NationStates Jolt Archive

The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists
by Murray N. Rothbard


Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.

Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.

And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.

It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one's own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.

Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.

If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.

They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.

Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence — all of which are corollaries of each other — anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."

The only good thing that one might say about anarcho-communism is that, in contrast to Stalinism, its form of communism would, supposedly, be voluntary. Presumably, no one would be forced to join the communes, and those who would continue to live individually, and to engage in market activities, would remain unmolested.

Or would they?

Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.

Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.

On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd.

Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.

At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism", an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity.

Furthermore, anarcho-communism scorns reason, and its corollaries long-range purpose, forethought, hard work, and individual achievement; instead, it exalts irrational feelings, whim, and caprice — all this in the name of "freedom". The "freedom" of the anarcho-communist has nothing to do with the genuine libertarian absence of interpersonal invasion or molestation; it is, instead, a "freedom" that means enslavement to unreason, to unexamined whim, and to childish caprice. Socially and philosophically, anarcho-communism is a misfortune.

Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.

Fifty years ago, Ludwig von Mises exposed the total inability of a planned, moneyless economy to operate above the most primitive level. For he showed that money-prices are indispensable for the rational allocation of all of our scarce resources — labor, land, and capital goods — to the fields and the areas where they are most desired by the consumers and where they could operate with greatest efficiency. The socialists conceded the correctness of Mises's challenge, and set about — in vain — to find a way to have a rational, market price system within the context of a socialist planned economy.

The Russians, after trying an approach to the communist moneyless economy in their "War Communism" shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution, reacted in horror as they saw the Russian economy heading to disaster. Even Stalin never tried to revive it, and since World War II the East European countries have seen a total abandonment of this communist ideal and a rapid move toward free markets, a free price system, profit-and-loss tests, and a promotion of consumer affluence.

It is no accident that it was precisely the economists in the Communist countries who led the rush away from communism, socialism, and central planning, and toward free markets. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. Yet this sort of aggressive ignorance is inherent in the creed of anarcho-communism.

The same comment can be made on the widespread belief, held by many New Leftists and by all anarcho-communists, that there is no longer need to worry about economics or production because we are supposedly living in a "post-scarcity" world, where such problems do not arise. But while our condition of scarcity is clearly superior to that of the cave-man, we are still living in a world of pervasive economic scarcity.

How will we know when the world has achieved "post-scarcity"? Simply, when all the goods and services that we may want have become so superabundant that their prices have fallen to zero; in short, when we can acquire all goods and services as in a Garden of Eden — without effort, without work, without using any scarce resources.

The anti-rational spirit of anarcho-communism was expressed by Norman 0. Brown, one of the gurus of the new "counter-culture":

The great economist von Mises tried to refute socialism by demonstrating that, in abolishing exchange, socialism made economic calculation, and hence economic rationality, impossible … But if von Mises is right, then what he discovered is not a refutation but a psychoanalytical justification of socialism … It is one of the sad ironies of contemporary intellectual life that the reply of socialist economists to von Mises' arguments was to attempt to show that socialism was not incompatible with "rational economic calculation" — that is to say, that it could retain the inhuman principle of economizing. (Life Against Death, Random House, paperback, 1959, pp. 238-39.)

The fact that the abandonment of rationality and economics in behalf of "freedom" and whim will lead to the scrapping of modern production and civilization and return us to barbarism does not faze our anarcho-communists and other exponents of the new "counter-culture." But what they do not seem to realize is that the result of this return to primitivism would be starvation and death for nearly all of mankind and a grinding subsistence for the ones remaining.

If they have their way, they will find that it is difficult indeed to be jolly and "unrepressed" while starving to death. All this brings us back to the wisdom of the great Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset:

In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of today towards the civilization by which they are supported … Civilization is not "just here," it is not self-supporting.

It is artificial … if you want to make use of the advantages of civilization, but are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization — you are done. In a trice you find yourself left without civilization. Just a slip, and when you look, everything has vanished into air. The primitive forest appears in its native state, just as if curtains covering pure Nature had been drawn back. The jungle is always primitive and vice versa, everything primitive is mere jungle. (José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, New York: W.W. Norton, 1932, p. 97.)




Let the flaming, debating, mud-slinging begin.

I like the article. Mises.org can spew out a lot of crap at times, but this one wasn't too bad.

But the fact of the matter is that Anarchism of all forms is so far removed from reality that we can't really take any historical examples and use them to judge how anarcho-communists might behave. So for the purposes of harmless debate, I'll continue to assume that anarcho-communist communes will not attempt to attack or destroy alternative societies, but rather fail all on their own.

If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.

They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.

Sometimes.

Private property (distinct from personal property - i'm talking about land and resources, not bedsheets and underwear) needs some form of coercion to remain a reality - one of the ways that this is best achieved is through the state. The state can use force and hoard food supplies better than individuals can - yes, this can be used to monopolise private property too, but regardless, the state has always been the great enforcer of a skewed class system and historically has usually worked in tandem with private enterprise.

Furthermore, scorning and detesting the free-market, the profit-and-loss economy, private property, and material affluence — all of which are corollaries of each other — anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."

Ah, I see, a solid argument...we're all drugged up little punks.

Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.

Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money. None of this can give one confidence in the good, voluntarist intentions of anarcho-communism.

Savagery begets savagery- find me an example of a faction in the SCW that was completely innocent of any wrongdoing. It doesn't excuse it, no, but I hardly think that any form of voluntary redistribution could have been possible in the circumstances. At any rate - I'm sure the Nazi and fascist backed nationalists were a much better faction to have in power - hey, there are atrocities like Guernica, but that's okay, because they respected teh moneys - right?

At any case, I don't support going around taking everybody's sacred private property under threat of death, and have never claimed to.

On all other grounds, anarcho-communism ranges from mischievous to absurd.

Ah, we're naughty and silly.

Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.

No, i'll tell you what is an assault on reason -

Having to accept that several thousand years ago, one man decided to get a band of thugs together and take property away from a community with the threat of violence.

I then am expected to praise a system built upon this foundation, because it just "is" - that's where capitalist praise of the sanctity of "reason" falls apart, because there is no way to reasonably justify a system based upon what was essentially theft in the first place.

At any rate, my drive to better myself and to acquire specialised skills is not hindered by a communal system. There is no reason I cannot do so in a communal society.

At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism", an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity.

Sigh. Again "reason" falls apart.

Is it reasonable to say that because you are born with traits distinct to others - perhaps inferior, that you naturally deserve to live a poorer quality of life through no fault of your own? Are you supposed to accept this as it is? I don't think so. I don't think that can be reasonably justified, i'm afraid. I am not individually "better" or "worse" than any other human being through fault of birth despite any physical or mental characteristics I may have. I do not deserve different rights and powers because of them.

I don't see how individual excellence and intellectual superiority need to be "hated" or treated as illegitimate under communism, either - the question is whether they entitle you to deny the priveliges of others.


- will reply to the rest when I get time...kinda busy right now.

Private property (distinct from personal property - i'm talking about land and resources, not bedsheets and underwear) needs some form of coercion to remain a reality - one of the ways that this is best achieved is through the state.

That holds true only is one holds to an absrud definition of "coercion". It is in a sense true to say that the right to life requires coercion to be reality, one must be able to defends one's life to seriously speak of such of a right, and defending one's life requires the threat, or use of force.

I take a more reasonable definition of coercion, initiation of force against another.

I would further add that petty personal property requires force to defend it.

At any case, I don't support going around taking everybody's sacred private property under threat of death, and have never claimed to.

Private property arises necessarily from self-ownership, and man's interaction with nature. The lack of private property is the necessary condition of slavery.

No, i'll tell you what is an assault on reason -

Having to accept that several thousand years ago, one man decided to get a band of thugs together and take property away from a community with the threat of violence.

So you agree that socialism is an assault on reason. That's good!

Is it reasonable to say that because you are born with traits distinct to others - perhaps inferior, that you naturally deserve to live a poorer quality of life through no fault of your own?

In what you might call "compassion", you have missed the point. Is it justifiable for such a person to make a compulsory claim on others production merely because the person upon whom the claim is made is doing better?

No!

I don't see how individual excellence and intellectual superiority need to be "hated" or treated as illegitimate under communism

Communism can never reward such people as capitalism can. Such people are therefore driven to leave. If an individual advances without the communist government's approval/orders, he becomes less dependent on the communist government, and that is something such a government can never tolerate. To extract "from each ... his ability", it must never permit him to provide for his own needs.

I then am expected to praise a system built upon this foundation, because it just "is" - that's where capitalist praise of the sanctity of "reason" falls apart, because there is no way to reasonably justify a system based upon what was essentially theft in the first place.
You have to accept it because it's reality and you won't have the support to change that in any predominantly middle class society, as most people have a bit more than "personal property".
Is it reasonable to say that because you are born with traits distinct to others - perhaps inferior, that you naturally deserve to live a poorer quality of life through no fault of your own?
No. This is why we have welfare and other programs.

...but I'm bored...

It seems to me there are two viewpoints of just what anarcho-communism _is_....

Basically, whether it's ANARCHO-communism or anarcho-COMMUNISM to the reader. That the reader sees using the de-emphasized word as the descriptor of the "helping wisdom" that will plug the gaps in the emphasized word's criticisized shortcomings.

To me, it sounds in this thread like everyone's thinking it's a "kinder, gentler" communism....but there's a problem regardless of which way you read it....

Namely that these are both (communism and anarchy alike) social systems that have never really been implemented. Calling the Stalinist and Maoist regimes of the earth "communism" is a gross misnomer. I mean, the ossification and stagnation of authority is not "the withering away of the state". Nor was there an attempt to study much less address why the managerial objectives of the state failed so badly, time and time again, if there were no capitalists to oppose them.

The problem is that Marx undertook a project (to found a new methodology of sociology, to promote a new industrial age political system, and to govern and restrict the anti-social impulses of the individual more effectively) that was FAR, FAR beyond the scope of a single human lifetime.

Just for example, consider "class". Traditional views of society in Europe were that it was one of "orders", of people with overlapping but sharply differentiated customs, talents, and roles who were different by innate qualities. Marx said "no, a better way of looking at social organization is that people have to engage in activities to survive, and that those in similiar activities have similar interests and similar outlooks shaped by the lifetime specialization and proficiency in those activities...class is a shorthand for everyone whose method of survival is sufficiently distinct from others to represent a discrete category."

But then he went on to arbitrarily declare that the only _meaningfuly_ difference in survival activities was whether you:

(1) worked to make material goods for others, and were either paid wages to buy your necessities, or made yourself in your spare time (the proletariat)

(2) worked to provide _services_ for others, and had some wealth gathered by your superiors redistributed to provide you some perks and benefits (the burgeousie)

(3) provided service for yourself in organizing economic activity and taking a disproportionate "cut" of the product for your overvalued contribution to the endeavor (capitalists)

(4) provided no service at all and simply gave orders and collected extortion from everyone else (the nobles) (whom he saw as dying and thus in the process of being absorbed by the capitalists) because capitalists were displacing them as the primary holders of the accumulated material means of coercing and imposition of order)

This was not a position he studied or provided data for, he simply DECLARED it. He declared all other distinctions to be moot and meaningless in describing the different essential social groupings. This flies in the face of everything I've learned about organizational behaviour. I mean, do _you_ think that there's nothing else that differentiates humans in organizational clusters ?

He declared that any other distinctions drawn were misattributions that could be "clarified" and create class unity to counter the "divide and conquer" exploitation of one "order" of society against another. But given that the proletariate could not shed it's "mystification" in any developed country; and given that the burgeousie steadfastly showed mixed attitudes towards the "lower orders", it would seem that he was deleting variables prematurely.

The big themes in modern management are : the role of motivation; the moderation and efficient exchange of information; the distribution of power. These are all related to variables about the way people lived and obtained their survival, even in the dawn of the industrial age. And yet Marx is totally silent about how these (or any other variables) would affect class. He only cared about whether you worked for yourself or someone else and if you made a material good or provided a service.

This narrowing of the field let him pretend he was engaging in an exercise akin to Newton deriving the theory of gravity, but in fact he was simply ignoring anything that would expand the amount of work required to describe beyond his ability to finish in his lifetime.

What I'm trying to say is the Marx's models and theories regarding most (perhaps all) matters were crude, sometimes perceptive sketches of new explanations for old facts. But he did not see that it would require a TEAM (and a huge team) of scholars to make a meaningful dent in a rigorous, consistent and detailed _picture_ of reality, and not just a cartoon that piques the interest. So he was stuck making his virtuouso but inadequately thorough effort.

And from that point on, all "communists" have done almost NO conceptual expansion of this skeletal base. Marx's work was like a pilot project and everyone with political power has treated it like a finished edifice.

Perhaps there are Marxist scholars trying to fill in the gaps. But they generally have to fight "friendly fire" from their "own side" to a huge degree. Because for so many communist factions, they are like evangelical Christians. They know the truth. They don't really do much fundamental self criticism even when they think they are, and they treat any questions outside their limits of what is "up for discussion" as heresy.

So you have the majority of society, which isn't equipped mentally to even understand what communism is about, and mostly rejects it; you have significant fraction which also does not understand communism, but likes some of the stylistic hallmarks and particular goals and cleaves to it because they hate the dominant hegemony; a smaller fraction who act as shepherds and organizers for these sympathetic rebels; unaffiliated rebels, and lastly a tiny smattering of disident scholars and idealists trying to influence these monolithic bodies, a significant number of whom are communist and anarchist.

And regarding anarchy...whether it is a good thing or a bad thing or a neutral thing, it is most of all an imaginary thing on the scale of modern society. The modern nation state does NOT recognize the option to secede. If you are paying your taxes and obeying the leviathan's laws, then you are not "living by your own judgement and voluntary consensus alone" as anarchists aim to do.

Until and unless the vast majority of a society spontaneously decide to suddenly adopt a uniform anarchist behavioural standard, there cannot be a real anarchy. You can have an anarchist _influenced_ polity or social grouping, but if you aren't free to do what you will, then you're not in an anarchy.

And maintaining such a group, even after forming it, would be daunting. If it wasn't a worldwide occurence, then you could expect economic and military efforts to absorb and re-assimilate (or exterminate, modern states do kill their own citizens enthusiastically at times, even the US or Canada) the ex-nation state by its neighbours. Even if political control was not re established, you could expect some impressive bribes and ecnomic inducements to succeed. Because people don't value freedom and autonomy as their highest values; they value SECURITY.

Only accepting the fact that currently (and throughout history) humans are security whores lets you see the world as it is. There are exceptions to this trait on the fringes... But consider the agricultural revolution. Could the sudden discard of hunter-gather society (which was far closer to anarchy _or_ communism than anything that's happened since) have occured if people weren't out for certainty ? Agricultural society resulted in: far more work required; far more inequality; far less justice and fairness; and far less comfort on many axes. Yet enough such societies adopted agriculture and then went on to grow like fungus that they dominate the societal ecosystem now.

Studies have shown that things like travel insurance or extended warranties are a swindle. But people buy them, even mathematically literate people who are equipped to know better, because humans like to eliminate risk whenever they can, and will pay consistently high premiums to do so.

Tell me your plans for abolishing this preference before you tell me that discussing the creation of _any_ radically different polity or societal organizing scheme is anything but moot.

So discussing whether current trends on "the left" or "the right" are good or bad seems mostly pointless unless you are discussing something that is such a small change that you might be able to "sell" people on it. The larger and more complicated your product, the more likely people are to be scared of it, and to reject it simply because it puzzles them and they aren't going to sign on for something that asks too many risks be endured for too uncertain a return.

The proper thrust of "counterculture" thought is either about how to secede to the maximum extent practical within society as it is, or how to coax people along by incremental, interconnected changes. Anarchy and communism alike are doing neither, never mind any hybrid of the two.

Why do I say this ? Because disucussing things that _cannot_ and historically _have not_ happened in _regular, peacetime society_ is pointless.

Even the French Revolution, which seemed such a radical departure point...it reverted to a monarchy (in effect) within a decade. Even in the succeeding republics, every major change was always accompanied by a quick retreat within a generation. And the French while powerful and influential are definitely an inefficient and conflicted society because of this. The Fifth and Sixth republics are nearly identical and a devolution towards stagnation for the forseeable future seems likely.

Yes, interesting things have happened at the conclusions of civil wars or coups or a declaration of independence. But the reversion to the previously dominant methodologies has ALWAYS happened. And then things only start changing again when change is sold on the installment plan, and not in huge, astronomically expensive single payments.

So unless the rumblings on the fringes are going to lead to one of these watershed events, they are meaningless except insofar as they inspire those who are offering incremental changes. And I just don't see a lot of inspiration being drawn from the things the anticommunist types in the above thread are so worried about.

My two giant triangular ningian (sp?) pu's (sp?) (Douglas adam's reference, if somewhat poorly remembered)

I'm not surprised that this article is a mishmash of nonsense and substanceless attacks given that it is from Mises.org, but there are a few quite clearly wrong things in it. Kanabia answered most of them, but there are a couple more.


Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. This is because anarcho-communism isn't one homogenous doctrine; ask 100 different anarcho-communists and you will probably get 100 different answer of how this should be done.

Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism. Which individuals are these? Aside from my desire to better myself, I have no idea what he is talking about here.

At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. Er...no. Anarcho-communists accept that some people will be superior to others, but this is vastly different than the society they live in rewarding them for it.

Economically, anarcho-communism is an absurdity. The anarcho-communist seeks to abolish money, prices, and employment, and proposes to conduct a modern economy purely by the automatic registry of "needs" in some central data bank. No one who has the slightest understanding of economics can trifle with this theory for a single second.No one with the slightest understanding of economics actually believes that economics is a science.

Fifty years ago, Ludwig von Mises exposed the total inability of a planned, moneyless economy to operate above the most primitive level. For he showed that money-prices are indispensable for the rational allocation of all of our scarce resources — labor, land, and capital goods — to the fields and the areas where they are most desired by the consumers and where they could operate with greatest efficiency. The socialists conceded the correctness of Mises's challenge, and set about — in vain — to find a way to have a rational, market price system within the context of a socialist planned economy.Mises' challenge isn't correct, so I'm not sure which socialists conceded it.

The fact that the abandonment of rationality and economics in behalf of "freedom" and whim will lead to the scrapping of modern production and civilization and return us to barbarism does not faze our anarcho-communists and other exponents of the new "counter-culture." Probably because it isn't a fact.

Is it reasonable to say that because you are born with traits distinct to others - perhaps inferior, that you naturally deserve to live a poorer quality of life through no fault of your own? Are you supposed to accept this as it is?Oh, but don't forget, libertarians live in a fantasy world where the only time someone can fail is if it's their own fault and the skill fairy distributes skills to the deserving and private property is the only way someone can protect their freedom even when they have no private property.

So you agree that socialism is an assault on reason. That's good!Uh, no, what Kanabia described is the foundations of modern capitalism.

Which individuals are these? Aside from my desire to better myself, I have no idea what he is talking about here.
I like owning stuff, so do most others in the middle class, which is the majority in my country.
Oh, but don't forget, libertarians live in a fantasy world where the only time someone can fail is if it's their own fault and the skill fairy distributes skills to the deserving and private property is the only way someone can protect their freedom even when they have no private property.
God damn it people. It’s called the middle ground.

For the majority, capitalism works and properly, situation dependant, regulated capitalism works even better.

For the minority that inevitably fall through the cracks in any economic system we have social programs supported by the taxation of the middle and upper class.

Seriously, all you communists, anarchists, socialists, objectivists and libertarians need to start focusing on improving the efficiency of the systems in place. Imagine if all the ideologues dedicated to the aforementioned ideas, many of whom are very intelligent, would focus on streamlining welfare so those that really need it get it, proposing more efficient and effective social programs that will reduce the number of people who need welfare and constructively monitoring business to ensure fair and humane business practices instead of fruitlessly focusing all their mental energy on some pipe-dream that will never occur in reality.

Hmm, like that will ever happen. Ideology is addictive.

I like owning stuff, so do most others in the middle class, which is the majority in my country.I like being able to use things; this ability doesn't require ownership, though.

God damn it people. It’s called the middle ground.

For the majority, capitalism works and properly, situation dependant, regulated capitalism works even better.And those majority are welcome to live in a capitalist system if they believe it works for them.

For the minority that inevitably fall through the cracks in any economic system we have social programs supported by the taxation of the middle and upper class.How would people fall through the cracks in communism?

Seriously, all you communists, anarchists, socialists, objectivists and libertarians need to start focusing on improving the efficiency of the systems in place. Imagine if all the ideologues dedicated to the aforementioned ideas, many of whom are very intelligent, would focus on streamlining welfare so those that really need it get it, The first step would be to secure welfare in and of itself, which isn't necessarily a given in a capitalist system.

proposing more efficient and effective social programs that will reduce the number of people who need welfare Again, the first step would be to secure viable funding, another thing that isn't a given in a capitalist system.

and constructively monitoring business to ensure fair and humane business practices Impossible. In capitalism, business have the vast majority of the power.

instead of fruitlessly focusing all their mental energy on some pipe-dream that will never occur in reality.It's a good thing that proponents of democracy and the abolition of slavery didn't stop "fruitlessly focusing all their mental energy on some pipe-dream that will never occur in reality".

Hmm, like that will ever happen. Ideology is addictive.I don't hold the ideology I hold because I am addicted to it, I hold it because I see no better system.

I like being able to use things; this ability doesn't require ownership, though.
But it helps.
How would people fall through the cracks in communism?
This is what I'm talking about. Things do not work out idealy, ever. Haven't you ever noticed that nothing ever goes quite acording to plan? Reality has so many variables and unpredictable complications, to beleive that something can work out perfectly requires a severe lack of common sense and wisdom.
The first step would be to secure welfare in and of itself, which isn't necessarily a given in a capitalist system.

Again, the first step would be to secure viable funding, another thing that isn't a given in a capitalist system.
Uh, hu. And what century do you live in? Most if not all capitalist nations now have some systems in place to help the poor, and the only problems. These programs require more eficiancy, more streamlining to acheive their desired results, though. They will never be perfect, but nothing ever will be, and getting these programs as close to perfect as possible is much less dificult and destructive than world-wide revolution.
Impossible. In capitalism, business have the vast majority of the power.
Once again I must ask what century you live in. Since the days of Theodore Roosevelt government has shown its ability to regulate businesses.
It's a good thing that proponents of democracy and the abolition of slavery didn't stop "fruitlessly focusing all their mental energy on some pipe-dream that will never occur in reality".

Abolition and democracy certainly are not nor were they ever as unreasnable and sureal as simultaneous world-wide revolution.
I don't hold the ideology I hold because I am addicted to it, I hold it because I see no better system.
See? Where do you see communism? Or for that matter, where does the objectivist see objectivism?

But it helps.Sometimes, but it can also hinder my ability to do so.

This is what I'm talking about. Things do not work out idealy, ever. Haven't you ever noticed that nothing ever goes quite acording to plan? Reality has so many variables and unpredictable complications, to beleive that something can work out perfectly requires a severe lack of common sense and wisdom.Oh, I know that it won't work the way that I plan it, but I don't see how that particular variable is possible. I would assume that if someone in an anarcho-communist society 'fell through the cracks' then that would simply mean that they did not wish to participate in that society, which would be their right.

Uh, hu. And what century do you live in? Most if not all capitalist nations now have some systems in place to help the poor, and the only problems. These programs require more eficiancy, more streamlining to acheive their desired results, though. I know that capitalist nations have these systems, but these systems are constantly under attack by capitalists and oftentimes subsequently stripped back. It's conceivable that they will be stripped back to the point of being eliminated.

They will never be perfect, but nothing ever will be, and getting these programs as close to perfect as possible is much less dificult and destructive than world-wide revolution.? Who said anything about world-wide or revolution?

Once again I must ask what century you live in. Since the days of Theodore Roosevelt government has shown its ability to regulate businesses.Government has shown its lack of ability to regulate businesses, given that businesses still aren't being constructively monitored to ensure fair and humane business practices.

See? Where do you see communism? Or for that matter, where does the objectivist see objectivism?For starters:
1) In the original article, an example was given of anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.
2) The Paris Commune
3) The Zapatistas in Mexico.
4) Any worker-owned co-op.

I really don't know where Objectivists see Objectivism, I can't answer that part of your query.

I'm not going to respond to everything you typed, it's way too much, and I don't really have the time, but you need to realise that any form of anarchism where others are forced to live in an anarchist way is anti-anarchism. The only way it would work if everyone truly had the choice what to do, so if people would wnat to create a democratic commune, they would be allowed to do so.
The basic rules of this type of society are simple: no one can force anyone else to do something, you can try to convince others, but you can't force them in any way. (So of course fascism wouldn't be accepted)
For the rest of organising society: It's vague, DUH! if it wasn't vague you would be forcing your opinion on others.

Sometimes, but it can also hinder my ability to do so.
That's life. In a communal society there will also be obstacles.
Oh, I know that it won't work the way that I plan it, but I don't see how that particular variable is possible. I would assume that if someone in an anarcho-communist society 'fell through the cracks' then that would simply mean that they did not wish to participate in that society, which would be their right.
Still far too idealistic. How can you be so sure of your ideology? Capitalism has flaws, yes, but reasonable people admit that and set out to limit those flaws as much as possible.
I know that capitalist nations have these systems, but these systems are constantly under attack by capitalists and oftentimes subsequently stripped back. It's conceivable that they will be stripped back to the point of being eliminated.
Not likely, and then only in the US and only for a short time, as the social impact of such an imbecilic action becomes apparent.
? Who said anything about world-wide or revolution?
How else could it be achieved? Unless you plan only to use the resources immediately available to you, (which is possible if you’re comfortable with a severe blow to your standard of living) how do you plan to interact with a world that still uses currency? The thought that a truly communist society can exist in isolation is as idiotic as the far-right's desire to return to the gold standard.
Government has shown its lack of ability to regulate businesses, given that businesses still aren't being constructively monitored to ensure fair and humane business practices.
And welfare isn't as efficient as it could be. I blame misapplied critical thinking skills.
For starters:
1) In the original article, an example was given of anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.
2) The Paris Commune
3) The Zapatistas in Mexico.
4) Any worker-owned co-op.
Nothing large scale then. Nowhere I nor most middle class Americans would want to live. If all you want is a commune or a co-op, why not go out and start or join one?

I'll reconsider the whole anarchic society concept once they got one up-and-running.
Until then, just another bunch of dissidents baying at the moon.
*polishes the thwacking-stick*

That's life. In a communal society there will also be obstacles.Those obstacles will be acceptable, because I will have chosen a society with them.

Still far too idealistic. How can you be so sure of your ideology? Capitalism has flaws, yes, but reasonable people admit that and set out to limit those flaws as much as possible.Oh, I'm not sure of it, after all other people would have to share it, and I don't know of anyone who shares it exactly, so we'd have to compromise. It would also take a lot of work to get going, I don't know if everyone would be willing to try to make it work.

Not likely, and then only in the US and only for a short time, as the social impact of such an imbecilic action becomes apparent.At which time the capitalists use the police and military to clamp down on the "social impact"...not much different than most of the history of capitalism.

How else could it be achieved? Secession. Most capitalist countries are also democracies, and while they don't explicitly allow secession, they don't explicitly disallow it via democratic means, either.

