxes (forgetting of course, the 95% remaining in society that would be significantly burdened with further taxes). True, some left-wingers aren't rich, but that's generalizing for you.

Very well. But I think generalizations are dangerous and innacurate. They have been used throughout history as tools to promote , bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. I think you should stick with analyzing libertarianism for what it is and how it functions--not who endorses it.

Oh, I agree, but the title of this thread pretty much leads to a discussion of the generalizations. My involvement in this aspect of it started when people started whining that they weren't rich but were, in fact, libertarians. I pointed out that, to many in this world, they would be considered rich and somehow got turned into the bad guy.

I could say the same thing about most left-wingers. They are usually, rich and therefore don't mind paying extra taxes (forgetting of course, the 95% remaining in society that would be significantly burdened with further taxes). True, some left-wingers aren't rich, but that's generalizing for you.

Of course you could. As I already said, most people who loudly espouse any political view are those with money and time. Those who are impoverished have little of either - and don't tend to bother much with philosophy or forming solid political views.

Oh, I agree, but the title of this thread pretty much leads to a discussion of the generalizations. My involvement in this aspect of it started when people started whining that they weren't rich but were, in fact, libertarians. I pointed out that, to many in this world, they would be considered rich and somehow got turned into the bad guy.

I see. Well, I think we finally see eye-to-eye, and I will gladly drop this generalizations buisness. I find it completely irrelevent to the topic at hand anyway, since we are discussing the validity of libertarianism, with emphasis on its relationship to anarchism. IMO, whoever denounces or endorses a certain ideology based on the stance of others (in this case the "rich"), is obviously not capable of holding a viewpoint of their own.

But, since is was brought up, I had to put in my two cents. :D

I see. Well, I think we finally see eye-to-eye, and I will gladly drop this generalizations buisness.

Yay!

IMO, whoever denounces or endorses a certain ideology based on the stance of others (in this case the "rich"), is obviously not capable of holding a viewpoint of their own.

Certainly can't argue that. It is no different than someone who takes a viewpoint simply because another group (be it the rich or whoever) takes it.

IMO, whoever denounces or endorses a certain ideology based on the stance of others (in this case the "rich"), is obviously not capable of holding a viewpoint of their own.

That's not neccessarily true, though I can see where you're coming from. The women's suffrage movement in Britain largely failed because their violent methods of campaigning turned potential moderates against them. One of these moderates was Lloyd George who, for a brief period, privately changed his mind on the notion of female suffrage.
To claim he was incapable of holding a viewpoint of his own would be a little odd, given he pushed through some of the most important pseudo-socialist welfare state reforms in British history - and all against the backdrop of the People's Budget of 1909!

I don't think that all actions are social contributions. If people are intellegent, however, actions that could lead to the gain of wealth and power will generally be social contributions. This does not exclude the possibility that people will make mistakes, thus allowing some actions which contribute to an individuals wealth and power to detract from society. Mistakes, however, tend to correct themselves over time among intellegent individuals, because we learn from our mistakes.

Right, but I think we would clearly see something develope along the lines of an inherited aristocracy: those whose parents are right will be rich themselves. Moreover, many actions with social good will be unrewarded with wealth, and consequently power.

I also it's important to remember than in an anarcho-capitalist society (which I reckon is what we're now dealing with in this discussion), power is effectively vested in money (even if the lower classes were to be mobilized, their influence could only be felt through their spending). If we accept, as libertarians do, that power tends to both corrupt and lead to a desire to maintian this power, we clearly see that the monied have a very good reason to empoverish others: as long as they do, they will keep more power for themselves.
My overall point is that, if people are intellegent, the wealthy have earned this increased access, and that, although the wealthy have more access to power, even the poorest of the poor are not at all entirely excluded from power.[/quote]

Well those without any money would be totally excluded from power, they would have no ability to access it. They would have no ability to communicate at all (in theory, even sidewalks would be owned, and thus off-limits to those unable to pay).

But again, I think it's sort of difficult to say that the rich should be able to dominate (have power over) the poor, without coming across as intuitively immoral.

