NationStates Jolt Archive

As a believer in capitalism and moral supporter of anarchism, I believe that laissez-faire policies (or lack of policy) are both the most practical and moral way government can conduct itself.

I have said on here before, and I am sure many have said it before me, that anarchism is only possible through collective protection of freedom. I follow Mises in saying that when all of society works together to protect the right of free exchange, that one can only accomplish his ends by being a means to anothers ends, making all both a mean and an end, and eliminating the dichotomy altogether.

Now to the question: does government interaction into society impede the movement towards collective action? As I described before, I believe that a person governed by complete self-interest will be lead towards collective action. So when a government intercedes and takes a little of the self-interest out of the personal decisions, buffers people and allows them indulgence, does it not also negate some of the people's desire to work together?

For example: A union's power is certainly degraded by government regulations in worker safety and wages. Workers do not have to turn to the union for benefits, as the government already insures them.

So communists: explain why I am incorrect, and why socialism is truly the best way to achieve communism.

I'm not a communist, but one of the problems I see here is the assumption that governments are somehow outside of market rules. If a minimum wage exists it is because workers have wrung it out of the government, not simply as a gift. Whether the government or the union has power is irrelevant, the worker is still taking action to gain the desired wages.

Also, I don't understand your explanation of why anarchy and collectivism are linked. Could you explain it in simpler terms?

If I read that correctly, I believe you are right.

Well the Market economy accepts that it is not perfect, which i why pure capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Government intervention (a shift to the left) makes up for the downfalls of the market economy, like social and environmental costs. However I believe that self interest will never lead to any kind of collective thinking, people working in market economies can only work towards a individual goal in which they will benefit. Economic goals are the main issue here, which is why capitalism is also called the unplanned economy. Planned or Command economies, which were characterised by the USSR and now by government intervention in the mixed economy, have real goal intented tasks involved. But you are right that unions and government essential do the same thing, the real thing workers need protection from is the private sector, purely because firms exist without consideration of social cost, which as I said is why government intervention exists. I just cannot see how increased or even absolute individualism is the way to collectivisation, firstly we need production goals that seek to benefit the whole of society, and because firms will never do this, increased government control is the only answer.

I'm not a communist, but one of the problems I see here is the assumption that governments are somehow outside of market rules. If a minimum wage exists it is because workers have wrung it out of the government, not simply as a gift. Whether the government or the union has power is irrelevant, the worker is still taking action to gain the desired wages.

Dammit, first post reveals a glaring hole in my thought process.

Also, I don't understand your explanation of why anarchy and collectivism are linked. Could you explain it in simpler terms?

Anarchy is only possible when the individual is in balance with society. The individual does not exert force on society, and society does not exert force on the individual. The only way this happens if all of society collectively works to protect rights, everyone works to protect my rights, I work to protect everyone else's.

To answer the question, yes I do, but I don't view it as necessarily being a bad thing. I think that with the socialistic policies, capitalism can be eliminated democratically. I think without the socialistic policies, capitalism would be eliminated via a revolution. I prefer democracy to revolution.

As I described before, I believe that a person governed by complete self-interest will be lead towards collective action. I agree, which is one of the reasons I think communism will work.

For example: A union's power is certainly degraded by government regulations in worker safety and wages. Workers do not have to turn to the union for benefits, as the government already insures them.This is true, though one could argue that the worker safety more than makes up for the loss of power.
A good union would also make its members and potential members realize that those things only came about as a result of union activity.

Well the Market economy accepts that it is not perfect, which i why pure capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Government intervention (a shift to the left) makes up for the downfalls of the market economy, like social and environmental costs. However I believe that self interest will never lead to any kind of collective thinking, people working in market economies can only work towards a individual goal in which they will benefit. Economic goals are the main issue here, which is why capitalism is also called the unplanned economy. Planned or Command economies, which were characterised by the USSR and now by government intervention in the mixed economy, have real goal intented tasks involved. But you are right that unions and government essential do the same thing, the real thing workers need protection from is the private sector, purely because firms exist without consideration of social cost, which as I said is why government intervention exists. I just cannot see how increased or even absolute individualism is the way to collectivisation, firstly we need production goals that seek to benefit the whole of society, and because firms will never do this, increased government control is the only answer.

When free exchange is truly realized, businesses maximize profit by maximizing benefit to society. That is what I am talking about when I mention eliminating the means/ends dichotomy.

When free exchange is truly realized, businesses maximize profit by maximizing benefit to society. That is what I am talking about when I mention eliminating the means/ends dichotomy.
Full pure free exhange has about as much chance of being acheived as a marxist uptopia does, which is why we have mixed market, so that the two systems can complement each other on their advantages and disadvantages. And firms will always maximise profit by maximizing benefit to the top end of society, not the greater whole of society.

Dammit, first post reveals a glaring hole in my thought process.



Anarchy is only possible when the individual is in balance with society. The individual does not exert force on society, and society does not exert force on the individual. The only way this happens if all of society collectively works to protect rights, everyone works to protect my rights, I work to protect everyone else's.

So what's really the difference between that kind of society and a government?

Also, by society working to not exert force on the individual, do you also mean that individuals cannot exert force on other individuals? If so, what are you characterizing as force?

Finally, this seems to prove that communism is necessary to anarchism, not the other way around. The whole of society working to protect rights could conceivably be found in a society with a government, your argument merely shows that a lack of government requires that society take that step.

To answer the question, yes I do, but I don't view it as necessarily being a bad thing. I think that with the socialistic policies, capitalism can be eliminated democratically. I think without the socialistic policies, capitalism would be eliminated via a revolution. I prefer democracy to revolution.

I don't know if there is a solution. I don't think democracy will erode government and I think revolution only creates more hierarchy.

I agree, which is one of the reasons I think communism will work.

And why I almost think anarcho-capitalism will work.

A good union would also make its members and potential members realize that those things only came about as a result of union activity.

Its a result of democratic activity, but as Vegas-Rex pointed out, it is brought about by the worker.

I don't know if there is a solution. I don't think democracy will erode government and I think revolution only creates more hierarchy.I agree with the second part.
I see what you're saying with the first part, with Marx saying that in order to achieve communism you have to go through socialism, and I suppose when you say erode government, you mean go through socialism first. As an anarchist, I don't believe it's necessary to have that immediate step, so perhaps I'm not the best one to answer the question.

And why I almost think anarcho-capitalism will work.Heh. I suppose it could, people have different interests, in theory anarcho-capitalism would be a group of people's best interests, whatever they may be.

Its a result of democratic activity, but as Vegas-Rex pointed out, it is brought about by the worker.Well, the worker acting in conjunction with other workers, yes.