Unless you plan only to use the resources immediately available to you, (which is possible if you’re comfortable with a severe blow to your standard of living) how do you plan to interact with a world that still uses currency? Minimize it as much as possible; barter when necessary. (There are anarcho-communists who support the use of currency, by the way, I am not one of them, though.)

The thought that a truly communist society can exist in isolation is as idiotic as the far-right's desire to return to the gold standard.It wouldn't need to exist in isolation, but it, as well as all societies, should strive to be as self-sufficient as possible.

And welfare isn't as efficient as it could be. I blame misapplied critical thinking skills.I blame imbalances of power.

Nothing large scale then. Doesn't have to be large scale;10,000 people is more than enough.

Nowhere I nor most middle class Americans would want to live. But nonetheless examples have existed, and do exist.

If all you want is a commune or a co-op, why not go out and start or join one?I don't have the money to start one, and I know of none in my area that I could apply the skills that I have to. Of course, there's also the idea that I'd still be supporting an illegitimate system, but that would be secondary.

I'll reconsider the whole anarchic society concept once they got one up-and-running.
Until then, just another bunch of dissidents baying at the moon.
*polishes the thwacking-stick*It's not really what an anarcho-communist would have in mind, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut

Uh, no, what Kanabia described is the foundations of modern capitalism.

No, she described exactly what socialist governments do. A person (the leader of the government) gets together a bunch of thugs (police, army, etc) to take away the property of a community.

If she was actually describing the foundations of modern capitalism, she needs to read a new book, or she could read a book.

Again, the first step would be to secure viable funding, another thing that isn't a given in a capitalist system.

It isn't a given in any system. If one is to redistribute wealth, wealth must be produced, of course wealth distribution gives a disincentive to the production of wealth.

Impossible. In capitalism, business have the vast majority of the power.

In mixed economies, they have most of the power.

In capitalism, business has no power.

In capitalism, the consumers hold all economic power, because they can quite legitimately shut down any firm against the will of its owners simply by spending their money elsewhere.

In a mixed economy, the government believes it holds the strings, but that government is dependent on business to stay in office, it is therefore controlled by the people it is meant to be controlling. In a mixed economy, the way to survive is to be politically connected. Microsoft had no presence in Washington, then Sun Microsystems, and other firms drafted a mock anti-trust suit, showed it to the DOJ, and now Microsoft, in order to survive needs lobbyists, and political donations. In a mixed economy, a firm can pay off/lobby politicians in order to stay in business against the will of the consumers. Farmers can, through government compel people to buy thier produce by banning imports. None of this is possible in capitalism.


Mandatory Altruism, the real problem with any form of communism is that the lack of information for those who are to plan the economy.

No, she described exactly what socialist governments do. A person (the leader of the government) gets together a bunch of thugs (police, army, etc) to take away the property of a community.

If she was actually describing the foundations of modern capitalism, she needs to read a new book, or she could read a book.No, he described what capitalists did. They had the government take over land, displace the indigenous peoples upon that land, and then give out that land as political favors to their supporters, only giving the land to the common people when they ran out of supporters to give it to.

It isn't a given in any system. If one is to redistribute wealth, wealth must be produced, of course wealth distribution gives a disincentive to the production of wealth.Arguably, but wealth production without distribution is pointless.

In mixed economies, they have most of the power.

In capitalism, business has no power.

In capitalism, the consumers hold all economic power, because they can destroy any firm they dislike by simply choosing to buy from others.In capitalism, businesses hold most of the power because they can purchase government officials to enact laws in their favor, or to commit violence against consumers or employees who get out of line, or a myriad of other things.

In a mixed economy, the government believes it holds the strings, but that government is dependent on business to stay in office, it is therefore controlled by the people it is meant to be controlling. In a mixed economy, the way to survive is to be politically connected. Microsoft had no presence in Washington, then Sun Microsystems, and other firms drafted a mock anti-trust suit, showed it to the DOJ, and now Microsoft, in order to survive needs lobbyists, and political donations.Oh, yes, and there are myriad other examples of that, too. All the more reason to get rid of both businesses and governments.

Mandatory Altruism, the real problem with any form of communism is that the lack of information for those who are to plan the economy.Since everyone is going to be planning the economy in anarcho-communism, it's impossible for there to be a lack of information. If you were arguing that there was too much information to sort through, that would be something an anarcho-communist society would have to consider.

(snip)
It's not really what an anarcho-communist would have in mind, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut


I know it isn't what you would have in mind,
but you can't earnestly expect me to judge you on your own standards?

*confuddled and befused*

I know it isn't what you would have in mind,
but you can't earnestly expect me to judge you on your own standards?

*confuddled and befused*You wanted an anarchist society in action. I gave an example of one that was fairly close (the role of the Canadian government and the funding it provides is debatable.)

You wanted an anarchist society in action. I gave an example of one that was fairly close (the role of the Canadian government and the funding it provides is debatable.)

*nods*

Er, well, I meant something with a bit of scale.
Let's say Republican Spain - that kind of thing.

*nods*

Er, well, I meant something with a bit of scale.
Let's say Republican Spain - that kind of thing.Oh. Well, I can't really give you something with over a million people, but of course that leaves the question of whether a society with a million people is desirable, or inherently more desirable than a society with only 10,000 people.

Oh. Well, I can't really give you something with over a million people, but of course that leaves the question of whether a society with a million people is desirable, or inherently more desirable than a society with only 10,000 people.

I think I know that - but don't expect me to take a small scale model too serious.

The thing is: us humans have got this thing about scale.
A tower made out of mecano ( however pretty ),
just doesn't have the WOW-factor of the Eiffel Tower.

I think I know that - but don't expect me to take a small scale model too serious.

The thing is: us humans have got this thing about scale.
A tower made out of mecano ( however pretty ),
just doesn't have the WOW-factor of the Eiffel Tower.Ah, I see. Well, the thing about direct democracy is that it can't be on a huge scale, for logistical reasons. That leaves the few examples of anarcho-communism that don't use direct democracy, and they are somewhat unstable, IMHO.

BTW, what's mecano?

Ah, I see. Well, the thing about direct democracy is that it can't be on a huge scale, for logistical reasons. That leaves the few examples of anarcho-communism that don't use direct democracy, and they are somewhat unstable, IMHO.

BTW, what's mecano?


Direct Democracy doesn't work all that well beyond the size of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden.
Which is really a pity - but representative democracy works out pretty good too.

( My moral objection is not based on the anarcho-dimension, but on the communist-dimension. Being a bit ditzy ain't no crime - but being a meanie sho'nuff is! )

Meccano ( typo is mine ).
http://www.meccano.com/
In a distressing changeover that happened after my youth, this formerly megacool ubernerdish sets of metal construction-kits has gone the same way as lego and playmobil.
*goes sulky*
Dash that!

Direct Democracy doesn't work all that well beyond the size of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden.
Which is really a pity - but representative democracy works out pretty good too.Eh. I don't think that representative democracy works out very well, though it's better than an undemocratic system.

( My moral objection is not based on the anarcho-dimension, but on the communist-dimension. Being a bit ditzy ain't no crime - but being a meanie sho'nuff is! )Lol. Yes, I think that's probably most people's problems with communism. <shrug> I do wish people would reject communism on what it is rather than what they think it is...though you seem to be educated enough to know what it is, which is more than I can say for most people.

Meccano ( typo is mine ).
http://www.meccano.com/
In a distressing changeover that happened after my youth, this formerly megacool ubernerdish sets of metal construction-kits has gone the same way as lego and playmobil.
*goes sulky*
Dash that!Wow, Meccano looks cool, though much too complex for my unmechanically-inclined self.

1. Eh. I don't think that representative democracy works out very well, though it's better than an undemocratic system.

2. Lol. Yes, I think that's probably most people's problems with communism. <shrug> I do wish people would reject communism on what it is rather than what they think it is...though you seem to be educated enough to know what it is, which is more than I can say for most people.

3. Wow, Meccano looks cool, though much too complex for my unmechanically-inclined self.

1. I translate that ( meanly, I know ;) ) as: democracy is better than undemocracy. ( Which I consider as stating the obvious. )
Representative Democracy may not be the best system imaginable - but it is the best we actually can achieve.
I like the holding-up-the-hand thing even better - but what is dandy for Appenzellern is somewhat difficult for Newark - or even Doncaster.

2. I know what you mean, and even agree to some extent - but I don't think it is realistic to measure ideas on their ideals rather than on their objective realities.

When I query a notional neonazi on his fave system, I would not rate that system on what he thinks it should be like ( a free-love-all-white-brotherhood) , but on what the 3rd Reich did ( chucking non-white people into ovens in order to hasten the arrival of said love fest ) .

Had I questioned Disraeliland on Free Markets, I'd rate those on how they behave in real life( warts and all ) , and not in some notional ideal world in which no one would ever be hungry or stricken by floods, diseases or tsunamis.

Should I question a communist on communism, I will look at the really existant thing - and not on the pipe-dream.

( of course, the combination of communism with anarchism allows me to take a more generous approach to things. I can get away ( morally ) with ignoring the SovUnion and rate it instead on anarchism as in pre-Franco-Spain. Republican Spain is ( to me ) the ditzy girl in school - a bit daft, but without a mean bone in her body. )

3. *silly grin*
Old fashioned Meccano ( nuts, bolts, spanners + metal strips ) hooked many a prospective student of literature into engineering!

1. I translate that ( meanly, I know ;) ) as: democracy is better than undemocracy. ( Which I consider as stating the obvious. )
Representative Democracy may not be the best system imaginable - but it is the best we actually can achieve.
I like the holding-up-the-hand thing even better - but what is dandy for Appenzellern is somewhat difficult for Newark - or even Doncaster.True, and while there is an advantage to having a Newark, I think it's more advantageous to split it up so that direct democracy is possible.

2. I know what you mean, and even agree to some extent - but I don't think it is realistic to measure ideas on their ideals rather than on their objective realities.

When I query a notional neonazi on his fave system, I would not rate that system on what he thinks it should be like ( a free-love-all-white-brotherhood) , but on what the 3rd Reich did ( chucking non-white people into ovens in order to hasten the arrival of said love fest ) .

Had I questioned Disraeliland on Free Markets, I'd rate those on how they behave in real life( warts and all ) , and not in some notional ideal world in which no one would ever be hungry or stricken by floods, diseases or tsunamis.

Should I question a communist on communism, I will look at the really existant thing - and not on the pipe-dream.

( of course, the combination of communism with anarchism allows me to take a more generous approach to things. I can get away ( morally ) with ignoring the SovUnion and rate it instead on anarchism as in pre-Franco-Spain. Republican Spain is ( to me ) the ditzy girl in school - a bit daft, but without a mean bone in her body. )I agree, the problem with this type of system (as well as free market capitalism) is that it really hasn't existed, so the best that I can do with approximations, such as Nunavut or pre-Franco Spain. Pre-Franco Spain is a good example, but bring crushed by the Fascists gives it an unfair bad reputation.

3. *silly grin*
Old fashioned Meccano ( nuts, bolts, spanners + metal strips ) hooked many a prospective student of literature into engineering!Lol. Did you become an engineering student after discovering Meccano?

1. True, and while there is an advantage to having a Newark, I think it's more advantageous to split it up so that direct democracy is possible.

2. I agree, the problem with this type of system (as well as free market capitalism) is that it really hasn't existed, so the best that I can do with approximations, such as Nunavut or pre-Franco Spain. Pre-Franco Spain is a good example, but bring crushed by the Fascists gives it an unfair bad reputation.

3. Lol. Did you become an engineering student after discovering Meccano?

1. ...provided you get that approved by vote and all, I'd say.
I'm too much of an Internationalist to approve making smaller social units.
Our most pressing problems are of the kind that demands global thinking and action - not lots of tiny semi-isolated enclaves.
I'm thinking 'Environmental Issues' here.
The relative happiness of human beings strikes me as being strictly contingent upon human survival in the first place.
Safe the Life Boat first - worry about the individual passengers afterwards.

2. I'd say getting crushed by Hitler constitutes an unfair advantage, PR-wise...

Meanwhile, I'm thinking that the mixture of social security + relatively free markets + representative democracy = the best really existant system so far.

( It's extraordinary how much time we spend trying to fix human unhappiness by changing the way in which little green papers with figures on 'em move. It isn't like it is the little green papers are being unhappy... )

3. Naw - my dad. I ended up being more on the destructive side of things. ;)
All the same: I did build a lot of bridges and similar thingies with his meccano-set.

1. ...provided you get that approved by vote and all, I'd say.Yes, that's the hard part.

I'm too much of an Internationalist to approve making smaller social units.
Our most pressing problems are of the kind that demands global thinking and action - not lots of tiny semi-isolated enclaves.
I'm thinking 'Environmental Issues' here.Ah. Well, I suppose I shouldn't stereotype, but anarchists seem to be more environmentally concerned than most groups are.

The relative happiness of human beings strikes me as being strictly contingent upon human survival in the first place.
Safe the Life Boat first - worry about the individual passengers afterwards.You think people would die in a world made up directly democratically run communities? How come?

2. I'd say getting crushed by Hitler constitutes an unfair advantage, PR-wise...You'd be surprised by how many people use that example as an excuse to say that anarchist communities aren't stable and able to fend off outside forces.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking that the mixture of social security + relatively free markets + representative democracy = the best really existant system so far.Eh. I'm nonplussed with it all.

( It's extraordinary how much time we spend trying to fix human unhappiness by changing the way in which little green papers with figures on 'em move. It isn't like it is the little green papers are being unhappy... )The little green papers are keeping us down, man! :)

3. Naw - my dad. I ended up being more on the destructive side of things. ;)
All the same: I did build a lot of bridges and similar thingies with his meccano-set.How large were the bridges?

Yes, that's the hard part.

1. Ah. Well, I suppose I shouldn't stereotype, but anarchists seem to be more environmentally concerned than most groups are.

2. You think people would die in a world made up directly democratically run communities? How come?

3. You'd be surprised by how many people use that example as an excuse to say that anarchist communities aren't stable and able to fend off outside forces.

Eh. I'm nonplussed with it all.

4. The little green papers are keeping us down, man! :)

5. How large were the bridges?


1. Being concerned isn't the same as being effective.
I'm sure the Pope is highly concerned about the Iraq War - but that won't stop the war.

2. *shrug* The more complex ( as in increased number of entities ) the world gets, the more likely we are to have lots of Free Riders.
'Damn you Jack, I'm living in the desert.
So I want my SUV now - and sod Vanuatu.'
If you think one USA is bad, Kyoto-wise, imagine having 5 million little USAs.

3. *shrug* I don't expect ditzes to defend themselves competently.
An Effective Ditz persuades/manipulates the more red-blooded-types to come to her defence.

4. *grin* I'm thinking that fiddling with the beans is not-quite-as-sensible as fiddling with the bean-counters.
( Currently reading a book called something like : markets, hierarchies and networks, an introductory overview of social cooperation. )

5. Mind you, I got one as long as 4 feet!
For my next project, I shall build a bridge from Hastings to Bayeux!

1. Being concerned isn't the same as being effective.
I'm sure the Pope is highly concerned about the Iraq War - but that won't stop the war.True, I think the anarchists' concern would work well for anarchists, but not for non-anarchists.

2. *shrug* The more complex ( as in increased number of entities ) the world gets, the more likely we are to have lots of Free Riders.
'Damn you Jack, I'm living in the desert.
So I want my SUV now - and sod Vanuatu.'
If you think one USA is bad, Kyoto-wise, imagine having 5 million little USAs.Well, in that instance, the Free Riders are free to have their SUVs, but unless they are living in a society that will provide them with gasoline for their SUVs, they won't get very far.
It seems to me that a system that allows individuals to be wasteful is going to be more wasteful than a system that hinders an individual's ability to be wasteful.

3. *shrug* I don't expect ditzes to defend themselves competently.
An Effective Ditz persuades/manipulates the more red-blooded-types to come to her defence. Lol. That might be what some people would view the Soviets' aid as, but the Soviets had their own agenda...to continue the metaphor, the Soviets' wanted to help the ditz and then have the ditz put out as a way of saying thanks.

4. *grin* I'm thinking that fiddling with the beans is not-quite-as-sensible as fiddling with the bean-counters.
( Currently reading a book called something like : markets, hierarchies and networks, an introductory overview of social cooperation. )Hm, it sounds interesting...might make markets something I can live with instead of instinctively disliking.

5. Mind you, I got one as long as 4 feet!
For my next project, I shall build a bridge from Hastings to Bayeux!Lol. That'll take a lot of Meccano sets!

1. True, I think the anarchists' concern would work well for anarchists, but not for non-anarchists.

2. Well, in that instance, the Free Riders are free to have their SUVs, but unless they are living in a society that will provide them with gasoline for their SUVs, they won't get very far.
It seems to me that a system that allows individuals to be wasteful is going to be more wasteful than a system that hinders an individual's ability to be wasteful.

3. Lol. That might be what some people would view the Soviets' aid as, but the Soviets had their own agenda...to continue the metaphor, the Soviets' wanted to help the ditz and then have the ditz put out as a way of saying thanks.

4. Hm, it sounds interesting...might make markets something I can live with instead of instinctively disliking.

5. Lol. That'll take a lot of Meccano sets!

1. Unless it is the anarchists causing the environmental damage ( a rather unrealistic assumption ), it isn't very likely that anarchist concerns are going to solve the problems.

2. Er, my point is that small societies are even more free to externalise effects of their own actions than big ones.
Any effective system must have ways to encourage and discourage the same behaviour at the same time!
Sounds weird - but isn't weird. It is negative feedback in action.

3. *nods* to continue my own metaphor of it - the disgrace is that our democracries allowed our ditzy sister to be killed off by the nogoodnik-combo of Stalin, Hitler and consorts. In any conflict between a democracy ( ditzy or otherwise ) and scumbag states ( like Nazi Germany then or Pakistan now ), there is a categoric imperative for Democrats to side with their own sister and wage war upon the chav.

4. *nods again* There is just so many ( or few ) different ways to regulate cooperation.
They all have their limitations.
While a Network sounds ever so dandy ( and I'm thinking a collective of direct democracies would tend to turn into a network ), it has the drawback of systematically excluding outsiders, and cooperation with outsiders.
We can make similar objections to other mechanisms for cooperation, I suppose.
None is perfect - but they all have their applications.

5. STOP opressing me!
*giggle*

1. Unless it is the anarchists causing the environmental damage ( a rather unrealistic assumption ), it isn't very likely that anarchist concerns are going to solve the problems.Yes, perhaps not, unless you get militant anarchists in the mix...I don't know how constructive that would be, either.

2. Er, my point is that small societies are even more free to externalise effects of their own actions than big ones.
Any effective system must have ways to encourage and discourage the same behaviour at the same time!
Sounds weird - but isn't weird. It is negative feedback in action.You think so? It seems to me that the larger societies could just slough off the effects of their actions onto their smaller neighbors.

3. *nods* to continue my own metaphor of it - the disgrace is that our democracries allowed out ditzy sister to be killed off by the nogoodnik-combo of Stalin, Hitler and consorts. In any conflict between a democracy ( ditzy or otherwise ) and scumbag states ( like Nazi Germany then or Pakistan now ), there is a categoric imperative for Democrats to side with their own sister and wage war upon the chav.Ah, true. The cynic in me wants to put that down to capitalism in action...I'm not sure how justified that is, though.

4. *nods again* There is just so many ( or few ) different ways to regulate cooperation.
They all have their limitations.
While a Network sounds ever so dandy ( and I'm thinking a collective of direct democracies would tend to turn into a network ), it has the drawback of systematically excluding outsiders, and cooperation with outsiders.
We can make similar objections to other mechanisms for cooperation, I suppose.
None is perfect - but they all have their applications.Who's the book by, so I can find it in the bookstore?

There is also unregulated cooperation, but that has its own limitations, too.

5. STOP opressing me!
*giggle*Let's draw up plans to liberate the Meccano sets from their evil manufacturers/slavemasters!

No, he described what capitalists did. They had the government take over land, displace the indigenous peoples upon that land, and then give out that land as political favors to their supporters, only giving the land to the common people when they ran out of supporters to give it to.

Then she was mistaken, or lying, because what she described has always been the actions of governments. The closest there was to private firms doing that was such companies as the British South Africa Company, which was granted by government monopolies in Southern Africa.

In capitalism, businesses hold most of the power because they can purchase government officials to enact laws in their favor, or to commit violence against consumers or employees who get out of line, or a myriad of other things.

That is not capitalism. That is only possible in a mixed economy. If you are going to criticise capitalism, at least learn about first.

All the more reason to get rid of ... businesses.

Nonsense. Without the possibility of government interference, businesses would live and die by their ability to satisfy the consumer in a profitable manner. Consumers hold all the power under capitalism. Business can only gain power with the help of government.

Since everyone is going to be planning the economy in anarcho-communism, it's impossible for there to be a lack of information.

Once again, learn about capitalism, specifically the price system.

You wanted an anarchist society in action. I gave an example of one that was fairly close (the role of the Canadian government and the funding it provides is debatable.)

It is not debatable. By definition, an anarchist society must be fully voluntary. That means that it cannot accept government funding because like all governments, Canada's is funded by compulsion. Indirect conpulsion is still compulsion, even if it is of outsiders.

*will be back - tea-break*

Then she was mistaken, or lying, because what she described has always been the actions of governments. The closest there was to private firms doing that was such companies as the British South Africa Company, which was granted by government monopolies in Southern Africa.Private firms and governments are inseparable.

That is not capitalism. That is only possible in a mixed economy. If you are going to criticise capitalism, at least learn about first.A system where the government doesn't interfere in business is impossible.

Nonsense. Without the possibility of government interference, businesses would live and die by their ability to satisfy the consumer in a profitable manner. Consumers hold all the power under capitalism. Business can only gain power with the help of government.But there is always the possibility of government interference in business.

Once again, learn about capitalism, specifically the price system.I'm familiar with capitalism, and realize that the price system isn't the only way of obtaining information.

It is not debatable. By definition, an anarchist society must be fully voluntary. That means that it cannot accept government funding because like all governments, Canada's is funded by compulsion. Indirect conpulsion is still compulsion, even if it is of outsiders.Certainly, but I meant the affect that the funding has on the society, how much it affects the society is debatable, and if the society could function without it.

1. Yes, perhaps not, unless you get militant anarchists in the mix...I don't know how constructive that would be, either.

2. You think so? It seems to me that the larger societies could just slough off the effects of their actions onto their smaller neighbors.

3. Ah, true. The cynic in me wants to put that down to capitalism in action...I'm not sure how justified that is, though.

4. Who's the book by, so I can find it in the bookstore?

5. There is also unregulated cooperation, but that has its own limitations, too.

6. Let's draw up plans to liberate the Meccano sets from their evil manufacturers/slavemasters!

1. It isn't intentions that matter - but intentions + means to enact 'em.

2. *nods* I think so.
Small communities tend towards isolation.
Sending out a delegate to a meeting in Rio D. is more achievable to the United States of America than it is to '3rd section, 1st Platoon, Armed Republic of Mills County'.
And after a while, the politicos of 3rd Section wont even read the papers in order to find out what's going on.
Meanwhile, the economy of SUV and petrol will continue regardless of borders.
Just as happened with the silk trade in the Dark Ages.

3. *shrug* I'm thinking that the pacifism of the thirties precluded any clear-headed thinking about the nature of that conflict.
Hemingway got it quite right: he saw the moral ambivalency, yet had no trouble in chosing whom to root for ( which sisn't the same thing as getting really involved) .
Meanwhile, society at large deplored warfare on convenient principle - and never resolved the dilemmas.

4. I'll check. 4 authors. Open University. ( picked it up second hand, may be out of print ).

5. Unregulated cooperation would depend IMHO on shared intentions.
Look around this forum - how much intentionsharing do you see?

6. Oh no! I want to rule ALL Meccano-sets.
The Sets Shall Be Ours!

1. It isn't intentions that matter - but intentions + means to enact 'em.True, but simply because people have the means to do something doesn't mean they intend to.

2. *nods* I think so.
Small communities tend towards isolation.
Sending out a delegate to a meeting in Rio D. is more achievable to the United States of America than it is to '3rd section, 1st Platoon, Armed Republic of Mills County'.
And after a while, the politicos of 3rd Section wont even read the papers in order to find out what's going on.
Meanwhile, the economy of SUV and petrol will continue regardless of borders.
Just as happened with the silk trade in the Dark Ages.I'm not certain that this would be the case. I see your point, but I don't think this particular issue would happen. The silk trade doesn't take a huge investment of capital; you can transport mulberry bushes and silkworms relatively inexpensively. Petroleum refining, on the other hand, take a huge investment of capital, capital that is unlikely to be invested without several communities coming together to make it happen.

3. *shrug* I'm thinking that the pacifism of the thirties precluded any clear-headed thinking about the nature of that conflict.
Hemingway got it quite right: he saw the moral ambivalency, yet had no trouble in chosing whom to root for ( which sisn't the same thing as getting really involved) .
Meanwhile, society at large deplored warfare on convenient principle - and never resolved the dilemmas.Good point.

4. I'll check. 4 authors. Open University. ( picked it up second hand, may be out of print ).Thank you very much.

5. Unregulated cooperation would depend IMHO on shared intentions.
Look around this forum - how much intentionsharing do you see?Eh...there is some there, but yes, shared intentions can't be a given.

6. Oh no! I want to rule ALL Meccano-sets.
The Sets Shall Be Ours!It's fine, if we have a working plan to liberate the Meccano sets, I can use it to liberate the chocolate cakes! Mwahahaha!

Private firms and governments are inseparable.

Mule fritters.

They could not be more different. Private firms are only involved with government to the extent government wants.

A system where the government doesn't interfere in business is impossible.

Rubbish. You keep putting this line, and your only proof is to restate your argument.

I'm familiar with capitalism, and realize that the price system isn't the only way of obtaining information.

With a price system, and private property, there are markets in factors of production. The best allocation of factors is to those areas most highly valued, without a price system, with prices of the factors, and therefore relative production costs for different methods, there can be no rational allocation of factors of production. The laughable ideas you have put forward do not address any of this.

Certainly, but I meant the affect that the funding has on the society, how much it affects the society is debatable, and if the society could function without it.

The society in question is not anarchic. It might therefore be relevant in a thread specifically dealing with that society, but it is not relevant to a thread dealing with anarchism.

True, but simply because people have the means to do something doesn't mean they intend to.

I'm not certain that this would be the case. I see your point, but I don't think this particular issue would happen. The silk trade doesn't take a huge investment of capital; you can transport mulberry bushes and silkworms relatively inexpensively. Petroleum refining, on the other hand, take a huge investment of capital, capital that is unlikely to be invested without several communities coming together to make it happen.

Good point.

Thank you very much.

Eh...there is some there, but yes, shared intentions can't be a given.

It's fine, if we have a working plan to liberate the Meccano sets, I can use it to liberate the chocolate cakes! Mwahahaha!


Killian, I'll be back, you know?
*steals Meccano-sets*

anyway: the book:
Markets, hierarchy and networks
The coordination of social life

Grahame Thompson, Jennifer Frances, Rosalind Levavic and Jeremy Mitchell
SAGE press, 1991, in association with The Open University

Mule fritters.

They could not be more different. Private firms are only involved with government to the extent government wants.No, it's the opposite. Private firms are only involved with government to the extent that the private firms want.

Rubbish. You keep putting this line, and your only proof is to restate your argument.The burden of proof is on you, you're the one proposing that a libertarian system will be unlike the majority of governments; the majority of governments eventually get involved with things that they aren't supposed to be involved in. You've put forward nothing saying that libertarian governments would be the exception rather than the rule.