Not all economic agreements require a great deal of intellegence. This, however, does not mean that the assumption of intellegence does not also imply the ability of individuals to make descisions regarding the rules under which they live.

How do these individuals having any capability of 'deciding' about the rules? If they don't agree, they starve/suffer. There's no discussion, there's no public forum of debate (this is self-evident, because no public space would exist in an anarcho-capitalist society). Hell, the rich could conceivably level a poor-tax, if they wanted: pay a poor tax or starve.

I agree that individuals are able, and should be allowed, to make desicions about law and society, but I don't believe this is possible without a public arena of discussion and debate, coupled with a rights/freedoms system which allows these desicions to be binding. Anarcho-capitalism does not allow for this kind of deliberation.

I completely agree with you on this point. I believe that the assumption that every individual naturally agrees to the same legal system is, in fact, the essential problem with libertarianism. This is why I am an anarchist.
Fair enough. Just as a question, do you believe in natural rights then?

Right, but I think we would clearly see something develope along the lines of an inherited aristocracy: those whose parents are right will be rich themselves. Moreover, many actions with social good will be unrewarded with wealth, and consequently power.
An inherited aristocracy of this sort would only last if the children of deservedly rich parents could be trusted with the power that money brings. Remember that in any anarchy, even a capitalist one, property rights are protected only through the active agreement of each individual (if at all). If the heirs of wealth are not good stewerts of that wealth they will surely loose it. Secondly, the only instances in which good actions would be unrewarded with wealth would be in cases were the individual does not capitalize on their good actions. Sometimes, this would simply be a mistake on the part of the individual from which he/she would gain experience. Other times the individual simply does not wish to capitalize on his/her good action.

I also it's important to remember that in an anarcho-capitalist society (which I reckon is what we're now dealing with in this discussion), power is effectively vested in money (even if the lower classes were to be mobilized, their influence could only be felt through their spending). If we accept, as libertarians do, that power tends to both corrupt and lead to a desire to maintian this power, we clearly see that the monied have a very good reason to empoverish others: as long as they do, they will keep more power for themselves.
Again, corrupted individuals would find it difficult to keep power. In any anarchy, all power is assigned through the active agreement of individuals.


Well those without any money would be totally excluded from power, they would have no ability to access it. They would have no ability to communicate at all (in theory, even sidewalks would be owned, and thus off-limits to those unable to pay).

But again, I think it's sort of difficult to say that the rich should be able to dominate (have power over) the poor, without coming across as intuitively immoral.
That kind of domination is not even usefull to corrupted power seekers. Aside from the previously mentioned fact that it would be too difficult for corrupted leaders to stay in power, that kind of domination essentially excludes poor individuals from society even to the point of taking orders.
Secondly, what I am saying is that no individual should be forced to participate in limiting the domination or power of another individual. If the people individually decide to do so, or even if they freely agree to cooperate in doing so, it leaves open the possibility for those who do not care about dismantling a dominion to refrain from participating.



How do these individuals having any capability of 'deciding' about the rules? If they don't agree, they starve/suffer. There's no discussion, there's no public forum of debate (this is self-evident, because no public space would exist in an anarcho-capitalist society). Hell, the rich could conceivably level a poor-tax, if they wanted: pay a poor tax or starve.
The laws at first would be decided by the individuals who originally created the anarchic society. You're right that those who previously gained wealth and power under government authority might have an unfair influence on the original laws. Because of this, recronstruction might be necessary to form a fair and effective anachy.

I agree that individuals are able, and should be allowed, to make desicions about law and society, but I don't believe this is possible without a public arena of discussion and debate, coupled with a rights/freedoms system which allows these desicions to be binding. Anarcho-capitalism does not allow for this kind of deliberation.
It might not. If this is the case, then the fact that Anarcho-Capitalism, like any anarchy, allows individuals to choose and form their own governments would lead to the establishment of Anarcho-Socialism from Anarcho-Capitalism. I do not mean to say, however that we must necessarily begin with Anarcho-Capitalism.


Fair enough. Just as a question, do you believe in natural rights then?
There may be one natural right, the right to protect your own rights.

Anarchism is specifically against capitalism, for one.