With a price system, and private property, there are markets in factors of production. The best allocation of factors is to those areas most highly valued, without a price system, with prices of the factors, and therefore relative production costs for different methods, there can be no rational allocation of factors of production. The laughable ideas you have put forward do not address any of this.It's entirely possible to have a rational allocation of the factors of production without a price system.

The society in question is not anarchic. It might therefore be relevant in a thread specifically dealing with that society, but it is not relevant to a thread dealing with anarchism.Like I said, it depends on the effect that the Canadian government's funding has on the society. If the funding has little effect, then the society is anarchic, since the funding they receive is really the only thing preventing them from being anarchic.

**************************************************

Killian, I'll be back, you know?
*steals Meccano-sets*Hoorah! We've liberated the Meccano sets from their oppressors!

anyway: the book:
Markets, hierarchy and networks
The coordination of social life

Grahame Thompson, Jennifer Frances, Rosalind Levavic and Jeremy Mitchell
SAGE press, 1991, in association with The Open UniversityAh, thank you very much, I'll be sure to check it out.

No, it's the opposite. Private firms are only involved with government to the extent that the private firms want.

Lets look at this logically. If a government can interfere whereever it wants, it is in the interests of private firms to try to influence government. The investments in lobbying, and political donations etc can have a return for the firm.

Private firms exercise no legitimate coercive power, only governments do.

If governments left business alone, there would be nothing to gain for private firms in being involved with government. There is not return on investment. This applies as much for incompetant firms because they can less afford to make such a futile investment.

There is no rationale for making an investment upon which there can be no return, the only condition in which there can be such a return is in a mixed economy, therefore the extent to which business is involved with government is determined by government, not by business.

You have provided no logical argument to advance your point.

The burden of proof is on you, you're the one proposing that a libertarian system will be unlike the majority of governments; the majority of governments eventually get involved with things that they aren't supposed to be involved in. You've put forward nothing saying that libertarian governments would be the exception rather than the rule.

No, it isn't, you have posited the unprecedented theory that it is impossible to limit a government. History has shown this, and history has also shown the causes for encroachment of goverment powers.

It's entirely possible to have a rational allocation of the factors of production without a price system.

No, it isn't.

Like I said, it depends on the effect that the Canadian government's funding has on the society. If the funding has little effect, then the society is anarchic, since the funding they receive is really the only thing preventing them from being anarchic.

How could the funding not have an effect, unless every cent was returned, and further funding rejected or they simply left it unspent? Once they accept it, they cease to be anarchic. It is the acceptance of funding that makes them non-anarchic because they have accepted government aggression.

Lets look at this logically. If a government can interfere whereever it wants, it is in the interests of private firms to try to influence government. The investments in lobbying, and political donations etc can have a return for the firm.

Private firms exercise no legitimate coercive power, only governments do.

If governments left business alone, there would be nothing to gain for private firms in being involved with government. There is not return on investment. This applies as much for incompetant firms because they can less afford to make such a futile investment.

There is no rationale for making an investment upon which there can be no return, the only condition in which there can be such a return is in a mixed economy, therefore the extent to which business is involved with government is determined by government, not by business.

You have provided no logical argument to advance your point.You've provided no rationale for your argument that the libertarian government will not become a mixed economy.

No, it isn't, you have posited the unprecedented theory that it is impossible to limit a government. History has shown this, and history has also shown the causes for encroachment of goverment powers.No, I've posited the theory that no libertarian government can remain limited to libertarianism. History has shown this to be the case; business always pull the government in.

No, it isn't.You've shown no proof that prices are the only way for this.

How could the funding not have an effect, unless every cent was returned, and further funding rejected or they simply left it unspent? Once they accept it, they cease to be anarchic. It is the acceptance of funding that makes them non-anarchic because they have accepted government aggression.If the government aggression isn't directed against the anarchists, why should the anarchists care?

No, I've posited the theory that no libertarian government can remain limited to libertarianism. History has shown this to be the case; business always pull the government in.

There is nothing special about a libertarian government, except that it is more limited. Government can be limited, history has proven this. History has also shown that where governments have gone beyond their original mandate, there are specific causes, and opportunities exploited to enable it. James Madison summed it up "They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle".

You've shown no proof that prices are the only way for this.

Nor do I need to. You need to show that a viable alternative exists. No one else in history ever has. Every attempt has failed, and you have posited no reason for yours to succeed, or even be feasible. The institution of private property, and the price system have consistantly performed better than anything else, and manipulations of the price system have always had negative outcomes for all concerned.

If the government aggression isn't directed against the anarchists, why should the anarchists care?

If you can't answer the point, be man enough to admit it. The fact is that the society you described is not anarchist. No society that perpetrates external aggression (directly, or indirectly) could possible be anarchist.

You've provided no rationale for your argument that the libertarian government will not become a mixed economy.


Thats the same arugument agains't anarchism, that a government will eventuall form. Fortunatly for libertariansim should the right measures be taken eg - Economic intervention forbidden in a constitution, supreme court to enforce and so forth, I see no reason the concept is so impossible.



You've shown no proof that prices are the only way for this.


Even if I were to accept their may be an alternative method for a price system would you not concede that it would be vastly inferior. What other process could handle the trillions upon trillions of transactions that happen between individual hands daily, and hold the flexibility to update and change prices balenced to supply and demand in secounds.

They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.


Except when the State sends its police to rescue me and my property from robbers, kidnappers, or other assailants. Or when the State sends the firefighters to rescue me and whatever other of my property can still be saved. Or when the State military is used to defend me and my property from foreign invaders.

Yes, government can be used to violate freedom and property. It can also be used to defend freedom and property. Pointing to a misuse and saying "see, it's always bad!" is simply obtuse.

I assume that the average "libertarian" rejects arguments to ban all firearms because of all the murders and other crimes perpetrated by their use because firearms need not necessarily be used for such. They are only a tool, after all. Yet, when exactly the same logic is applied to the State (just "ban" it all!), suddenly all makes sense and is sound.


anarcho-communists wrongly identify anarchism with communal living, with tribal sharing, and with other aspects of our emerging drug-rock "youth culture."


Damn dirty hippy bastards.

What we need is a "Reefer Madness"-type video showing how engaging in communal living and tribal sharing will cause one to go crazy and shoot a relative, or get hairy palms or go blind or something.


Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future. Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.


Actually, that is a good point. "Revolution" and other violent means of politics should not be considered legitimate. Self defense is one thing, offensive actions are another.


Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason. The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism.


Interesting how an argument intended to defend the freedom of the individual is predicated on the beliefs and choices that all "individuals" everywhere must necessary hold and choose. These deterministic attributes justify my having free will as an individual? Am I crazy, or is there an inherent contradiction here? What if, as a free individual, I freely choose to abandon my own property, profits, and income?

Sure, Mr. Rothbard is free to tell me I'm stupid, but, as a libertarian, I must tell him to stick what appears to be his anti-free will determinism in his ear.


Instead, everyone is supposed to live in communes, sharing all his meager possessions with his fellows, and each being careful not to advance beyond his communal brothers.


And assuming that my brothers and I manage to do this in a free, voluntary, and peaceful manner, what exactly is wrong with it? We are free individuals who may choose to live so, are we not?


At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap.


And at the root of capitalism is a drive to make me into a wage slave by which I eat, sleep, and labor at the will of another in exchange for a paycheck which I then turn right around and give back to the same set of bosses who convince me that a cotton t-shirt is suddenly worth $50 because there is some designer logo silkscreen on it. Like a cow, I continue in this meaningless circular loop until the day I die. And all of this is made possible by the coercion of the state, whose agents also tend to be the bosses mentioned above (fancy that!).

See, portraying something in the worst possible light, with emotionally charged and overloaded vocabulary, is fun! :D



:rolleyes:

If governments left business alone, there would be nothing to gain for private firms in being involved with government.


Which is why "private" firms will fight tooth and nail to make sure that government does not leave business alone...

You seem to assume that 1) "private" firms will support a move to removing government influence on business, and 2) "private" firms will suddenly give up and let such a state of affairs continue to exist once established, instead of moving to reestablish government "interference" in business in order to reestablish the aforementioned "gain."

Marx and the general "left" held and continue to hold a great many false ideas and concepts. That the business and wealthy are the heart and soul of government where ever it exists is, however, not one of them. Where government does not exist, business and the wealthy will conspire to create and strenghten one, for exactly the same reason as anyone else: they want that "gain."


Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.

1) "private" firms will support a move to removing government influence on business

I assume no such thing. You assume government interference is the natural state of things.

That the business and wealthy are the heart and soul of government where ever it exists is, however, not one of them.

With a government that cannot interfere in business, there is no possibility of a return on that "investment".

Except when the State sends its police to rescue me and my property from robbers, kidnappers, or other assailants. Or when the State sends the firefighters to rescue me and whatever other of my property can still be saved. Or when the State military is used to defend me and my property from foreign invaders.

Yes, government can be used to violate freedom and property. It can also be used to defend freedom and property. Pointing to a misuse and saying "see, it's always bad!" is simply obtuse.

You have missed the point. That the state in some cases provides protection for people and property does not change the fact that the state is its greatest enemy.

You assume government interference is the natural state of things.


It's an assumption that the empirical evidence (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html) tends to support.

Not saying its right. Just saying it is.


With a government that cannot interfere in business...


A government that no business (assuming a rational actor...) will support.


You have missed the point. That the state in some cases provides protection for people and property does not change the fact that the state is its greatest enemy.

I have acknowledged the fact, and continue to acknowledge the fact, that government can be used for great evil. Of course. However, my point is in that most critical word: "used." Like any tool, governance can be used for evil. Governance can also be used for good. To label the state "the greatest enemy" is to completely ignore all those instances where it is one's best friend. This is the point that Mr. Rothbard (or whoever wrote that article, I have yet to see the original) misses; the state is amoral, it is neither good or bad. The purpose for and way in which it is employed are good or evil.

States don't kill people. People kill people.

Not saying its right. Just saying it is.

No, you are saying that it is necessarily the case.

A government that no business (assuming a rational actor...) will support.

Whether they do or not is irrelevant, and there is no reason for a business to support, or undermine a non-interventionist government.

Business supports particular types of interventionist government, the investments thus made are returned. With a non-interventionist government, that doesn't apply.

Remember, any competant business is better off without intervention, and without an interventionist government, and since you assume rational actors, the incompetant businesses need not be considered, because the people in those businesses will see their failure, and go into something else.

However, my point is in that most critical word: "used." Like any tool, governance can be used for evil.

The way government does everything it does is immoral (extortion, or theft as a basis of funding), and every legitimate, moral function (defence, police, courts) could be provided privately.

There is nothing special about a libertarian government, except that it is more limited. Government can be limited, history has proven this. History has also shown that where governments have gone beyond their original mandate, there are specific causes, and opportunities exploited to enable it. James Madison summed it up "They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle".You and Dissonant Cognition are also talking about this issue, so I won't say too much more about it because he will likely be saying what I'm saying, but it seems to me that when the first big recession would happen in a libertarian country would be a specific cause for the government to go beyond its mandate.

Nor do I need to. You need to show that a viable alternative exists. No one else in history ever has. Every attempt has failed, and you have posited no reason for yours to succeed, or even be feasible. The institution of private property, and the price system have consistantly performed better than anything else, and manipulations of the price system have always had negative outcomes for all concerned.This is false on several counts. Firstly, every attempt at allocating resources without a price system has not failed; when you and your friends get together to decide how to spend your time (a resource), you likely decide to do the activity that most of you would enjoy rather than the activity that takes the least time.
Secondly, manipulations of the price system can be a good thing. A price cap on milk means that milk is affordable to everyone, rather than just some people.

If you can't answer the point, be man enough to admit it. The fact is that the society you described is not anarchist. No society that perpetrates external aggression (directly, or indirectly) could possible be anarchist.How is the society perpetuating aggression directly or indirectly? Has the society told the Canadian government to tax its citizens and give them money? If not, then the society has played no role in the perpetuating of aggression; this money would likely go to some other government program as opposed to going back to the taxpayers.

Remember, any competant business is better off without interventionAll businesses, whether competant or incompetant, are better off with intervention if that intervention is favorable to them.

*****************************************************

Thats the same arugument agains't anarchism, that a government will eventuall form. Fortunatly for libertariansim should the right measures be taken eg - Economic intervention forbidden in a constitution, supreme court to enforce and so forth, I see no reason the concept is so impossible. Constitutions can usually be changed with Amendments; all business would have to do is convince the legislature and the populace that such a change would be good for them.

Even if I were to accept their may be an alternative method for a price system would you not concede that it would be vastly inferior. What other process could handle the trillions upon trillions of transactions that happen between individual hands daily, and hold the flexibility to update and change prices balenced to supply and demand in secounds.I disagree that a system that isn't based on prices would be inferior. Additionally, I don't take that there will be trillions upon trillions of transactions happening between individuals as a given; transactions between individuals would, or should, be rare, ideally.

**************************************************

Hoorah! We've liberated the Meccano sets from their oppressors!

Ah, thank you very much, I'll be sure to check it out.


:D My pleasure!

*sets himself up as Iosef V Meccano*

*gets thwacked*

OMGWTF?

[/spamming mode]

but it seems to me that when the first big recession would happen in a libertarian country would be a specific cause for the government to go beyond its mandate.

You need to learn about the business cycle, and its causes.

when you and your friends get together to decide how to spend your time (a resource), you likely decide to do the activity that most of you would enjoy rather than the activity that takes the least time.

Which can obviously be applied to anything more petty than how to kill a Saturday night. :rolleyes:

No alternative to a free market in capital goods has shown itself to be better.

Secondly, manipulations of the price system can be a good thing. A price cap on milk means that milk is affordable to everyone, rather than just some people.

Price controls only introduce shortages.

Let's go through this step by step:

1) The government fixes the price below the market clearing price (that is the optimum price for both buying and selling)

2) The people, liking the low prices want more of the item.

3) In a free market, the increase in demand would be met with an increase in price, and therefore the profitability of producing the milk. This increased profitability means that the producers produce more milk, thereby meeting the demand and eliminating the shortage. With price controls, increased demand does not lead to increased profitability for producers.

4) The attempt to make milk more available fails, because the price caps have made more production unprofitable, people who want milk must either queue for hours on end, or deal in the black market. In the latter, prices are grossly inflated (even above the free market price), but people are willing to pay the higher prices to get the goods they want and need.

5) The government has one of two choices, abolishing the price controls (the sensible choice), or introducing rationing (the idiotic, and more common choice).

6) If the government takes the idiotic option, they still don't solve the fundamental problem, this inevitably leads to distribution of capital factors controlled by government. This will be undermined every step of the way because at each stage of the procss the material self-interest of everyone involved is to dabble in racketeering.

Milk, under price controls is affordable only to those who queue up for hours on end, and are lucky enough to be far ahead enough to get into the shop while milk is still available.

How is the society perpetuating aggression directly or indirectly?

They are knowingly accepting the proceeds of aggression. If you knowingly profit from a crime, you are an accomplice to it.

Has the society told the Canadian government to tax its citizens and give them money? If not, then the society has played no role in the perpetuating of aggression; this money would likely go to some other government program as opposed to going back to the taxpayers.

Their hands are as dirty as the Canadian politicians.

To be anarchistic, they cannot accept the profits of the aggression of others, any more than they can commit such aggression itself. To remain anarchistic, they must return the funds.

All businesses, whether competant or incompetant, are better off with intervention if that intervention is favorable to them.

A competant business trying to get the government to intervene for them is unilaterally increasing its costs, when they are already doing well (due to their competance). They must cover the costs of lobbying, and donations through their sales, and in the maintenance of existing profit, they must raise prices to do it.

transactions between individuals would, or should, be rare, ideally.

Why?

You need to learn about the business cycle, and its causes.Are you saying that a libertarian country would be immune to the business cycle?

Which can obviously be applied to anything more petty than how to kill a Saturday night. :rolleyes:

No alternative to a free market in capital goods has shown itself to be better.Which means that those alternatives shouldn't be tried again, not that an alternative doesn't exist.

Price controls only introduce shortages.

Let's go through this step by step:

1) The government fixes the price below the market clearing price (that is the optimum price for both buying and selling)

2) The people, liking the low prices want more of the item.

3) In a free market, the increase in demand would be met with an increase in price, and therefore the profitability of producing the milk. This increased profitability means that the producers produce more milk, thereby meeting the demand and eliminating the shortage. With price controls, increased demand does not lead to increased profitability for producers.

4) The attempt to make milk more available fails, because the price caps have made more production unprofitable, people who want milk must either queue for hours on end, or deal in the black market. In the latter, prices are grossly inflated (even above the free market price), but people are willing to pay the higher prices to get the goods they want and need.

5) The government has one of two choices, abolishing the price controls (the sensible choice), or introducing rationing (the idiotic, and more common choice).

6) If the government takes the idiotic option, they still don't solve the fundamental problem, this inevitably leads to distribution of capital factors controlled by government. This will be undermined every step of the way because at each stage of the procss the material self-interest of everyone involved is to dabble in racketeering.

Milk, under price controls is affordable only to those who queue up for hours on end, and are lucky enough to be far ahead enough to get into the shop while milk is still available.Then why is there neither a shortage of milk nor rationing of milk?

They are knowingly accepting the proceeds of aggression. If you knowingly profit from a crime, you are an accomplice to it.

Their hands are as dirty as the Canadian politicians.

To be anarchistic, they cannot accept the profits of the aggression of others, any more than they can commit such aggression itself. To remain anarchistic, they must return the funds. .Not at all. Canadians willingly submit to being taxed, otherwise they would live in the anarchistic society rather than Canada. To the anarchistic society, the taxation isn't aggression, it is the result of the choice of Canadians.

A competant business trying to get the government to intervene for them is unilaterally increasing its costs, when they are already doing well (due to their competance). They must cover the costs of lobbying, and donations through their sales, and in the maintenance of existing profit, they must raise prices to do it.No, the money spent in lobbying would be recovered by government subsidies, rollbacks in business culpability for pollution, or something similar to these two things.

Why?Trade between individuals represents a failure of the system to provide the individuals what they want or need. A system that has lots of trade between individuals fails often. I don't view a system that fails often as being desirable.

Which means that those alternatives shouldn't be tried again, not that an alternative doesn't exist.

No viable alternative has ever emerged.

Then why is there neither a shortage of milk nor rationing of milk?

Because the government's pricing scheme has been aimed as price minima, not price maxima as in a price control regime designed to "benefit" consumers. The US price controls are designed to "benefit" farmers. Price minima lead to surpluses. The sources I have consulted refer to "price floors", not "price ceilings".

Honestly, if you can be bothered to learn some basic economic theory, why do you bother posting. Even the most simple of minds could see that I referred to price maxima, because I stated as much.

What happens in situations of price minima is that producers, assured of higher profits regardless of supply and demand, over produce the commodity. Meanwhile, prices for the consumer are higher (either directly, or in the form of higher taxes to fund subsidies), and the overall wealth of society is reduced.


Of course, these arrangements are nowhere near as good at determining the optimum prices of any commodity as a free market.



No, the money spent in lobbying would be recovered by government subsidies, rollbacks in business culpability for pollution, or something similar to these two things.

Assuming they're successful. There is no need for a competant business to resort to it, and therefore no rationale for risking their money getting involved in politics. Of course, a government whose ability to interfere is restricted or limited will not be able to provide a return on investment.

Not at all. Canadians willingly submit to being taxed, otherwise they would live in the anarchistic society rather than Canada. To the anarchistic society, the taxation isn't aggression, it is the result of the choice of Canadians.

For making the "wrong" choice, Canadians are thrown into prison. There is no choice over taxation, it is compulsory. You get locked up if you don't pay.

Can you tell me what free choice there is between paying taxes, and going to gaol?

Trade between individuals represents a failure of the system to provide the individuals what they want or need. A system that has lots of trade between individuals fails often

You need to read about specialisation, and the division of labour. Trade between individuals represents each individual doing what he is best at, and trading what he produces for what others produce. This way, the members of a society have the best products for the lowest cost.

Your remark that trade represents a failure of "the system" shows a singular lack of the way society works in reality, and is utterly incomprehensible, people don't, in the normal state of affairs, get everything from some central authority.

Society is merely a group of individuals. Each individual can, and should concentrate at those tasks for which he is best suited, trading his produce for that of others.

The only alternative to trade is self-sufficient production, which would lower living standards to the most primitive levels.

Economic systems which are characterised by trade seldom fail, and several of the world's most successful economies (Hong Kong, or Britain) are built on international trade. All the world's successful economies are built on trade between private individuals.

Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.

Really? Only two ideologies? Bullshit.:rolleyes:

Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.

'Marxism-Stalinism' seems oxymoronic to me. Stalinism is not socialism in any way, shape, or form. It is fascism with a fancy name. I suppose mixing the two would be possible, but I don't think it's likely.

So you agree that socialism is an assault on reason. That's good!

This statement is akin to 6 year-olds going 'I know you are, but what am I!?'. It is childish and rather pathetic.

Private property arises necessarily from self-ownership, and man's interaction with nature. The lack of private property is the necessary condition of slavery.

At one point in time, neither private property or slavery existed. That time may have been when people were living in caves, but you cannot say it has to be one or the other.

Communism can never reward such people as capitalism can. Such people are therefore driven to leave. If an individual advances without the communist government's approval/orders, he becomes less dependent on the communist government, and that is something such a government can never tolerate. To extract "from each ... his ability", it must never permit him to provide for his own needs.

I am inclined to agree, and this is one of the many reasons why I think communism on a large scale is impossible.

I like owning stuff, so do most others in the middle class, which is the majority in my country.

Really? How do you define 'middle class'?

Seriously, all you communists, anarchists, socialists, objectivists and libertarians need to start focusing on improving the efficiency of the systems in place.

You are lumping people with very, very disparate views into one category. I'm a socialist, and I'm all for improving the efficiency of the systems in place. In fact, I think doing so would make a change from capitalism to socialism much more feasible. Many socialists would agree, and many would disagree... there's about as much difference just between people in the Left as there is between the Left and the Right. Don't make generalizations, it's foolish to do so.

Impossible. In capitalism, business have the vast majority of the power.

That's debatable, but they certainly do have great influence.

I know that capitalist nations have these systems, but these systems are constantly under attack by capitalists and oftentimes subsequently stripped back. It's conceivable that they will be stripped back to the point of being eliminated.

Conceivable, but not likely. Still, these systems are effectively crippled by capitalism, and leave far too much to be desired.

Who said anything about world-wide or revolution?

That would be the most efficient way to bring about socialism, but probably not the most feasible.

...how do you plan to interact with a world that still uses currency?

One word: commodities.

The thought that a truly communist society can exist in isolation is as idiotic as the far-right's desire to return to the gold standard.

The thought that a truly communist society can exist on a nation-wide scale is idiotic, too, so the isolation issue is a moot point.

No, she described exactly what socialist governments do. A person (the leader of the government) gets together a bunch of thugs (police, army, etc) to take away the property of a community.

You are wrong. That is not what socialist governments do.

First of all, socialism is not a form of government. It is an economic system. If you use the adjective 'socialist', think about if 'capitalist' could be put in front of the noun you're attaching it to, instead. If not, you are not using the word properly.

But I'm just splitting hairs, there. Anyway, what you are referring to as 'socialist government' is not socialist. It is facism, masquerading as socialism in hopes of getting more support from the people it is oppressing.

If she was actually describing the foundations of modern capitalism, she needs to read a new book, or she could read a book.

Insulting people does not help your argument, it merely makes you look childish.

In capitalism, business has no power.

In capitalism, the consumers hold all economic power, because they can quite legitimately shut down any firm against the will of its owners simply by spending their money elsewhere.

By your rigid definition of 'capitalism', such a system has never existed. Business has always worked to manipulate people through government, whether or not it was legal for them to do so. I challenge you to name one society in which business had, or has, no power.

Oh, yes, and there are myriad other examples of that, too. All the more reason to get rid of both businesses and governments.

This sounds silly to me. I can agree that businesses can be done away with, but I don't see governments going away anytime within the next millenium or so. Humanity is not ready for anarchism, in my opinion. I suppose I could be wrong, though. That would be great, if everyone could just get along and be happy like that.

Since everyone is going to be planning the economy in anarcho-communism, it's impossible for there to be a lack of information. If you were arguing that there was too much information to sort through, that would be something an anarcho-communist society would have to consider.

It's entirely possible. People choose to be ignorant all the time.

Nonsense. Without the possibility of government interference, businesses would live and die by their ability to satisfy the consumer in a profitable manner. Consumers hold all the power under capitalism. Business can only gain power with the help of government.

It seems foolish and naive to think that it is possible to form a government that cannot interfere with business. Not one that anyone would want to live under, anyways. In such a system, businesses would (most likely) effectively reduce workers to slaves to maximize profit, and the government would be powerless to help them, save through welfare... which they would not be able to provide for all of the working class, as said working class would not have money to pay taxes.

This is assuming the government doesn't find a way around whatever is in place to stop them from interfering.

All in all, the idea isn't much more sensible than anarchism.

It is not debatable. By definition, an anarchist society must be fully voluntary.

You may be right, but... where did you come by this definition?

Private firms and governments are inseparable.

You can't prove this.

A system where the government doesn't interfere in business is impossible.

Probably. But that can't be proven at this point.

But there is always the possibility of government interference in business.

Correct.

The burden of proof is on you, you're the one proposing that a libertarian system will be unlike the majority of governments; the majority of governments eventually get involved with things that they aren't supposed to be involved in.

Wrong on one count, right on another.

The burden of proof seems to be on both of you, as both of you are describing systems which are, at this point, theoretical. You are correct, however, in pointing out that goverments more often than not mess with things that they aren't supposed to.

No, it isn't.

You don't know that... do you? :eek: Let's see some proof! :p

Government can be limited, history has proven this. History has also shown that where governments have gone beyond their original mandate, there are specific causes, and opportunities exploited to enable it.

Proven it? I don't think so. Governments can't truly be limited unless all the people under them are constantly vigilant, always making sure their government isn't stepping over its bounds. Getting everyone to do that would be all but impossible. Well, there is one alternative, and that's a more powerful government saying 'hey, don't do that... or else!'. Not really a desirable solution.

Also, those 'specific causes, and opportunities' will always come up. The world is not static, things do change, and eventually those changes will lead to the 'specific causes, and opportunities' that could destabilize any society, socialist, libertarian... any society. Though I think a libertarian society would be much more sensitive to this than an established socialist society would.

If you can't answer the point, be man enough to admit it. The fact is that the society you described is not anarchist. No society that perpetrates external aggression (directly, or indirectly) could possible be anarchist.

So if I live in an anarchist society, and I gather up my buddies, and we go into another society and start killing people with machine guns and bombs, the whole of my society ceases to be anarchist because of my actions? I don't see how... there's no government to condone or condemn my actions, my buddies and I would just be a bunch of homocidal tourists.

...Economic intervention forbidden in a constitution, supreme court to enforce and so forth, I see no reason the concept is so impossible.

Not impossible, no. But like anarchism, highly improbable.

Even if I were to accept their may be an alternative method for a price system would you not concede that it would be vastly inferior. What other process could handle the trillions upon trillions of transactions that happen between individual hands daily, and hold the flexibility to update and change prices balenced to supply and demand in secounds.

For me, that's the big question. :headbang: The missing piece of the puzzle. That's the hurdle that must be leaped to form a socialist society, the solution that must be found. It's my holy grail.

Actually, that is a good point. "Revolution" and other violent means of politics should not be considered legitimate. Self defense is one thing, offensive actions are another.

They are not legitimate, but the fact remains that if not for that sort of thing, we'd likely all still be living under cruel, autocratic regimes.

And at the root of capitalism is a drive to make me into a wage slave by which I eat, sleep, and labor at the will of another in exchange for a paycheck which I then turn right around and give back to the same set of bosses who convince me that a cotton t-shirt is suddenly worth $50 because there is some designer logo silkscreen on it. Like a cow, I continue in this meaningless circular loop until the day I die. And all of this is made possible by the coercion of the state, whose agents also tend to be the bosses mentioned above (fancy that!).

Amen, brother!;)

The way government does everything it does is immoral (extortion, or theft as a basis of funding), and every legitimate, moral function (defence, police, courts) could be provided privately.

What makes you think that the private sector would do it any more morally?

No viable alternative has ever emerged.

That doesn't mean it won't.

No viable alternative has ever emerged.It's debatable as to whether the alternatives were meant to be viable or not.

Because the government's pricing scheme has been aimed as price minima, not price maxima as in a price control regime designed to "benefit" consumers. The US price controls are designed to "benefit" farmers. Price minima lead to surpluses. The sources I have consulted refer to "price floors", not "price ceilings".

Honestly, if you can be bothered to learn some basic economic theory, why do you bother posting. Even the most simple of minds could see that I referred to price maxima, because I stated as much.

What happens in situations of price minima is that producers, assured of higher profits regardless of supply and demand, over produce the commodity. Meanwhile, prices for the consumer are higher (either directly, or in the form of higher taxes to fund subsidies), and the overall wealth of society is reduced.

Of course, these arrangements are nowhere near as good at determining the optimum prices of any commodity as a free market.No, the prices on milk are maximum prices.

Assuming they're successful. There is no need for a competant business to resort to it, and therefore no rationale for risking their money getting involved in politics. Of course, a government whose ability to interfere is restricted or limited will not be able to provide a return on investment.There doesn't have to be a need for it, if a business thinks it will ultimately make more money via government interference then it will do so, competent or not, unless the business is one of the rare business that would be against such a thing on principle.

For making the "wrong" choice, Canadians are thrown into prison. There is no choice over taxation, it is compulsory. You get locked up if you don't pay.

Can you tell me what free choice there is between paying taxes, and going to gaol?Are they forced to live in Canada? If not, then they choose to live there. By choosing to live in a country, you agree to submit to taxation. Don't like it? Live someplace that doesn't tax you.

You need to read about specialisation, and the division of labour. Trade between individuals represents each individual doing what he is best at, and trading what he produces for what others produce. This way, the members of a society have the best products for the lowest cost.

Your remark that trade represents a failure of "the system" shows a singular lack of the way society works in reality, and is utterly incomprehensible, people don't, in the normal state of affairs, get everything from some central authority.However, the normal state of affairs should be changed so that people do get everything from some central authority.

Society is merely a group of individuals. Each individual can, and should concentrate at those tasks for which he is best suited, trading his produce for that of others.Which can be done by trading with a central authority.

The only alternative to trade is self-sufficient production, which would lower living standards to the most primitive levels.I didn't say that trade was unacceptable, I said that trade between individuals was generally a bad thing.

Economic systems which are characterised by trade seldom fail, and several of the world's most successful economies (Hong Kong, or Britain) are built on international trade. All the world's successful economies are built on trade between private individuals.There are no economies using the model I have proposed.

That's debatable, but they certainly do have great influence.Would you be debating the idea that money is power or that businesses have the vast majority of the money?

Conceivable, but not likely. Still, these systems are effectively crippled by capitalism, and leave far too much to be desired.Which leaves people to simply say that these systems are ineffective, and should be eliminated.

That would be the most efficient way to bring about socialism, but probably not the most feasible.Efficiency is overrated.

This sounds silly to me. I can agree that businesses can be done away with, but I don't see governments going away anytime within the next millenium or so. Humanity is not ready for anarchism, in my opinion. I suppose I could be wrong, though. That would be great, if everyone could just get along and be happy like that.A system of direct democracy doesn't require that everyone just get along and be happy like that.

It's entirely possible. People choose to be ignorant all the time.Such people would not stay ignorant for long in an anarchist society.

You can't prove this.The fact that private firms and government have always been inseparable is proof enough for me; I can't conceive of a society where private firms would not choose to use their wealth and influence.

Probably. But that can't be proven at this point.See above.

Wrong on one count, right on another.

The burden of proof seems to be on both of you, as both of you are describing systems which are, at this point, theoretical. You are correct, however, in pointing out that goverments more often than not mess with things that they aren't supposed to.Not in this instance. For me to prove that my system is superior, then, yes, I would need some proof. However, in this instance what needs to be proven is simply that a libertarian country would remain libertarian, nothing more.

Sometimes.

Private property (distinct from personal property - i'm talking about land and resources, not bedsheets and underwear) needs some form of coercion to remain a reality -

No - it requires some form of coercion to be taken away. If you think that reactive use of force to protect yourself or your property is coercion, perhaps, but I, like most others I think, define 'coercion' as the initiation of force with the intent to deprive another of their rights (to property, trade, and themselves) and/or cause them to behave against the promptings of their free will and rational mind. (joining a socioeconomic system based in worship of the lowest common denominator)

one of the ways that this is best achieved is through the state. The state can use force and hoard food supplies better than individuals can - yes, this can be used to monopolise private property too, but regardless, the state has always been the great enforcer of a skewed class system and historically has usually worked in tandem with private enterprise.

I think the point was that only the state, or a state-scale entity, can effectively eliminate or in any way significantly affect the institution of private property, not as much whether or when it has done so in the past.

No, i'll tell you what is an assault on reason -

Having to accept that several thousand years ago, one man decided to get a band of thugs together and take property away from a community with the threat of violence.

The "community" never owns it. A "community" or "society" has no rights to anything. Either one is simply a collection of individuals, the actual rights-endowed actors.

Land, initially at least, belongs to whoever has a reason to want it, and the means to build on it, use it, etc. for whatever they want it for. Once a social contract-based government is formed, it can become a sort of automated arbiter of this process. Later, when most land is taken, it becomes a commodity to be bought and sold on the market, just like anything else.

At any rate, my drive to better myself and to acquire specialised skills is not hindered by a communal system. There is no reason I cannot do so in a communal society.

It'll be a bit difficult when your ability to acquire resources, property, or pretty much anything else, expand your means, or pursue larger or more personally profitable projects is chained to the lowest common denominator. Self-betterment can't be pursued in a communist existence, because every individual is by the nature of the system dedicated exclusively to the welfare and progress of others, and of the community - that's practically per definition.

Is it reasonable to say that because you are born with traits distinct to others - perhaps inferior, that you naturally deserve to live a poorer quality of life through no fault of your own? Are you supposed to accept this as it is? I don't think so. I don't think that can be reasonably justified, i'm afraid. I am not individually "better" or "worse" than any other human being through fault of birth despite any physical or mental characteristics I may have. I do not deserve different rights and powers because of them.

Here's an analogy: if someone is evil because of their childhood circumstances - if they are sociopathic, hateful, and murderous because they were abused as a kid - are they any less evil? Does that change the fact of their psychosis? By the same token, regardless of how ability came about, does it change the fact that some people are superior to others? Smarter, more capable, more virtuous, more talented, more competent, more effective.

No one "gives" a person greater rights, or greater powers. Rightly, society has no power or authority to "give" anyone rights or powers. People have, take, or create these things. People have rights of themselves, and abilities of themselves, and they exercise these abilities to the fullest extent that they exist and that the person in question is willing to use them, within the framework of everyone's rights, and they get what they can accordingly. It's natural justice. The most successful, productive, and useful get material goods and status equivalent to the value they create. Success for merit; it's the exchange counter of the universe.

I don't see how individual excellence and intellectual superiority need to be "hated" or treated as illegitimate under communism, either - the question is whether they entitle you to deny the priveliges of others.

How do I deny the privileges of others if I make value, trade it with others who make it, and keep what's mine? What part of that process is theft? Where does anyone without value to create or trade for even come into it? In a free, capitalistic society, no one "denies" anyone anything. That's the very essence of it.

It's communism that takes my property and my freedom. Communism denies me the ability to freely exercise my abilities to their fullest extent, and to interact economically with others who do the same, and to keep what's mine. Communism deprives me of the fruits of my labor in favor of giving them to someone who didn't earn them.

Stop trying to turn the tables and falsely accuse capitalism of taking or depriving; that's against its very essence. Freedom leads to just distribution of resources. No one takes anything from anyone. Unless the natural universe is depriving and coercive, in your view.

Trade between individuals represents a failure of the system to provide the individuals what they want or need. A system that has lots of trade between individuals fails often. I don't view a system that fails often as being desirable.

This is one thing, reading through, that I feel almost obligated to refute.

Trade is the system. It's the manner by which individuals engaging in specialized labor acquire their needs and wants from others whose form of specialized labor produces those items. The only alternative is subsistence living, which lowers standard of living massively, or a planned, centralized cyclical redistribution mechanism, (work goes into common pool, needs come out, basically) which is also inferior because it's inflexible, inefficient, and prevents individual achievement and self-advancement.

As far as the "often fails" part goes....I really have no idea where you're coming from. Every successful economy in history was based in a trade-centric system.

Basically, capitalism is a genetic algorithm built to 'evolve' solutions for the problem of resource allocation. It's not the most efficient theoretical way of solving this problem; but there is no viable alternative. The centralized cyclical redistribution mechanism, (at the heart of socialism and communism) is a less efficient, less flexible method doomed to failure when competing with capitalism, or when subjected to any sudden changes or crises: a.k.a, the entirety of economic existence. While socialists were trying to make the redistribution process functional and 'equitable', the people with brains were automating the genetic algorithms and adding the feedback loops of options trades, stock markets, etc.

You should really read up on the division of labor, and the underpinnings of economic theory.

It's debatable as to whether the alternatives were meant to be viable or not.

No, it isn't. You're supposedly proposing a system which is meant to work. A non-viable system is not worth discussing, and with the exception of the free market price system, no system of allocating capital goods is worth discussing.

No, the prices on milk are maximum prices.

No, they aren't. In any case, I can show you many cases in which price controls had a bad effect, and you have still not refuted my logical argument.

There doesn't have to be a need for it, if a business thinks it will ultimately make more money via government interference then it will do so, competent or not,

A competant business need not try. Anyway, the investment is too uncertain to be regarded as sound.

However, the normal state of affairs should be changed so that people do get everything from some central authority.

Mule fritters. Anyway, you do realise that all you'd be doing is adding a layer of government middlemen between individual producers, distributors, and consumers.

Which can be done by trading with a central authority.

It is not a better way, it is a much worse way. No central authority can unilaterally set rational prices, and even if it could (the information required to do so doesn't exist in the central authority, and no means exist to get it), the cost of running the authority would automatically make non-optimal prices.

I didn't say that trade was unacceptable, I said that trade between individuals was generally a bad thing.

Which is utter pony pucks.

There are no economies using the model I have proposed.

No economic models built on everyone selling to, and buying from a central authority? Horse hockey.

This statement is akin to 6 year-olds going 'I know you are, but what am I!?'. It is childish and rather pathetic

No, it isn't. I was calling to attention the fact that she was stating what socialists did, not capitalists.

First of all, socialism is not a form of government. It is an economic system.

It is both. A economic system in which the government controls the economy is by definition a way of government and a way of economics. Anyway, you are splitting hairs, even the simplest mind can work out that the phrase "socialist government" refers to (and only refers to) a government that controls the economy. A government that practices socialism.

It is facism, masquerading as socialism in hopes of getting more support from the people it is oppressing.

Fascism is a form of socialism. Socialism requires that government control the economy. Who the nominal owners of the "means of production" are is irrelevant. What matters is who exercises the effective control. Under fascism control by government comes from laws, regulations, buraus, agencies and so on. Under communism (note that I do not discuss the theoretical stateless end state of communism, as the way in which Marx said it would come about is so vague, and fanciful that it is not worth discussing) government control comes naturally from government ownership.

So if I live in an anarchist society, and I gather up my buddies, and we go into another society and start killing people with machine guns and bombs, the whole of my society ceases to be anarchist because of my actions? I don't see how... there's no government to condone or condemn my actions, my buddies and I would just be a bunch of homocidal tourists.

I see the Playman's definition of government in play here. If you can legitimately gather together your friends, and carry out an attack, I'd say you and your friends are the de facto government, and you are the de facto dictator. If I and my friends tried to stop you, and were successful in so doing, I would the de facto leader of the government.

It seems foolish and naive to think that it is possible to form a government that cannot interfere with business. Not one that anyone would want to live under, anyways. In such a system, businesses would (most likely) effectively reduce workers to slaves to maximize profit, and the government would be powerless to help them, save through welfare... which they would not be able to provide for all of the working class, as said working class would not have money to pay taxes.

You have suggested that Jello Biafra familiarise himself with the basics. I suggest you do the same. Labour is just the same as any other commodity. It has a price determined by supply and demand. The notion that labour (unlike every other commodity) would be driven to the bottom is absurd.

What makes you think that the private sector would do it any more morally?

Again, familiarise yourself with the basics. Government has nothing it doesn't steal or extort. The private sector can only gain by voluntary, mutually beneficial trade.

The "community" never owns it. A "community" or "society" has no rights to anything. Either one is simply a collection of individuals, the actual rights-endowed actors.Are you saying that groups of individuals can't own things? There goes corporations.

This is one thing, reading through, that I feel almost obligated to refute.

Trade is the system. It's the manner by which individuals engaging in specialized labor acquire their needs and wants from others whose form of specialized labor produces those items. No. People can trade with each other without capitalism. People could do so in feudalism, or in a despotism, or in communism. Capitalism is much more than simply trade between individuals, it enshrines mythical property rights, among other things.

The only alternative is subsistence living, which lowers standard of living massively, or a planned, centralized cyclical redistribution mechanism, (work goes into common pool, needs come out, basically) which is also inferior because it's inflexible, inefficient, and prevents individual achievement and self-advancement. Communism doesn't prevent individual achievement and self-advancment. People are free to achieve and advance themselves in communism. Since those things are by themselves rewards, communism sees no need of giving somebody an additional monetary reward from this.
(With that said, however, not all forms of communism act this way, mutualism is an exception. However, since I support the concept of equality of income, I will be arguing in favor of it.)

As far as the "often fails" part goes....I really have no idea where you're coming from. Every successful economy in history was based in a trade-centric system. And the vast majority of people would be better off without these systems than they are in them.

Basically, capitalism is a genetic algorithm built to 'evolve' solutions for the problem of resource allocation. It's not the most efficient theoretical way of solving this problem; but there is no viable alternative. There are plenty of viable alternatives. Not all of them are good, however.

The centralized cyclical redistribution mechanism, (at the heart of socialism and communism) is a less efficient, less flexible method doomed to failure when competing with capitalism, Only in efficiency and flexibility, not in the things that really matter.

or when subjected to any sudden changes or crises: a.k.a, the entirety of economic existence. I fail to see why communism couldn't deal with such things.

While socialists were trying to make the redistribution process functional and 'equitable', the people with brains were automating the genetic algorithms and adding the feedback loops of options trades, stock markets, etc.You just contradicted yourself, since the socialists are the people with brains. Furthermore, I would say that the stock market is better than other types of markets, but as with the rest of capitalism, it is unacceptable.

You should really read up on the division of labor, and the underpinnings of economic theory.I'm aware of the division of labor, I don't see how it's relevant to what you said, and I am familiar with economic theory, however since it is not a science I see no need to have a dogmatic reverence for it.

******************************************
No, it isn't. You're supposedly proposing a system which is meant to work. A non-viable system is not worth discussing, and with the exception of the free market price system, no system of allocating capital goods is worth discussing.Yes, my system is meant to be viable, so a debate on its viability is fine, but whether or not past alternative systems to the free market were meant to be viable is up for debate.

No, they aren't. In any case, I can show you many cases in which price controls had a bad effect, and you have still not refuted my logical argument.Most likely the dairy industry is receiving subsidies in addition to the price controls, because the government is in the business of helping the farmers; nonetheless the price limits on milk are maximum prices.
At any rate, your argument fails between #s 3 and 4. If it is profitable to produce milk in spite of the price caps, then it will continue to be profitable with the increased demand. Why would milk sellers not sell milk if it is profitable to them?
There are potential exceptions to this, such as if the price caps are set too low so that they are only slightly profitable, and the increased demand would need to lead to increased production facilities that would take a long time to pay off, but there's no reason to assume that the caps would be so low that the dairy farmers can't afford to build new barns.

A competant business need not try. Anyway, the investment is too uncertain to be regarded as sound.Businesses and individuals make unsound investments all the time, sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don't. Nonetheless, people still do them.

Mule fritters. Anyway, you do realise that all you'd be doing is adding a layer of government middlemen between individual producers, distributors, and consumers.In a direct democracy, the individual producers, distributors and consumers are also the middlemen.

It is not a better way, it is a much worse way. No central authority can unilaterally set rational prices, and even if it could (the information required to do so doesn't exist in the central authority, and no means exist to get it), the cost of running the authority would automatically make non-optimal prices.I'm not arguing in favor of prices, so it really doesn't matter to me whether or not prices can be set rationally or not.

Which is utter pony pucks.Nope. If people have to resort to trading between each other (which they can do in almost every system) then the system is failing to provide the people with what they need.

No economic models built on everyone selling to, and buying from a central authority? Horse hockey.Nope, not even feudalism, but even if feudalism was, it's not being practiced now.

No, it isn't. I was calling to attention the fact that she was stating what socialists did, not capitalists.No. The foundation of capitalism is European governments colonizing the rest of the world, killing off the inhabitants, and granting land rights to the people that they like. Do you not know your history? Additionally, I'm not certain of any socialists who stole land from communities.

Fascism is a form of socialism. Socialism requires that government control the economy.False on both counts. Fascism is a right-wing form of government, socialism is left wing. Additionally, socialism doesn't require government control.

Labour is just the same as any other commodity. It has a price determined by supply and demand. The notion that labour (unlike every other commodity) would be driven to the bottom is absurd.Labor is different than other commodities. Since capitalism requires unemployment, with the rare exception of certain types of skilled labor, the supply of labor will always be greater than the demand. Therefore, labor will be driven to the bottom.

The private sector can only gain by voluntary, mutually beneficial trade.False. Neither party in a trade has to benefit from the trade, they simply have to think that they will benefit from it.

I fail to see why communism couldn't deal with such things.

Cognitive dissonance. Communism has never shown any propensity to deal with crises, nor is there anything in communism which leads one to believe that it could.

I'm aware of the division of labor, I don't see how it's relevant to what you said, and I am familiar with economic theory, however since it is not a science I see no need to have a dogmatic reverence for it.

Economics is a social science.

Yes, my system is meant to be viable, so a debate on its viability is fine, but whether or not past alternative systems to the free market were meant to be viable is up for debate.

It is not up for debate because to debate it requires that we make the entirely unjustified assumption that some, or all socialists were in fact deliberately sabotaging the economy after they had taken power.

Businesses and individuals make unsound investments all the time, sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don't. Nonetheless, people still do them.

Nevertheless, in making those other investments, they believed that it could pay off. With "investing" in corrupting the political process, there is no reason to believe that it will be successful with a non-interventionist government that shows no signs of becoming something else. With an interventionist government, such an "investment" is absolutely necessary.

Most likely the dairy industry is receiving subsidies in addition to the price controls, because the government is in the business of helping the farmers; nonetheless the price limits on milk are maximum prices.

The dairy industry in the US is subsidised, and that means the prices are hidden minima (the balance being hidden in taxes).

There are potential exceptions to this, such as if the price caps are set too low so that they are only slightly profitable, and the increased demand would need to lead to increased production facilities that would take a long time to pay off, but there's no reason to assume that the caps would be so low that the dairy farmers can't afford to build new barns.

That's an awfully verbose way to say "we should trust the government to be moderate, and act correctly".

In a direct democracy, the individual producers, distributors and consumers are also the middlemen.

No, by definition, producers, distributors, and consumers are never middle men. Producer, distributor and consumer is the most direct way to provide goods (unless geography permits direct producer-consumer trading)

I'm not arguing in favor of prices, so it really doesn't matter to me whether or not prices can be set rationally or not.

You are missing the point. You must have some system of rationally distributing the appropriate capital goods in the proper amounts to the appropriate industries. Nothing except the free market has been able to do this well.

Nope. If people have to resort to trading between each other (which they can do in almost every system) then the system is failing to provide the people with what they need.

Trade is the system, and history has proven time and time again that it is the best system.

Nope, not even feudalism, but even if feudalism was, it's not being practiced now.

Actually many models have been built on selling to, and buying from central authority. Even today, they exist, sometimes over the whole economic system, sometimes in particular industries.

No. The foundation of capitalism is European governments colonizing the rest of the world, killing off the inhabitants, and granting land rights to the people that they like. Do you not know your history?

That is not the basis of capitalism.

Additionally, I'm not certain of any socialists who stole land from communities.

Socialist agricultural policies are inheriently land theft (either overt, as in collectivisation, or covert, as in the system you suggest).

Labor is different than other commodities.

No, it isn't.

Since capitalism requires unemployment

No, it doesn't certain businesses like unemployment. You have tried this before, and your only argument was that capitalism was inheriently incapable of reconciling supply and demand, an absurd argument if ever one existed.

(by the way, why are you, who cannot understand the basics of a free market, lecturing people on how capitalism works?)

False. Neither party in a trade has to benefit from the trade, they simply have to think that they will benefit from it.

Please read what I said. For the private sector to gain, mutually beneficial trade is the only way available.

It may well lose (if they make the wrong trade). Ex ante belief in mutual benefit is required to initiate the trade.

Cognitive dissonance. Communism has never shown any propensity to deal with crises, nor is there anything in communism which leads one to believe that it could.Naturally. Something that doesn't exist can't deal with crises.

Economics is a social science.At best it is as scientific as psychology, but that's giving economics a lot of credit.

It is not up for debate because to debate it requires that we make the entirely unjustified assumption that some, or all socialists were in fact deliberately sabotaging the economy after they had taken power.If someone maintains their power through crises, it is naive to think that they wouldn't initiate or perpetuate crises in order to stay in power.

Nevertheless, in making those other investments, they believed that it could pay off. With "investing" in corrupting the political process, there is no reason to believe that it will be successful with a non-interventionist government that shows no signs of becoming something else. With an interventionist government, such an "investment" is absolutely necessary.How would someone gauge whether or not the government is showing signs of becoming something else without investing in the political process first?

The dairy industry in the US is subsidised, and that means the prices are hidden minima (the balance being hidden in taxes).If the subsidies are more than the amount lost in the price maximums, yes.
That's an awfully verbose way to say "we should trust the government to be moderate, and act correctly". Governments are inherently more trustworthy than businessmen.

No, by definition, producers, distributors, and consumers are never middle men. Producer, distributor and consumer is the most direct way to provide goods (unless geography permits direct producer-consumer trading)Of course producers can be middlemen. If there is a surplus of money, the producers (as well as the distrubutors and consumers) would decide whether the money goes.

You are missing the point. You must have some system of rationally distributing the appropriate capital goods in the proper amounts to the appropriate industries. I'm aware of that, direct democratic communism is such a system.

Nothing except the free market has been able to do this well.Ah. You used to say that only the free market could do it at all. Now you say it is the only system that can do it well. I have to give you credit for making progress.

Trade is the system, and history has proven time and time again that it is the best system.Trade itself can't be the system, since nearly all systems involve some aspect of trade.

Actually many models have been built on selling to, and buying from central authority. Even today, they exist, sometimes over the whole economic system, sometimes in particular industries.Well, if you're going to limit it to just particular industries, then, yes, any monopoly in a mixed economy would fit this criteria.

That is not the basis of capitalism.Capitalism came about chronologically after those events, and capitalism hasn't undone such events or even attempted to in spite of its lip service that such events were immoral.

Socialist agricultural policies are inheriently land theft (either overt, as in collectivisation, or covert, as in the system you suggest).How is the community deciding on an agricultural policy stealing from itself?

No, it isn't.Yes, it is. The vast majority of people don't have the option of not selling their labor at all; producers of other commodities have the option of reducing production to compensate for reduced demand.

No, it doesn't certain businesses like unemployment. You have tried this before, and your only argument was that capitalism was inheriently incapable of reconciling supply and demand, an absurd argument if ever one existed.You've done nothing to show that the free market can reconcile supply and demand in this instance.

(by the way, why are you, who cannot understand the basics of a free market, lecturing people on how capitalism works?)Disagreeing with you does not mean I don't understand the basics of a free market; it is because I understand a free market that I am against it.

Please read what I said. For the private sector to gain, mutually beneficial trade is the only way available.Yes, that is what you said, but your statement was open to interpretation (a theoretical gain is a gain, in theory) so I interpreted what you said differently.

It may well lose (if they make the wrong trade). Ex ante belief in mutual benefit is required to initiate the trade.Certainly, which is why most people believe that the free market benefits them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Naturally. Something that doesn't exist can't deal with crises.

As I said, cognitive dissonance, the one thing that enables socialists to remain socialists.

If someone maintains their power through crises, it is naive to think that they wouldn't initiate or perpetuate crises in order to stay in power.

No one maintains power through crises, they maintain power through providing solutions to crises. This means they they must believe that their solution is viable.

If the subsidies are more than the amount lost in the price maximums, yes.

Then you've answered your own point, because they're still producing.

Governments are inherently more trustworthy than businessmen.

A group which can do anything it wants without conseqences is more trustworthy than people who have to fulfill their contracts, or they are liable? Nonsense.

If a businessman lies, he risks gaol. If a politician lies, he might risk the smallest embarassment in Parliament. Who is more likely to be trustworthy?

Of course producers can be middlemen. If there is a surplus of money, the producers (as well as the distrubutors and consumers) would decide whether the money goes.

In having that profit, they simply become consumers.

I'm aware of that, direct democratic communism is such a system.

I said rational distribution of capital goods.

Ah. You used to say that only the free market could do it at all. Now you say it is the only system that can do it well. I have to give you credit for making progress.

No, I didn't. In any case, it doesn't change the argument that the free market is the best system.

Trade itself can't be the system, since nearly all systems involve some aspect of trade.

You need to brush up on basic economic theory, or at least introduce yourself to it. Trade is the capitalist system.

Well, if you're going to limit it to just particular industries, then, yes, any monopoly in a mixed economy would fit this criteria.

Provided the classical definition of monopoly (i.e. a grant of government privilege to be the sole producer) is in operation.

How is the community deciding on an agricultural policy stealing from itself?

The "community" doesn't own the land, and never has.

Capitalism came about chronologically after those events, and capitalism hasn't undone such events or even attempted to in spite of its lip service that such events were immoral.

Post hoc fallacy.

Colonialism is all about the state.

The vast majority of people don't have the option of not selling their labor at all; producers of other commodities have the option of reducing production to compensate for reduced demand.

That doesn't prove your argument, it isn't even relevant to your argument.

You've done nothing to show that the free market can reconcile supply and demand in this instance.