No, it isn't. While there is a system of thought that is along the lines of Anacro-Socialism, ('Property is theft' and all that silliness), Anarchism is not specifically aganist capitalism.

Pure Anarchism is neutral on economic structures, plus there is Anarco-Capitalism.



Libertarianism is obviously not Anarchism. It's more along the lines of Minarchism.

Pure Anarchism is neutral on economic structures.
Wow, there is someone who agrees with me on this issue, amazing!

(in theory, even sidewalks would be owned, and thus off-limits to those unable to pay)

or at the very least, people would have to agree to a whole host of rules written by the owners of the 'free' sidewalks (and they certainly are unlikely to be any more libertarian than the rules written into leases by landlords). and be subjected to a constant bombardment of advertisements. and probably have to give up any sembelence of privacy, just for good measure.

No, it isn't.

yes, yes it is. check your history.

Pure Anarchism is neutral on economic structures, plus there is Anarco-Capitalism.

only if 'neutral' means 'allows any system of economics that rejects hierarchy and promotes egalitarianism'.

anarcho-capitalism ain't anarchism. it's only connection to the set of political theories and movements that have historically called themselves 'anarchism' is a couple of out of context quotes mined from two or three individualist anarchists decades after those individuals were no longer around to defend themselves. individualist anarchist who were specifcally opposed to capitalism and called themselves socialists, i might add.

or at the very least, people would have to agree to a whole host of rules written by the owners of the 'free' sidewalks (and they certainly are unlikely to be any more libertarian than the rules written into leases by landlords). and be subjected to a constant bombardment of advertisements. and probably have to give up any sembelence of privacy, just for good measure.
Good point! Also, if you approach Anarchism from a Libertarian perspective, then sidewalks and roads would be paid for by a governmental type establishment, although not a forceful one since its an anarchy. Libertarians definately say that infrastructure such as roads and sidewalks should be supported by a tax-like system. So, probably in an Anarcho-Capitalist country the poor would not have to pay very much (if at all) to use the sidewalks. After all, it is prudent for the rich to let the poor get to work somehow.

So, probably in an Anarcho-Capitalist country the poor would not have to pay very much (if at all) to use the sidewalks. After all, it is prudent for the rich to let the poor get to work somehow.

yes, but they use those sidewalks and roads and such at the whim of an elite who makes the rules and can deny them access at any point for any reason (such as saying that perhaps we shouldn't let an unaccountable elite control every aspect of the basic infrastructure of society, for example).

I hope this hasen't been said before but,


"Libertarianism" is not anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is contradictory.


To make it short; anarchism is "order without hierarchy". In captalism, there is still hierarchy, economic hierarchy. All anarcho capitalism is, is unregulated capitalism, that has been proven to be a disaster.

The anarchists have smashed anarcho-capitalism's arguement in the Anarchist FAQ for not being anarchism at all.

Read here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append11.html#app5

and

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append12.html#app5

yes, yes it is. check your history.



only if 'neutral' means 'allows any system of economics that rejects hierarchy and promotes egalitarianism'.

anarcho-capitalism ain't anarchism. it's only connection to the set of political theories and movements that have historically called themselves 'anarchism' is a couple of out of context quotes mined from two or three individualist anarchists decades after those individuals were no longer around to defend themselves. individualist anarchist who were specifcally opposed to capitalism and called themselves socialists, i might add.
Admittedly, the modern anarchic movement, which started roughly 150 years ago, is decidedly anti-capitalist. What I am saying, although I'm not sure if this is the case for Spaltopia, is that the most essential elements of anarchy are present an Anarcho-Capitalist society, because, as a stated in a previous post, if Anarcho-Capitalism is undesirable, then it will naturally develope into Anarcho-Socialism because it allows individuals to choose and create their own governments. Once again, (I feel it is important to emphasize this, so that I am not misinterpreted.) I am not saying that we must necessarily begin with Anarcho-Capitalism.

Grammatically speaking, Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron, which in my opinion makes it unsound as a philosophy. Anarchists are opposed to the economic policies of Capitalism, and anyone claiming to be an ‘Anarcho-Capitalist’ simply does not grasp the true meaning of Anarchism. Usually calling themselves Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists are simply people who have no interest in changing the fundamental nature of society.