You really don't read too much, do you. Every free market economist has dealt with this. Pond life has even managed it. Its all about price.

it is because I understand a free market that I am against it.

Yet you need to be told about how a free market reconciles supply and demand, and you think that trade is not the basis of a free market system? :rolleyes:

Certainly, which is why most people believe that the free market benefits them in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Horse hockey.

As I said, cognitive dissonance, the one thing that enables socialists to remain socialists.The ability to call a spade a spade and a not spade a not spade is not cognitive dissonance; pointing out that a non-communist system isn't communist is not cognitive dissonance.

No one maintains power through crises, they maintain power through providing solutions to crises. This means they they must believe that their solution is viable.And if they consistently create crises discreetly and provide solutions to them, then they would maintain power.

Then you've answered your own point, because they're still producing.They'll produce as long as it's profitable for them to produce; it can be profitable to produce in a market with price controls.

A group which can do anything it wants without conseqences is more trustworthy than people who have to fulfill their contracts, or they are liable? Nonsense.

If a businessman lies, he risks gaol. If a politician lies, he might risk the smallest embarassment in Parliament. Who is more likely to be trustworthy?We have here a legal enshrinement of sales talk, or puffing, which is basically businessmen lies.

In having that profit, they simply become consumers.The producers would not be the sole owners of the profit, though, they alone wouldn't decide how it's used.

I said rational distribution of capital goods.Which is why I brought up communism.

No, I didn't. In any case, it doesn't change the argument that the free market is the best system.Yes, you did. That comment I made alone wasn't meant to.

You need to brush up on basic economic theory, or at least introduce yourself to it. Trade is the capitalist system.No, the mythical enshrinement of property rights is the capitalist system. The free market is not exclusive to capitalism.

Provided the classical definition of monopoly (i.e. a grant of government privilege to be the sole producer) is in operation.Monopolies can exist without government priviledge.

The "community" doesn't own the land, and never has.Only because ownership is a myth.

Post hoc fallacy.

Colonialism is all about the state.And capitalism is maintained by the state.

That doesn't prove your argument, it isn't even relevant to your argument.It's the very reason that capitalism requires unemployment, how is it irrelevant?

You really don't read too much, do you. Every free market economist has dealt with this. Pond life has even managed it. Its all about price.Every free market economist has dealt with it poorly. Price doesn't factor into this; a person can't lower the price of their labor lower than what they need to survive or they won't survive for long.

Yet you need to be told about how a free market reconciles supply and demand, and you think that trade is not the basis of a free market system? :rolleyes: I'm well aware of how a free market reconciles supply and demand in labor - it doesn't.

Horse hockey.Fact. The majority of people would benefit from an equal redistribution of wealth. The majority of people do not support such a system; therefore they do not support the system which benefits them most.

The ability to call a spade a spade and a not spade a not spade is not cognitive dissonance; pointing out that a non-communist system isn't communist is not cognitive dissonance.

No, you, like most communists define any attempt at communism which has failed, or produced other disasterous results as "not communist". This is cognitive dissonance.

And if they consistently create crises discreetly and provide solutions to them, then they would maintain power.

Which still requires them to advocate and use systems they believe to be viable.

They'll produce as long as it's profitable for them to produce; it can be profitable to produce in a market with price controls.

The prices are hidden price minima, and they lead to surpluses (as I've said earlier, and as anyone who understood economics would know.).

We have here a legal enshrinement of sales talk, or puffing, which is basically businessmen lies.

Nonsense. If a businessman breaches his word, he can be legally sanctioned for it. If the government does it, it cannot be punished. Your hatred of business does not an argument make.

The producers would not be the sole owners of the profit, though, they alone wouldn't decide how it's used.

You're merely splitting hairs.

Which is why I brought up communism.

Which doesn't, and can't work in theory or practice. You've never given any sort of argument as to how communism can come up with a rational allocation of capital goods.

No, the mythical enshrinement of property rights is the capitalist system. The free market is not exclusive to capitalism.

The free market is the necessary corollary of private property rights (in that private property rights includes the right to transfer ownership by mutual consent). Without private property rights, there can be no free market.

Only because ownership is a myth.

No, it isn't. It exists, and is recognised by virtually everyone.

Monopolies can exist without government priviledge.

No, they can't. Why is quite simple, only the government can ensure that people stay out of a market for a particular product, and alternatives excluded also.

And capitalism is maintained by the state.

You've not shown that a correlation exists between capitalism and colonialism, let alone causation.

It's the very reason that capitalism requires unemployment, how is it irrelevant?

It doesn't show anything. It merely suggests that some businesses would like a surplus in labour, which is not relevant.

Every free market economist has dealt with it poorly. Price doesn't factor into this; a person can't lower the price of their labor lower than what they need to survive or they won't survive for long.

Price is everything. It is how supply and demand is reconciled. That the price is not always good for the seller is irrelevant. (for someone who boldly claims an understanding of the free market, you seem strangely ignorant of its operations)

Fact. The majority of people would benefit from an equal redistribution of wealth. The majority of people do not support such a system; therefore they do not support the system which benefits them most.

They would not benefit. They would appear to do so temporarily, however it could not be maintained without a totalitarian police state, and could not maintain a good living standard for long. Living standards would decline.

What you are pointing to is your shortsightedness, nothing more.

No, you, like most communists define any attempt at communism which has failed, or produced other disasterous results as "not communist". This is cognitive dissonance.No, I like most communists, define non-attempts at communism which have failed to produce communism or produced other disastrous results as not communist.

Which still requires them to advocate and use systems they believe to be viable.What someone advocates in public life is not necessarily what they advocate in private; nonetheless, actions speak louder than words, and if their actions are not consistent with communism or attempting communism, then they aren't attempting communism.

The prices are hidden price minima, and they lead to surpluses (as I've said earlier, and as anyone who understood economics would know.).Except that what you said earlier was flawed, as I pointed out.

Nonsense. If a businessman breaches his word, he can be legally sanctioned for it. If the government does it, it cannot be punished. Your hatred of business does not an argument make. Not at all. A used car salesman could say "oh, this car runs good" legally, even if the car doesn't run well.
If a government does so and breaks the law, it can be punished, and if the lie isn't illegal the government can be changed via an election or revolution.

You're merely splitting hairs.Perhaps, but I don't find this particular line to benefit either of our arguments.

Which doesn't, and can't work in theory or practice. You've never given any sort of argument as to how communism can come up with a rational allocation of capital goods.You've admitted that other systems aside from the free market can do so, (in the context of communism) even if you believe the free market does it better. Nonetheless, I fail to see how having more information than the price system provides somehow leads to a worse situation.

The free market is the necessary corollary of private property rights (in that private property rights includes the right to transfer ownership by mutual consent). Without private property rights, there can be no free market.Sure there can be:

"The major tenets of mutualism are free association, mutualist credit, contract (or federation), and gradualism (or dual-power). Mutualism is often described by its proponents as advocating an "anti-capitalist free market"."

From the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

I can imagine that you would suggest that since mutualists don't believe in the buying and selling of land then they aren't free market people; a mutualist would likely respond that simply because land can't be sold on the free market doesn't mean the free market can't exclude things, for instance slavery is illegal, but nonetheless it's possible to have a free market without having slavery.

No, it isn't. It exists, and is recognised by virtually everyone.The same could have been said about evil spirits 400 years ago.

Nonetheless, since you don't believe that private property rights are created by the state, upon what basis do you believe private property rights exist?

No, they can't. Why is quite simple, only the government can ensure that people stay out of a market for a particular product, and alternatives excluded also.Monopolies are typically granted that way, however there is nothing about the concept of free market capitalism which means monopolies can't occur.

You've not shown that a correlation exists between capitalism and colonialism, let alone causation.I didn't say that capitalism benefitted from colonialism, I said it came chronologically afterwards, and did not/does not try to rectify the abuses that colonialism committed.

It doesn't show anything. It merely suggests that some businesses would like a surplus in labour, which is not relevant.And that the businesses that would not like a surplus in labor can't exist.

Price is everything. It is how supply and demand is reconciled. That the price is not always good for the seller is irrelevant. (for someone who boldly claims an understanding of the free market, you seem strangely ignorant of its operations)That the seller is incapable of offering a lower price than he would need to live on is different than saying "the price is not good for the seller". You are splitting hairs between unemployment and underemployment.
Either way, a system which makes people worse off than they would be without it doesn't deserve to exist (people could subsist in the state of nature but not in a capitalism system where they are selling their labor for less than a subsistence wage.)

They would not benefit. They would appear to do so temporarily, however it could not be maintained without a totalitarian police state, and could not maintain a good living standard for long. Living standards would decline.

What you are pointing to is your shortsightedness, nothing more.I see we're back to propagating the myth that communism requires a totalitarian police state. For someone who is always yapping about how people don't read, you should familiarize yourself with communism.

Are you saying that groups of individuals can't own things? There goes corporations.

The corporation owns nothing; the shareholders all own pieces of whatever subsidiary, resource, or property you're talking about. No business is an abstract entity people are enslaved to; it is a group of individuals cooperatively pursuing profit in an organized manner in order to distribute risk and increase initial starting resources.

No. People can trade with each other without capitalism. People could do so in feudalism, or in a despotism, or in communism. Capitalism is much more than simply trade between individuals, it enshrines mythical property rights, among other things.

a) Neither feudalism or depotism is an economic model; they're political models. Some economic models are more compatible with some political models, and there are models that by nature cover both, but neither feudalism nor despotism falls under the latter-mentioned category, and there is a rather important difference between the two primary categories of system.

b) Capitalism is free trade between individuals, mediated by the mechanism of private property, which gives trade its meaning. If no one can own anything, then why trade? You can just take it - the person you're not-stealing from has no right to the not-property you've supposedly perfectly morally and legally obtained.

Trade is always present, but it is only maximally productive, efficient, and functional if combined with the ownership of property. It's what makes a large, complex, highly productive trade-based system possible. Without it, the complex system of a free market economy is too unstable and inefficient to support higher levels of organization, responsiveness, and productivity, because the emergent properties of the price-mediated consumer-producer relationship can't form. Smith's 'invisible hand' (perhaps the earliest recognition in the history of human thought of an emergent property of a complex system) can't operate such an unstable, inefficient, and simplistic system. Higher forms of organization and autonomy in the trade system, and higher levels of productivity, can't be attained, and standards of living increase microscopically.

Communism doesn't prevent individual achievement and self-advancment. People are free to achieve and advance themselves in communism. Since those things are by themselves rewards, communism sees no need of giving somebody an additional monetary reward from this.

You're still not getting it. Profit, income, money, etc. is the achievement, in many cases. I'm not talking about creating pretty art, or getting an endorphin-based frisson of satisfaction at the skillful completion of a task. Money is a simple barter-indirection layer for general value, usually in the form of goods and services. A great idea, and the talent and willpower to turn it into something usable, marketable, etc., has many times the value of a year digging foundations for houses. Therefore, the originator of the idea justly should receive more value in exchange for it than the foundation-digger does for his work. The state does not have to do this, and thus favor the one over the other; all they have to do is keep their hands off, and the complex system resolves the resource allocation problem itself.

It's not just the talent and its works; it's the pure, broad-spectrum redeemable value in the form of money that can be used to obtain greater satisfaction in the form of goods and services, or be reinvested to make greater use of talents, flesh out another great idea, develop a new talent, etc.

And the vast majority of people would be better off without these systems than they are in them.

LOL. Go back in time to the days of subsistence farming, when everyone had the food, water, and shelter they required to survive, no one needed to work for anyone else or for any sort of group enterprise, very little trade occurred, and no one person got much more than anyone else for their labor. All sound like qualities of the system you're proposing, and all are pre-capitalistic hallmarks. Go compare standards of living for me; the results should be enlightening.

You don't even need to go back in time, actually; just head for the subsistence, non-capitalistic rural farmers of sub-Saharan Africa, and compare their lifestyle to that of the average American, or even the lowliest American. Again, probably enlightening.

Specialization of labor requires trade, and is itself required for greater productivity and organization, and thus higher standards of living and the rise of civilization. Property is required to maximize the productivity of the labor-specialization-based economic system, which again enhances standard of living. It's as simple as that.

There are plenty of viable alternatives. Not all of them are good, however.

Well, there are only a couple, and none are really viable just yet. There's the widespread-intelligence-amplification-mediated, IP-abolition-characterized post-scarcity agalmic positive-sum free-for-all, but the required technological, social, and economic conditions aren't really around quite yet, and I'm sure you'd be opposed to a system that left the stupid and the technorejectionists by the wayside.

Then there's the free market/central planning hybrid based on a programmable matrix of interconnected autonomous companies acting as cellular automata, which are endowed with lots of capital and designed to solve load-balancing resource-allocation problems and affect the market using their capital accordingly. This would be a true mixed-market economy, incorporating the theoretical best benefits of both systems in a measurably superior system, would slot perfectly into a normal free market, and is completely embeddable.

Only in efficiency and flexibility, not in the things that really matter.

Flexibility is what allows you to deal with sudden crises or changes in economic conditions or precursors. There's a sudden need for this, a new breakthrough in this department, a shortage of that, a better idea, a breakdown there, an innovation there.

Increased efficiency leads to growth in productivity and available/floating value. This is a self-reinforcing effect which pushes inexorably at standard of living - minimum, maximum, and average - and decreases the applicability of scarcity, which specifically we're going to be seeing major, demonstrable effects of in the next half a century, as the technological innovation curve gets visibly exponential, productivity goes through the roof, and common survival products become of such low marginal value and so easy and cheap to produce that they might as well grow on trees. Nanotech, baby.

I fail to see why communism couldn't deal with such things.

Because by definition, communism is run by a central cyclical resource redistribution mechanism. The problem (well, one of the problems) is that the cycle is a) very slow, b) centralized, and c) run by the state, which means: arbitrarily micromanaged by bureaucrats. This makes the process of redistribution inflexible and arbitrary, so that inevitably, the wrong amounts of resources go to the wrong people, the system can't react to sudden changes as quickly and flexibly, and the muscles/sensorium needs to move out of the way of an oncoming bullet and the brain/heart isn't sure where and whether it should send the vital fluids, and in any case can't change where it has already pumped them until the next opportunity comes around.

You just contradicted yourself, since the socialists are the people with brains.

Empirically speaking, I'd tend to disagree. Look at the communist countries, (collapsed or in a state of constant near poverty and political despotism) and the look at the capitalist ones (booming). There are no bread lines in the US, no vital industries repeatedly requisitioning resources from the apparat in vain and with frustration, no collapses, no necessity of restriction of civil liberties to make people believe that the socialist system actually works and to prevent an attempted mass exodus to wealthier, higher-standard-of-living climes.

Furthermore, I would say that the stock market is better than other types of markets, but as with the rest of capitalism, it is unacceptable.

[shrug] It's just another layer of the market, fundamentally no different from any other part of capitalism. It's just a feedback loop, another logical level of organization of the complex system of the market.

and I am familiar with economic theory, however since it is not a science I see no need to have a dogmatic reverence for it.

Well, seeing as its the logical study of the phase space of all possible economic systems - what I was under the impression we were debating about - and economists have been observing economies in action and working on the logical problems associated with resource allocation for hundreds of years, I think it would behoove us to at least look to it for ideas and guidance.

I don't use a book or website to do my thinking for me, as is obvious you don't either, but if I encounter a challenging logical problem or question, an exterior source has often already encountered the problem and reasoned out a good explanation for it, which you can obtain, and examine for yourself; if it flies, than you've saved yourself time, unless and until you deduce a problem in the source-given explanation.

No. The foundation of capitalism is European governments colonizing the rest of the world, killing off the inhabitants, and granting land rights to the people that they like. Do you not know your history?

He knows it better than you know yours, apparently. That economic system was called mercantilism, and was not the same thing as capitalism. It was an inferior early predecessor to capitalism, but by no means the same thing.

No, I like most communists, define non-attempts at communism which have failed to produce communism or produced other disastrous results as not communist.

Which non-attempts at communism. You keep proving that a communist will regard any failure as a non-attempt.

Except that what you said earlier was flawed, as I pointed out.

No, price controls (either as minima, or maxima) are never a good thing. They can only appear to be a good thing if one looks solely at one group in society, and only at the most immediate consequences. Any breadth, or depth of consideration will quickly reveal that price controls are a bad thing.

You initially argued that price maxima were a good thing. I showed that they weren't through a logical argument. Then you brought up milk, probably hoping I wouldn't do any of my own reading. Milk mas hidden minimum prices for producers, they are hidden in taxation which is used to pay subsidies.

Why is this a bad thing, because the money above the market clearing price could have been used to fund other productive enterprises. To give privileges to the producers of milk means reducing the overall wealth of society.

Not at all. A used car salesman could say "oh, this car runs good" legally, even if the car doesn't run well.

No, he's liable for it.

If a government does so and breaks the law, it can be punished, and if the lie isn't illegal the government can be changed via an election or revolution.

No, it can't be punished because government is in charge of investigating and punishing.

You've admitted that other systems aside from the free market can do so, (in the context of communism) even if you believe the free market does it better. Nonetheless, I fail to see how having more information than the price system provides somehow leads to a worse situation.

I've admitted they try, and. Without the price system the information required simply doesn't exist.

Most importantly, it will eventually collapse under its own weight.

Sure there can be:

"The major tenets of mutualism are free association, mutualist credit, contract (or federation), and gradualism (or dual-power). Mutualism is often described by its proponents as advocating an "anti-capitalist free market"."

Land is simply another commodity, and mutualism (from the wiki article to which you linked) has very little in common with a free market.

Actually, what they say about property boils down to "its OK to own something, provided you do absolutely nothing to defend that property from theft".

free market doesn't mean the free market can't exclude things, for instance slavery is illegal, but nonetheless it's possible to have a free market without having slavery.

Slavery and the free market have nothing to do with each other. It is impossible to have a free market with slavery. False analogies don't advance your argument.

Monopolies are typically granted that way, however there is nothing about the concept of free market capitalism which means monopolies can't occur.

For someone who claims to understand the free market, you are remarkably ignorant of the basics of a free market. The only way to have a monopoly is if other producers are forcibly excluded from the market, and the only legitimate user of force is the state.

I didn't say that capitalism benefitted from colonialism, I said it came chronologically afterwards, and did not/does not try to rectify the abuses that colonialism committed.

Actually, you started out arguing that colonialism was the basis of capitalism.

And that the businesses that would not like a surplus in labor can't exist.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow, and you've made no case that it should folow.

That the seller is incapable of offering a lower price than he would need to live on is different than saying "the price is not good for the seller". You are splitting hairs between unemployment and underemployment.

Then why would he accept such a price? And why would an employer not offer an acceptable price? The employer wants to buy, and the employee wants to sell.

I see we're back to propagating the myth that communism requires a totalitarian police state. For someone who is always yapping about how people don't read, you should familiarize yourself with communism.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a society can eradicate the institution of private property, and individual trading without totalitarianism?

The corporation owns nothing; the shareholders all own pieces of whatever subsidiary, resource, or property you're talking about. No business is an abstract entity people are enslaved to; it is a group of individuals cooperatively pursuing profit in an organized manner in order to distribute risk and increase initial starting resources. I never said that the business was something that people were enslaved to, I said that the people as a group owned the business.

a) Neither feudalism or depotism is an economic model; they're political models. Some economic models are more compatible with some political models, and there are models that by nature cover both, but neither feudalism nor despotism falls under the latter-mentioned category, and there is a rather important difference between the two primary categories of system.And the economic model of the free market isn't exclusive to the political institution of private property rights.

b) Capitalism is free trade between individuals, mediated by the mechanism of private property, which gives trade its meaning. If no one can own anything, then why trade? You can just take it - the person you're not-stealing from has no right to the not-property you've supposedly perfectly morally and legally obtained. Since property rights are based upon use, it's perfectly feasible for someone to trade something that they are using for something that someone else is using.

(Yes, I know, people have quibbles about my statement that property rights are based upon use rather than ownership.)

Trade is always present, but it is only maximally productive, efficient, and functional if combined with the ownership of property. It's what makes a large, complex, highly productive trade-based system possible. Nope, property rights being based upon use can be possible with trade. Nonetheless, for a country to maximize its production and efficiency isn't by definition better than a country that doesn't.

You're still not getting it. Profit, income, money, etc. is the achievement, in many cases. I'm not talking about creating pretty art, or getting an endorphin-based frisson of satisfaction at the skillful completion of a task. Then it's unlikely that that task is worth doing.

Money is a simple barter-indirection layer for general value, usually in the form of goods and services. Provided that everybody agrees on the value of the money itself offered.

A great idea, and the talent and willpower to turn it into something usable, marketable, etc., has many times the value of a year digging foundations for houses. The person coming up with the idea will benefit from its application, they don't need to benefit twice.
Secondly, a truly great idea will market itself via word of mouth.

Therefore, the originator of the idea justly should receive more value in exchange for it than the foundation-digger does for his work. The state does not have to do this, and thus favor the one over the other; all they have to do is keep their hands off, and the complex system resolves the resource allocation problem itself. I disagree, for a number of reasons, but nonetheless you seem to be arguing in favor of patents, which is unusual for a supporter of free markets.

It's not just the talent and its works; it's the pure, broad-spectrum redeemable value in the form of money that can be used to obtain greater satisfaction in the form of goods and services, or be reinvested to make greater use of talents, flesh out another great idea, develop a new talent, etc. Which can be done in systems other than patent-based ones.

LOL. Go back in time to the days of subsistence farming, when everyone had the food, water, and shelter they required to survive, no one needed to work for anyone else or for any sort of group enterprise, very little trade occurred, and no one person got much more than anyone else for their labor. All sound like qualities of the system you're proposing, and all are pre-capitalistic hallmarks. Go compare standards of living for me; the results should be enlightening.

You don't even need to go back in time, actually; just head for the subsistence, non-capitalistic rural farmers of sub-Saharan Africa, and compare their lifestyle to that of the average American, or even the lowliest American. Again, probably enlightening. 1) I was referring to post-capitalist systems, not pre-capitalist systems.
2) Many people in capitalist systems would make less than subsistence levels if not for the welfare state.

Specialization of labor requires trade, and is itself required for greater productivity and organization, and thus higher standards of living and the rise of civilization. But not necessarily trade between individuals.

Property is required to maximize the productivity of the labor-specialization-based economic system, which again enhances standard of living. It's as simple as that.At best, it only enhances the standard of living for those who own property.

Well, there are only a couple, and none are really viable just yet. There's the widespread-intelligence-amplification-mediated, IP-abolition-characterized post-scarcity agalmic positive-sum free-for-all, but the required technological, social, and economic conditions aren't really around quite yet, and I'm sure you'd be opposed to a system that left the stupid and the technorejectionists by the wayside.Certainly, unless the system educated the stupid at no expense other than time to the stupid.

Then there's the free market/central planning hybrid based on a programmable matrix of interconnected autonomous companies acting as cellular automata, which are endowed with lots of capital and designed to solve load-balancing resource-allocation problems and affect the market using their capital accordingly. This would be a true mixed-market economy, incorporating the theoretical best benefits of both systems in a measurably superior system, would slot perfectly into a normal free market, and is completely embeddable. You wouldn't complain that the mixed economy interfered with the sanctity of the free market or some other such nonsense?

Flexibility is what allows you to deal with sudden crises or changes in economic conditions or precursors. There's a sudden need for this, a new breakthrough in this department, a shortage of that, a better idea, a breakdown there, an innovation there. It can be done well enough without being as flexible as possible; certainly a certain amount of flexibility is needed, I'm not suggesting an entirely inflexible system.

Increased efficiency leads to growth in productivity and available/floating value. Increased productivity isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if it comes with increasing inequality.

Because by definition, communism is run by a central cyclical resource redistribution mechanism. The problem (well, one of the problems) is that the cycle is a) very slow, b) centralized, and c) run by the state, which means: arbitrarily micromanaged by bureaucrats. Not when "the state" is also the people: i.e. a direct democracy.

This makes the process of redistribution inflexible and arbitrary, so that inevitably, the wrong amounts of resources go to the wrong people, The wrong amounts of resources go to the wrong people in a free market system, too.

and in any case can't change where it has already pumped them until the next opportunity comes around. So there should be plenty of opportunities.

Empirically speaking, I'd tend to disagree. Look at the communist countries, (collapsed or in a state of constant near poverty and political despotism) and the look at the capitalist ones (booming). There are no bread lines in the US, no vital industries repeatedly requisitioning resources from the apparat in vain and with frustration, no collapses, no necessity of restriction of civil liberties to make people believe that the socialist system actually works and to prevent an attempted mass exodus to wealthier, higher-standard-of-living climes.There have been no communist countries.

[shrug] It's just another layer of the market, fundamentally no different from any other part of capitalism. It's just a feedback loop, another logical level of organization of the complex system of the market. I'd say it's fundamentally different because theoretically the stock market allows the workers in the company to own the company, if they buy all the shares. Unfortunately, this rarely, if ever happens, so you have the unacceptable situation of people profiting from a company that they don't work in.

Well, seeing as its the logical study of the phase space of all possible economic systems - what I was under the impression we were debating about - and economists have been observing economies in action and working on the logical problems associated with resource allocation for hundreds of years, I think it would behoove us to at least look to it for ideas and guidance.

I don't use a book or website to do my thinking for me, as is obvious you don't either, but if I encounter a challenging logical problem or question, an exterior source has often already encountered the problem and reasoned out a good explanation for it, which you can obtain, and examine for yourself; if it flies, than you've saved yourself time, unless and until you deduce a problem in the source-given explanation.I've read various economic theories, and have taken bits and pieces from some of them. Nonetheless, I am well aware that there are economic theories with directly contradict each other, and therefore it seems quite silly to embrace economic theory as a whole rather than simply certain economic theories.

He knows it better than you know yours, apparently. That economic system was called mercantilism, and was not the same thing as capitalism. It was an inferior early predecessor to capitalism, but by no means the same thing.And another way of describing a foundation is by calling it the early predecessor; in the same way that a house is separate but inexorably linked to its foundation, so is capitalism to mercantilism.

Which non-attempts at communism. You keep proving that a communist will regard any failure as a non-attempt.1) The U.S.S.R is the most famous non-attempt at communism.
2) Not at all, there have been plenty of failed attempts at communism, the Paris Commune and the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War being two of the best-known ones.

No, price controls (either as minima, or maxima) are never a good thing. They can only appear to be a good thing if one looks solely at one group in society, and only at the most immediate consequences. Any breadth, or depth of consideration will quickly reveal that price controls are a bad thing.They can be bad things, but aren't by definition.

You initially argued that price maxima were a good thing. I showed that they weren't through a logical argument. Which, as I pointed out, was flawed.

Then you brought up milk, probably hoping I wouldn't do any of my own reading. Milk mas hidden minimum prices for producers, they are hidden in taxation which is used to pay subsidies.Taxing the rich so that the poor can afford milk is a good thing.

Why is this a bad thing, because the money above the market clearing price could have been used to fund other productive enterprises. To give privileges to the producers of milk means reducing the overall wealth of society.In this instance, reducing the overall wealth of society is a good thing. I couldn't care less if the overall society is wealthy, what actually matters is how the individual members of a society fare.

No, he's liable for it.Not in the U.S., he isn't.

No, it can't be punished because government is in charge of investigating and punishing.The government is capable of punishing certain section of itself; you might be right in believing that the government can't be counted on to do so, this is true, but the government can't be counted on to punish the rich, either.

I've admitted they try, and. Without the price system the information required simply doesn't exist.