Anarcho-Capitalists believe in maintaining society's power structure as it currently is — the bourgeoisie exploiting the workers for their labor in the name of profit. You may be asking at this point, if they are in favor of Capitalism, how can they possibly Anarchists? Well because they claim there should be no government interference in the business of the Capitalists, they feel the need to attach the prefix ‘Anarcho’ to their name. These people feel that Anarchy means the freedom to exploit.

One of the ways Anarcho-Capitalists confuse the debate around Anarchy is by calling themselves Libertarians. Many Anarchists who have ideologies based on Communist economic theory, call themselves Libertarian Socialists (I classify myself as a Libertarian Socialist). The Libertarian Party is a party that supports Anarcho-Capitalist beliefs, and has taken the name of Libertarian in their mistaken interpretation of what Anarchy is.

The term "Libertarian" was used by anarchists back in the 1800s, way before these capitalists hijacked it.

The Anarcho-Capitalists would have the corporations control your lives with no government to stop them. Under a true Anarchy the resources would be properly shared among all people. The profit-making implements of capitalism would be seen as a hindrance to achieving equality, for the only path to true equality is through the abolition of the class system.

I hope this hasen't been said before but,


"Libertarianism" is not anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is contradictory.


To make it short; anarchism is "order without hierarchy". In captalism, there is still hierarchy, economic hierarchy. All anarcho capitalism is, is unregulated capitalism, that has been proven to be a disaster.

The anarchists have smashed anarcho-capitalism's arguement in the Anarchist FAQ for not being anarchism at all.

Read here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append11.html#app5

and

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append12.html#app5
Nice articles, however, there was anarchic thought before the modern anarchist movement. Many of the sophists in anceint Greece, for example, were called anarchists for statements such as government is a means for the weak to supress the strong. A decidedly individualist ideology, it was one of the first to be labled anarchy. As I said before, the economic construction is almost a non-factor, since in any anarchist society because the most desirable economic structures will naturally develope from even the most undesirable economic structures without government. One could legitimately say, however, that Anacho-Capitalism would lapse back into governmentalism in order for the wealthy to maintain power. Once this happens, I agree that the society ceases to be an anarchy.

Grammatically speaking, Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron, which in my opinion makes it unsound as a philosophy. Anarchists are opposed to the economic policies of Capitalism, and anyone claiming to be an ‘Anarcho-Capitalist’ simply does not grasp the true meaning of Anarchism. Usually calling themselves Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists are simply people who have no interest in changing the fundamental nature of society.

Anarcho-Capitalists believe in maintaining society's power structure as it currently is — the bourgeoisie exploiting the workers for their labor in the name of profit. You may be asking at this point, if they are in favor of Capitalism, how can they possibly Anarchists? Well because they claim there should be no government interference in the business of the Capitalists, they feel the need to attach the prefix ‘Anarcho’ to their name. These people feel that Anarchy means the freedom to exploit.

One of the ways Anarcho-Capitalists confuse the debate around Anarchy is by calling themselves Libertarians. Many Anarchists who have ideologies based on Communist economic theory, call themselves Libertarian Socialists (I classify myself as a Libertarian Socialist). The Libertarian Party is a party that supports Anarcho-Capitalist beliefs, and has taken the name of Libertarian in their mistaken interpretation of what Anarchy is.

The term "Libertarian" was used by anarchists back in the 1800s, way before these capitalists hijacked it.

The Anarcho-Capitalists would have the corporations control your lives with no government to stop them. Under a true Anarchy the resources would be properly shared among all people. The profit-making implements of capitalism would be seen as a hindrance to achieving equality, for the only path to true equality is through the abolition of the class system.
If the society fits my definition of anarchy, that is a lack of rules upon which individuals do not actively agree, then people will simply cease to agree to rules such as property and free enterprize rights which they feel allow for exploitation.

Grammatically speaking, Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron, which in my opinion makes it unsound as a philosophy.

that doesn't make it unsound, it makes it either confused or deceptive.

in fact, it isn't really unsound as far as political theories go. just horrific.