Most importantly, it will eventually collapse under its own weight.The latter argument is much better, at least it isn't self-contradictory.

Land is simply another commodity, and mutualism (from the wiki article to which you linked) has very little in common with a free market.Only if your definition of a free market is narrow.

Actually, what they say about property boils down to "its OK to own something, provided you do absolutely nothing to defend that property from theft".It's perfectly acceptable for you to defend a piece of land which you occupy and use, in mutualism.

Slavery and the free market have nothing to do with each other. It is impossible to have a free market with slavery. False analogies don't advance your argument.I said that the free market doesn't allow slavery.
A mutualist would say that just as it is impossible to have a free market with slavery, it is impossible to have a free market with land ownership.

For someone who claims to understand the free market, you are remarkably ignorant of the basics of a free market. The only way to have a monopoly is if other producers are forcibly excluded from the market, and the only legitimate user of force is the state.Demonstrably false. It's entirely possible to have a monopoly if your prices are so low that you put the competition out of business. Wal-Mart is quickly becoming a monopoly using this very method.

Actually, you started out arguing that colonialism was the basis of capitalism.Capitalism only came about as a result of colonialism and has done nothing to rectify the damage that colonialism did. Additionally, the current land distribution in capitalism is a result of colonialism and not as a result of capitalist principles.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow, and you've made no case that it should folow.Businesses can't employ everyone, everyone will organize and demand higher wages, resulting in either the dissolution of the capitalist system or people being fired, thus leading to unemployment. Immigration doesn't change this, either too many immigrants will come or not enough.

Then why would he accept such a price? It's either accept it or starve to death.

And why would an employer not offer an acceptable price? Because the employer can't make a profit that way.

The employer wants to buy, and the employee wants to sell.The employee's life depends on selling, the employer's life doesn't depend on buying.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a society can eradicate the institution of private property, and individual trading without totalitarianism?Yes. Given that private property is an illusion, all that would require is that people stop holding that illusion, and stop defending those who do. Individual trading itself doesn't need to be eradicated, a properly functioning system would be one in which individuals wouldn't feel the need to trade with each other.

You can't stop people from holding an illusion.
Apart from brainwashing, that is.

You can't stop people from holding an illusion.
Apart from brainwashing, that is.True, but you don't have to defend them in their holding of the illusion, either. If Person X holds the illusion that he owns the world and Person Y trespasses on what Person X owns, you don't have to defend Person X's property from Person Y.

True, but you don't have to defend them in their holding of the illusion, either. If Person X holds the illusion that he owns the world and Person Y trespasses on what Person X owns, you don't have to defend Person X's property from Person Y.

*shakes head*
There is such a thing as shared myths ( and illusion ).
They may be bulldust upon examination,
yet I'd still say that Society has an obligation to protect the mythical status-quo.
I'd present the ideal of racial equality as an example.
It's bulldust - but Societies that allow such shared myths to be debunked tend to become pretty nasty.

*shakes head*
There is such a thing as shared myths ( and illusion ).Certainly, but the more people that cease to believe in the myth of private property, the more people will then cease to believe in it; this myth only has power because it is shared.

They may be bulldust upon examination,
yet I'd still say that Society has an obligation to protect the mythical status-quo.I disagree, not when the status-quo is harmful to the people in the society.

I'd present the ideal of racial equality as an example.
It's bulldust - but Societies that allow such shared myths to be debunked tend to become pretty nasty.The ideal of racial equality isn't a myth...the reality of racial equality is, though.

Don't get me wrong: I don't even share the idea of private property.

But inasmuch as it has the power of being status quo, it exists to be obeyed.

1) The U.S.S.R is the most famous non-attempt at communism.

Nonsense.

2) Not at all, there have been plenty of failed attempts at communism, the Paris Commune and the anarchists during the Spanish Civil War being two of the best-known ones.

These did fail, but they didn't attract the reputation for atrocity that most other attempts at communism did.

They can be bad things, but aren't by definition.

They are bad by definition.

Which, as I pointed out, was flawed.

No, you didn't even address it. You attempted to dismiss it with a plainly deceptive line about milk.

Taxing the rich so that the poor can afford milk is a good thing.

They aren't the one's being taxed. Most tax falls upon the middle, and lower classes because they can't avoid it. In any case, it doesn't change, or even address the argument that a society is better off with more wealth than less.

Not in the U.S., he isn't.

The vagaries of US law are irrelevant, the fact is that fraud is something for which a business can necessarily be punished, it is not something for which government can necessarily be punished.

The government is capable of punishing certain section of itself; you might be right in believing that the government can't be counted on to do so

The government won't punish itself, unless it chooses to be punished. What ends up happening (if the government is found out, which is difficult in the extreme because the government controls the official channels of investigation, even into itself) is a part of the government is singled out.

The latter argument is much better, at least it isn't self-contradictory.

Understanding the role of prices is not difficult. Most people have managed it.

Only if your definition of a free market is narrow.

You should read some of the nonsense in the article to which you linked about prices.

It's perfectly acceptable for you to defend a piece of land which you occupy and use, in mutualism.

No, they specifically deny the use of force by government to defend property.

A mutualist would say that just as it is impossible to have a free market with slavery, it is impossible to have a free market with land ownership.

As I said, false analogies don't advance your argument.

Demonstrably false. It's entirely possible to have a monopoly if your prices are so low that you put the competition out of business. Wal-Mart is quickly becoming a monopoly using this very method.

No, they can only become and remain a single provider while they can produce an economy of scale. They will last until someone can come up with a better idea. There is no real exclusion of competition by Wal-Mart, or the state, what is taking place is the choice of consumers acting in the marketplace.

Capitalism only came about as a result of colonialism

False.

You're talking about mercantilism.

has done nothing to rectify the damage that colonialism did.

Irrelevant. Colonialism was the sole province of government. With the exception of state-connected firms, colonialism was harmful to private enterprise (as any expansion of the state is) because they were slugged with the bill.

Businesses can't employ everyone

Prove it.

everyone will organize and demand higher wages

Yet union membership in the private sector is falling.

Immigration doesn't change this, either too many immigrants will come or not enough.

So we come back to the unproven, unreasoned supposition that capitalism can never reconcile supply and demand.

It's either accept it or starve to death.

Only in a monopsony is that the case, and a monopsony in labour is what happens in socialism.

Because the employer can't make a profit that way.

The employer needs to sell goods and services to make a profit, to sell goods and services, they must be made, to make goods and services, he must buy labour services.

Therefore he must offer an acceptable price.

The employee's life depends on selling, the employer's life doesn't depend on buying.

Yes it does. He must buy goods and services for production.

Given that private property is an illusion

No, it isn't it is a necessary corollorary of a soverign individual's interaction with nature.

all that would require is that people stop holding that illusion

One can destroy an idea in an entirely free society?

and stop defending those who do.

They will defend it themselves, and you have claimed earlier that people would want, and inevitably be able to force government to intervene one way or the other, yet you now claim that such people would not be able to get government to protect themselves and their property? You can't have it both ways.

Individual trading itself doesn't need to be eradicated

People like to trade with each other, they get better things that way than doing them for themselves. Its called "specialisation", and "the division of labour". For someone who claims to understand the free market, you seem rather ignorant of the most basic concepts therein.

a properly functioning system would be one in which individuals wouldn't feel the need to trade with each other.

A nonsensical statement if ever I read one. How does this "system" produce things?

*************************************************

Since property rights are based upon use

Stating it doesn't make it so. Property rights are based upon ownership. Disputes over property are decided in courts on the basis of ownership, trades in property are exchanges, or transfers of title of ownership of property.

Provided that everybody agrees on the value of the money itself offered.

If they did not agree, why would they even be contemplating trade? How could they do it?

And the economic model of the free market isn't exclusive to the political institution of private property rights.

No, private property rights necessarily means having a free market. Without private property rights, a free market is meaningless.

It can be done well enough without being as flexible as possible; certainly a certain amount of flexibility is needed, I'm not suggesting an entirely inflexible system.

It cannot be done. You can't play at markets, it simply doesn't work, there can be no rational basis for what happens because the only way to discover it is through the free market (which is a searching process).

Increased productivity isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if it comes with increasing inequality.

You keep making these fallacious, even incomprehensible correlations. There is no reason to believe that increased productivity could result in increased inequality. Nor is there any inherient virtue in equality. Anyway, if people advance in economic status by their own efforts, why should they not be free to reap the rewards?

Not when "the state" is also the people: i.e. a direct democracy.

Actually, that would make it worse. The problem inherient in direct democracy is its lack of efficiency in decision making.

And another way of describing a foundation is by calling it the early predecessor; in the same way that a house is separate but inexorably linked to its foundation, so is capitalism to mercantilism.

No, capitalism and mercantilism are not compatible philosophies. You keep trying to push this argument with fallacious logic. The fact that "A" preceeds "B" cannot even imply that "A" had anything to do with "B", let alone caused it.

Your argument is called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).

Nonsense.Yes, the suggestion that the U.S.S.R. was an attempt at communism is nonsense.

These did fail, but they didn't attract the reputation for atrocity that most other attempts at communism did.There have only been one or two other somewhat large-scale attempts at communism, such as the Zapatistas in Mexico.

They are bad by definition.Nope.

No, you didn't even address it. You attempted to dismiss it with a plainly deceptive line about milk.Er, no. I said:

"At any rate, your argument fails between #s 3 and 4. If it is profitable to produce milk in spite of the price caps, then it will continue to be profitable with the increased demand. Why would milk sellers not sell milk if it is profitable to them?
There are potential exceptions to this, such as if the price caps are set too low so that they are only slightly profitable, and the increased demand would need to lead to increased production facilities that would take a long time to pay off, but there's no reason to assume that the caps would be so low that the dairy farmers can't afford to build new barns."

Your reply was: "That's an awfully verbose way to say "we should trust the government to be moderate, and act correctly".

I addressed your argument and pointed out the flaw in it. It is theoretically possible for the government to set a moderate price cap on something.

They aren't the one's being taxed. Most tax falls upon the middle, and lower classes because they can't avoid it. This does tend to be the reality of things, yes.

In any case, it doesn't change, or even address the argument that a society is better off with more wealth than less.A society isn't always better off with less wealth, but it can be.

The vagaries of US law are irrelevant, the fact is that fraud is something for which a business can necessarily be punished, it is not something for which government can necessarily be punished.Except when that fraud is legally protected speech.

The government won't punish itself, unless it chooses to be punished. What ends up happening (if the government is found out, which is difficult in the extreme because the government controls the official channels of investigation, even into itself) is a part of the government is singled out.And hopefully that part of the government is the part that committed the fraud.

Understanding the role of prices is not difficult. Most people have managed it.Most people don't hold to the delusion that prices are the only rational way to allocate capital goods.

You should read some of the nonsense in the article to which you linked about prices.I read the article, but <shrug> I don't hold to mutualism, I don't wish to defend it, I just wanted to give an example of a non-capitalist free market.

No, they specifically deny the use of force by government to defend property.Yes, but they're fine with the use of force by individuals or groups of individuals to defend property.

As I said, false analogies don't advance your argument.So it's a good thing I didn't use one.

No, they can only become and remain a single provider while they can produce an economy of scale. They will last until someone can come up with a better idea. There is no real exclusion of competition by Wal-Mart, or the state, what is taking place is the choice of consumers acting in the marketplace.And the consumers in the marketplace choose the store with lower prices, thus putting other stores out of business and moving to a monopoly; the consumers are free to choose a monopoly.

False.

You're talking about mercantilism.I'm aware.

Irrelevant. Colonialism was the sole province of government. With the exception of state-connected firms, colonialism was harmful to private enterprise (as any expansion of the state is) because they were slugged with the bill.Yes, I know.

Prove it.Again? What is this, the sixth time?

Yet union membership in the private sector is falling.As are both employment rates and wages when compared to inflation.

So we come back to the unproven, unreasoned supposition that capitalism can never reconcile supply and demand.No, the proven, reasoned fact that capitalism can't reconcile supply and demand in labor.

Only in a monopsony is that the case, and a monopsony in labour is what happens in socialism.No. The majority of workers in any system don't have the option of withholding their labor entirely because they need to eat.

The employer needs to sell goods and services to make a profit, to sell goods and services, they must be made, to make goods and services, he must buy labour services.

Therefore he must offer an acceptable price.Yes, acceptable only because if the seller of labor doesn't accept it, he starves.

Yes it does. He must buy goods and services for production.And if the employer is already making a profit, he doesn't need to hire another person if it is unprofitable to him to do so; his life would not depend on hiring another person.

No, it isn't it is a necessary corollorary of a soverign individual's interaction with nature.Ah, finally, we have your basis in the belief of private property rights: natural rights.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. Natural rights are the basis of property rights based upon use, not ownership.

One can destroy an idea in an entirely free society?This particular idea requires that others believe in it; as fewer people believe in it, fewer still will.

They will defend it themselves, Certainly, and they're welcome to, however one of the reasons that people join societies is mutual defense; if people were able to count on being able to defend their property by themselves then that reason wouldn't be one that they join societies.

and you have claimed earlier that people would want, and inevitably be able to force government to intervene one way or the other, yet you now claim that such people would not be able to get government to protect themselves and their property? You can't have it both ways.Sure I can. Rich people would want and be inevitably able to force government to intervene one way or the other. This is perhaps the biggest reason why communism is necessary. The people clinging to the illusion of property would be living in a communist society, and therefore not be rich.

People like to trade with each other, they get better things that way than doing them for themselves. Its called "specialisation", and "the division of labour". For someone who claims to understand the free market, you seem rather ignorant of the most basic concepts therein.For someone who claims to understand the free market, you seem rather ignorant of the fact that specialization and the division of labor aren't exclusive to the free market.

A nonsensical statement if ever I read one. How does this "system" produce things?Well, it's a lengthy process to type, but I'll try to simplify it as much as I can:

People agree to form a society based upon a directly democratic model of communism. They then determine which skills people have, and the jobs that people are willing to do. Then they agree that if people give a certain amount of their labor to the society, then they are entitled to a certain portion of everything that the society produces. Then, people work out between each other which jobs that they will do; ideally people will do the jobs that they both enjoy and are good at. People do trade, they trade their labor with the society (an individual trading with a group of individuals as opposed to an individual trading with another individual).
I have the feeling I'm leaving something out, though...but I'm sure you'll have questions on this, so I can put it in then.


If they did not agree, why would they even be contemplating trade? How could they do it?The individuals in a particular trade would agree yes, but that isn't what I meant. The reason why money is a useful utility is that everyone agrees on its value.

No, private property rights necessarily means having a free market. Without private property rights, a free market is meaningless.Perhaps it is meaningless, but it can still exist.

It cannot be done. You can't play at markets, it simply doesn't work, there can be no rational basis for what happens because the only way to discover it is through the free market (which is a searching process).How is asking people where resources would be best applied not a searching process?

You keep making these fallacious, even incomprehensible correlations. There is no reason to believe that increased productivity could result in increased inequality. Of course it could; it doesn't as a rule, but almost always does.

Nor is there any inherient virtue in equality. Debatable, but there isn't any inherent virtue in a society being highly prosperous, either.

Anyway, if people advance in economic status by their own efforts, why should they not be free to reap the rewards?I think we can both agree that some efforts are not acceptable, even if we disagree with which ones...though we would both agree that a person advancing in economic status by becoming a hit man is unacceptable.

Actually, that would make it worse. The problem inherient in direct democracy is its lack of efficiency in decision making.But this lack of efficiency is more than made up for by everyone having a say in the process.

No, capitalism and mercantilism are not compatible philosophies. Of course they are, mercantilism is capitalism in the real world - rich people getting the government to intervene in their favor.

You keep trying to push this argument with fallacious logic. The fact that "A" preceeds "B" cannot even imply that "A" had anything to do with "B", let alone caused it.

Your argument is called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).The current distribution of property happened as a result of mercantilism. Capitalism did not redistribute property to where it was before mercantilism. Therefore, capitalism finds mercantilism acceptable, because if you do not rectify a wrong, you condone it.

Yes, the suggestion that the U.S.S.R. was an attempt at communism is nonsense.

No.

I addressed your argument and pointed out the flaw in it. It is theoretically possible for the government to set a moderate price cap on something.

It is still a suboptimal arrangment, and even if it weren't, your objection stil would not apply because the diary industry is subsidised.

A society isn't always better off with less wealth, but it can be.

Nonsense.

Except when that fraud is legally protected speech.

Fraud is fraud, and a sales pitch is entirely dependent on the person to whom it is being made. People who are taken in by fancy talk deserve whatever they get.

And hopefully that part of the government is the part that committed the fraud.

Its never been that yet.

Most people don't hold to the delusion that prices are the only rational way to allocate capital goods.

Mule fritters.

I read the article, but <shrug> I don't hold to mutualism, I don't wish to defend it, I just wanted to give an example of a non-capitalist free market.

Then you failed.

Yes, but they're fine with the use of force by individuals or groups of individuals to defend property.

Then they can't object to government using force to protect property, because government derives just power from the people.

So it's a good thing I didn't use one.

How is slavery comprable to land ownership?

And the consumers in the marketplace choose the store with lower prices, thus putting other stores out of business and moving to a monopoly; the consumers are free to choose a monopoly.

Without the ability to exclude others from the market, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

Again? What is this, the sixth time?

You've never proven it, because you've rested your entire argument on capitalism not doing in one commodity what it does for every other, without justifying the difference.

No. The majority of workers in any system don't have the option of withholding their labor entirely because they need to eat.

Again, you are assuming monopsony.

Yes, acceptable only because if the seller of labor doesn't accept it, he starves.

Monopsony again.

Natural rights are the basis of property rights based upon use, not ownership.

No, it isn't.

Property rights based on use is a contradiction in terms, and the resolution of conflicting claims becomes a game in which an arbitrary decision over which use is the more vital.

It clearly isn't a right.

This particular idea requires that others believe in it; as fewer people believe in it, fewer still will.

Why should people stop believing in something that comes so naturally?

The people clinging to the illusion of property would be living in a communist society, and therefore not be rich.

They'd be desparately poor, and quite angry at the government which took their property away promising all, and delivering nothing.

People agree to form a society based upon a directly democratic model of communism.

There is no reason for them to do that.

They then determine which skills people have, and the jobs that people are willing to do. Then they agree that if people give a certain amount of their labor to the society, then they are entitled to a certain portion of everything that the society produces. Then, people work out between each other which jobs that they will do; ideally people will do the jobs that they both enjoy and are good at. People do trade, they trade their labor with the society (an individual trading with a group of individuals as opposed to an individual trading with another individual).

Firstly, you are still not showing a "system" producing. Individuals are doing all the producing, and all the consuming.

Secondly, there is still no basis for the rational allocation of capital goods.

Thirdly, there is no freedom for the individual, he in such a society must be a slave to the majority.

Fourthly, all you've done is turn everyone into a middle man.

Fifthly, most people know that monopoly is bad (and you've introduced a monopoly), but monopsony is also bad, and you've introduced a monopsony.

Point six, a direct democracy is the least efficient model for making decisions. Being a slave to the majority is bad enough, but this majority will never come to a decision. This is worse for your totally governed society because unless they make prompt decisions, people will starve.

The reason why money is a useful utility is that everyone agrees on its value.

Thank you for that astounding piece of information. I really don't know what we'd do without you to tell us these things.

Perhaps it is meaningless, but it can still exist.

No, it can't.

How is asking people where resources would be best applied not a searching process?

It is not a searching process likely to lead to a rational allocation of capital goods.

Of course it could; it doesn't as a rule, but almost always does.

No, and it doesn't enable people to advance by forcing others down, so I don't see what is wrong with it.

Debatable, but there isn't any inherent virtue in a society being highly prosperous, either.

Yes there is, a higher standard of living for one thing.

I think we can both agree that some efforts are not acceptable, even if we disagree with which ones...though we would both agree that a person advancing in economic status by becoming a hit man is unacceptable.

Red herring.

But this lack of efficiency is more than made up for by everyone having a say in the process.

No, the process is inheriently inefficient.

Of course they are, mercantilism is capitalism in the real world - rich people getting the government to intervene in their favor.

No, mercantilism is mercantilism. Capitalism is something else entirely.

The current distribution of property happened as a result of mercantilism.

No, it isn't. It may have been well over 130 years ago.

Capitalism did not redistribute property to where it was before mercantilism.

Which is like saying "you condone murder if you don't resurrect the victims". You do realise that government redistributions of property are not capitalistic?

No.Yes.

It is still a suboptimal arrangment, and even if it weren't, your objection stil would not apply because the diary industry is subsidised.It may or may not be an optimal arrangement; yes, I know the dairy industry is subsidized, but to place price caps doesn't necessarily have to come with price caps.

Fraud is fraud, and a sales pitch is entirely dependent on the person to whom it is being made. People who are taken in by fancy talk deserve whatever they get.And fancy talk is a legally protected form of fraud, which can be done by both salesmen and politicians.

Its never been that yet.<shrug> I'm not aiming to defend governments, so I can concede this point.

Then you failed.Nope. My goal was to provide an example of a non capitalist free market, and I did so, so I accomplished my goal.

Then they can't object to government using force to protect property, because government derives just power from the people.I said nothing about whether or not the force used to protect the property was just or not.

How is slavery comprable to land ownership?In that it's possible for a free market to have both be illegal and still be a free market.

Without the ability to exclude others from the market, there is no such thing as a monopoly.The prices being so low excludes others from the market.

You've never proven it, because you've rested your entire argument on capitalism not doing in one commodity what it does for every other, without justifying the difference.I did justify the difference in that labor cannot be withheld entirely; the production of other commodities can be.

Again, you are assuming monopsony.

Monopsony again.No, I'm not assuming monopsony. There's no reason to believe that different buyers of labor cannot lead to a general trend of lower wages.

No, it isn't.Yes, it is. There are a couple of reasons, I'll give the simplest one:

Ownership is defined as "legal right to possession of a thing". Nature can't give out legal rights, so natural rights don't give the right of ownership.

Property rights based on use is a contradiction in terms, Because there are no sufficient terms to use, I use property.

and the resolution of conflicting claims becomes a game in which an arbitrary decision over which use is the more vital.No, the resolution of conflicting claims ends with the determination of who was using the property first. First come, first serve.

It clearly isn't a right.Of course it is, you have the right to occupy and use something that isn't being used already.

Why should people stop believing in something that comes so naturally?It doesn't come naturally; people only believe in it because they're told to.

They'd be desparately poor, and quite angry at the government which took their property away promising all, and delivering nothing.This wouldn't be the case, but even if it were, they would be unable to influence the government with their money in the way that a rich person in a capitalist society could (and probably would).

There is no reason for them to do that.If they believe it is in their best interests for them to, they would do so.

Firstly, you are still not showing a "system" producing. Individuals are doing all the producing, and all the consuming.Yes, individuals are producing, under the guise of the system.

Secondly, there is still no basis for the rational allocation of capital goods.The question you asked was not about the allocation, it was about the production. I could tell you how things would be allocated, if you'd like.

Thirdly, there is no freedom for the individual, he in such a society must be a slave to the majority.When an individual joins a society, he agrees to give up a portion of his freedom, this is no different. If he feels his freedom is being infringed upon too much, he is welcome to leave.

Fourthly, all you've done is turn everyone into a middle man.Which is what I said would happen.

Fifthly, most people know that monopoly is bad (and you've introduced a monopoly), but monopsony is also bad, and you've introduced a monopsony.Only to people outside of the monopolies and monopsonies.

Point six, a direct democracy is the least efficient model for making decisions. Being a slave to the majority is bad enough, but this majority will never come to a decision. I see no reason why a decision would never be made; they may not be made as quickly as they are in dictatorships, but they would happen.

This is worse for your totally governed society because unless they make prompt decisions, people will starve.I would think the lack of food would motivate people to make decisions, but if people would rather starve than make a decision, that is their choice.

Thank you for that astounding piece of information. I really don't know what we'd do without you to tell us these things.If you already know these things, then you shouldn't act as though you don't.

No, it can't.Yes, it can.

It is not a searching process likely to lead to a rational allocation of capital goods.Ah, you said not likely, you said impossible before.

No, and it doesn't enable people to advance by forcing others down, so I don't see what is wrong with it.Advancement for one comes at the expense of another.

Yes there is, a higher standard of living for one thing.There's nothing about a more prosperous society that by definition means that everyone within that society will have a higher standard of living; in most cases the opposite happens.

Red herring.No, it isn't. You would say that to advance in economic status is fine, with restrictions, such as the one I mentioned. I would place more restrictions.

No, the process is inheriently inefficient.Which I've never disputed.

No, mercantilism is mercantilism. Capitalism is something else entirely.

No, it isn't. It may have been well over 130 years ago.Really? So the current distribution of land has nothing to do with what mercantilism did?

Which is like saying "you condone murder if you don't resurrect the victims". No, it's like saying "murder should be legal", but then when the gun is pointed at you, saying "oh, no, murder is wrong, wrong, wrong".

You do realise that government redistributions of property are not capitalistic?Yes, which is why I find it odd that capitalists see no problem with the fact that mercantilism redistributed property in their favor.

How I would debunk Anarcho-communism.

They rely on voluntary approval and co-operation from everyone. Communism could only work if skilled workers are happy to work for the common good at less pay than other non anarcho-communist societies will offer.

It'll suffer from the rich, intelligent and skilled migrating out of the society which an anarchistic society must allow. And forgetting the inefficiencies of a non competitive non capitalist system, due to a lack of skilled work their economy will plummet even worse those soviets.

I suppose they don't care about material wealth and are happy to lead a basic life living off the land and living together in community, but as a progressive view for the human race it’s a vastly inefficient method of living and for that reason will be inferior to its capitalist competitors. If it’s even possible to achieve without the use of democracy or revolution.

How I would debunk Anarcho-communism.

They rely on voluntary approval and co-operation from everyone. Communism could only work if skilled workers are happy to work for the common good at less pay than other non anarcho-communist societies will offer.Yes, agreed so far.

It'll suffer from the rich, intelligent and skilled migrating out of the society which an anarchistic society must allow. And forgetting the inefficiencies of a non competitive non capitalist system, due to a lack of skilled work their economy will plummet even worse those soviets.Here is where we disagree. The possibility that someone could make money elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean they will leave; people don't always (or usually) choose their careers based upon how much money they will make. In addition, the anarcho-communist society will likely be better for other reasons, as well.

I suppose they don't care about material wealth and are happy to lead a basic life living off the land and living together in community, but as a progressive view for the human race it’s a vastly inefficient method of living and for that reason will be inferior to its capitalist competitors.If they are happy doing so, then yes, anarcho-communism would be better for them, but it isn't a requirement for them to do so in order to live in anarcho-communist society.

If it’s even possible to achieve without the use of democracy or revolution.How can it be possible without either democracy or revolution? Wouldn't it have to be one or the other?

I'm still reading along. Not ignoring it.

Here is where we disagree. The possibility that someone could make money elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean they will leave; people don't always (or usually) choose their careers based upon how much money they will make. In addition, the anarcho-communist society will likely be better for other reasons, as well.


I can certainly accept that to an extent some people may stay if successful it will have its advantages. Factors like ambition and power might drive others to leave as well as money and at least it will be clear immigration will be primaraly poor looking for a better life rather than super skilled rich people looking for a better life.


How can it be possible without either democracy or revolution? Wouldn't it have to be one or the other?