Technically speaking, the term "anarchy" only refers to the absence of a formal governmental authority. Althought many anarcho-socialists also reject the class structure as a means of imposing the will of annother upon an individual, the fact remains that that is not the only possible form of anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism can be considered true "anarchy" because it rejects the centralized government in favor of maximum rights for free enterprise.

Technically speaking, the term "anarchy" only refers to the absence of a formal governmental authority.

technicaly speaking, 'anarchy' refers to chaos and disorder when not used in a technical sense. the technical sense is the sense invented by anarchists and it excludes the system of hierarchical authority proposed by anarcho-capitalists to run society. in exactly the same way that it excludes warlordism, even though that is also popularly called anarchy.

'anarcho'-capitalists should invent their own words. or at least choose ones that aren't already in use by a competing political movement. unless they are actively trying to be deceptive and disruptive. which, of course, they are.

The term "anarchy" was intended by its creators to mean only an absense of government. The rest was added later when anarchists became more diverse and expanded their scope.

The term "anarchy" was intended by its creators to mean only an absense of government. The rest was added later when anarchists became more diverse and expanded their scope.

which creators would those be?

The French Revolutionaries and their contemporaries in other countries.

The French Revolutionaries and their contemporaries in other countries.

so we are talking 'anarchy' in the perjorative sense, rather than anarchy in the post-proudhonian sense?

Are you guys stupid. Anarchy is Class War, between the poor and the rich. Unless there a Class War going on, its not Anarchy

The term "anarchy" was intended by its creators to mean only an absense of government. The rest was added later when anarchists became more diverse and expanded their scope.

That is correct. Well said. :)

yes, yes it is. check your history.

No, no it isn't. Check your basic politcal ideology textbook. A relevant lay text would be Political Ideologies: An Introduction by Andrew Heywood.

only if 'neutral' means 'allows any system of economics that rejects hierarchy and promotes egalitarianism'.

Anarchy refers to government. In anarchy, there is egalitarianism on the political level. Only in Anarcho-Socialism is that egalitarianism spread to the economic sphere.

anarcho-capitalism ain't anarchism.

It most certainly is. There is no government in anarcho-capitalism. It is absoultely anarchism. That doesn't change because you don't like it.

Thank you! My feelings exactly. Your reply just put a big smile on my face.

Only in recent times as anarchy has evolved has the radical notion of it not refering just to government evolved. This has happened primarily in the post-Foucault era because of his contributions. Anarcho-capitalism is most certainly anarchy because, as stated, there is no government, corporations take over traditional government functions and the free market evolves naturally.

Only in recent times as anarchy has evolved has the radical notion of it not refering just to government evolved. This has happened primarily in the post-Foucault era because of his contributions.

bullshit.

the anarchist movement, from proudhon on, has never favored merely abolishing the state and calling it a day; nor was this the only thing held in common by the various branches of the movement. it's bad enough when 'anarcho'-cappies try to claim a heritage which is clearly opposed to most of their program, but this is just rewriting history entirely.

bullshit.

the anarchist movement, from proudhon on,

The anarchist 'movement' didn't start with Proudhon- William Godwin made the first major statement of Anarchist principles in the modern era in Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, about 50 years before What is Property?- and it isn't owned by him either.

You're free to not like Anarcho-Capitalism, and it seems you aren't a fan of plain 'ol Anarchism either. That's fine. But that doesn't make them not branches of Anarchism.

I think Anarcho-Socialism is laughably absurd, but I don't go around hysterically denying that it is a form of Anarchism when it clearly is.

The anarchist 'movement' didn't start with Proudhon- William Godwin made the first major statement of Anarchist principles in the modern era in Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, about 50 years before What is Property?- and it isn't owned by him either.

godwin is a precursor to anarchism. there was no anarchist movement in his time, and he didn't use the words 'anarchism' or 'anarchist' to describe his position. i think i'll stay on this side of proudhon.

but in any case, we find godwin saying things like:

What is the criterion that must determine whether this or that substance, capable of contributing to the benefit of a human being, ought to be considered as your property or mine? To this question there can be but one answer -- Justice. Let us then recur to the principles of justice.