Hopefully an anarcho-communist will correct me if I'm wrong. A non-violent revolution without a state to defend agains't the counter revolution is a joke. And they can't run to be elected as state as they're agains't all forms of governement.

But I would like to know how one argues it could be achieved its something I think I've missed in the theory.

Yes.

Only the most dishonest of revisionists would claim that the Bolsheviks did not intend to bring communism.

It may or may not be an optimal arrangement; yes, I know the dairy industry is subsidized, but to place price caps doesn't necessarily have to come with price caps.

Incomprehensible.

And fancy talk is a legally protected form of fraud, which can be done by both salesmen and politicians.

Except that a politician can never be punished for it.

My goal was to provide an example of a non capitalist free market, and I did so, so I accomplished my goal.

A market in which prices are necessarily tied to anything other than the negotiation between buyer and seller is by definition not free. Mutualism's acceptance of the labour theory of value means it is not a philosophy of the free market.

I said nothing about whether or not the force used to protect the property was just or not.

Nevertheless, government power comes from the people. If the people cannot get government to defend their rights, they by extension never could defend these rights themselves.

The prices being so low excludes others from the market.

No, no one is excluded from the market. They cannot exclude someone who comes up with a better idea. That is the real test.

I did justify the difference in that labor cannot be withheld entirely; the production of other commodities can be.

Labour can be witheld entirely (what do you think a strike is?)

No, I'm not assuming monopsony. There's no reason to believe that different buyers of labor cannot lead to a general trend of lower wages.

Yes there is. Each buyer wants the best of what's for sale, so they must pay better than the rest.

Ownership is defined as "legal right to possession of a thing". Nature can't give out legal rights, so natural rights don't give the right of ownership.

It is a legal formalisation of what is inherient in nature.

Because there are no sufficient terms to use, I use property.

No, property rights cannot be based on use. What you really mean is state allocation of objects.

No, the resolution of conflicting claims ends with the determination of who was using the property first. First come, first serve.

Nonsense, that reduces it to an unresolvable farce, because it reduces the proceedings to one man's word against another's. You have to base it upon which use is the more important.

Of course it is, you have the right to occupy and use something that isn't being used already.

It isn't a right.

This wouldn't be the case, but even if it were, they would be unable to influence the government with their money in the way that a rich person in a capitalist society could (and probably would).

Yes it would. Anyway, money isn't the only way to influence a government.

If they believe it is in their best interests for them to, they would do so.

There's no reason for them to believe it to be in their best interests.

Yes, individuals are producing, under the guise of the system.

The second statement is false. Individuals are producing.

The question you asked was not about the allocation, it was about the production. I could tell you how things would be allocated, if you'd like.

Before you write about your ideas, think about them. The production cannot take place without allocating capital comodities.

When an individual joins a society, he agrees to give up a portion of his freedom, this is no different. If he feels his freedom is being infringed upon too much, he is welcome to leave.

You propose that he gives up all his freedom, and people do not agree to give up their freedoms to join a society, they agree to join so that their freedoms are protected.

There is no place for individual liberty in your system, because the government decides everything. What he will do, when he will do it, what he receives in return, what access he has to resources and objects.

Whether it is a tryanny of one dictator, or a tyranny of 50% +1, the individual loses all his freedom.

Which is what I said would happen.

Which is highly inefficient.

Only to people outside of the monopolies and monopsonies.

You are creating a state monopoly, and your talk of direct democracy doesn't change anything because direct democracy cannot work. Inside this totally governed society, there can be no rational allocation of anything, either capital, or consumer goods.

I see no reason why a decision would never be made; they may not be made as quickly as they are in dictatorships, but they would happen.

No, they wouldn't. Every decision would be bogged down for indeterminate amounts of time in endless committee discussions.

I would think the lack of food would motivate people to make decisions, but if people would rather starve than make a decision, that is their choice.

How could they make such a decision? They would have no information upon which to base it, and no mechanism likely to produce a timely decision.

Ah, you said not likely, you said impossible before.

You are going to have to research this yourself. The rational allocation of capital goods is that which leads to the most production at the least cost. Without private property, that determination is impossible.

Advancement for one comes at the expense of another.

Again, you are going to have to do some basic research on a market economy. Advancement in a free market does not come at the expense of others. If it did, why would anyone bother trading?

There's nothing about a more prosperous society that by definition means that everyone within that society will have a higher standard of living; in most cases the opposite happens.

Nonsense.

Really? So the current distribution of land has nothing to do with what mercantilism did?

The current distribution of land is more about government than anything else.

No, it's like saying "murder should be legal", but then when the gun is pointed at you, saying "oh, no, murder is wrong, wrong, wrong".

No.

Yes, which is why I find it odd that capitalists see no problem with the fact that mercantilism redistributed property in their favor.

Interesting, you gone from describing what capitalism is, to what businessman think and do, and you've done it in a sleight of hand manner.

This is fundamentally dishonest, as is this entire strand of your argument.

Only the most dishonest of revisionists would claim that the Bolsheviks did not intend to bring communism.
.
By Marx's standards they failed and only achieved socialism. Intending to do something isnt the same as actually doing it.


Except that a politician can never be punished for it.
.
They can be sacked, unelected or in some cases impeached.


A market in which prices are necessarily tied to anything other than the negotiation between buyer and seller is by definition not free. Mutualism's acceptance of the labour theory of value means it is not a philosophy of the free market.
.
:)


Nevertheless, government power comes from the people. If the people cannot get government to defend their rights, they by extension never could defend these rights themselves.
.
Unless the politician happens to lie.


Yes there is. Each buyer wants the best of what's for sale, so they must pay better than the rest. .

Each company wants to sell as much of its product as it can. So they must offer the cheapest price possible.


It is a legal formalisation of what is inherient in nature. .
Indeed. If it wasn't the government law saying I owned something with police to protect that right, it would be my gun or my own army.



Yes it would. Anyway, money isn't the only way to influence a government.
.

What else is there. Power of arguement, blackmail? Nothing is as effective as money its a danger to democracy.



You propose that he gives up all his freedom, and people do not agree to give up their freedoms to join a society, they agree to join so that their freedoms are protected.
.

I've given up my freedom to put music on to full volume, to walk around naked, to do drugs or smoke in a public place By living in society. Yes many of my freedoms are protected from being in this society but to do so I've had to give some up.


No, they wouldn't. Every decision would be bogged down for indeterminate amounts of time in endless committee discussions.
How could they make such a decision? They would have no information upon which to base it, and no mechanism likely to produce a timely decision.
.

Not to mention direct democracy never gives a straight answer. Compramises will be made for everything and a coherant step of plans can never be made



Again, you are going to have to do some basic research on a market economy. Advancement in a free market does not come at the expense of others. If it did, why would anyone bother trading?
.

Some would do worse in a market economy than under socialism therefore the freemarket comes at the expense of those people having a "more equal" standard of living

By Marx's standards they failed and only achieved socialism. Intending to do something isnt the same as actually doing it.

Quite true, and that was not what he was arguing. He did not argue that the Soviet Union was a failed attempt at communism, but was never an attempt at communism at all.

They can be sacked, unelected or in some cases impeached.

Right into a nice pension, a book deal, and the lecture circuit.

Each company wants to sell as much of its product as it can. So they must offer the cheapest price possible.

I know. Supply and demand drive prices.

What else is there.

Force, the threat of force, haemorraging votes (if the people simply don't want a particular party or policy, all the money in the world won't change it)

I've given up my freedom to put music on to full volume, to walk around naked, to do drugs or smoke in a public place By living in society. Yes many of my freedoms are protected from being in this society but to do so I've had to give some up.

The first part of my answer is that you did not voluntarily give up some of those (it was instead forced upon you), the second part is that any definition of freedom must be rational.

Not to mention direct democracy never gives a straight answer. Compramises will be made for everything and a coherant step of plans can never be made

True, and direct democracy would have a huge tendency to fall for demagogues.

Some would do worse in a market economy than under socialism therefore the freemarket comes at the expense of those people having a "more equal" standard of living

It does not come at their expense. My having something doesn't mean I took anything from you, you've not been deprived by me being in abundance.

Some may, and certainly will do better than others, but it is not at the expense of those who have not done so.

Only the most dishonest of revisionists would claim that the Bolsheviks did not intend to bring communism.Not after they destroyed the burgeoning communist movement in Ukraine, they didn't.

Incomprehensible.Yes. I meant to type "price caps don't have to come with subsidies."

Except that a politician can never be punished for it.Not in a meaningful manner anyway.

A market in which prices are necessarily tied to anything other than the negotiation between buyer and seller is by definition not free. Mutualism's acceptance of the labour theory of value means it is not a philosophy of the free market.In mutualism, the buyers of labor are also the sellers, so they presumably negotiate with themselves.

Nevertheless, government power comes from the people. If the people cannot get government to defend their rights, they by extension never could defend these rights themselves.I have two answers for this. The first reply deals with my statement that the belief in private property requires that people believe in it also. This is exactly why - because the need people to believe in it so the government will defend it.
The second reply has to deal with mutualism. It is entirely possible for a militia to form to defend property rights.

No, no one is excluded from the market. They cannot exclude someone who comes up with a better idea. That is the real test.Yes, if someone can think of a way to sell things more cheaply they can, but most likely the big conglomerate would also implement this idea.

Labour can be witheld entirely (what do you think a strike is?)Striking laborers have a strike fund to draw from, and only for a short period of time. The individual who withholds his labor does not usually have a similar fund.

Yes there is. Each buyer wants the best of what's for sale, so they must pay better than the rest.Not every laborer can be the best.

It is a legal formalisation of what is inherient in nature.People using things is inherent in nature; when a lion abandons the carcass of the animal it killed, it loses the ability to use the carcass as nourishment, and the next animal to use the carcass gains that ability.

No, property rights cannot be based on use. Because of the current definition of property.

What you really mean is state allocation of objects.No, I don't mean this at all.

Nonsense, that reduces it to an unresolvable farce, because it reduces the proceedings to one man's word against another's. You have to base it upon which use is the more important.Unless one man starts using something an instant before the other man does, it should be quite easy to determine who was using something.

It isn't a right.If people defend the right to use property, then it is.

Yes it would. Anyway, money isn't the only way to influence a government.True, but it is the most common. I think a direct democracy would help to reduce the effect of these other influences, as well.

There's no reason for them to believe it to be in their best interests.All it would require for most people do to is to learn about it.

The second statement is false. Individuals are producing.Individuals are producing under the direction of the system. Of course the system can't produce anything as it is an abstract concept.

Before you write about your ideas, think about them. The production cannot take place without allocating capital comodities.The vast majority of production cannot, it's true, but the allocation is a separate step from the production.

Anyway, there are three ways that the system can allocate things to individuals:
Free distribution. This would of course, only work for the things that are abundant.
The rota method. The public libraries here have computers, and people can sign up to use them. You can use a computer for 30 minutes at a time, then you have to stop using it and the next person can use it. If there is nobody in line, you can use the computer until someone goes into line. This would work for most scarce items.
The list. There will be certain items which it is impractical to produce freely, but wouldn't be scarce, either, such as housing. A list would be generated for everyone in the society, and a person could have whatever they wanted that the society could give them. When they had their turn, they would be moved to the bottom of the list.

How the system would allocate goods for investment would be much simpler. The process might go something like this: (Assuming all answers to the questions are positive answers.)

Do we need a school? Do we have the materials to build one? Do we have a teacher to teach in the school and train other teachers? How many teachers would we need? Where would we build the school? Would we want to build the school in Location A? Would Person A like to fill this role? Would Person A be good in this role? Would Person B also like to become a teacher? Could Person A train Person B? What other projects are the construction crew working on? How long will it take to build the school? How long will it take to train new teachers? Do we want to take on this project? Good, then the project is authorized.

You propose that he gives up all his freedom, and people do not agree to give up their freedoms to join a society, they agree to join so that their freedoms are protected.I don't propose he gives up all of his freedom; I believe that communism maximizes freedom, so that would be silly of me.

There is no place for individual liberty in your system, because the government decides everything.No, not everything.

What he will do, when he will do it, what he receives in return, In conjunction with the individual in question, the same way that an employee does with their employer, except the employee's field is much wider since he can potentially be employed in just about anything, and trained to do so.

what access he has to resources and objects.No, he has access to everything that the society produces, unlike in capitalism, where he only has access to what he can pay for.

Whether it is a tryanny of one dictator, or a tyranny of 50% +1, the individual loses all his freedom.Nope, he gains access to everything the society produces and also gains more of an ability to do what he wants to do for a living.

Which is highly inefficient.When compared to other systems, yes, but other systems are lesser for other reasons.

You are creating a state monopoly, and your talk of direct democracy doesn't change anything because direct democracy cannot work. Inside this totally governed society, there can be no rational allocation of anything, either capital, or consumer goods.Sure there can be, on all counts.

No, they wouldn't. Every decision would be bogged down for indeterminate amounts of time in endless committee discussions.The discussions can have time limits placed upon them.

How could they make such a decision? They would have no information upon which to base it, and no mechanism likely to produce a timely decision.They wouldn't be able to determine mathematically how much food they have and how long it will last, and how long it will take to grow more?

You are going to have to research this yourself. The rational allocation of capital goods is that which leads to the most production at the least cost. Without private property, that determination is impossible.If you measured the cost in purely monetary concerns, then I would say that the system I propose is not rational, but I wouldn't measure rational in such a way.

Again, you are going to have to do some basic research on a market economy. Advancement in a free market does not come at the expense of others. If it did, why would anyone bother trading?It's possible to make a trade where the person you're trading with doesn't actually advance, they only think they do.

Nonsense.The U.S. is more prosperous than Sweden, but Sweden has fewer people living in poverty, to give one example of this.

The current distribution of land is more about government than anything else.True, and I don't see how capitalists and government can be separated.

No.Yes. It's only too convenient to benefit from theft but then say that theft is bad.

Interesting, you gone from describing what capitalism is, to what businessman think and do, and you've done it in a sleight of hand manner.

This is fundamentally dishonest, as is this entire strand of your argument.How else would you describe capitalism without taking into account what businessmen think and do?

I can certainly accept that to an extent some people may stay if successful it will have its advantages. Factors like ambition and power might drive others to leave as well as money and at least it will be clear immigration will be primaraly poor looking for a better life rather than super skilled rich people looking for a better life.True, but how do you think capitalism will function if all of its laborers leave?

Hopefully an anarcho-communist will correct me if I'm wrong. A non-violent revolution without a state to defend agains't the counter revolution is a joke. And they can't run to be elected as state as they're agains't all forms of governement.

But I would like to know how one argues it could be achieved its something I think I've missed in the theory.I support the idea of secession. Secession hasn't been tried democratically here, and I believe there could be a legal precedent for it.

Not after they destroyed the burgeoning communist movement in Ukraine, they didn't.

They destroyed an alternative communist movement.

Yes. I meant to type "price caps don't have to come with subsidies."

Quite true, and price caps without subsidies inevitably bring shortages for the reasons I described.

Not in a meaningful manner anyway.

True.

In mutualism, the buyers of labor are also the sellers, so they presumably negotiate with themselves.

Nevertheless, where prices are fixed to some arbitrary level, a free market does not exist.

It is entirely possible for a militia to form to defend property rights.

A government is an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory. Such a militia would effectively be a government.

Yes, if someone can think of a way to sell things more cheaply they can, but most likely the big conglomerate would also implement this idea.

You've managed to discover, all by yourself ... competition.

The individual who withholds his labor does not usually have a similar fund.

He may, or he may have supporters.

Not every laborer can be the best.

At what? That is the real point, comparative advantage, supply and demand of particular types of labour.

People using things is inherent in nature; when a lion abandons the carcass of the animal it killed, it loses the ability to use the carcass as nourishment, and the next animal to use the carcass gains that ability.

Which shows nothing more than a human is sentient, and a lion isn't.

Unless one man starts using something an instant before the other man does, it should be quite easy to determine who was using something.

No, it won't, unless you are proposing a total surveillence society. In any case, disputes would inevitably slide into which use is better, especially since in your system production would never be able to meet all the needs of the people.

All it would require for most people do to is to learn about it.

You've been blithering about this for months, and can't even answer the most basic questions.

Individuals are producing under the direction of the system. Of course the system can't produce anything as it is an abstract concept.

Individuals are in this case merely trading their labour.

The vast majority of production cannot, it's true, but the allocation is a separate step from the production.

Errm, the capital goods are those from which production is carried out. Tools, raw materials etc. The allocation is necessary in order that the proper production of the proper goods in the proper amounts by the proper methods in the proper places is carried out.

Free distribution. This would of course, only work for the things that are abundant.

We have now dealt with air. A huge leap forward! :rolleyes:

The rota method. The public libraries here have computers, and people can sign up to use them. You can use a computer for 30 minutes at a time, then you have to stop using it and the next person can use it. If there is nobody in line, you can use the computer until someone goes into line. This would work for most scarce items.

You're supposed to be answering a question about capital goods, not consumer goods.

How the system would allocate goods for investment would be much simpler. The process might go something like this: (Assuming all answers to the questions are positive answers.)

No, the question is always more complicated.

Do we need a school? Do we have the materials to build one? Do we have a teacher to teach in the school and train other teachers? How many teachers would we need? Where would we build the school? Would we want to build the school in Location A? Would Person A like to fill this role? Would Person A be good in this role? Would Person B also like to become a teacher? Could Person A train Person B? What other projects are the construction crew working on? How long will it take to build the school? How long will it take to train new teachers? Do we want to take on this project? Good, then the project is authorized.

You still haven't answered the fundamental questions that the free market answers every minute of every day with great ease.

Nowhere am I seeing how we can compare methods of production, locations of production, optimal amount of resources, optimal amount of production, best distribution methods.

You can't do any of this rationally without prices, and you cannot form real prices without private property.

I don't propose he gives up all of his freedom; I believe that communism maximizes freedom, so that would be silly of me.

It is silly of you, because what you have advocated necessarily deprives him of all his freedom. That you do not say this merely means I have thought more about your theory than you.

In conjunction with the individual in question, the same way that an employee does with their employer, except the employee's field is much wider since he can potentially be employed in just about anything, and trained to do so.

No, you are advocating a monopsony. In a free market, there is no such thing as "the employer", there can be many potential employers. Under your system, there can be only one.

As to in conjunction with the individual in question, you have proposed a direct democracy, he has no more voice than any other individual in this economic decision. His wages and conditions are determined by 50% +1.

No, he has access to everything that the society produces, unlike in capitalism, where he only has access to what he can pay for.

No, he cannot possibly access everything, because others will want it too. The government must necessarily allocate to prevent conflicts.

The discussions can have time limits placed upon them.

That is not the point, if they can't decide, no time limit will force them to decide more quickly, and it could be argued that under the clock, they wil simply go for whatever nonsense will break up the meeting.

They wouldn't be able to determine mathematically how much food they have and how long it will last, and how long it will take to grow more?

That isn't the whole problem and you know it.

If you can only make your theory sound credible by oversimplyfying every problem, your theory is not credible.

If you measured the cost in purely monetary concerns, then I would say that the system I propose is not rational, but I wouldn't measure rational in such a way.

There is no other basis of comparison.

It's possible to make a trade where the person you're trading with doesn't actually advance, they only think they do.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "nobody's perfect". It doesn't refute, or even affect my argument.

The U.S. is more prosperous than Sweden, but Sweden has fewer people living in poverty, to give one example of this.

The prosperous Swedes have a lower standard of living than most Americans, and Sweden can't keep their welfare state inevitably.

How else would you describe capitalism without taking into account what businessmen think and do?

There is no essential correlation between the attitudes of businessmen, and capitalism, indeed many businessmen actively promote government intervention in the economy. George Soros, for example is a businessman, and a notorious leftoid.

They destroyed an alternative communist movement.Exactly. If they actually wanted to implement communism, they wouldn't have done so.

Quite true, and price caps without subsidies inevitably bring shortages for the reasons I described.If the price caps are too restrictive.

Nevertheless, where prices are fixed to some arbitrary level, a free market does not exist.The free market comes up with an agreement between employer and employee on what the employee's wage shall be. If the employer and the employee agree on the Labor Theory of Value, then it does too.

A government is an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a territory. Such a militia would effectively be a government.Only if the militia had a monopoly on the legitimate use of force; I don't see why this would be the case.

You've managed to discover, all by yourself ... competition.I'm aware of competition, and that a monopoly can form by a firm out-competiting its competitors.

He may, or he may have supporters.It isn't realistic to expect that this will be the case for something even approaching the majority of laborers.

At what? That is the real point, comparative advantage, supply and demand of particular types of labour.At whichever particular type of labor he is engaging in.

Which shows nothing more than a human is sentient, and a lion isn't.No, it shows that natural rights don't account for sentience; this is why people form societies with additional rights.

No, it won't, unless you are proposing a total surveillence society. Are you saying that you can't tell if somebody lives in the house next to you without being overly intrusive?

In any case, disputes would inevitably slide into which use is better, especially since in your system production would never be able to meet all the needs of the people.I disagree.

You've been blithering about this for months, and can't even answer the most basic questions.Simply because the answers aren't to your liking does not mean I'm not answering the questions.

Individuals are in this case merely trading their labour.Yes, with a group of individuals, as opposed to an individual.

Errm, the capital goods are those from which production is carried out. Tools, raw materials etc. The allocation is necessary in order that the proper production of the proper goods in the proper amounts by the proper methods in the proper places is carried out.And I stated that most production would not take place without the allocation of goods, but they are separate steps.

We have now dealt with air. A huge leap forward! :rolleyes: And food and clean water.

You're supposed to be answering a question about capital goods, not consumer goods.The allocation of capital goods would take into account how consumer goods are allocated.

No, the question is always more complicated.It in and of itself is, but there wouldn't be multiple ways of doing it in the way that there would be of allocating consumer goods.

You still haven't answered the fundamental questions that the free market answers every minute of every day with great ease.

Nowhere am I seeing how we can compare methods of production, locations of production, optimal amount of resources, optimal amount of production, best distribution methods.

You can't do any of this rationally without prices, and you cannot form real prices without private property.If the people in the society feel it is necessary to do such things, they can change the way things are done and see which they like better, or they can observe a neighboring society with different methods of production, etc.

It is silly of you, because what you have advocated necessarily deprives him of all his freedom. That you do not say this merely means I have thought more about your theory than you.No, it means that you haven't thought about my theory at all, except magnifying what you perceive as its negatives.

No, you are advocating a monopsony. In a free market, there is no such thing as "the employer", there can be many potential employers. All of whom need to make money, and can't employ someone if it is isn't profitable for them.

Under your system, there can be only one.One per society; since societies would be much smaller than nations are now it would be fairly easy to change societies if need be.

As to in conjunction with the individual in question, you have proposed a direct democracy, he has no more voice than any other individual in this economic decision. His wages and conditions are determined by 50% +1.And likewise any individual follows this same pattern, so it will be in their interests to try to make the maximum number of people happy.

No, he cannot possibly access everything, because others will want it too. The government must necessarily allocate to prevent conflicts.Allocate via time, (or some other method) yes. Being able to access a computer or a jet ski or a bowling alley for a certain period of time is better than not being able to access them at all.

That is not the point, if they can't decide, no time limit will force them to decide more quickly, and it could be argued that under the clock, they wil simply go for whatever nonsense will break up the meeting.If the time limit is too low that they are making bad decisions, then it can be changed; I'm not certain of any reason that they couldn't come to a decision unless people are taking too long to speak, a negative decision is still a decision.

That isn't the whole problem and you know it.

If you can only make your theory sound credible by oversimplyfying every problem, your theory is not credible.<shrug> I assumed that that was what you meant. Did you mean the problem is that it's more difficult to run comparisons, or is there a separate problem not mentioned yet?

There is no other basis of comparison.Of course there is; the amount of free time people have is another way; the best system would find an optimum balance between both.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "nobody's perfect". It doesn't refute, or even affect my argument.No, it's saying that making a trade that doesn't benefit the other person, or benefit the other person as much is usually more in your interest than making a mutually beneficial trade.

The prosperous Swedes have a lower standard of living than most Americans, and Sweden can't keep their welfare state inevitably.That depends on how you measure the lower standard of living. For instance, it's true that in 1990, the U.S. had a higher GDP per capita than Sweden. However, the GDP doesn't measure certain things, one of which is referred to as "women's work", the unpaid labor a woman does in her own home. If you were to factor women's work into the per capita amount, Sweden's GDP per capita would be higher. This means that Swedes have more time away from the job than Americans. Is having more time away from the job better? Depends on who you are, I would say that it is.

There is no essential correlation between the attitudes of businessmen, and capitalism, indeed many businessmen actively promote government intervention in the economy. George Soros, for example is a businessman, and a notorious leftoid.I don't know of any businessman who doesn't actively promote government intervention in the economy. If there are any, there are extremely few of them.

Exactly. If they actually wanted to implement communism, they wouldn't have done so.

The key word is they. Why would Lenin trust other movements with communism?

Power struggles don't prove your arguments, they don't even advance them. They are irrelevant.

If the price caps are too restrictive.

No, they do it by their nature.

The free market comes up with an agreement between employer and employee on what the employee's wage shall be. If the employer and the employee agree on the Labor Theory of Value, then it does too.

You are misreading mutualism. Labour Theory of Value holds that an object's value is determined by the labour put into it.

Only if the militia had a monopoly on the legitimate use of force; I don't see why this would be the case.

Then you aren't looking. Militia's tend to either become governments, or are swept aside by others seeking to form governments.

I'm aware of competition, and that a monopoly can form by a firm out-competiting its competitors.

It cannot remain, and that is the point.

No monopoly is worthy unless it can be sustained, and the only way to sustain a monopoly is to use the force of the state.

No, it shows that natural rights don't account for sentience; this is why people form societies with additional rights.

Sentience accounts for natural rights. Societies form because people volunteer to join them. They owe nothing to some "system".

Are you saying that you can't tell if somebody lives in the house next to you without being overly intrusive?

An oversimplification. You've sort of solved housing, but you cannot solve the problem with determining first use of everything without watching everyone.

I disagree.

The fact that you don't understand the most basic operations of the free market would somewhat reduce your credibility in this respect.

Simply because the answers aren't to your liking does not mean I'm not answering the questions.

You've not answered them. Your answers have not even touched the vital points.

Yes, with a group of individuals, as opposed to an individual.

It doesn't make a difference. The individual should have a choice as to with whom he trades. You deny him that.

And I stated that most production would not take place without the allocation of goods, but they are separate steps.

No production can take place without allocation of capital goods, and you've not shown how your system can perform any of the functions of the price system.

And food and clean water.

Neither are abundant.

The allocation of capital goods would take into account how consumer goods are allocated.

You've shown that you can do only that in a highly inefficient manner.

You've still not solved the real problem.

It in and of itself is, but there wouldn't be multiple ways of doing it in the way that there would be of allocating consumer goods

Allocating consumer goods is not the vital point.

If the people in the society feel it is necessary to do such things, they can change the way things are done and see which they like better, or they can observe a neighboring society with different methods of production, etc.

Not even close. Honestly, here's some basic reading: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_1/5_1_1.pdf

You still aren't answering the vital questions.

All of whom need to make money, and can't employ someone if it is isn't profitable for them.

A monopsony isn't a good thing. Telling me that employers need to make a profit doesn't change that.

One per society; since societies would be much smaller than nations are now it would be fairly easy to change societies if need be.

There is no reason to believe that that should be the case.