To whom does any article of property, suppose a loaf of bread, justly belong? To him who most wants it, or to whom the possession of it will be most beneficial. Here are six men famished with hunger, and the loaf is, absolutely considered, capable of satisfying the cravings of them all. Who is it that has a reasonable claim to benefit by the qualities with which this loaf is endowed? They are all brothers perhaps, and the law of primogeniture bestows it exclusively to the eldest. But does justice confirm this award? The laws of different countries dispose of property in a thousand different ways; but there can be but one way which is most conformable to reason.

It would have been easy to put a case much stronger than that which has just been stated. I have an hundred loaves in my possession and in the next street there is a poor man expiring with hunger, to whom one of these loaves would be the means of preserving his life. If I withhold this loaf from him, am I not unjust? If I impart it, am I not complying with what justice demands? To whom does the loaf justly belong?

I suppose myself in other respects to be in easy circumstances, and that I do not want this bread as an object of barter or sale, to procure me any of the other necessities of a human being. Our animal wants have long since been defined, and are stated to consist of food, clothing and shelter. If justice have any meaning, nothing can be more iniquitous, than for one man to possess superfluities, while there is a human being in existence that is not adequately supplied with these.

Justice does not stop here. Every man in entitled, so far as the general stock will suffice, not only to the means of being, but of well being. It is unjust, if one man labour to the destruction of his health or his life, that another man may abound in luxuries. It is unjust, if one man be deprived of leisure to cultivate his rational powers, while another man contributes not a single effort to add to the common stock. The faculties of one man are like the faculties of another man. Justice directs that each man, unless perhaps he be employed more beneficially to the public, should contribute to the cultivation of the common harvest, of which man consumes a share.

which sounds suspiciously like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" to me.

your case won't get much help from ol' willy godwin. hell, he was mostly ok with leaving a modified state in place until "the whole species [becomes] reasonable and virtuous".

and it seems you aren't a fan of plain 'ol Anarchism either.

heh

question to the anarcho-cappies:

do you allow 'national anarchism' in to your anarchist pantheon?

And yet ignoring the fact that you have already admitted that you benefit from fire protection - thus you benefit from your tax money being spent. The fact that you don't think the police force benefits you has no bearing on whether or not other programs do.No, I didn't say that. All I said was that fire protection is one of the most defensive reasons for taxing people. My original point, however, is that overall, taxing and spending is a loss for me. It's should be easy enough for you to isolate some example of tax money being spent that I benefit from, but such benefits are not free and the price is not worth paying, in my opinion.

Well because, Anrchism is a Purely Communist Ideology. Those who tend to be "anarcho-capitalists" as you said, mostly become Conservatives when they realize anarchy is real crap and illusion/poison for the people. Second of all, Capitalism and Anarchy don't fit together, because Capitalism is a Democratic and Pro-Law and Order System as for Anarchy, it is a anti-free market, anti-order, made for weaks/criminals and unstable system.


Sirvian Prime MinisterWhere do you get your ideas? In particular, the one about capitalism and democracy having anything to do with on another? Anarchy is ...well, anarchy is whatever the hell you say it is, but I'm not sure why anybody thinks voluntary exchange or the accumulation of capital could be prevented without some sort of government.

Where do you get your ideas? In particular, the one about capitalism and democracy having anything to do with on another? Anarchy is ...well, anarchy is whatever the hell you say it is, but I'm not sure why anybody thinks voluntary exchange or the accumulation of capital could be prevented without some sort of government.
Because without some form of government, there is no one in the area to be sure that all exchanges really are free exchanges. Excepting the rich, who could hire personal protection agencies, everyone else will just have to fork over their wallets to whichever lowlife comes around with a bigger gun.

I think Anarcho-Socialism is laughably absurd
What are you talking about? Anarchism is a form of socialism. Or at least, it was back when the word socialism was invented. Of course nowadays "socialism" has become synonymous with "Marxism".

but anarchism is the logical end result of libertarian reasoning:
Libertarians:
To be free is to be free of human intervention to do what I will
Freedom is intrinsically good
Laws always restrict freedom
This obviously leads us to the conclusion that the best society is the most free society, and that in order to be maximally free, there will be no laws.

As for the 'bourgeois' question, it seems obvious that in a society without 'laws' as such (other than 'natural' law, though I disagree with this concept) those with the most capital/control of the means of production (the bourgeoisie by definition) will have the most power and ability to shape society. This seems self-evident to me: if the only political action is in economic exchange (which is implied in libertarianism; all political action is privatised into private entities), than those most able to execercise economic exchanges will have the most power. In a libertarian society, as an individual's wealth goes up, his ability to dominate that society goes up as well.
If Mr. Rich guy is able to get what he wants because he has the most to offer, society benefits. Unless he's employing force to achieve his ends, he must continue to offer things that other people want to get what he wants. If he does successfully employ force, he becomes a gangster at best, or a king at worst.

Are you guys stupid. Anarchy is Class War, between the poor and the rich. Unless there a Class War going on, its not Anarchy
I'm sorry, but you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. I suggest you educate yourself (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) or stop making claims about this particular subject.

technicaly speaking, 'anarchy' refers to chaos and disorder when not used in a technical sense. the technical sense is the sense invented by anarchists and it excludes the system of hierarchical authority proposed by anarcho-capitalists to run society. in exactly the same way that it excludes warlordism, even though that is also popularly called anarchy.

'anarcho'-capitalists should invent their own words. or at least choose ones that aren't already in use by a competing political movement. unless they are actively trying to be deceptive and disruptive. which, of course, they are.:upyours: Oh, come on.
We're dealing with two different views of reality. My view on what occurs in the absence of government is that people will act to achieve their own desires, as they always do. Even if everyone started out perfectly equal, in terms of wealth, they would not stay that way for long because they would have different abilities and values. It seems unavoidable that society would not soon resemble what you call 'capitalism'. I have trouble even understanding how your view is formed so I don't dare to try and define it, but I will say there is nothing in anarchy (as I see it) that prevents people from sharing, giving gifts, or otherwise helping people, just as there is nothing to force them to do so. I think us arguing over which kind of anarchy is better is like two people arguing over how to eat an elephant when one person thinks elephants weight 140 lbs and run 92 miles per hour and the other thinks elephants are 500 foot trees.

My point is that nobody in this argument is actively trying to be decpeptive and disruptive, and I find it difficult to believe you would actually believe that.

Even if everyone started out perfectly equal, in terms of wealth, they would not stay that way for long because they would have different abilities and values. It seems unavoidable that society would not soon resemble what you call 'capitalism'.
I can't say I don't understand your view. If a society reverted back to 'capitalism', though, it would not be 'anarchy' anymore as defined by every political movement in history that has called itself 'anarchist'.

Anarchists, however, do not believe that an anarchist society would eventually evolve into some form of capitalism. In fact, I believe most anarchists view the state and capitalism as inseperable. Capitalism can simply not exist without a state. To quote the Anarchist FAQ:
Capitalism was born from state intervention, and except for a very short period of laissez-faire which ended in depression, has always depended on state intervention for its existence.
So does an anarchist society have much to fear from the spread of wage labour within it? Probably not. If we look at societies such as the early United States or the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, for example, we find that, given the choice, most people preferred to work for themselves. Capitalists found it hard to find enough workers to employ and the amount of wages that had to be offered to hire workers were so high as to destroy any profit margins. Moreover, the mobility of workers and their "laziness" was frequently commented upon, with employers despairing at the fact workers would just work enough to make end meet and then disappear. Thus, left to the actions of the "free market," it is doubtful that wage labour would have spread. But it was not left to the "free market".

In response to these "problems", the capitalists turned to the state and enforced various restrictions on society (the most important being the land, tariff and money monopolies -- see sections B.3 and F.8). In free competition between artisan and wage labour, wage labour only succeeded due to the use of state action to create the required circumstances to discipline the labour force and to accumulate enough capital to give capitalists an edge over artisan production (see section F.8 for more details).

My point is that nobody in this argument is actively trying to be decpeptive and disruptive, and I find it difficult to believe you would actually believe that.
Agreed. Accusing people of being deceptive or disruptive, is a great way to get those on your side to cheer, but it rarely leads to a constructive debate.

Dutchistany']I can't say I don't understand your view. If a society reverted back to 'capitalism', though, it would not be 'anarchy' anymore as defined by every political movement in history that has called itself 'anarchist'.You're arguing semantics. I specifically described what I meant by the word 'anarchy', which BTW, is not in contradiction with my dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy). The notion that the state is necessary for capitalism to exist at all is abusrd, unless you define 'capitalism' to mean something I wouldn't recognize.
Dutchistany']
Anarchists, however, do not believe that an anarchist society would eventually evolve into some form of capitalism. In fact, I believe most anarchists view the state and capitalism as inseperable. Capitalism can simply not exist without a state. To quote the Anarchist FAQ:Again, there is a problem of semantics. The term 'capitalism' originates from guys like Marx and may or may not describe the free-market that I am a defender of, depending on how it's used. Basically, I'm saying that it's not my word and I'm not sure how you would determine whether any given anarchistic society is capitalistic. To me, the collectivist concept of anarchy is entirely absurd. I guess the idea is that if you destroy the institution of private property, people will be forced to act in ways that benefit society, or something.

It's bad enough when 'anarcho'-cappies try to claim a heritage which is clearly opposed to most of their program, but this is just rewriting history entirely.
You bring up a great point that I have been missing. The heritage of anarchism certainly is anti-capitalist. So, one must ask why Anarcho-Capitalists choose to relate their ideology with that heritage. I think the basic issue is that Anarcho-Capitalists see that the rationale of Laisse Fair ends in Anarchism. This type of thinking is precisely what led me to become an Anarcho-Capitalist after I became a Libertarian. Now, however, I reallize that the arguments of Laisse Fair cannot logically be applied to the optional collectivization favored by the Anarchist movement. I think this is the issue what many Anarcho-Capitalists miss, especially the extreme ones who claim that Anarcho-Communism is not a truly anarchic philosophy. Unlike, most Anarchists though, I tend to be inclusive of anyone, including an Anarcho-Capitalist, who agrees that there is no need, whatsoever, for government, in the current sense of the word. The reason is simply that I do not think that any kind of exploitation can last long in an anarchist country. Therefore, if capitalist exploiters help to establish any kind of anarchy, even if it starts out ridiculously individualistically, they have put into motion the mechanism through which the people can easily escape exploitation or more appropriately, they have destroyed the mechanism (government) through which they, the capitalist exploiters, are currently able to maintain exploitation.

yes, but they use those sidewalks and roads and such at the whim of an elite who makes the rules and can deny them access at any point for any reason (such as saying that perhaps we shouldn't let an unaccountable elite control every aspect of the basic infrastructure of society, for example).
Your almost certainly right that collectivization in infrastructure is preferable to individualism or monopoly. I'm essentially playing the devil's advocate here because on most issues (though this, I admit probably isn't one of them) it is probably too difficult for us to discern the optimum level of collectivization within an anarchic society as long as we have no exprerience with anarchic societies. Also, like I have said before, if capitalist exploiters help to set up an anarchic society (anarchic based on the lack of government definition), even if it is an Anarcho-Capitalist society, then they destroy the mechanism through which they can exploit.

On an international level, you can't just have one "anarchic society" and expect it to work. Unless the entire world becomes anarchy, you are always going to have capitalism and socialism influencing a truly anarchic society to some extent, and the society will rely on the good will of other governments for its survival.

On an international level, you can't just have one "anarchic society" and expect it to work. Unless the entire world becomes anarchy, you are always going to have capitalism and socialism influencing a truly anarchic society to some extent, and the society will rely on the good will of other governments for its survival.
Primarily, I never meant that there would only be one anarchic society throughout the world.
You're right, however, that the optimum level of collectivization surely differs among individuals depending on their goals. More individualistic goals may very well call for an economic modle resembling capitalism, while more egalitarian goals would call for an economic modle resembling socialism.