Your system would positively require an overall central planning mechanism over all the communities.

And likewise any individual follows this same pattern, so it will be in their interests to try to make the maximum number of people happy.

An individual's decisions are not determined by the whims of the majority. He is not forced to seek the cooperation of everyone, just enough people.

Under your system, there is no room for disputing the majority's decision once made.

Allocate via time, (or some other method) yes. Being able to access a computer or a jet ski or a bowling alley for a certain period of time is better than not being able to access them at all.

At least you admit that you advocate state allocation of goods (which necessarily precludes any property rights)

If the time limit is too low that they are making bad decisions, then it can be changed; I'm not certain of any reason that they couldn't come to a decision unless people are taking too long to speak, a negative decision is still a decision.

In that case, the only decision they will make firmly is the decision to adjourn further discussion until tomorrow.

Did you mean the problem is that it's more difficult to run comparisons, or is there a separate problem not mentioned yet?

It is impossible to make relative comparisons between different allocations of capital goods without the price system.

Of course there is; the amount of free time people have is another way; the best system would find an optimum balance between both.

You might have some insight on the economic affairs of a family, but you are not even coming close to what you need to answer.

I'm not going to join the dots for you, this is your theory, you have to flesh it out, and show that it is a good theory. What you have produced so far shows that it is nothing more than fanciful hogwash.

That depends on how you measure the lower standard of living. For instance, it's true that in 1990, the U.S. had a higher GDP per capita than Sweden. However, the GDP doesn't measure certain things, one of which is referred to as "women's work", the unpaid labor a woman does in her own home. If you were to factor women's work into the per capita amount, Sweden's GDP per capita would be higher. This means that Swedes have more time away from the job than Americans. Is having more time away from the job better? Depends on who you are, I would say that it is.

They are doing worse than the poorer US States, and the system is already starting to crack under the pressure.

I don't know of any businessman who doesn't actively promote government intervention in the economy. If there are any, there are extremely few of them.

None of which comes close to proving your point.

The key word is they. Why would Lenin trust other movements with communism?Why wouldn't he, if communism was his goal?

Power struggles don't prove your arguments, they don't even advance them. They are irrelevant.If it was simply a power struggle and not an indication of someone's intentions, no.

No, they do it by their nature.There's nothing about the nature of a price cap that says it must be too restrictive.

You are misreading mutualism. Labour Theory of Value holds that an object's value is determined by the labour put into it.Yes, and if everyone in the cooperative holds to the Labor Theory of Value, then this is the same as everyone coming to an agreement in a cooperative in a free market system.

Then you aren't looking. Militia's tend to either become governments, or are swept aside by others seeking to form governments.Yes, they tend to be that way, but aren't inherently.

It cannot remain, and that is the point.

No monopoly is worthy unless it can be sustained, and the only way to sustain a monopoly is to use the force of the state.I see no reason why a company couldn't consistently outperform its competitors via lower prices.

Sentience accounts for natural rights.Only because we couldn't have come up with them without sentience, other than that I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Societies form because people volunteer to join them. They owe nothing to some "system".Of course they do. They volunteer to join them because the society advances their interests. It is in their interests for the society to be maintained as long as it advances their interests. Since it advances their interests, they can, and should, pay for it.

An oversimplification. You've sort of solved housing, but you cannot solve the problem with determining first use of everything without watching everyone.Land seems to be the biggest potential problem; it might be better if everyone writes down a list of everything that they are using, but I don't think this would be necessary, only more expedient.

The fact that you don't understand the most basic operations of the free market would somewhat reduce your credibility in this respect.I do understand the most basic operations of a free market, I simply don't share the reverence for it that you do.

You've not answered them. Your answers have not even touched the vital points.Then you'll need to be more clear on what you consider the vital points to be.

It doesn't make a difference. The individual should have a choice as to with whom he trades. You deny him that.The individual shouldn't need to trade with anyone else, but if he wants to, he is welcome to use his free time to acquire resources and trade them.

No production can take place without allocation of capital goods, and you've not shown how your system can perform any of the functions of the price system.My disagreement with the first point is minor, so I will concede it. As to the second, I fail to see why being able to do a spot on comparison is vital. It might be better in some ways, but certainly not necessary.

Neither are abundant.They are in many places.

You've shown that you can do only that in a highly inefficient manner.But a better manner than the market does.

Allocating consumer goods is not the vital point.Well, I understand what you mean by this, but I feel the need to point out that it is going to be perhaps the most important factor in the allocation of capital goods.

Not even close. Honestly, here's some basic reading: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_1/5_1_1.pdf

You still aren't answering the vital questions.Ah, Mises. Well, I suppose I'll be forced to read this one and hopefully from it figure out what you feel are the vital questions.

A monopsony isn't a good thing. Telling me that employers need to make a profit doesn't change that.Simply because the amount of employers is not sufficiently few to be a monopsony does not mean they don't share similar characteristics.

There is no reason to believe that that should be the case.True, there could be differening reasons why there are several communities, economic differences don't have to be one of them.

Your system would positively require an overall central planning mechanism over all the communities.It may be that they might decide to form a confederacy, but I don't see why the communities sharing information means that they both have to be planned by the same group.

An individual's decisions are not determined by the whims of the majority. He is not forced to seek the cooperation of everyone, just enough people.

Under your system, there is no room for disputing the majority's decision once made.Sure there is, new information could come up, which would possibly give the majority a reason to reconsider their decision.

At least you admit that you advocate state allocation of goods (which necessarily precludes any property rights)That isn't a state allocation of goods, there's nothing there that says you are forever banned from using something.

In that case, the only decision they will make firmly is the decision to adjourn further discussion until tomorrow.I disagree; if people are repeating themselves they will take note of this and on that basis call the question. Are you familiar with Robert's Rules of Order?

It is impossible to make relative comparisons between different allocations of capital goods without the price system.At the same instant, no, but one allocation can be made, taken note of, then it can be changed.

You might have some insight on the economic affairs of a family, but you are not even coming close to what you need to answer.

I'm not going to join the dots for you, this is your theory, you have to flesh it out, and show that it is a good theory. What you have produced so far shows that it is nothing more than fanciful hogwash.It's more than enough fleshed out for me, you'll need to be more clear on what you need me to answer.

They are doing worse than the poorer US States, and the system is already starting to crack under the pressure.I'm not going to dispute the second part, but do you have evidence of the first?

None of which comes close to proving your point.That all or nearly all businessmen want the government to intervene isn't strong evidence that capitalism won't last long without government intervention?

Why wouldn't he, if communism was his goal?

How would he know communism was their goal?

If it was simply a power struggle and not an indication of someone's intentions, no.

All you've said is that he knocked off another communist movement. He also had knocked off any other alternative to the Bolsheviks.

Anyway, it doesn't prove anything about their intentions, or policies.

Yes, and if everyone in the cooperative holds to the Labor Theory of Value, then this is the same as everyone coming to an agreement in a cooperative in a free market system.

No, it isn't. There is no reason for them too, and if they can make that determination, then the pricing system is subjective.

The labour theory of value is not dependent on agreement of others. It is entirely independent.

Yes, they tend to be that way, but aren't inherently.

Nonsense.

I see no reason why a company couldn't consistently outperform its competitors via lower prices.

It depends on the company, but as soon as any other company comes along with a better idea, they will move into the market.

Only because we couldn't have come up with them without sentience, other than that I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Our rights are inherient in our nature.

Land seems to be the biggest potential problem; it might be better if everyone writes down a list of everything that they are using, but I don't think this would be necessary, only more expedient.

No, such lists could not be confirmed without surveillence.

I do understand the most basic operations of a free market, I simply don't share the reverence for it that you do.

Yet you don't understand the price system.

The individual shouldn't need to trade with anyone else, but if he wants to, he is welcome to use his free time to acquire resources and trade them.

No, in your system he is forced to sell to and buy from the state, and only the state.

It is better for an individual to trade with others. You could not produce all of your needs yourself, and if you tried, you wold do a pretty lousy job. You certainly could not have the (relatively) good standard of living you have now. Specialisation, and the division of labour are essential.

As to the second, I fail to see why being able to do a spot on comparison is vital. It might be better in some ways, but certainly not necessary.

The fact that all resources (with the possible exception of air) are scarce makes it necessary.

They are in many places.

Drinkable water covers less than 1% of the Earth's surface. That food is abundant in some areas is not relevant, it is still a scarce resource, especially in the most usable forms.

But a better manner than the market does.

In fact, you've not shown that. You made the statement that it does, but since you've come nowhere near solving the fundamental problem, you've not shown it.

Simply because the amount of employers is not sufficiently few to be a monopsony does not mean they don't share similar characteristics.

Yes it does. Monospony means one (hence mono), since he is the only buyer, he can set the prices because the sellers must sell.

True, there could be differening reasons why there are several communities, economic differences don't have to be one of them.

No.

It may be that they might decide to form a confederacy, but I don't see why the communities sharing information means that they both have to be planned by the same group.

A confederacy would not work. You would need a centralised state to achieve any allocation of capital goods.

Sure there is, new information could come up, which would possibly give the majority a reason to reconsider their decision.

No, he is still a slave to the majority. That majority might be benevolent enough to consider other factors, but there is no reason for this to be the case.

That isn't a state allocation of goods, there's nothing there that says you are forever banned from using something.

The majority can say it (if, as you say that can make a decision), and it is state allocation of goods. It might be a nicer type from your perspective, but it is still state allocation.

I disagree; if people are repeating themselves they will take note of this and on that basis call the question. Are you familiar with Robert's Rules of Order?

Why said they'd be repeating themselves?

At the same instant, no, but one allocation can be made, taken note of, then it can be changed.

It might be changed, but to what? You would be back at square one, with no real way to determine the best way, except by trying all the others first.

It's more than enough fleshed out for me, you'll need to be more clear on what you need me to answer.

Of course your faith is fleshed out enough for you. You've made some basic answers, but they do not show what you want them to show (namely that they are better than a free market). From what you've said, everything about your system is either unworkable, or much worse than a free market. You've not really shown that it will follow consumer preference, you've not shown that the incentives in a free market are adequately replaced, you've not shown that an individual is more free under your system (in fact your only answer to this point is to tell me that an individual owns himself to the state, this is a non-answer). You've not shown that your system can make relative comparisons between different goods and services in different amounts (which begs a question after your above answer, how could the allocation be made in the first place with any assurance that it would be any good?).

I'm not going to dispute the second part, but do you have evidence of the first?

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

Go to Page 14, you'll see a graph. If Sweden were a US State, it would be 6th from the bottom in terms of GDP per capita. Between Alabama, and Oklahoma.

On Page 12, a graph shows that had the US economy been frozen in 2000, and the EU states grown at their rates predicted then (which are optimistic compared with now), Sweden would not catch up with the US until 2022.

Page 15 shows that private consumption in the US is much higher than in Sweden (about double in dollar terms)

Retail sales are much higher too.

A good measure can be found on Page 17. It compares the percentages of houses with certain appliances in them.

Just a few examples:

Clotheswashers: US-90%, Sweden-72%
Microwave: US-86%, Sweden-37%
Clothes dryer: US-82%, Sweden-18%

The US has the highest in everything except Phones/100ppl, and Cell Phones/1000ppl.

Page 24 has relative dwelling space, for the US poor in 1993, the average was 1228sq/ft for 2.8 people. The US average was 1875sq/ft for 2.6. Sweden had 966.2 for 2.1 people.

That all or nearly all businessmen want the government to intervene isn't strong evidence that capitalism won't last long without government intervention?

No, because they all operate in mixed economies.

Now that the New Left has abandoned its earlier loose, flexible non-ideological stance, two ideologies have been adopted as guiding theoretical positions by New Leftists: Marxism-Stalinism, and anarcho-communism.

Marxism-Stalinism has unfortunately conquered SDS, but anarcho-communism has attracted many leftists who are looking for a way out of the bureaucratic and statist tyranny that has marked the Stalinist road.

And many libertarians, who are looking for forms of action and for allies in such actions, have become attracted by an anarchist creed which seemingly exalts the voluntary way and calls for the abolition of the coercive State.

It is fatal, however, to abandon and lose sight of one's own principles in the quest for allies in specific tactical actions.

Anarcho-communism, both in its original Bakunin-Kropotkin form and its current irrationalist and "post-scarcity" variety, is poles apart from genuine libertarian principle.

If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property;

Well - this was as far as I got into it, before I found something that couldn't just be argued away as 'opinion'.

The 'author' claims to be representing the platform of one of the protagonist parties... but, actually misrepresents it.

Anything building on this assumption MUST, therefore, be flawed.


There are probably any number of reasons why the assertion is false... but the one that instantly springs to mind, is the simple fact that anarcho-communism doesn't require ALL property to be collective, at all.

For example - an anarcho-communist society COULD have areas that are 'exempted'... the anarcho- being more important than the -communist.

There is no reason why a dul model shouldn't exist - with the means of production in the 'communist' quarters being owned by the producing agents in the 'communist' quarters... and with the means of production in separate 'capitalist' quarters being owned privately.

Private property arises necessarily from self-ownership, and man's interaction with nature. The lack of private property is the necessary condition of slavery.

What a Eurocentric viewpoint.

So my people were slaves, liberated by the colonisers who then divvied up the land amongst themselves? Wow. Thank goodness I'm free now.

You have to accept it because it's reality and you won't have the support to change that in any predominantly middle class society, as most people have a bit more than "personal property".


It isn't the only reality. A counter-example to this is the Reservations, and the newly recognised Aboriginal Territories within Canada. There is no private property, it is communal. And it works just fine.

There have only been one or two other somewhat large-scale attempts at communism, such as the Zapatistas in Mexico.

I just want to point out that the descriptor of 'communism' can not be accurately applied to aboriginal systems of government and communal ownership. 'Communalism' is a more apt term, as it is shaped by tradition, and not by Marxist theory.

How would he know communism was their goal?

All you've said is that he knocked off another communist movement. He also had knocked off any other alternative to the Bolsheviks.

Anyway, it doesn't prove anything about their intentions, or policies.Most of those other alternatives were not communist alternatives. It is theoretically possible that he was ignorant enough to not know that they were also communists, but I find the idea highly unlikely.

No, it isn't. There is no reason for them too, and if they can make that determination, then the pricing system is subjective.

The labour theory of value is not dependent on agreement of others. It is entirely independent.But to apply the theory to reality is dependant upon the agreement of others.

Nonsense.You've even conceded that a price cap could work if the government was moderate enough in the setting of it, even if such an arrangement wouldn't be "optimal".

It depends on the company, but as soon as any other company comes along with a better idea, they will move into the market.But without patents (government enforcement of a monopoly on an idea) the previous company can simply implement the idea that the other company came up with.

Our rights are inherient in our nature.Not at all, there are natural rights, and there are additional rights that society usually grants. Sometimes these additional rights take the form of ownership, but ownership does not and cannot come from natural rights.

No, such lists could not be confirmed without surveillence.I disagree, the lists wouldn't need to include what's in someone's house, it would only need to include the things outside of the house. Things that could be easily seen by a neighbor who isn't particularly nosy.

Yet you don't understand the price system.I do understand the price system.

No, in your system he is forced to sell to and buy from the state, and only the state.Not at all, I've already allowed for trading between individuals, though as I said, I have a dislike of such a thing.

It is better for an individual to trade with others. You could not produce all of your needs yourself, and if you tried, you wold do a pretty lousy job. You certainly could not have the (relatively) good standard of living you have now. Specialisation, and the division of labour are essential.Which is why they would be trading with the state, because they cannot produce all of their needs themselves.

The fact that all resources (with the possible exception of air) are scarce makes it necessary.Bad investments are made even with a price system, I don't see why a bad investment without a price system means that the other system must be unworkable.

Drinkable water covers less than 1% of the Earth's surface. That food is abundant in some areas is not relevant, it is still a scarce resource, especially in the most usable forms.Water can be cleaned and purified into drinking water. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, it's hardly scarce.

In fact, you've not shown that. You made the statement that it does, but since you've come nowhere near solving the fundamental problem, you've not shown it.I've shown it's better about as well as you've shown that the free market is better simply because it's efficient.

Yes it does. Monospony means one (hence mono), since he is the only buyer, he can set the prices because the sellers must sell.Yes, I know that mono means one, however there are few enough buyers of labor that they can set the prices because the sellers must sell. (Hence having some of the characteristics of a monopsony without being one.)

A confederacy would not work. You would need a centralised state to achieve any allocation of capital goods.Each society would allocate its own capital goods.

No, he is still a slave to the majority. That majority might be benevolent enough to consider other factors, but there is no reason for this to be the case.That if they aren't benevolent enough to consider other factors is reason enough; if need be the consideration of other factors can be mandated in a Constitution.

The majority can say it (if, as you say that can make a decision), and it is state allocation of goods. It might be a nicer type from your perspective, but it is still state allocation.Of capital goods, it is a state allocation, but not of consumer goods.

Why said they'd be repeating themselves?There's only so much on one particular issue that can be said.

It might be changed, but to what? You would be back at square one, with no real way to determine the best way, except by trying all the others first.One can learn from trial and error in future trials.

Of course your faith is fleshed out enough for you. You've made some basic answers, but they do not show what you want them to showAh. Yes, I think this is true, for both of us.

(namely that they are better than a free market). From what you've said, everything about your system is either unworkable, or much worse than a free market. You've not really shown that it will follow consumer preference, Of course it will, and will need to follow the preferences of more consumers than any individual company that can exist simply by satisfying 1 or 2% of the population.

you've not shown that the incentives in a free market are adequately replaced, I'm not convinced that those incentives are necessary or inherent enough to humanity to need to be replaced.

you've not shown that an individual is more free under your system (in fact your only answer to this point is to tell me that an individual owns himself to the state, this is a non-answer). Having access to everything that the society produces is having more freedom than not having access. Take, for example, the computer. The typical argument against restrictions on computer ownership is that computer ownership enables people to criticize their systems and their governments, etc., so it furthers their right to free speech, thus making them less free if computer ownership is banned. The same applies here; since everyone has access to the computers, they all have an equal ability to criticize the system they live in as opposed to people in a capitalist system who wouldn't all own computers.

You've not shown that your system can make relative comparisons between different goods and services in different amounts They can, just usually not at the same time.

(which begs a question after your above answer, how could the allocation be made in the first place with any assurance that it would be any good?).There are never assurances that any allocation of capital goods will be any good, just higher or lower probabilities.

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf

Go to Page 14, you'll see a graph. If Sweden were a US State, it would be 6th from the bottom in terms of GDP per capita. Between Alabama, and Oklahoma.

On Page 12, a graph shows that had the US economy been frozen in 2000, and the EU states grown at their rates predicted then (which are optimistic compared with now), Sweden would not catch up with the US until 2022.

Page 15 shows that private consumption in the US is much higher than in Sweden (about double in dollar terms)

Retail sales are much higher too.

A good measure can be found on Page 17. It compares the percentages of houses with certain appliances in them.

Just a few examples:

Clotheswashers: US-90%, Sweden-72%
Microwave: US-86%, Sweden-37%
Clothes dryer: US-82%, Sweden-18%

The US has the highest in everything except Phones/100ppl, and Cell Phones/1000ppl.

Page 24 has relative dwelling space, for the US poor in 1993, the average was 1228sq/ft for 2.8 people. The US average was 1875sq/ft for 2.6. Sweden had 966.2 for 2.1 people.Ah, thank you, I will have to check this site out, also.

No, because they all operate in mixed economies.Hm. Are you saying that the natures of businessmen will change if they are in different economies?

I just want to point out that the descriptor of 'communism' can not be accurately applied to aboriginal systems of government and communal ownership. 'Communalism' is a more apt term, as it is shaped by tradition, and not by Marxist theory.You might be right that communalism is a better term, however not all forms of communism are shaped by Marxist theory. I, for one, would say that communalism is a form of communism. I don't have a problem with using communalism, though.

Long live reason.

I think the orignal poster was truly rational even if his assumptions of facts
and his take of that fact were incorrect.

Planned economy doesn't work and communist group pressure would robbus form our integrity.
But is anarchy the same as comunism?
That feels unfair.

Isn't socialism more accurate?
Isn't the only point with Anarchism to be an individualistic socialism
that allows just what comunism doesn't?
Isn't the point to remove the big central flaw?
Group pressure.

I agree with most of what he said yet I somewhat sympathize with anarchism.

Though I agree that I think many of the pro-anarchy posters where irrational
and irelevant.

However all anarchism is not comnistic, right. It's the comunistic side I dislike.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is more appealing to me

The idea of living in not comunities sharing everything in eqauly is horrible.

But if syndicates just had hierachies in them with some sort of
socialy voluntary reward.
The syndicates should be like working places but totally autonomous
and there fore more just.

Syndicates should be specialized and exchange products according to social ability and not law.

Break up society in Syndicates without any real goverment
elected or otherwise.

No state also appeals to me. I think its very liberal though.
Law is for the weak.
All authority is bad.

I am not really anarchist but right wing liberal-anarchist.
It depend on who accept me with their semanics.

However all anarchism is not comnistic, right. It's the comunistic side I dislike.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is more appealing to me Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarcho-communism.

You might be right that communalism is a better term, however not all forms of communism are shaped by Marxist theory. I, for one, would say that communalism is a form of communism. I don't have a problem with using communalism, though.
Mmmm, for us it's an issue of not wanting people to deliberately, or accidentally misrepresent what our traditional system of organisation is based on. Since 'communalism' hasn't developed the same sort of knee-jerk positive or negative connotation, and usually has to be explained, we better avoid that misrepresentation. ;)

Mmmm, for us it's an issue of not wanting people to deliberately, or accidentally misrepresent what our traditional system of organisation is based on. Since 'communalism' hasn't developed the same sort of knee-jerk positive or negative connotation, and usually has to be explained, we better avoid that misrepresentation. ;)Ah, I see. That's probably better, I may start to use that word myself, I know how many people on these forums have knee-jerk reactions when I say I am an anarchist or a communist.

Your an anichist waaargggaggagga!;)

Most of those other alternatives were not communist alternatives. It is theoretically possible that he was ignorant enough to not know that they were also communists, but I find the idea highly unlikely.

That he removed both non-communist alternatives, and communist alternatives shows a consistancy, he removed the alternatives.

But to apply the theory to reality is dependant upon the agreement of others.

No it isn't. All it requires is price controls.

Once we get to needing the agreement of others, we necessarily get into marginal utility.

You've even conceded that a price cap could work if the government was moderate enough in the setting of it, even if such an arrangement wouldn't be "optimal".

I've conceded the damage would be slight, but the damage would be done.

I disagree, the lists wouldn't need to include what's in someone's house, it would only need to include the things outside of the house. Things that could be easily seen by a neighbor who isn't particularly nosy.

That is nonsensical. I suppose one could stretch the point as far as furnishings, and a limited range of highly necessary appliances (by which I mean cooking, and washing oneself, and a sink)

But you would need surveillence for anything else, or its placement in public (which amounts to the same thing).

I do understand the price system.

Yet you need its role explained to you.

Which is why they would be trading with the state, because they cannot produce all of their needs themselves.

They are not trading with the state because they see it as being in their best interests, they are trading with the state because they have no other option.

Bad investments are made even with a price system, I don't see why a bad investment without a price system means that the other system must be unworkable.

How would you know, without a price system, if a bad investment had been made?

Also, with a price system, it isa evident quite quickly that a bad investment has been made, and the means and information are available to properly redirect it.

Water can be cleaned and purified into drinking water.

That is technically feasible. Whether or not it is economically feasible is something your system could never work out (unless we take a reductio ad absurdum of a totally isolated desert).

I've shown it's better about as well as you've shown that the free market is better simply because it's efficient.

Actually, you've not shown it at all.

Yes, I know that mono means one, however there are few enough buyers of labor that they can set the prices because the sellers must sell. (Hence having some of the characteristics of a monopsony without being one.)

You are (unjustifiably) assuming cartelisation. There are hundreds of potential buyers out there.

Each society would allocate its own capital goods.

Since each community (you admitted each community would be smaller than current nation states) would not have in abundance all the capital goods necessary (and it is simply not possible for this to happen, unless you reduce the standard of living to "caveman" levels), this is not workable.

That if they aren't benevolent enough to consider other factors is reason enough; if need be the consideration of other factors can be mandated in a Constitution.

I stopped reading at "benevolent", you lost all credibility there, because the "mob" is not benevolent.

Of capital goods, it is a state allocation, but not of consumer goods.

Actually, you have been saying that the state would allocate consumer goods (timesharing, or something like that)

There's only so much on one particular issue that can be said.

Not in committees.

One can learn from trial and error in future trials.

The problem is more fundamental. Without profit and loss calculations, one could not find out which is better.

Ah. Yes, I think this is true, for both of us.

Except that I can answer the questions and you can't.

Of course it will, and will need to follow the preferences of more consumers than any individual company that can exist simply by satisfying 1 or 2% of the population.

It would not satisfy the preferences of consumers, it would only produce what the majority voted to produce. There is no room for 50% - 1, they must accept what 50% + 1 have chosen.

In a free market, all consumers, regardless of preference can be satisfied.

Having access to everything that the society produces is having more freedom than not having access.

There is no guarantee, only a revokable promise of a majority.

Private property rights are a guarantee of access to one's property.

They can, just usually not at the same time.

You cannot compare a shipment of labour saving widgets with fifteen hundred manhours except through the price system.

There are never assurances that any allocation of capital goods will be any good, just higher or lower probabilities.

Without a price system, there are no numbers to compare.

Hm. Are you saying that the natures of businessmen will change if they are in different economies?

I should have thought it self-evident that people tend to adapr themselves to a particular environment.

But without patents (government enforcement of a monopoly on an idea) the previous company can simply implement the idea that the other company came up with.

Firstly, the theory of competition you have adopted is essentially false. Many firms does not equal competition, and the only way have have a monopoly is through government privilege.

Competition is a dynamic process which is meant to find the best way to do things. It is meant to provide consumers with the lowest prices for the best goods with the most consistant service.

There is not a single historical case of a firm employing "predatory pricing" to gain hold over a market, only to massively raise prices in order to profit afterwards.

The idea of doing it is idiotic. No investor is going to go for a scheme in which he loses money for years (decades potentially, Wal-Mart has been around since the 1960's) just so he may be able to profit at some unspecified time afterwards.

The other problem is what happens to the competitors, obviously they are driven out of business, but their facilities and plant are not destroyed, their former-employees are not marched out and shot. Another thing is that since the value of these former competitors would have been largely destroyed, the facilities and plant would be going cheap, and the former-employees, experiences and skilled, would be ready to be hired by a new firm. After prices rise again, the increased profits will drive investment into new companies, or the old company again.

Here is a passage frim the wiki about another problem with predatory pricing:

Critics of the predatory pricing theory support their case empirically by arguing that there has been no instance where such a practice has led to a monopoly. Conversely, they argue that there is much evidence that predatory pricing has failed miserably. For example, Herbert Dow not only found a cheaper way to produce bromine, but he defeated a predatory pricing attempt by a government-supported German cartel, Bromkonvention, who objected to his selling in Germany at a lower price. Bromkonvention retaliated by flooding the US market with below-cost bromine, at an even lower price than Dow's. But Dow simply instructed his agents to buy up at the very low price, then sell it back in Germany at a profit but still lower than Bromkonvention's price. In the end, the cartel could not keep up selling below cost, and had to give in.[3] (http://fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4028)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing