NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't get this crap off my head. Not only does it sound like it could work (like several forced economic systems), but further, it sounds as if it is the next natural progression of our socio-political and economic structure(and as such, far more realistic than 'forced' systems which 'could' work). I'm not even anouncing my support for the bloody concept. It just seems inevitable. Let me outline the basics of Anarcho-Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism). The idea is that all of the functions and services of governments would be handled by private companies in a free-market competition. Why do I think this is possible? Because a government is no different to a company, it is just an oversized innefficient company which maintaincs a forced market monopoly.

Here's how i think society will naturally progress to Anarcho-capitalism. The first step in the path to anarcho-capitalism will be when most people start keeping their life savings in private stock. Seriously, it's smarter. If you keep your savings in currency you have to pay fees, but if you keep it in stock, your money should grow in comparative value, and you get dividends. Besides, money is just shares in the government. The next step will be when you can buy things with shares. Maybe any company's shares, or maybe only a few finance corporation's shares (like Visa, Amex, Mastercard). It will bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "Do you take Amex?". If this happens, countries should lose power as people stop using their 'shares' (local currency), meanwhile corporate enterprises should absorb this loss. Keep in mind, at any point, a fundamentalist reactionary political movement will stop this process and make everyone a lot less free and wealthy.

Now the next step would be Companies which offer the same services the government does, but better. Things like hospitals, schools, telecomms, water supply, and more would be the first to be privatised. Next comes gaols and the police force. As each one of these things become private, the government loses power, and the corporations absorb this power. Finally, the government would sell off sovereign land to the richest corporations to raise funds.

Sovereignity of land is important, as it is technically it's own country, and not subject to the laws of the country in which it is found. Once you are on soveriegn land, you don't need to pay tax.As soon as the government sold a square metre of soveriegn land, demand for it would go crazy. When there is a demand that hot, the prices will go through the roof. The government won't be able to resist. They will begin selling this land for billions, then eventually for millions. Once this happens, people will have a choice; pay tax for government services on government land, or pay less tax for essential services on private land.. Most will move on to private land, later on they might buy the sovereignity of the land on which they live. Once this happens, all services, even essential ones, will be provided on a user pays basis. Then voila, Anarcho-capitalism.

The government might continue if it starts operating like a company, but more likely it will end up bankrupt, or operating as a charity for the underprivelidged members of society relying on donations. In the final stages, the government will sell off it's military equipment to the richest corporations, and make the military redundant. They would probably sell the justice system too, seeing as most of it is on soveriegn territory. It just be a club.

The implications of such a society are endless. The wealth divide would be incredible. You'd have some individuals who could buy the moon, and they will. Meanwhile you'll have people who will likely starve without a job, but at the same time jobs will be plenty. The role of social security would be filled by charities. The people who will have it the worst will be those with disabilites. They will be entirely at the mercy of a compassionless society. But the unfortunate minority aside, the majority of people will be richer than ever. Technological progress will skyrocket.

Power within society will be decentralised. Instead of several hundred countries, you'll have countless companies. Democracy will probably vanish to be replaced by meritocracy (irrelevant anyway, seeing as you are totally free). It would be a very interesting society. In ways it will be spectacular, in others it will be terrible. However, on the whole it will be a better society.Certainly much more progressive, and thats what it is all about, is it not? Progress.

Why do I think this is possible? Because a government is no different to a company, it is just an oversized innefficient company which maintaincs a forced market monopoly.


Anyone who has worked in the inefficient, dehumanzing corporate bureaucracy knows that corporations aren't necessarily more efficient than government. They are just better externalizers.

I can't get this crap off my head. Not only does it sound like it could work, but further, itsounds as if it is the next natural progression of our socio-political and economic structure. I'm not even anouncing my support for the bloody concept. It just seems inevitable. Let me outline the basics of Anarcho-Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism). The idea is that all of the functions and services of governments would be handled by private companies in a free-market competition. Why do I think this is possible? Because a government is no different to a company, it is just an oversized innefficient company which maintaincs a forced market monopoly.

Here's how i think society will naturally progress to Anarcho-capitalism. The first step in the path to anarcho-capitalism will be when most people start keeping their life savings in private stock. Seriously, it's smarter. If you keep your savings in currency you have to pay fees, but if you keep it in stock, your money should grow in comparative value, and you get dividends. Besides, money is just shares in the government. The next step will be when you can buy things with shares. Maybe any company's shares, or maybe only a few finance corporation's shares (like Visa, Amex, Mastercard). It will bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "Do you take Amex?". If this happens, countries should lose power as people stop using their 'shares' (local currency), meanwhile corporate enterprises should absorb this loss. Keep in mind, at any point, a fundamentalist reactionary political movement will stop this process and make everyone a lot less free and wealthy.

Now the next step would be Companies which offer the same services the government does, but better. Things like hospitals, schools, telecomms, water supply, and more would be the first to be privatised. Next comes gaols and the police force. As each one of these things become private, the government loses power, and the corporations absorb this power. Finally, the government would sell off sovereign land to the richest corporations to raise funds.

Sovereignity of land is important, as it is technically it's own country, and not subject to the laws of the country in which it is found. Once you are on soveriegn land, you don't need to pay tax.As soon as the government sold a square metre of soveriegn land, demand for it would go crazy. When there is a demand that hot, the prices will go through the roof. The government won't be able to resist. They will begin selling this land for billions, then eventually for millions. Once this happens, people will have a choice; pay tax for government services on government land, or pay less tax for essential services on private land.. Most will move on to private land, later on they might buy the sovereignity of the land on which they live. Once this happens, all services, even essential ones, will be provided on a user pays basis. Then voila, Anarcho-capitalism.

The government might continue if it starts operating like a company, but more likely it will end up bankrupt, or operating as a charity for the underprivelidged members of society relying on donations. In the final stages, the government will sell off it's military equipment to the richest corporations, and make the military redundant. They would probably sell the justice system too, seeing as most of it is on soveriegn territory. It just be a club.

The implications of such a society are endless. The wealth divide would be incredible. You'd have some individuals who could buy the moon, and they will. Meanwhile you'll have people who will likely starve without a job, but at the same time jobs will be plenty. The role of social security would be filled by charities. The people who will have it the worst will be those with disabilites. They will be entirely at the mercy of a compassionless society. But the unfortunate minority aside, the majority of people will be richer than ever. Technological progress will skyrocket.

Power within society will be decentralised. Instead of several hundred countries, you'll have countless companies. Democracy will probably vanish to be replaced by meritocracy (irrelevant anyway, seeing as you are totally free). It would be a very interesting society. In ways it will be spectacular, in others it will be terrible. However, on the whole it will be a better society.Certainly much more progressive, and thats what it is all about, is it not? Progress.

And then your precious little system degenerates into competing private states that consolidate into a Stalinist nightmare. Human decency is replaced with kill-or-be killed law of the jungle. What a wonderful system.

I think a Noam Chomsky quote is relevant.

"Consider, for example, the 'entitlement theory of justice'. . . [a]ccording to this theory, a person has a right to whatever he has acquired by means that are just. If, by luck or labour or ingenuity, a person acquires such and such, then he is entitled to keep it and dispose of it as he wills, and a just society will not infringe on this right.
"One can easily determine where such a principle might lead. It is entirely possible that by legitimate means - say, luck supplemented by contractual arrangements 'freely undertaken' under pressure of need - one person might gain control of the necessities of life. Others are then free to sell themselves to this person as slaves, if he is willing to accept them. Otherwise, they are free to perish. Without extra question-begging conditions, the society is just.

"The argument has all the merits of a proof that 2 + 2 = 5. . . Suppose that some concept of a 'just society' is advanced that fails to characterise the situation just described as unjust. . . Then one of two conclusions is in order. We may conclude that the concept is simply unimportant and of no interest as a guide to thought or action, since it fails to apply properly even in such an elementary case as this. Or we may conclude that the concept advanced is to be dismissed in that it fails to correspond to the pretheorectical notion that it intends to capture in clear cases. If our intuitive concept of justice is clear enough to rule social arrangements of the sort described as grossly unjust, then the sole interest of a demonstration that this outcome might be 'just' under a given 'theory of justice' lies in the inference by reductio ad absurdum to the conclusion that the theory is hopelessly inadequate. While it may capture some partial intuition regarding justice, it evidently neglects others.

"The real question to be raised about theories that fail so completely to capture the concept of justice in its significant and intuitive sense is why they arouse such interest. Why are they not simply dismissed out of hand on the grounds of this failure, which is striking in clear cases? Perhaps the answer is, in part, the one given by Edward Greenberg in a discussion of some recent work on the entitlement theory of justice. After reviewing empirical and conceptual shortcomings, he observes that such work 'plays an important function in the process of . . . 'blaming the victim,' and of protecting property against egalitarian onslaughts by various non-propertied groups.' An ideological defence of privileges, exploitation, and private power will be welcomed, regardless of its merits.

"These matters are of no small importance to poor and oppressed people here and elsewhere." [The Chomsky Reader, pp. 187-188]

Anarcho-capitalism is woefully inadeaquate because it only deals with freedom from public state coercion. It simply replaces the public state with a number of competing private states, which own the means of production and have absolute right to its produce. The system of property oligachy is enforced by private defense firms, which are armies for hire that do the bidding of whoever pays the most. At this point we, have tyranny by property, and Stalinism all over again.

I don't believe Capitalism can exist without the state, which is the defining charactersitic of anarchism.

In essence, the state defines the parameters under which market forces work. The state decides the currency, enforces the law, etc.

In an 'anarcho-capitalist' scenario, there is no over-ruling authority to set the standard for trade, or to rule against large economic groups. These large economic groups would enforce their position through firepower, like states before them, and thus you wouldn't be in anarchy anymore, the large economic groups would become the new 'states', determining the method of currency, dictating market decisions, etc.

Let me rephrase it; Capitalism can exist outside the state, or at an international level, but the idea of capitalism existing in a world without state authority to correct it or support it, is unlikely.

The idea of anarchism is to get away from coercive forces. Unrestrained capitalism would lead to further coercion the moment the groups with more money feel the need to keep their position through force of arms.

I don't believe Capitalism can exist without the state, which is the defining charactersitic of anarchism.

In essence, the state defines the parameters under which market forces work. The state decides the currency, enforces the law, etc.

In an 'anarcho-capitalist' scenario, there is no over-ruling authority to set the standard for trade, or to rule against large economic groups. These large economic groups would enforce their position through firepower, like states before them, and thus you wouldn't be in anarchy anymore, the large economic groups would become the new 'states', determining the method of currency, dictating market decisions, etc.

Let me rephrase it; Capitalism can exist outside the state, or at an international level, but the idea of capitalism existing in a world without state authority to correct it or support it, is unlikely.

The idea of anarchism is to get away from coercive forces. Unrestrained capitalism would lead to further coercion the moment the groups with more money feel the need to keep their position through force of arms.

Exactly. The "free market" is not the absence of rules. It is a marketplace that is carefully structured by rules.

Anyone who has worked in the inefficient, dehumanzing corporate bureaucracy knows that corporations aren't necessarily more efficient than government. They are just better externalizers.

Amen. Being on the receiving end of said dehumanizing bureacracy isn't fun, either.

The state is too entrenched for it to wither away. We'll have to deal with the bugger forever, no matter what any anarchist says.

The state is too entrenched for it to wither away. We'll have to deal with the bugger forever, no matter what any anarchist says.

I dunno. Theoretically, technology may advance to the point where all of our basic needs and wants are met. We would still need an organizing body to keep it all in place, but the idea of a marketplace might become obsolete if becomes very easy to create whatever we need.

EDIT: Wait; I see you were talking about the state being entrenched, and not capitalism. My bad.

The state is too entrenched for it to wither away. We'll have to deal with the bugger forever, no matter what any anarchist says.

Human institutions tend to be a whole lot more fragile than they appear; history has shown that often those meant to endure forever have instead collapsed catastrophically (or miraculously).

I forsee any truly anarchist and capitalist system eventually being taken over by angry workers and progressing into stateless communism, so, I'm not sure if I'm opposed or in favour.

I forsee any truly anarchist and capitalist system eventually being taken over by angry workers and progressing into stateless communism, so, I'm not sure if I'm opposed or in favour.

I don't think you'll have to worry about it anytime soon. I forsee any truly anarchist and capitalist system not being in existence for the next few millenia. ;)

I forsee any truly anarchist and capitalist system eventually being taken over by angry workers and progressing into stateless communism, so, I'm not sure if I'm opposed or in favour.

I doubt it; the corporations would hire professional killers to destroy any such movement before it got off the ground.

Every gain of the working class would be eroded.

And then your precious little system degenerates into competing private states that consolidate into a Stalinist nightmare. Human decency is replaced with kill-or-be killed law of the jungle. What a wonderful system.
"Human Decency"? I wonder where you're finding this decency of humans, because I'm sure as Hell not finding a lot of it.
Better the law of the jungle than the current set-up of herd animals and a few shepherds/butchers moving everyone else about.

I don't believe Capitalism can exist without the state, which is the defining charactersitic of anarchism.

In essence, the state defines the parameters under which market forces work. The state decides the currency, enforces the law, etc.

In an 'anarcho-capitalist' scenario, there is no over-ruling authority to set the standard for trade, or to rule against large economic groups. These large economic groups would enforce their position through firepower, like states before them, and thus you wouldn't be in anarchy anymore, the large economic groups would become the new 'states', determining the method of currency, dictating market decisions, etc.

Let me rephrase it; Capitalism can exist outside the state, or at an international level, but the idea of capitalism existing in a world without state authority to correct it or support it, is unlikely.

The idea of anarchism is to get away from coercive forces. Unrestrained capitalism would lead to further coercion the moment the groups with more money feel the need to keep their position through force of arms.

The standard of currency? You mean shares in your government? Which would you prefer? $1,000,000USDs or $1,000,000 shares in mastercard? It's the same thing, just we're entrenched into think of 'money' as somehow different. The standard of trade would be competed by several bigplayers, and countless smaller ones. It would basically go off who offered the best deals for consumers and business, and who was the most widely accepted. I don't see how Capitalism couldn't work in with a stae. Actually, It yaerns to be set free of public rule. Everytime the government brings a corporation into check for some breach you can hear capitalism graoning. Perhaps a good thing, perhaps not. Neverhteless, capitalism was born to destroy the 'commons'.

I doubt it; the corporations would hire professional killers to destroy any such movement before it got off the ground.

Every gain of the working class would be eroded.
What about the respective justice systems these individuals each subscribed to. Surely they would bring them into check, or deter them in the first place. In this society, the only person you can kill without consequences is someone who doesn't subscirbe to a justice system.

I doubt it; the corporations would hire professional killers to destroy any such movement before it got off the ground.

Every gain of the working class would be eroded.
What about the respective justice systems these individuals each subscribed to. Surely they would bring them into check, or deter them in the first place. In this society, the only person you can kill without consequences is someone who doesn't subscirbe to a justice system.

What about the respective justice systems these individuals each subscribed to. Surely they would bring them into check, or deter them in the first place.

Cut off profitable customers because they engage in a little mass murder? What are you, a dirty commie?

In this society, the only person you can kill without consequences is someone who doesn't subscirbe to a justice system.

Who doesn't have enough money to defend herself with her own mercenary army, that is.

Yeah.
I don't like anarchy or capitalism, and I especially don't like the idea of companies owning everything.
Companies have a habit of being evil.
Examples:
Wonderbread.
Coca-Cola.
Microsoft.
Omni-corp.
LMT.
the National Socialist Party.

Yes, Companies are evil, so we must join together, and become the Proletarian elite of the World!
*eye twiches*

Cut off profitable customers because they engage in a little mass murder? What are you, a dirty commie?And then ruin you standing in the market as a corrupt justice system. You'll soon be replaced by a business that know what people want is impartiality and integrity to the extreme when they make their justice subscription.
Who doesn't have enough money to defend herself with her own mercenary army, that is. Oh I dunno, kidnapping one person can always be done, regardless how big the mercenaries are back in the barracks. They're well funded professionals, you know. Either that, or more likely they could just walk into her house and arrest her, arresting any mercenaries who obstruct the process with assisting a fugitive. If she seriously resists she becomes a high profile case. If she has a ginormous mecenary they might hire their own, or come to some kind of settlement. The lengths they will go will all depend on the victims subscription and the wealth of the criminal. Someone with so huge of an army would definitely be worth it.

And then ruin you standing in the market as a corrupt justice system. You'll soon be replaced by a business that know what people want is impartiality and integrity to the extreme when they make their justice subscription.

Why on earth would people want impartiality?

They would seek partiality - in their favor.

Oh I dunno, kidnapping one person can always be done, regardless how big the mercenaries are back in the barracks. They're well funded professionals, you know. Either that, or more likely they could just walk into her house and arrest her, arresting any mercenaries who obstruct the process with assisting a fugitive. If she seriously resists she becomes a high profile case. If she has a ginormous mecenary they might hire their own, or come to some kind of settlement. The lengths they will go will all depend on the victims subscription and the wealth of the criminal. Someone with so huge of an army would definitely be worth it.

But who will provide the wealth necessary to counter the power of the super-wealthy?

Who doesn't have enough money to defend herself with her own mercenary army, that is.
I believe the idea is that the "mercenaries" could be employed to protect an entire group based on subscription. You, and many other members of the community, pay a monthly fee, and then the police have private funding and sanction to hunt down and "remove" troublemakers.

Erm...sounds sort of like that book...what is it called...um...something to do with NS I think...OH YES! Jennifer Government. ;)

I believe the idea is that the "mercenaries" could be employed to protect an entire group based on subscription. You, and many other members of the community, pay a monthly fee, and then the police have private funding and sanction to hunt down and "remove" troublemakers.

The point stands. All the wealthy need to do is bribe the mercenaries into serving them instead of the community.

Erm...sounds sort of like that book...what is it called...um...something to do with NS I think...OH YES! Jennifer Government. ;)

There was actually a Government in the book, as I recall. Whereas, theoretically, there is none in anarcho-capitalism. ;)

I can't get this crap off my head. Not only does it sound like it could work (like several forced economic systems), but further, it sounds as if it is the next natural progression of our socio-political and economic structure(and as such, far more realistic than 'forced' systems which 'could' work).

In this form, I dislike anarcho-capitalism and think it had already happened.

Once the corporations have sovereign territory, they are states. This is feudalism. We would just start over, nothing more. At first they would bind workers with life contracts. Then even worse, slave-like contracts, for more payment. Then more humanistic corporations and movements would take an edge, the labor movement would create labor unions, and so on. All the last centuries again. People would start the fight for their rights from nothing.


A distinctive anarcho-capitalism can only work in a milder form, with governments, central laws, force to prevent corporations from doing whatever they wand, and, definitely, without sovereign land.

Here's how i think society will naturally progress to Anarcho-capitalism.

what crazy sort of marxist thinking is this?

Anarcho-Capitalism.
It sounds more like corporate totalitarianism ... and that seems to be the direction we are headed anyway.

The point stands. All the wealthy need to do is bribe the mercenaries into serving them instead of the community.

shit, the super-elite already have access to a greater share of total societal wealth than the bottom 85% combined. and this would only be worse without the minimal egalitarian redistribution found in the welfare state.

two guesses on where all of the money for hired gooning is

It sounds more like corporate totalitarianism ... and that seems to be the direction we are headed anyway.

i.e. fascism, which is so not anarchy in any form.

I think a Noam Chomsky quote is relevant.
Is that grammatically correct? I mean, can those words really be used in that order like that?

I dislike the idea of anarcho-capitalism and think it is impossible. As others have said, private interests would simply gain enough power to effectively be governments.

Not to mention that anarchy, is in and of itself, ridiculous. The state is necessary to maintain order in societies that have grown as large as ours.

Human institutions tend to be a whole lot more fragile than they appear; history has shown that often those meant to endure forever have instead collapsed catastrophically (or miraculously).

Individual institutions will pass, of course, but other institutions will rise to take their place. This is inevitable. Ordnung am ersten.

Even at that, anarcho-capitalism is a utopian pipe dream. Just like every other utopian pipe dream.

It sounds more like corporate totalitarianism ... and that seems to be the direction we are headed anyway.
Could you be any more hyperbolic? Religion has just as great a stranglehold on the average American as corporations, and we will always have elections, no matter how rigged or irrelevant they have or will become.

The standard of currency? You mean shares in your government? Which would you prefer? $1,000,000USDs or $1,000,000 shares in mastercard? It's the same thing, just we're entrenched into think of 'money' as somehow different. The standard of trade would be competed by several bigplayers, and countless smaller ones. It would basically go off who offered the best deals for consumers and business, and who was the most widely accepted. I don't see how Capitalism couldn't work in with a stae. Actually, It yaerns to be set free of public rule. Everytime the government brings a corporation into check for some breach you can hear capitalism graoning. Perhaps a good thing, perhaps not. Neverhteless, capitalism was born to destroy the 'commons'.

?

Currency doesn't mean shares in government. It's a medium of trade; a way around mass barter. The idea that it was created to destroy the commons is rather silly. It was meant to make the lives of the commons easier by easing trade. Rather than making a deal to trade 1000 chickens for 10 cows, with a downpayment of 200 chickens, and 800 once they trade 400 pigs to the neighbouring community first, currency became an agreed medium of trade. Nothing inherently evil in that.

The state became essential in the production of currency because they standardized it, as early as the phoenicians, and it's the public trust in it as a medium of exchange that gives it validity.

Now, it's true that without a 'state' to set currency, the world could return to gold standard, or deal in frequent flyer miles or something. The bottom line, is that the decisions will be made by the large businesses, instead of 'states'. There's nothing advantageous to the consumer when a business can monopolize an essential good, and set prices as they see fit.

'Anarcho-Capitalism' would lead to command economies all over again; the detriment of actual free market economics.

Not to mention that anarchy, is in and of itself, ridiculous. The state is necessary to maintain order in societies that have grown as large as ours.
The beauty of it is that, without the state to support them, the majority of humanity would fall away into the nothingness that they deserve.

Individual institutions will pass, of course, but other institutions will rise to take their place. This is inevitable. Ordnung am ersten.

Sure. Why do those "institutions" need to be states?

Could you be any more hyperbolic? Religion has just as great a stranglehold on the average American as corporations, and we will always have elections, no matter how rigged or irrelevant they have or will become.

I am not just talking about the U.S., but rather on a global scale. I think you have answered your own second point. As for the first point, religion these days seems to be largely invoked as a defence of the very lifestyle that is leading us toward a form of corporate totalitarianism.

Not to mention that anarchy, is in and of itself, ridiculous. The state is necessary to maintain order in societies that have grown as large as ours.

Why is it necessary?

The beauty of it is that, without the state to support them, the majority of humanity would fall away into the nothingness that they deserve.
I am a weak person physically on nearly every level from reflexes to brute strength. Without law and order, my property and my life would surely be forfeit. I do not believe that I deserve that.

Sure. Why do those "institutions" need to be states?

Because of identity politics. People divide themselves naturally, they associate with those they know, those who look like them, those who think like them and those who talk like them. They'll make compacts and agreements, they might not be our modern conception of states at first, espescially after a total, life sucking collapse (e.g. Nuclear war wipes out the entirety of humanity). But the same organizing instinct that developed states in the first place will continue to kick in.

Without a true catastrophe, the state, much as we know it, will continue. It has a monopoly on force, and it's rather benign. It provides what common folk crave, order and regularity. Either that, or it's supported through popular nationalism (e.g. Cuba, North Korea), and while those states will collapse into anarchy sooner or later, pride itself is holding up those states.

I am not just talking about the U.S., but rather on a global scale. I think you have answered your own second point. As for the first point, religion these days seems to be largely invoked as a defence of the very lifestyle that is leading us toward a form of corporate totalitarianism.

Get out your tinfoil hat.

Why is it necessary?
People are animals who will ultimately forgo compassion in favor of pleasure. You need not look past the self-centered state of the affluent parts of the world for evidence of that. A strong central authority with a monopoly on legal violence is the only way to protect the weak. Also, a strong central authority is often the most efficient and nearly always the most effective administrator of various essential services to those that fall under its protection.

I am a weak person physically on nearly every level from reflexes to brute strength. Without law and order, my property and my life would surely be forfeit. I do not believe that I deserve that.
Brute strength and reflexes are the last resort of animals, as a human you also have access to intelligence, planning, invention, and wit, anyone of which can be used to survive without a state backing you.

Get out your tinfoil hat.

:( But it's so shiny ...

Because of identity politics. People divide themselves naturally, they associate with those they know, those who look like them, those who think like them and those who talk like them. They'll make compacts and agreements, they might not be our modern conception of states at first, espescially after a total, life sucking collapse (e.g. Nuclear war wipes out the entirety of humanity). But the same organizing instinct that developed states in the first place will continue to kick in.

Organized political communities are not necessarily states.

States, at least in the anarchist conception ("anarcho"-capitalist nonsense aside) require a ruling body independent of the people.

Without a true catastrophe, the state, much as we know it, will continue. It has a monopoly on force, and it's rather benign. It provides what common folk crave, order and regularity.

"What common folk crave, order and regularity"?

There was "order and regularity" in the life of the slave; when they had the opportunity, many of them nevertheless sacrificed "order and regularity" for freedom.

This condescending contempt for humanity seems to be the essential premise of statism, whatever the variety.

People are animals who will ultimately forgo compassion in favor of pleasure.

Plenty of animals display altruism. Pleasure is not incompatible with compassion.

You need not look past the self-centered state of the affluent parts of the world for evidence of that. A strong central authority with a monopoly on legal violence is the only way to protect the weak.

A "strong central authority," by definition, is not composed of the weak. Would it not follow, according to your logic about the "self-centered state" of humanity, that it would oppress the weak for its own profit?

Also, a strong central authority is often the most efficient and nearly always the most effective administrator of various essential services to those that fall under its protection.

And why would be a more effective administrator than, say, an autonomous commune?

There's nothing advantageous to the consumer when a business can monopolize an essential good, and set prices as they see fit.

... and the difference between what you just said and government doing to same thing is...?

... and the difference between what you just said and government doing to same thing is...?

One is accountable to the people, the other is not.

One is accountable to the people, the other is not.

Since when is the government accountable to the people?

Ok, I'm just offering my own 2-cents here, so please don't attack me too much as I only have a basic grasp of all of this stuff. The way I look at it, is that anarcho-capitalism just wouldn't work. For the very reason that there WOULD be a governing body. The corporations. I just can't see how anarcho-capitalism isn't an oxymoron. No matter how I look at it, if it get's to that point, the corporation(s) become the central government and it is no longer anarchy. And it would more likely than not develop into a corporate police state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_police_state), if only to control the populace and keep their company running. But that's just my opinion.

Since when is the government accountable to the people?

"More accountable," I should have said.

With that adjustment, since we started electing our leaders in government.

Actually, businesses are more accountable to the people than governments. Think about it, a government can use force or the threat of force to get money from people, but businesses have to provide a good or service at a price that the customer wants. Businesses have to listen to people and find out what they want, they have to observe the market signs and react to them efficiently in order to survive, all government has to do is point a gun at them and tell them what to do. Which is more accountable to the people?

Actually, businesses are more accountable to the people than governments.

To certain people, maybe.

Think about it, a government can use force or the threat of force to get money from people, but businesses have to provide a good or service at a price that the customer wants.

So? Again, this (perhaps) makes them accountable to certain consumers; it does not make them accountable to the people.

Businesses have to listen to people and find out what they want, they have to observe the market signs and react to them efficiently in order to survive, all government has to do is point a gun at them and tell them what to do. Which is more accountable to the people?

The one that runs by the principle of "one person, one vote," not "one dollar, one vote."

Yeah.
I don't like anarchy or capitalism, and I especially don't like the idea of companies owning everything.
Companies have a habit of being evil.
Examples:
Wonderbread.
Coca-Cola.
Microsoft.
Omni-corp.
LMT.
the National Socialist Party.

Yes, Companies are evil, so we must join together, and become the Proletarian elite of the World!
*eye twiches*

Crazy prole! Get back to work and quit stirring up trouble.

The beauty of it is that, without the state to support them, the majority of humanity would fall away into the nothingness that they deserve.

Its not a 100% sure thing that you'd survive a stateless world. If you perished you deserved it.

It isn't a dollar a vote, it's a dollar for a product or service. Voting has nothing to do with it. Voting is the majority depriving the individual of his rights.

It isn't a dollar a vote, it's a dollar for a product or service.

And the more you pay, the more you get. Right?

So if I pay a million dollars to a mercenary force in your anarcho-capitalist utopia, I will get a more effective force than someone who can only afford, say, ten thousand dollars in fees.

And because I'm selfish, there is nothing stopping me from making that person my slave.

Voting has nothing to do with it. Voting is the majority depriving the individual of his rights.

Only if autocracy is a "right."

Brute strength and reflexes are the last resort of animals, as a human you also have access to intelligence, planning, invention, and wit, anyone of which can be used to survive without a state backing you.
I fail to see how. If some hick wanted to take my stuff or kill me, there would be nothing I could do to stop them. The world isn’t Home Alone.
Plenty of animals display altruism. Pleasure is not incompatible with compassion.True, but humans are not consistent enough in altruism unless they are forced to be, which there is nothing wrong with, by the way.
A "strong central authority," by definition, is not composed of the weak. Would it not follow, according to your logic about the "self-centered state" of humanity, that it would oppress the weak for its own profit?
All governments ultimately derive their power from the weak, from the people. Any reasonable government knows this and will make concessions. Those that fail to do so, tend not to last long. Even a condescending monarchy is better than lawlessness.
And why would be a more effective administrator than, say, an autonomous commune?
Most people are stupid, far too stupid to see the long term benefits for themselves through utilitarian programs.
If you had a commune made up of maybe a few hundred intelligent people, everything would go fine until someone with more guns came along and enslaved you all, but that is a moot point.
We are not a society of a few hundred intellects. We are a society, nay a world, of billions of ignorant buffoons. Communism, anarcho-capitalism or any idealistic world view-point are wholly unpragmatic, impossible and, if they ever came about, would be disastrous.

Only if autocracy is a "right."
Gay marriage. Right to die. Affirmative Action. These things, which the majority have voted down, these things are part of an autocracy? Not inherently, no. Certain rights are only possible when a strong authority is protecting them from the majority.

The more you pay, the more you get, generally, yes, but not always. There are plenty of businesses that provide better goods at lower prices than that of their competitors: an inevitable product of a capitalist economic system.

However, yes, if you pay ten million dollars for a "mercenary force", you will probably get a better force than me if I only bought a ten thousand dollar force. But, even if you were to use that force, provided they would be so ethically corrupt as to follow such evil orders as you issue, and enslave me, then you would not only be ethically in the wrong, but you would also be having to use more and more money just to keep me from running away or rebelling. If you were truly "selfish" then you would set me free, because I'm more valuable to you, and economically cheaper, as a fellow trader than I would be as a slave.

Autocracy, not in it's common definition of military dicatorship, but instead literally defined from Greek as "ruler of one's self", is a right. Individuals have the right to rule themselves, and no one else has the right to rule them, nor do they have the right to rule others.

<snip>
If anyone actually read an OP that long, I'm frankly shocked...

If anyone actually read an OP that long, I'm frankly shocked...
I didn't. I know what anrcho-capitalism is and I know all the arguments for it. They're pitiful.

True, but humans are not consistent enough in altruism unless they are forced to, which there is nothing wrong with, by the way.

Do you have to be forced into doing favors for your friends? Do you charge exorbitant prices for doing so?

And I'm not saying that communities shouldn't defend themselves, both from internal and external threats. This right is implicit in true freedom; indeed, I have no doubt that any attempt at an anarchist society would have to involve self-defense against the attacks of those who would be disempowered by it.

All governments ultimately derive their power from the weak, from the people. Any reasonable government knows this and will make concessions. Those that fail to do so, tend not to last long.

No, they derive their power from force. They can't make conditions so horrid that they cannot maintain stability, true, but there have been plenty of stable but repressive governments.

Even a condescending monarchy is better than lawlessness.

Better than competing rulers trying to impose their preferred version of law, perhaps. Better than a society without any rulers at all? Doubtful.

Most people are stupid, far too stupid to see the long term benefits for themselves through utilitarian programs.
If you had a commune made up of maybe a few hundred intelligent people, everything would go fine until someone with more guns came along and enslaved you all, but that is a moot point.
We are not a society of a few hundred intellects. We are a society, nay a world, of billions of ignorant buffoons. Communism, anarcho-capitalism or any idealistic world view-point are wholly unpragmatic, impossible and, if they ever came about, would be disastrous.

This is not an argument. What does the alleged stupidity of humanity have to do with anarchism?

As for "someone with more guns," that is true of every political system. As I have said before, I do not advocate non-violence.

I like the basic idea of lots of social and economic freedoms and I hope to see it happen one day but everyone has to keep in mind that too much of a good thing can be bad. Don't move too far too fast or you might end up over the edge or in a wall.

As I have said before, I do not advocate non-violence.

Agreed. Violence in the use of self-defense, (or with permission in the use of another's self-defense), is perfectly ethically acceptable, preferrable even.

The more you pay, the more you get, generally, yes, but not always. There are plenty of businesses that provide better goods at lower prices than that of their competitors: an inevitable product of a capitalist economic system.

However, yes, if you pay ten million dollars for a "mercenary force", you will probably get a better force than me if I only bought a ten thousand dollar force. But, even if you were to use that force, provided they would be so ethically corrupt as to follow such evil orders as you issue, and enslave me, then you would not only be ethically in the wrong, but you would also be having to use more and more money just to keep me from running away or rebelling. If you were truly "selfish" then you would set me free, because I'm more valuable to you, and economically cheaper, as a fellow trader than I would be as a slave.

Nonsense. It would be substantially cheaper to hire a dozen security guards than five hundred workers.

Autocracy, not in it's common definition of military dicatorship, but instead literally defined from Greek as "ruler of one's self", is a right. Individuals have the right to rule themselves, and no one else has the right to rule them, nor do they have the right to rule others.

I agree. What is the relevance?

Democracy remains the closest approximation of a system based on those principles, short of genuine anarchist free association (which would also preclude property "rights.")

Its not a 100% sure thing that you'd survive a stateless world. If you perished you deserved it.
Too true, but at least I'll have had the chance to either win or fail. Anything is better than my current, most-probable fate: growing ennu, 2.3 kids, a mortgage, an overweight wife and eventually rotting away in some hell-hole nursing home, clinging to life only because I've lost all the will and courage required to move on.
I fail to see how. If some hick wanted to take my stuff or kill me, there would be nothing I could do to stop them. The world isn’t Home Alone.
No, but the world isn't a heavy-weight wrestling match either. Get a gun or, better yet, find some other couple individuals with whom you could work for protection and profit.
But, Fiddles, you say, isn't that just a government? What about anarchy?
No, the point of the "anarchy" is to get rid of the "state", not cooperation towards mutually satisfactory ends. At the moment, as a US citizen, my fate is inexorably tied to millions of people whom I shall never meet, speak to, or hear. I've got no choice in the matter, they came with the damned country, and the only way to escape them is to go to another country and get saddled with a different group.
On the other hand, the groups that would form in the absence of the state would be immediate, a handful of people who each know one another and who all agree to work together and share their resources in order to reach an end that they all find agreeable.

Democracy remains the closest approximation of a system based on those principles, short of genuine anarchist free association (which would also preclude property "rights.")[/QUOTE]

Hardly. All human rights stem from property rights. You cannot rule yourself unless you own yourself.

Do you have to be forced into doing favors for your friends?
No, but I don’t for strangers, neither do most. That’s why modern states have welfare programs.
Better than competing rulers trying to impose their preferred version of law, perhaps. Better than a society without any rulers at all? Doubtful.
In a society without rules, I would be dead. I can guarantee it.
This is not an argument. What does the alleged stupidity of humanity have to do with anarchism?

You’re obviously not familiar with the degenerates inhabiting my area. Without a central authority to protect me and uphold laws that the locals do not agree with, I would have been jailed or committed long ago for being an atheist.

All human rights stem from property rights. You cannot rule yourself unless you own yourself.

And the only thing you rightfully own is yourself.

If anyone actually read an OP that long, I'm frankly shocked...

what's up with admitting ones intellectual failings for the entire internets to see?

for fuck's sake, it was 7 paragraphs. a page and a half long. war and peace it ain't.

You cannot rule yourself unless you own yourself.

demonstrate this

No, but the world isn't a heavy-weight wrestling match either.
Because of the Rule of Law.
Get a gun
I don’t want to have to kill anybody. That is one of the benefits of living in a modern state.
or, better yet, find some other couple individuals with whom you could work for protection and profit.
Why should I have to do that and why would I want to? I am comfortable now.
But, Fiddles, you say, isn't that just a government? What about anarchy?
No, the point of the "anarchy" is to get rid of the "state", not cooperation towards mutually satisfactory ends. At the moment, as a US citizen, my fate is inexorably tied to millions of people whom I shall never meet, speak to, or hear. I've got no choice in the matter, they came with the damned country, and the only way to escape them is to go to another country and get saddled with a different group.
On the other hand, the groups that would form in the absence of the state would be immediate, a handful of people who each know one another and who all agree to work together and share their resources in order to reach an end that they all find agreeable.
One of the great benefits of such large societies is the ease at which we have products available to us due to whatever system of distribution (currently capitalism) that is enforced by the state.
That just isn’t possible with voluntary association.

there have been plenty of stable but repressive governments.

some of the longest-lived states have been what we would describe as clearly repressive, in fact.

All human rights stem from property rights. You cannot rule yourself unless you own yourself.
That is completely and utterly asinine. Property rights are just something that work moderately well. There is no reason to base your life on them. Damn Libertarians.

And the only thing you rightfully own is yourself.

Not true. Take this scenario for example.

If John Doe was alone on a desert island, he "rightfully" owns himself and anything else he wants on the island. It is his property.

However, if someone else is on the island with him, (Joe Blow) then they have to agree on what is John's and what is Joe's before they can even imagine to begin trading. The most obvious, and correct, assumption about what belongs to whom is whoever is there first. For what else could it be, whoever gets there second? third? Of course not.

Anything which is neither another sapient being nor already claimed by another sapient being can rightfully be claimed as yours. You have a right to own yourself and anything within your sphere of rightful influence, (your property), which can be exchanged with other's voluntarily.

No, but I don’t for stranger, neither do most. That’s why modern states have welfare programs.

The distinction would not matter in a society without vast inequities in wealth and power.

In a society without rules, I would be dead. I can guarantee it.

I did not say "without any rules," I said "without any rulers."

A society "without any rules" is impossible, at least a large-scale modern one.

You’re obviously not familiar with the degenerates inhabiting my area. Without a central authority to protect me and uphold laws that the locals do not agree with, I would have been jailed or committed long ago for being an atheist.

What is it about this "central authority" that makes it so trustworthy?

That is completely and utterly asinine. Property rights are just something that work moderately well. There is no reason to base your life on them. Damn Libertarians.

normally one would think that if your argument led to the conclusion "therefore one should be able to sell children into slavery and allow one's own child to starve to death", then you should figure out where you went wrong in your premises or inferences.

not libertarians (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp)

Not true. Take this scenario for example.

If John Doe was alone on a desert island, he "rightfully" owns himself

Absolutely.

and anything else he wants on the island.

No. Why should he be entitled to it?

It is his property.

He is, sure.

However, if someone else is on the island with him, (Joe Blow) then they have to agree on what is John's and what is Joe's before they can even imagine to begin trading. The most obvious, and correct, assumption about what belongs to whom is whoever is there first. For what else could it be, whoever gets there second? third? Of course not.

How about this: John belongs to John, Joe belongs to Joe, and all the rest belongs to no one and everyone.

Anything which is neither another sapient being nor already claimed by another sapient being can rightfully be claimed as yours. You have a right to own yourself and anything within your sphere of rightful influence, (your property), which can be exchanged with other's voluntarily.

Your "sphere of rightful influence" is not synonymous with your property, rather with the "sphere" you need in order to have meaningful freedom.

The most obvious, and correct, assumption about what belongs to whom is whoever is there first.

that is neither obvious nor correct

Because of the Rule of Law.
Wrestling is the way it is because of the Rules imposed on it in the name of "fairness."
And the "Rule of Law" hardly protects you, it primarily serves to mop up the mess that gets left behind when someone who doesn't hold the "Law" in such high esteem chooses to do as they will.
I don’t want to have to kill anybody. That is one of the benefits of living in a modern state.

Why should I have to do that and why would I want to? I am comfortable now.
The words of true cattle who want only to wander the circuits they're told with a minimum of complaint.
One of the great benefits of such large societies is the ease at which we have products available to us due to whatever system of distribution (currently capitalism) that is enforced by the state.
That just isn’t possible with voluntary association.
That is, until someone decides that what you have is dangerous to you or the environment. Or perhaps your government, by which I mean 60% of the population (none of these people, by the way, will you have ever met) decide that they have a better use for your resources than you.
Or maybe they'll circumvent that and simply decide they have a better use for you than you do, and you'll get to start shooting people whether you want to or not.
Or are you going to argue that the draft is some bizarre fiction? That internments and seizures of private property aren't disturbingly common among "free, democratic" societies?

If you make it, you can claim it. If you're the first to find something, you can claim it. Finders keepers, losers weepers.

If nothing and everything belongs to anyone and everyone then I could say that I want to use the clothes your wearing and since we both own those clothes, neither one of us has a right to use them. Civilized society is impossible without private property rights. Public property, (whether it is publicly owned, as in state owned, or publicly owned, as in owned by everybody), is subject to something called the "tragedy of the commons". No one is liable for any damage they do to public property because it's their property and they have a right to do whatever they want with it. Or the opposite, if no one owns it, no one can rightfully use it.

Too true, but at least I'll have had the chance to either win or fail. Anything is better than my current, most-probable fate: growing ennu, 2.3 kids, a mortgage, an overweight wife and eventually rotting away in some hell-hole nursing home, clinging to life only because I've lost all the will and courage required to move on.

No, but the world isn't a heavy-weight wrestling match either. Get a gun or, better yet, find some other couple individuals with whom you could work for protection and profit.
But, Fiddles, you say, isn't that just a government? What about anarchy?
No, the point of the "anarchy" is to get rid of the "state", not cooperation towards mutually satisfactory ends. At the moment, as a US citizen, my fate is inexorably tied to millions of people whom I shall never meet, speak to, or hear. I've got no choice in the matter, they came with the damned country, and the only way to escape them is to go to another country and get saddled with a different group.
On the other hand, the groups that would form in the absence of the state would be immediate, a handful of people who each know one another and who all agree to work together and share their resources in order to reach an end that they all find agreeable.
I do not want to be arround you when Project Meyham succeeds.

I did not say "without any rules," I said "without any rulers."

A society "without any rules" is impossible, at least a large-scale modern one.
Rules are useless without people to enforce them.
What is it about this "central authority" that makes it so trustworthy?
It is preferable to a mob.
Wrestling is the way it is because of the Rules imposed on it in the name of "fairness."
And the "Rule of Law" hardly protects you, it primarily serves to mop up the mess that gets left behind when someone who doesn't hold the "Law" in such high esteem chooses to do as they will.
Ever heard of a deterrent?
The words of true cattle who want only to wander the circuits they're told with a minimum of complaint.
I complain plenty and often, but I don’t want to radically alter my way of life. Nothing good can come of it. Just because you don’t like living in a society doesn’t mean that others aren’t perfectly content with the natural human condition.
That is, until someone decides that what you have is dangerous to you or the environment.
As opposed to someone just deciding they want to take what I have for no reason?
. Or perhaps your government, by which I mean 60% of the population (none of these people, by the way, will you have ever met) decide that they have a better use for your resources than you.
I don't support mob rule. That's why I don't like anarchy.
Or are you going to argue that the draft is some bizarre fiction? That internments and seizures of private property aren't disturbingly common among "free, democratic" societies?
The draft is never coming back, and if it does, there's always Canada which has been quite accommodating to draft dodgers in the past.
Define disturbingly common. I don't see it very often.
I don't care about democracy. I care about stability, effective freedom and comfort for all members of society as long as we have the resources to do so, which we do.

If you make it, you can claim it.

No one "makes" anything. They merely alter that which already exists.

If you're the first to find something, you can claim it.

Mere usurpation.

Finders keepers, losers weepers.

Nous ne sommes rien, soyons tout.

If nothing and everything belongs to anyone and everyone then I could say that I want to use the clothes your wearing and since we both own those clothes, neither one of us has a right to use them. Civilized society is impossible without private property rights.

No, you couldn't. Honestly, is property ownership the only framework in which you can think?

It is perfectly possible to mediate claims to use without bringing ownership into it. Ownership is merely one possible standard, that of exclusive control (that is, private tyranny.)

For an obvious example, claims could be mediated based on need.

Public property, (whether it is publicly owned, as in state owned, or publicly owned, as in owned by everybody), is subject to something called the "tragedy of the commons". No one is liable for any damage they do to public property because it's their property and they have a right to do whatever they want with it.

Really? So I can legally, say, blow up a bridge, because it is publicly-owned and I have a right to do whatever I want with it?

Or the opposite, if no one owns it, no one can rightfully use it.

Again, this narrow-minded view of mediating claims.

If nothing and everything belongs to anyone and everyone then I could say that I want to use the clothes your wearing and since we both own those clothes, neither one of us has a right to use them.

that doesn't follow at all

Rules are useless without people to enforce them.

But not without a class of rulers to make them.

It is preferable to a mob.

Why?

Why?
I can stay out of the way of an oppressive regime. Mobs are unpredictable.

I do not want to be arround you when Project Meyham succeeds.
Why? It would only be a shift of a few degrees from the current state of affairs.
At the current state of affairs, you could be attacked by a complete stranger who wants your belongings. Hell, it is probably happening at this very moment within a couple miles of me: Some loser is getting mugged, not because there has been a break down of law and order, but because law and order were only illusions to begin with.
At the current state of affairs, everyone forms alliances and bonds with others. Its human instinct to seek out fellows, lovers, friends, whatever. And, within these relationships, one seeks to help others out. Outside of these relationships, however, one can't know what is truely "right" for people, nor is one really capable of caring. Humans are pack animals in spirit, not collective insects.

Honestly, is property ownership the only framework in which you can think?

people such as this do seem to be distinctly unimaginative and uninformed, don't they?

For an obvious example, claims could be mediated based on need.

Need is a subjective concept. Who defines "needs" but the individual who has them? Or would you define need as only that which is required to sustain life? In which case, everything other than those needs is completely arbitrary. Claims to things are meaningless, then, if you don't actually "need" them. Is everything other than the bare minimum required to sustain life meaningless and pointless to argue over?

Need is a subjective concept.
So are property rights. Really, you suck at this.

people such as this do seem to be distinctly unimaginative and uninformed, don't they?

NVM

I can stay out of the way of an oppressive regime.

The way Jews, Roma, Communists, and gays could "stay out of the way" of the Nazis?

Mobs are unpredictable.

So are all human beings to some degree, whether individuals or groups of individuals.

Mob action has the advantage of having a far less bloody record and at least an intermittent series of successes.

Why? It would only be a shift of a few degrees from the current state of affairs.
At the current state of affairs, you could be attacked by a complete stranger who wants your belongings. Hell, it is probably happening at this very moment within a couple miles of me: Some loser is getting mugged, not because there has been a break down of law and order, but because law and order were only illusions to begin with.
At the current state of affairs, everyone forms alliances and bonds with others. Its human instinct to seek out fellows, lovers, friends, whatever. And, within these relationships, one seeks to help others out. Outside of these relationships, however, one can't know what is truely "right" for people, nor is one really capable of caring. Humans are pack animals in spirit, not collective insects.
I just would want to be on te other side of your gun is all.

Need is a subjective concept. Who defines "needs" but the individual who has them?

No one. Exclusive control of resources by the majority is not an acceptable system, either.

A decent starting point is use rights, but there are problems with those as well when they are extended to include exchange (and they are incoherent without it).

Or would you define need as only that which is required to sustain life?

No, I wouldn't.

I just would want to be on te other side of your gun is all.

We could just poison Fiddle or slit his throat while he's asleep. Then we'll be safe from him.

Ever heard of a deterrent?
Ever seen proof that a deterrent was effective? Look at yourself: you don't want to kill, you don't want to fight, you don't really want to do anything to make life uncomfortable for you. With or without laws, you wouldn't run around shooting people in the face and stealing. So, you're not being deterred.
Or we could take myself: I steal on occassion, its good for a thrill. The fact that it is illegal doesn't stop me any more than the idea that it might make Jesus angry. Still, no one being deterred by the rule of law.
So far, we're batting 0 for 2 on the deterrent score, but you give a shout as soon as you find this Mongol Horde just waiting to pound through the streets of America, deterred only by the (rather slim) possibility of spending a few years sitting in a rather uncomfortable room.
I complain plenty and often, but I don’t want to radically alter my way of life. Nothing good can come of it.
You "whine", that is what children do constantly in spite of having no plans to correct their situation.
Just because you don’t like living in a society doesn’t mean that others aren’t perfectly content with the natural human condition.
That's exactly the thing: This isn't natural. People aren't supposed to live like this.
As opposed to someone just deciding they want to take what I have for no reason?
So, nationalism and the pursuit of political power are more acceptable than simple greed?
I don't support mob rule. That's why I don't like anarchy.
Mob rule, democracy, same thing in the end.
At least in an anarchy you get to pick which mob you want to be a part of.
The draft is never coming back, and if it does, there's always Canada which has been quite accommodating to draft dodgers in the past.
So, your counterargument is two parts Denial with one part Cowardice?
Define disturbingly common. I don't see it very often.
Considering that democracy (and running to Canada) are the only safeguards you seem to have against them, I'd say "at all" is pretty damn much for comfort.
I don't care about democracy. I care about stability, effective freedom and comfort for all members of society as long as we have the resources to do so, which we do.
You care about never having to leave your safe, little pen and . . .
No, I'd say the pen is about all you think about.

We could just poison Fiddle or slit his throat while he's asleep. Then we'll be safe from him.
And now, you see, the two of you are already proving my point by pooling your resources in the face of a perceived threat.
However, I should emphasize that the threat isn't actually present. In the case of people banding together, an attack on one individual would constitute an assault on the whole group, and so the group would retaliate (even if the single individual didn't survive the assault).
In such a situation, it would be more to everyone's advantage simply to avoid conflicts and get on with living in whatever way they see fit.

And now, you see, the two of you are already proving my point by pooling your resources in the face of a perceived threat.
However, I should emphasize that the threat isn't actually present. In the case of people banding together, an attack on one individual would constitute an assault on the whole group, and so the group would retaliate (even if the single individual didn't survive the assault).
In such a situation, it would be more to everyone's advantage simply to avoid conflicts and get on with living in whatever way they see fit.
Actually, he is the one poisonning people, I'm the one sitting in the corner crying.

I can stay out of the way of an oppressive regime. Mobs are unpredictable.
Unless the regime decides to dick with you in specific because, hey, maybe you're Japanese, or Arab, or Black, or Jewish, or Gay, or a White "Settler", or a Native American, or Catholic, or Protestant, or Monarchist, or Republican, or Communist, or Fascist.
Or maybe you'll just get picked out as the arbitrary scapegoat because you wandered into the wrong street at the wrong moment.

I can stay out of the way of an oppressive regime. Mobs are unpredictable.
While mobs have randomness on their side, regimes make up for it by being incredible thurough.

Ok I missed a few pages, but let me catch up.
Soheran, it seems you are a communist, or something, as per your attitudes yowards communism in general. That being said, Anarcho-Capitalism will be near impossible to bring you around to. Nevertheless, I have glanced at your arguements, and they are easily patched up with some counter reason, but the time it takes. This is why I prefer person to person debates. Anyhow, Neo Undelia, you have some decent points, but many of them are, how shall I say? Moot.

You may have noticed I am shifting from indifference to support for Anarco- can I just all it AC? This is because I like to play the devils advocate, and because H N Fiddlebottoms seems swamped.

Now to the arguements. The most persuasive arguement I heard was the idea that giving the corporate powers soveriegnity you are just falling back to feudalism, which is in a way true, but in reality not. The defining aspect of feudalism is that wealth is concetrated in land (as opposed to capital- the means of production). But we are just playing with definitions. Lets get to the meat. The main fact is that the corporations are unavoidably and directly accountable to the people via the free-market. If we aren't impressed with their performance, they will lose business to some competitior. However, we are also accountable to them in having to buy things of them, any of them. This means we have to work and perpetuate the economy. It is somethig of a symbiotic relationship, where the people in fact have the upper hand. Imagine a shark (the corps) and lots of tiny cleaner fish. The shark seems to have the upper hand right? Wrong, even though he could eat them, he wouldn't as he would die (from filthyness). The opposite is not true for the cleaner fish, however.

This is also why the corporations wouldn't enslave us. It's foolish, as whats-his-face said, 500 slaves are not as valuable as 500 consumers (allow me to pre-empt your previous arguement before it resurfaces, Soheran, even though you would be hiring more people, you would also be funding more consumers. The main difference being that consumers stimulate the economy and acause it to grow, while slaves do as much as the office furniture). The corporations are entirely dependant upon the freemarket. thus, by proxy they are dependant upon our freedom of choice, and property rights.

Another reason why I suspect feudalism thing would not come about is that I anticipate there would be a flourishing trade in sovereign land, to individuals. These individuals would hardly be incontinentally rich, either as they would have to for the base of a mass market demand. As such, it would be lower-middle class and above that would be able to afford this crap. In fact, it should be utterly indistinguishable from the current real-estate market, just there would be a new layer of ownership to sell.

Mob action has the advantage of having a far less bloody record and at least an intermittent series of successes.
What? Now you’re just making shit up. No mob action has ever been successful by my standards and all have resulted in an excess of bloodshed and looting not related to the reason for their beginnings.
Ever seen proof that a deterrent was effective? Look at yourself: you don't want to kill, you don't want to fight, you don't really want to do anything to make life uncomfortable for you. With or without laws, you wouldn't run around shooting people in the face and stealing. So, you're not being deterred.
Most people do stupid things all the time. I'm certainly no example. I'm better than most.
Or we could take myself: I steal on occassion, its good for a thrill. The fact that it is illegal doesn't stop me any more than the idea that it might make Jesus angry. Still, no one being deterred by the rule of law.
You among them. I need not refute criminal actions.
So far, we're batting 0 for 2 on the deterrent score, but you give a shout as soon as you find this Mongol Horde just waiting to pound through the streets of America, deterred only by the (rather slim) possibility of spending a few years sitting in a rather uncomfortable room.
I know plenty of people who would murder Mexicans and gays, were there not a law against it, and plenty more who would murder specific people.
You "whine", that is what children do constantly in spite of having no plans to correct their situation.
My complaints are little more than a release. I acknowledge that. There is nothing that I can do to change things. I lack the natural talents of a leader, and besides, my ideas are unpopular. That is the way the world is, always has been and always will be.
That's exactly the thing: This isn't natural. People aren't supposed to live like this.
The natural human condition is to live in groups. We have refined that and made our lives much more comfortable than those of our ancestors because of that.
So, nationalism and the pursuit of political power are more acceptable than simple greed?
They are much less likely to interfere with the interests of myself and the most of the rest of the Middle Class, yes.
Mob rule, democracy, same thing in the end.
I am hardely a fan of Democracy, either.
At least in an anarchy you get to pick which mob you want to be a part of.
If you don't get killed first.
So, your counterargument is two parts Denial with one part Cowardice?
Not wanting to fight in an unjust war is cowardice?
Considering that democracy (and running to Canada) are the only safeguards you seem to have against them, I'd say "at all" is pretty damn much for comfort.
As I said, I am no fan of democracy. The unintelligent don't have the foresight to know what is best for themselves. How are they to know what is best for society?
But there is nothing I can do about the way things are, and don't fool yourself into thinking you can either.
You care about never having to leave your safe, little pen and . . .
No, I'd say the pen is about all you think about.
You are blinded by idealism. It is rather unbecoming.

Or maybe you'll just get picked out as the arbitrary scapegoat because you wandered into the wrong street at the wrong moment.
As opposed to being shot randomly by some half-retarded redneck who wanted to test out his new AK, and decided that street would be a good place to do so?

Soheran, it seems you are a communist, or something, as per your attitudes yowards communism in general.

I'm an anti-capitalist anarchist. I'm no longer willing to define myself any further than that; there are too many questions to which I do not have good answers.

Now to the arguements. The most persuasive arguement I heard was the idea that giving the corporate powers soveriegnity you are just falling back to feudalism, which is in a way true, but in reality not. The defining aspect of feudalism is that wealth is concetrated in land (as opposed to capital- the means of production). But we are just playing with definitions. Lets get to the meat. The main fact is that the corporations are unavoidably and directly accountable to the people via the free-market. If we aren't impressed with their performance, they will lose business to some competitior. However, we are also accountable to them in having to buy things of them, any of them. This means we have to work and perpetuate the economy. It is somethig of a symbiotic relationship, where the people in fact have the upper hand. Imagine a shark (the corps) and lots of tiny cleaner fish. The shark seems to have the upper hand right? Wrong, even though he could eat them, he wouldn't as he would die (from filthyness). The opposite is not true for the cleaner fish, however.

No, the corporations can't get rid of all of us. They don't need to; all that's necessary is intimidation.

This is also why the corporations wouldn't enslave us. It's foolish, as whats-his-face said, 500 slaves are not as valuable as 500 consumers (allow me to pre-empt your previous arguement before it resurfaces, Soheran, even though you would be hiring more people, you would also be funding more consumers. The main difference being that consumers stimulate the economy and acause it to grow, while slaves do as much as the office furniture).

Why do I need them as consumers? Who is to say I am using them to make a profit, anyway? There are other tasks that will be of utility to me.

Furthermore, the other capitalists will have money to buy my goods.

The corporations are entirely dependant upon the freemarket. thus, by proxy they are dependant upon our freedom of choice, and property rights.

No, not our freedom of choice and property rights. They are dependent on some buyer buying their goods; that buyer need not be us.

Ok I just wanted to check, have we gotten past the notion that everyone would run wild raping pillaging and looting without a polititian to look at? I hope so. H N Fiddlebottoms puts it well when he subtly hints towards the social contract observable in most mammals. You are 'good' because you are afraid of the law, or because you are afraid of hell, you are good because you are a social creature that craves the approval of the group. Thus you engage in mutual back scratching. Besides, there would still be a justice system in the proposed system. It would just be private, and faced with competitors. Which reminds me, Soheran, we last left off with you insinuating the market would demand biased (towards the potential consumer) justice systems. I disagree in that this would only be such if you were planning to commit crime. Most people would subscribe to a justice system for protection from crime, and justice when protection was to no avail. Furthermore, if criminals did congregate to a 'corrupt' justice syndicate, then they would be the losers, as the victim of crime's justice system is the one which will be trialing you. However, if you are the unfortunate victim of crime, you are up the proverbial estruary without a means of transportation. The only situation in which a corrupt justice system would be favourable is if you were a criminal who exclusively robs other criminals. That, would constitute an unmarketable minority.

What? Now you’re just making shit up. No mob action has ever been successful by my standards and all have resulted in an excess of bloodshed and looting not related to the reason for their beginnings.

For two examples of my made-up shit:
Stamp Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765)
Stonewall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots)

For two examples of my made-up shit:
Stamp Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765)
Stonewall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots)
Whiny colonists persuaded by merchants to refuse to pay for a war which primarily benefited them?

Stonewall would have amounted to exactly shit without sympathetic people in power. They were the ones that changed society

Which reminds me, Soheran, we last left off with you insinuating the market would demand biased (towards the potential consumer) justice systems. I disagree in that this would only be such if you were planning to commit crime. Most people would subscribe to a justice system for protection from crime, and justice when protection was to no avail. Furthermore, if criminals did congregate to a 'corrupt' justice syndicate, then they would be the losers, as the victim of crime's justice system is the one which will be trialing you. However, if you are the unfortunate victim of crime, you are up the proverbial estruary without a means of transportation. The only situation in which a corrupt justice system would be favourable is if you were a criminal who exclusively robs other criminals. That, would constitute an unmarketable minority.

Wait a second. Who ensures that you are tried by "the victim of crime's justice system"?

It seems to me that you would be only be tried by that justice system if it could successfully wield power against you. Of course, it wouldn't be able to - you, being far wealthier than your victim, would have the advantage in that respect.

The unmitigated tyranny of the rich is the inevitable and obvious consequence of "anarcho"-capitalism.

Whiny colonists persuaded by merchants to refuse to pay for a war which primarily benefited them?

No, mob action that stopped a statist power grab.

Stonewall would have amounted to exactly shit without sympathetic people in power.

Stonewall amounted to what it did because it didn't stop at Stonewall, but continued for another three and half decades. That is why there are "sympathetic people in power."

Edit: And you are aware that there were peaceful, moderate, people campaigning for gay rights long before Stonewall? Mattachine, NACHO, Daughters of Bilitis, etc.?

Why do you think nothing actually happened until after Stonewall?

Most people do stupid things all the time. I'm certainly no example. I'm better than most.
I fail to see where most people doing stupid things comes in. What we are discussin is whether the presence of law actually acts as a deterrent.
Most people would abstain from "criminal" acts even if they weren't against the law. There is a reason why murder, theft and rape are nearly universal taboos.
You among them. I need not refute criminal actions.
So, self-righteousness now?
I am making a point: Deterrence does nothing. Without the law, neither you nor Posi would suddenly become violent thugs, and with the law I and millions of others act as amuses us.
I know plenty of people who would murder That is the way the world is, always has been and always will be.Mexicans and gays, were there not a law against it, and plenty more who would murder specific people.
Really? Are you sure they aren't just using those claims as a "release", as you use your "complaints"? Killing other humans goes against our natural instincts.
And the part about Mexicans makes little sense, in our hypothetical Anarchy, there would be no nations, hence no Mexico, hence no Mexicans.
Moreover, you have yet to address the fact that deterrence is provided jsut as thoroughly by a freely associating and armed group that would take an assault against one member as an assault against the whole.
My complaints are little more than a release. I acknowledge that. There is nothing that I can do to change things. I lack the natural talents of a leader, and besides, my ideas are unpopular.
As I've seen, your ideas are remarkably popular, most especially this one:
That is the way the world is, always has been and always will be.
That is an excuse, and a rather poor one. This current state of affairs has been in place for a paltry few centuries, a mere bat of an eye in human history, and it could be disassembled in a few years if everyone would quit using those sorts of cop-outs.
The natural human condition is to live in groups. We have refined that and made our lives much more comfortable than those of our ancestors because of that.
No, it is still natural to exist in small groups, which is what people try to do instinctively. If we had really moved into this new sense of "nature" that you believe in, then the average American would view all Americans as his brothers, and we would have gotten rid of the crippling poverty that riddles so many places in this nation.
In fact, if our groups had really been stretched out as wide as they would have to be for the current state of affairs to be "natural", alll nations would be nice little communist states.
They haven't, because your idea of "nature" doesn't exist. It is a perversion that breeds apathy and ennui.
They are much less likely to interfere with the interests of myself and the most of the rest of the Middle Class, yes.
It must be wonderful to know one's price and to have it delivered so easily in jars of mayo and cable channels.
I am hardely a fan of Democracy, either.
And yet you support it as the best way to protect your rights and freedoms.
If you don't get killed first.
Is fear of death really all you can think of? Death is just that period of permanent unconsciousness following the complete cessation of brain activity: fearing it is like being afraid of sleep.
Not wanting to fight in an unjust war is cowardice?
Not wanting to fight against an unjust war is cowardice.
As I said, I am no fan of democracy. The unintelligent don't have the foresight to know what is best for themselves. How are they to know what is best for society?
But you're willing to trust them with your freedom?
Well, since "foresight" is apparently synonymous with "apathy" and "paralysis", I can't say it would hurt you to be led about by those who have none.
But there is nothing I can do about the way things are, and don't fool yourself into thinking you can either.
Another excuse. Just keep telling yourself that if it assuages your conscience any, but don't expect me to buy it.
You are blinded by idealism. It is rather unbecoming.
And you don't have any ideals, or anything else worth living for other than "comfort." It is rather unbecoming.

Most people do stupid things all the time. I'm certainly no example. I'm better than most.
Better by who's standards? yours? I bet if you ask most people they will think of themselves better than you.

You among them. I need not refute criminal actions.
You do when it proves you wrong.

I know plenty of people who would murder Mexicans and gays, were there not a law against it, and plenty more who would murder specific people.
How do you knowthey are not just blowing smoke?

The natural human condition is to live in groups. We have refined that and made our lives much more comfortable than those of our ancestors because of that.
Groups of about 150 people (IIRC, Jay Ingram is the source). After that, your brain starts to store just what is nessesary; their face, a name, your disposition towards them. Basically, you live with 350 people and a bunch of pylons.

They are much less likely to interfere with the interests of myself and the most of the rest of the Middle Class, yes.
I bet your intrest is to fufil your greed.

If you don't get killed first.
Its not like this is South Park or the Simpsons. If the Authorities were to vanish, we wouldn't just break out in mass looting.

As I said, I am no fan of democracy. The unintelligent don't have the foresight to know what is best for themselves. How are they to know what is best for society?
But there is nothing I can do about the way things are, and don't fool yourself into thinking you can either.
How do the intelligent know what is best for society?
Not all people con make changes, but some are plenty capable.[/QUOTE]

i.e. fascism, which is so not anarchy in any form.

But they might market it as anarchy, which sounds cooler ...

Could you be any more hyperbolic? Religion has just as great a stranglehold on the average American as corporations, and we will always have elections, no matter how rigged or irrelevant they have or will become.


Get out your tinfoil hat.


But seriously. We now have corporations with revenue greater than most nations, who are able to influence government policy to insulate them from competition or whatever else they wish to avoid (e.g. the US policy on global warming: straight from Exxon-Mobil's Brain to Dubya's mouth) and are able to evade laws as they please (e.g. Wal-Mart's labour practices). And at every turn we are dismantling the state and turning it's powers and authority over to the more "efficient" private sector. So how exactly are we not headed toward a form of corporate totalitarianism, and how exactly are religion and democracy going to put a check on all this, being as so far they have failed to do so (in fact one might say they have facilitated it in some ways).

in today's world (or any time human world) anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work. And there is no system that would work world wide because PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT! they have different needs, diffrent values they relate to. So there is no "one for all" system that would work perfect for everybody and there will never be any.

That being said: anarcho-capitalism would work O.K. (in my book. for me. in a country, not world-wide) if there would be private police (private security) BUT a universal set of laws that everybody would relate too (like let's say, a costitution or charter of human rights). And there would be private justice firms (like private courts and judges) that will pass laws as long as they don't disagree with the UNIVERSAL ones. The problem is this: what would keep private judges/police to break the universal laws? If there is no state, there would be only one thing. The power of the people. So Anarcho-Capitalism would only work IF there is a universal set of laws AND IF the majority of the people would be ready to fight to the death to uphold in case of usurpation from private police/judges.

But since people are different that laws would be diffrent from region to region, depending of the majority in that region. And if people would be allowed to migrate freely world wide there is no chance that Anarcho-capitalism could spread world wide (because there will always be people who prefer religious types of governement or comunist/socialist types).

So there is a posibility of a stable Anarcho-Capitalistic region (in my opinion) only if the above conditions are met. And if people migrate freely and voluntarily in the region where their beliefs are best represented by the law. Otherwise... chaos. bad type of chaos.

Not to mention that anarchy, is in and of itself, ridiculous. The state is necessary to maintain order in societies that have grown as large as ours.Why do the societies have to be as large as ours? Why can't they break up into thousands or millions of smaller ones?

Not true. Take this scenario for example.

If John Doe was alone on a desert island, he "rightfully" owns himself and anything else he wants on the island. It is his property. Nope. He would be in the state of nature. Property rights don't exist in the state of nature.

Or the opposite, if no one owns it, no one can rightfully use it.False. It's entirely possible to use something without owning it; it's also possible to have the right to use something without owning it.

I am nearly fully anarchocapitalist. I throw my full support behind the theoretical development of this concept, and its eventual realisation. Until such a time I remain minarchist. I support unlimited secession too, the essential basis of market anarchism.

I'm not entirely sure why people think anarcho-capitalism would be such a good idea.

Imagine the American 'wild' west. Now take away federal authority, the right of the people to elect a sheriff, and have every business hire it's own muscle. No courts to rule on civil disputes. Nothing to stop the big bad business owner from the next county over from coming over and making his presence felt.

Now take that scenario and put it in the 21st century; more people, more guns, more 'law of the west'. Don't count on the cavalry coming to save the day. The only 'cavalry' that exists is owned by another company that is only interested in securing their profit. Competitive pricing? What's that? You pay what the local 'business' expects you to pay, and you work at the prices they tell you you will make. What's to stop them? Clint Eastwood won't be coming in to shoot up all the big bad business owners, and slash pricing.

But they might market it as anarchy, which sounds cooler ...

Well it wouldn't be the first time a government called itself something it most obviously wasn't.

Anyone who has worked in the inefficient, dehumanzing corporate bureaucracy knows that corporations aren't necessarily more efficient than government. They are just better externalizers.

Anyone who has studied the history of the corporation knows that government has legislated away the corporation's need to be efficient. All that a corporation needs to do is to abide by all of governments micromanaging regulations and it will be healthy. This results in scientific management, the dehumanizing process by which workers are restricted to automotons, held to the strictest guidelines of safety, health, and production regulations.

In essence, the state defines the parameters under which market forces work. The state decides the currency, enforces the law, etc.

Government regulation of the money and credit supply is one of the greatest hindrances to the free market.

No society can exist without some sort of overreaching system of laws. The way other anarchic systems do it is typically through free association into democratic systems. I do not see how anarcho-capitalism cannot abide by that same system.

The idea of anarchism is to get away from coercive forces. Unrestrained capitalism would lead to further coercion the moment the groups with more money feel the need to keep their position through force of arms.


You are arguing against an untrue and corrupt system of capitalism. The steady erosion of government will eliminate the benefits of large scale business and hand it back over to small, flexible businesses. The result will be a decentralization of wealth down to community sized markets, and therefore a very small chance of this control through "force of arms" that you are predicting.

I doubt it; the corporations would hire professional killers to destroy any such movement before it got off the ground.

Every gain of the working class would be eroded.

Great business tactic considering that workers are consumers.

A wealthy labor force is a wealth market of consumers.

Anyone who has studied the history of the corporation knows that government has legislated away the corporation's need to be efficient. All that a corporation needs to do is to abide by all of governments micromanaging regulations and it will be healthy. This results in scientific management, the dehumanizing process by which workers are restricted to automotons, held to the strictest guidelines of safety, health, and production regulations.



Government regulation of the money and credit supply is one of the greatest hindrances to the free market.

No society can exist without some sort of overreaching system of laws. The way other anarchic systems do it is typically through free association into democratic systems. I do not see how anarcho-capitalism cannot abide by that same system.



You are arguing against an untrue and corrupt system of capitalism. The steady erosion of government will eliminate the benefits of large scale business and hand it back over to small, flexible businesses. The result will be a decentralization of wealth down to community sized markets, and therefore a very small chance of this control through "force of arms" that you are predicting.

Why on earth would small 'flexible' businesses suddenly erupt once the state disappears? Purchasing Power controls the market place, and whoever has the most money is going to pay to protect their position in the market place, i.e. through private armies. Larger companies will collude to dictate pricing controls, in order to maintain their position of dominance. You would end up with a command economy with no redistribution. Smaller businesses won't be allowed to grow.

Great business tactic considering that workers are consumers.

A wealthy labor force is a wealth market of consumers.

That depends on the product of your company. If a corporation controls an entire community that sells the products of its labour to another community, who cares what happens to its workers?

I fail to see where most people doing stupid things comes in. What we are discussin is whether the presence of law actually acts as a deterrent.
Most people would abstain from "criminal" acts even if they weren't against the law. There is a reason why murder, theft and rape are nearly universal taboos.

So, self-righteousness now?
I am making a point: Deterrence does nothing. Without the law, neither you nor Posi would suddenly become violent thugs, and with the law I and millions of others act as amuses us.
New Orleans. Iraq.Really? Are you sure they aren't just using those claims as a "release", as you use your "complaints"? Killing other humans goes against our natural instincts.
Some people are perfectly capable of killing without remorse.
As I've seen, your ideas are remarkably popular, most especially this one:
Utilitarianism, existentialism, social libertarianism. Those things are fairly unpopular in the US.
That is an excuse, and a rather poor one. This current state of affairs has been in place for a paltry few centuries, a mere bat of an eye in human history, and it could be disassembled in a few years if everyone would quit using those sorts of cop-outs.
What? Those born with the natural abilities to lead have always led. Those of without those abilities follow. That’s how it is, and how it always has been.
No, it is still natural to exist in small groups, which is what people try to do instinctively. If we had really moved into this new sense of "nature" that you believe in, then the average American would view all Americans as his brothers, and we would have gotten rid of the crippling poverty that riddles so many places in this nation.
In fact, if our groups had really been stretched out as wide as they would have to be for the current state of affairs to be "natural", alll nations would be nice little communist states.
Not necessarily. The outrage towards the events of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina are recent examples of human beings caring about more than just the people that they are directly acquainted with.
And yet you support it as the best way to protect your rights and freedoms.
I don’t, but it is still better than anarchy.
Is fear of death really all you can think of? Death is just that period of permanent unconsciousness following the complete cessation of brain activity: fearing it is like being afraid of sleep.

I enjoy life. Why would I want it to end?
Not wanting to fight against an unjust war is cowardice.
Any sacrifice you make won’t matter after you’re dead.
And you don't have any ideals, or anything else worth living for other than "comfort." It is rather unbecoming.
I am pragmatic and realistic. You are too caught up in your hatred of other human beings to think clearly.
Why do the societies have to be as large as ours? Why can't they break up into thousands or millions of smaller ones?
People live far too close to each other for that.

Great business tactic considering that workers are consumers.

A wealthy labor force is a wealth market of consumers.

Simply trade with other capitalists.

But let's go with your assumption for a moment. A given corporation might desire a wealthy labor force, but it does not need the necessary money to come from its own profits; it is just as useful if other corporations pay their workers more. The only situation in which it would raise wages in order to create a greater consumer market is if it agreed to do so with a number of other corporations, and had some manner of guaranteeing that the others would keep by the deal. That is conceivable, I suppose.

What about corporations not party to the deal? They benefit from the larger consumer market, but are not hurt by the higher labor costs. They have a competitive edge over the others.

The first group of corporations must therefore ensure that not only those corporations that agreed to the deal hold to it, but that all corporations hold to it; it must assure unanimity, and thus it cannot permit free choice. It must enforce its decisions.

It must become a coercive government, exactly what the "anarcho"-capitalists oppose.

What? Those born with the natural abilities to lead have always led. Those of without those abilities follow. That’s how it is, and how it always has been.

Perhaps, but in a different sense of "led" and "follow."

There have always been people who possess greater influence than others. This makes perfect sense; if I want advice, I go to someone who knows what she is talking about, not to someone who does not. In a sense, this is a relationship of leading and following, but it does not infringe upon my freedom. I need not listen to this person's advice; I need not care what she says. I choose to do so of my own free will, for my own reasons, but there is no compulsion to obey.

In class society, the relationship is of a different quality. I do not have a choice in the matter; for some reason - perhaps armed enforcers, perhaps economic dependence, perhaps irresistible social pressure - I am compelled to obey my "superiors." It is this that anarchism objects to.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

Why on earth would small 'flexible' businesses suddenly erupt once the state disappears? Purchasing Power controls the market place, and whoever has the most money is going to pay to protect their position in the market place, i.e. through private armies. Larger companies will collude to dictate pricing controls, in order to maintain their position of dominance. You would end up with a command economy with no redistribution. Smaller businesses won't be allowed to grow.

There are several points to address here.

I am not advocating the instantaneous disappearance of the state. I specifically stated the "steady erosion" of the state. We are presently in corporatized state capitalism that has, over the last 125 years, passed regulatory legislation after regulatory legislation benefiting first and foremost big business.

Consider this: What is the main concern most people have for big business? It is probably monopoly over the market, control over the output of goods, thereby controlling the pricing on the market, squeezing consumers, and blocking rival entrants to the market. Now what do you suppose the true effects of regulation actually are? Certainly we have this perception of protecting ourselves from these evil businesses (these businesses, of course, understand that their first tort liability could be their downfall, and would avoid dangerous products like the plague).

But remember what the businesses are striving for and what we are trying to prevent, the control over the output of goods? Big business found out quite early that they shouldn't need to create trusts amongst themselves to control prices, as they ultmately failed. The obvious solution was to use government to regulate the output of the industry, after all, why worry about competitors finding better methods of production and more utilizable goods, when you can control the aggregate output through government? And those workers, they are pacified as well!

After all of that, the real answer was in the post that you quoted:

Anyone who has studied the history of the corporation knows that government has legislated away the corporation's need to be efficient. All that a corporation needs to do is to abide by all of governments micromanaging regulations and it will be healthy. This results in scientific management, the dehumanizing process by which workers are restricted to automotons, held to the strictest guidelines of safety, health, and production regulations.

It is not purchasing power that rules the marketplace, it is efficiency. All the government regulations imposed on industry do is eliminate efficiency, which in turn entrenches all that big business which is loaded with bureaucracy and excels at rigid output. With the elimination of these regulations, small flexible businesses will immediately outclass big business, as markets become decentralized, and rigid production methods fail to meet the variances in demand.

That depends on the product of your company. If a corporation controls an entire community that sells the products of its labour to another community, who cares what happens to its workers?

The qualifiers in the scenario are ludicrous, and you didn't even account for the businesses that do rely on those customers being abused.

New Orleans. Iraq.

Those are situations where entrenched codified laws that people were socially conditioned to be dependent laws evaporated overnight. Of course abnormal behavior would erupt.

In class society, the relationship is of a different quality. I do not have a choice in the matter; for some reason - perhaps armed enforcers, perhaps economic dependence, perhaps irresistible social pressure - I am compelled to obey my "superiors." It is this that anarchism objects to.
What you describe has always been the case among societies that accomplished anything significant in the scientific, artistic or architectural realms. Any society that has raised the standard of living from our base relied on hierarchy of some sort.

Those are situations where entrenched codified laws that people were socially conditioned to be dependent laws evaporated overnight. Of course abnormal behavior would erupt.
That differs from everywhere else how?

That differs from everywhere else how?

It differs from almost all conceptions of anarchy, which require a change in social structures that render the populace independent of such rigid and codified laws.

What you describe has always been the case among societies that accomplished anything significant in the scientific, artistic or architectural realms. Any society that has raised the standard of living from our base relied on hierarchy of some sort.

Our base standard of living was higher than it has been in many hierarchical societies throughout history, and I'm not at all convinced that mere material abundance is a decent price to pay for freedom.

That aside, the mere fact that the rise of hierarchy has tended to accompany certain changes that (thousands of years later) brought significant improvements to standard of living does not imply that hierarchy must exist in a society with a high standard of living.

New Orleans. Iraq.
Unnatural examples. In both situations, there was/is a great deal of external stress being applied (ie, hurricane or foriegn invasion). This stress alone would render either area non-exemplary of a world-wide anarchy.
New Orleans is further rendered a bad example because its population is hardly representative of anything. Many people had already been evacuated from the area, and those left behind were in a lower socio-economic class, thus, they were already under pressure from the current established society. And, if the rule of law were so valuable as a deterrent, why would the rioters in New Orleans have attempted to fight off the returning government? Shouldn't they have all said "Holy shit!", dropped their guns and attempted to mingle with the masses the moment they saw civilization returning in force?
Finally, both places are being filled with the violent sectors of other populations. Iraq, especially, is suffering from an invasion of those without any sense of morality.
Both places are also suffering from hyperactive news coverage. When the smoke had cleared, it turns out that the chaos in New Orleans wasn't nearly as chaotic and deadly as people had at first declared it.
Some people are perfectly capable of killing without remorse.
And some are capable of talking without action.
Utilitarianism, existentialism, social libertarianism. Those things are fairly unpopular in the US.
If you believed in them, you'd work for them. You don't, so you don't.
What you actually believe in is the maintenance of the status quo, and, yes, it is within the status quo to complain about the status quo.
What? Those born with the natural abilities to lead have always led. Those of without those abilities follow. That’s how it is, and how it always has been.
I see no "ability" in leadership today. At best, there are a few mob oraters, but even most of them have died out. These days, there is just a roster of rich, white guys who manage to convince about 1/4th of the voting population to put a check beside their name.
Not necessarily. The outrage towards the events of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina are recent examples of human beings caring about more than just the people that they are directly acquainted with.
So a few people got a bit excited, hardly proves your point when one considers how quickly everyone forgot about both situations. All that happened is that the media descended on a particular event, drummed it around as hard and fast as possible in order to increase their circulations, and then wandered off. As soon as these things quit being shoved in the people's faces, the people quit caring.
There are still people struggling to pay their medical bills or reassmble their shattered lives, and yet no one seems to care.
I don’t, but it is still better than anarchy.
By your own logic, Democracy must be better. Since the USA quit being part of the British Monarcy and adopted a Republican system, we've gotten computers, penicillin and cars.
Obviously the change in hierarchy caused those technologies to just magically appear.
I enjoy life. Why would I want it to end?
If you remain alive simply for the purpose of living, then you're engaging in an ultimately futile task, because, ultimately, you will die, it will probably be painful and it will come at a time when you don't expect it.
Any sacrifice you make won’t matter after you’re dead.
Having the will to actually do something (as opposed to praying that someone else will fight for you) is not the same thing as throwing your life away.
I am pragmatic and realistic. You are too caught up in your hatred of other human beings to think clearly.
I don't hate human beings, I love them. I love their capacity to excel and do great things. I love the spectrum of human emotion, and the way that one can play with it.
What I hate is the system that tries to destroy this capacity and reduce us all to mindless cattle who exist simply for the sake of existing, who are to "practical" to be of any use, and who are willing to be lead around in circles by anyone who claims to have "leadership" abilities.

And now, you see, the two of you are already proving my point by pooling your resources in the face of a perceived threat.
However, I should emphasize that the threat isn't actually present. In the case of people banding together, an attack on one individual would constitute an assault on the whole group, and so the group would retaliate (even if the single individual didn't survive the assault).
In such a situation, it would be more to everyone's advantage simply to avoid conflicts and get on with living in whatever way they see fit.

I was of course not serious about the threat. The thing is if pooling resources of individuals is beneficial then the same thing can be said for groups. If enough groups merge there will be need to handle disputes within the group. Some kind of government will form. The state is recreated out of self-interest.

Unnatural examples. In both situations, there was/is a great deal of external stress being applied (ie, hurricane or foriegn invasion). This stress alone would render either area non-exemplary of a world-wide anarchy.
How then is world-wide anarchy to occur? Peacefully? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that you are impractical. It isn't what the people with all the guns want. It isn't going to happen.
If you believed in them, you'd work for them. You don't, so you don't.
Don't tell me what I do and don't beleive int.
What you actually believe in is the maintenance of the status quo,
That isn't contrary to my beliefs.
I see no "ability" in leadership today. At best, there are a few mob oraters, but even most of them have died out. These days, there is just a roster of rich, white guys who manage to convince about 1/4th of the voting population to put a check beside their name.

They are good at obtaining power. That doesn't mean that they are good at anything else.
There are still people struggling to pay their medical bills or reassmble their shattered lives, and yet no one seems to care.

The only way to fix either of those problems is a strong central authority.
By your own logic, Democracy must be better. Since the USA quit being part of the British Monarcy and adopted a Republican system, we've gotten computers, penicillin and cars.
Obviously the change in hierarchy caused those technologies to just magically appear.
I fail to see how anyone could think that technologic innovation could occur in an environment where everyone must constantly be looking over their shoulder for fear of being killed.

How could intentional advancement even occur without a central authority to provide funds? Sure a corporation could do it, and not the government, but the only thing that makes corporations possible, or any part of capitalism possible, is the government enforcement of contracts and property.
If you remain alive simply for the purpose of living, then you're engaging in an ultimately futile task, because, ultimately, you will die, it will probably be painful and it will come at a time when you don't expect it.
I remain alive because I have fun and enjoy things. Yeah, that's going to end someday, but there is no reason to make that sooner than it needs to be.
Having the will to actually do something (as opposed to praying that someone else will fight for you) is not the same thing as throwing your life away.
How is it not? If I die fighting for something, so what? I'm dead. I won't even know if it meant anything.
I don't hate human beings, I love them. I love their capacity to excel and do great things.
Yet you think some deserve to die.
What I hate is the system that tries to destroy this capacity and reduce us all to mindless cattle who exist simply for the sake of existing, who are to "practical" to be of any use, and who are willing to be lead around in circles by anyone who claims to have "leadership" abilities.
These systems allow us to reach our potential, especially the less fortunate. They allow most of us to live without having to worry about protecting ourselves from criminals like you.

These systems allow us to reach our potential, especially the less fortunate.

"These systems" are built upon the oppression and exploitation of the "less fortunate."

I do not think huge corporations would like Anarcho capitalism there would be no corporate welfare from the government, no patent laws, no government regulations that drive up the cost of business so high that only the very rich can afford to do business, no tax laws that hurt your less rich and/or more honest competitors while an immoral corporation can stick thier money into an off shore tax haven.

I also do not see corporate war breaking out in the age of nuclear weapons I think a nuclear war or war in general would be extremely bad for the bottom line. What corporations ever lose money in war? Corporations are all for war when they are making a profit but when the CEO and the rest of the Executive officers are the ones that are going to be in the cross hairs I do not think they will put their lives and profits on the line to start a war.

Great business tactic considering that workers are consumers.

A wealthy labor force is a wealth market of consumers.

Under an "anarcho" capitalist system, consumers will in the end become irrelevant to the equation. If the entire means of production is owned by private forces, who can literally buy favorable laws and police through the "free" market, then the public state has been merely replaced by a private, totalitarian version. At this point, if you look from the perspective of the corporate executive, living up to consumer demand becomes one of those "annoyances," to be dealt with in the same way that any other annoyance is-- complete annihilation.

If these new private states come into existence, the very existence of a market system will break down and eventually end up extinct. The new, "anarcho" capitalist private state has through treachery, coercion, and force acheived the same absolute power that Stalinist Russia did. Once more, we'll have many competing totalitarian states fighting for control of an ever larger sphere of influence.

The only logical conclusion of "anarcho" capitalism is the reemergence of bureaucratic collectivism. Instead of the ideals of socialism being bastardized to justify this new order, it will be the ideals of "anarcho" capitalism that will be used to justify this nightmare.

Great business tactic considering that workers are consumers.

A wealthy labor force is a wealth market of consumers.

Tell that to Wal-Mart.

Anyone who has studied the history of the corporation knows that government has legislated away the corporation's need to be efficient. All that a corporation needs to do is to abide by all of governments micromanaging regulations and it will be healthy. This results in scientific management, the dehumanizing process by which workers are restricted to automotons, held to the strictest guidelines of safety, health, and production regulations.

And anyone who has studied the history of corporations knows that in the absence of such government regulation, corporations are still quite inefficient due to their ability to achieve monopolistic, monopsonistic, or oligopolistic market positions. And as the state falls away, that is exactly what will happen. It will not be a boon for small business, and community-based economies, but rather another victory for big corporations.

Under an "anarcho" capitalist system, consumers will in the end become irrelevant to the equation. If the entire means of production is owned by private forces, who can literally buy favorable laws and police through the "free" market, then the public state has been merely replaced by a private, totalitarian version. At this point, if you look from the perspective of the corporate executive, living up to consumer demand becomes one of those "annoyances," to be dealt with in the same way that any other annoyance is-- complete annihilation.

If these new private states come into existence, the very existence of a market system will break down and eventually end up extinct. The new, "anarcho" capitalist private state has through treachery, coercion, and force acheived the same absolute power that Stalinist Russia did. Once more, we'll have many competing totalitarian states fighting for control of an ever larger sphere of influence.

The only logical conclusion of "anarcho" capitalism is the reemergence of bureaucratic collectivism. Instead of the ideals of socialism being bastardized to justify this new order, it will be the ideals of "anarcho" capitalism that will be used to justify this nightmare.

Before this circles into oblivion, read my other posts.

And anyone who has studied the history of corporations knows that in the absence of such government regulation, corporations are still quite inefficient due to their ability to achieve monopolistic, monopsonistic, or oligopolistic market positions. And as the state falls away, that is exactly what will happen. It will not be a boon for small business, and community-based economies, but rather another victory for big corporations.

Not true at all.

There are several points to address here.

I am not advocating the instantaneous disappearance of the state. I specifically stated the "steady erosion" of the state. We are presently in corporatized state capitalism that has, over the last 125 years, passed regulatory legislation after regulatory legislation benefiting first and foremost big business.

Consider this: What is the main concern most people have for big business? It is probably monopoly over the market, control over the output of goods, thereby controlling the pricing on the market, squeezing consumers, and blocking rival entrants to the market. Now what do you suppose the true effects of regulation actually are? Certainly we have this perception of protecting ourselves from these evil businesses (these businesses, of course, understand that their first tort liability could be their downfall, and would avoid dangerous products like the plague).

But remember what the businesses are striving for and what we are trying to prevent, the control over the output of goods? Big business found out quite early that they shouldn't need to create trusts amongst themselves to control prices, as they ultmately failed. The obvious solution was to use government to regulate the output of the industry, after all, why worry about competitors finding better methods of production and more utilizable goods, when you can control the aggregate output through government? And those workers, they are pacified as well!

After all of that, the real answer was in the post that you quoted:

Anyone who has studied the history of the corporation knows that government has legislated away the corporation's need to be efficient. All that a corporation needs to do is to abide by all of governments micromanaging regulations and it will be healthy. This results in scientific management, the dehumanizing process by which workers are restricted to automotons, held to the strictest guidelines of safety, health, and production regulations.

It is not purchasing power that rules the marketplace, it is efficiency. All the government regulations imposed on industry do is eliminate efficiency, which in turn entrenches all that big business which is loaded with bureaucracy and excels at rigid output. With the elimination of these regulations, small flexible businesses will immediately outclass big business, as markets become decentralized, and rigid production methods fail to meet the variances in demand.


I believe one only needs to look at the history of Wal-Mart alone to look at the implications of non-government interference. There's nothing to stop a company that has a large amount of capital from undercutting a small company to secure its position; and this is without resorting to armed intervention.

I'll hand this to you; I'm not an anarchist, and my general distrust of anarchy is bleeding into my debate or anarcho-capitalism. However, if I were to be an anarchist, anarcho-communism seems to be much more in keeping with the ideals of anarchism in the first place. Capitalism, in it's ideal form is fine, but in practice (and without intervention) is highly coercive. I don't believe that's always a bad thing, but it's anti-anarchy.

Ultimately, capitalism needs to work for the consumer. It's true that big corporations can manipulate the state to work in thier favour, but if you take the state out of the equation, I think you would end up with a much worse situation. One only need look at any business enterprise which isn't legitimate, i.e. the narcotics trade, prostitution, loan sharks, etc, to realize that business without a state-observed scenario is potentially hazardous to the average consumer.

Not true at all.

It would probably be better to back that up, and you've shown that you can.

Not true at all.

Evidence?

How then is world-wide anarchy to occur? Peacefully? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that you are impractical. It isn't what the people with all the guns want. It isn't going to happen.
Via popular uprising like most successful social changes. How else could it happen?
Don't tell me what I do and don't beleive int.
You support the current system because it is advantageous to you in specific, and the moment it runs counter to your momentary desires you plan to run away and hope that someone else with actual convictions (like Canada) is willing to save your ass. That is hardly in promotion of the general welfare, and, therefore, you cannot be Utilitarian.
That isn't contrary to my beliefs.
So, you're a Starbucksian? Whatever.
They are good at obtaining power. That doesn't mean that they are good at anything else.
They aren't good at "obtaining" power, they're just slightly less worse than the guy running for the other team. These people have the weight of a national party behind them, and they can't even rouse the interest of half of the potential voters in an area (and that is assuming that every vote came from a single, living voter, with no corruption whatsoever).
The only way to fix either of those problems is a strong central authority.
The US's central authority has been growing consistently stronger since Lincoln, but we don't seem to be getting any better at handling these issues.
Fascism and USSR brand Communism were all about the Strong Central Authority, but they couldn't get their shit together enough to outlast the century, let alone look after their people.
I fail to see how anyone could think that technologic innovation could occur in an environment where everyone must constantly be looking over their shoulder for fear of being killed.
There is no such thing as the Hobbesian "State of Nature", and, even if there were, the protection provided by government is mostly illusory.
As I've already pointed out, today, several people are going to be killed within New York today, and the number of people who are going to be "only" robbed is even higher.
Alternately, I fail to see how anyone could think that innovations in advanced physics could occur in an environment where everyone must constantly be looking up at their king for fear of being killed.
How could intentional advancement even occur without a central authority to provide funds? Sure a corporation could do it, and not the government, but the only thing that makes corporations possible, or any part of capitalism possible, is the government enforcement of contracts and property.
So the same corporations who are going to buy up huge armies and take over the world can't enforce a contract?
Governments don't exist in nature, right? So that means that humans had to invent them, correct? Since Government is, according to you, the greatest and most valuable thing to come from humanity (as, without it, we'd have no other advancements), government could not have logically occured without government already existing to foster the development of government.
I remain alive because I have fun and enjoy things. Yeah, that's going to end someday, but there is no reason to make that sooner than it needs to be.
What if the government moves to deprive you of your "fun"? Its a damn fool that dies for his DVD Player, but you're leaving yourself with no other options here.
How is it not? If I die fighting for something, so what? I'm dead. I won't even know if it meant anything.
To put the difference in the most vulgar terms (since everything else seems above you): Russian Roulette vs Execution.
Yet you think some deserve to die.
And you think some humans deserve to be locked up so that you can preserve your illusions of civilization and safety while all the rest deserve to waste away in their societally enforced roles until they love their chains as much as you do.
These systems allow us to reach our potential, especially the less fortunate. They allow most of us to live without having to worry about protecting ourselves from criminals like you.
The less fortunate are the ones being most disadvantaged by the current state of affairs, as they are held with no option other than to slave away in Minimum Wage until they die.

I believe one only needs to look at the history of Wal-Mart alone to look at the implications of non-government interference. There's nothing to stop a company that has a large amount of capital from undercutting a small company to secure its position; and this is without resorting to armed intervention.

I'll hand this to you; I'm not an anarchist, and my general distrust of anarchy is bleeding into my debate or anarcho-capitalism. However, if I were to be an anarchist, anarcho-communism seems to be much more in keeping with the ideals of anarchism in the first place. Capitalism, in it's ideal form is fine, but in practice (and without intervention) is highly coercive. I don't believe that's always a bad thing, but it's anti-anarchy.

Ultimately, capitalism needs to work for the consumer. It's true that big corporations can manipulate the state to work in thier favour, but if you take the state out of the equation, I think you would end up with a much worse situation. One only need look at any business enterprise which isn't legitimate, i.e. the narcotics trade, prostitution, loan sharks, etc, to realize that business without a state-observed scenario is potentially hazardous to the average consumer.

I will agree completely that capitalism can take on oppressive forms, any political economy can. However, it is my belief that capitalism has a decentralizing effect on the markets, as the most efficient markets are localized markets with shorter distribution chains. These massive nationwide or global companies would not arise unless absolutely necessary, and with the information and shipping technologies we have at present, I don't see big business being necessary all that often.

And as for your last point, what causes those business enterprises to be "illegitimate?" It couldn't be government intervention into the market, could it? I would turn that example back around and use it to showt that the more regulated an industry is, the more coercive it becomes.

It would probably be better to back that up, and you've shown that you can.

I'll prove the negative when I get done with work.

Evidence?

I would suggest that, since you made the claim, you provide some evidence as well. Also, just breeze through my other posts on this page.

And to address Wal-Mart, I find it amazing how most construct their criticisms of the corporation. They fault Wal-Mart for forcing out other businesses in communities, and they use the strangest justifications. I know it is something about undercutting the prices of their competitors, but if that is the case, it is not Wal-Mart who destroys the other business, it is the consumers. Often is ignored that Wal-Mart lowers price baskets within a community helping the lower rungs greatly, mainly because it is the upper-middle class who recieves political and media attention.

The only valid criticism one can lay on Wal-Mart for its business practices is that it works to streamline the methods that retail stores can be run by, in order to mold acceptable business models into the very model that is best for them. However, not only are most completely silent when it comes to this criticism, but they actually applaud it when Wal-Mart seeks further regulation.

I almost became an anarcho-capitalist once. I decided I like minarchism better.

Anarchism
Capitalism
looks like corpoative realm/.
Als an oxymoron,the thruth is wat it is,dan i guess national socialism will win,any time,even under a nazi regime.
Dat was fun>
fire,believe in emancipation,believe

lol

i guess national socialism will win,any time,even under a nazi regime.


Uhhh...last I checked under a Nazi government National Socialism had already won. After all, Nazi is derived from Nazionalsozialismus and they are the same thing, das stimmt?

Uhhh...last I checked under a Nazi government National Socialism had already won. After all, Nazi is derived from Nazionalsozialismus, das stimmt?
i'm please,you know about socialismus.

I will agree completely that capitalism can take on oppressive forms, any political economy can. However, it is my belief that capitalism has a decentralizing effect on the markets, as the most efficient markets are localized markets with shorter distribution chains. These massive nationwide or global companies would not arise unless absolutely necessary, and with the information and shipping technologies we have at present, I don't see big business being necessary all that often.

I'm not so sure about that. Since NAFTA, and the emerging globalized economy, the trend has been larger distribution chains. It was protectionism that kept business local. Perhaps if there are drastic costs in transportation due to increased fuel costs, that might change. Logistics and supply chain management are increasingly growing fields. Now, is that because of the 'state'? I don't really think so; it's been a result of trade liberalization.

But my contention with anarcho-capitalism is that it's the laws and stability that the state provides that shelters capitalist enterprise. The moment you take out the arbiter (i.e., the state), the gloves are off, and the bigger you are, the more clout you are going to have. The larger corporations will become the new 'states'.

And as for your last point, what causes those business enterprises to be "illegitimate?" It couldn't be government intervention into the market, could it? I would turn that example back around and use it to showt that the more regulated an industry is, the more coercive it becomes.

I'm talking about 'business' which is outside the realm of law. The reason the bank doesn't come and bust your kneecaps when you don't pay your mortgage is because the state won't let them. Loan Sharks, on the other hand, provide the same service as the banks, outside of the law. Without the law that the state provides, there's no way to be certain that all lending businesses will essentially become loan sharks. Government intervention into the market has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about a black market, which is a perfect example of what would happen in an anarcho-capitalist scenario. You might get some good deals, but Caveat Emptor; there's no consumer protection act.

And to address Wal-Mart, I find it amazing how most construct their criticisms of the corporation. They fault Wal-Mart for forcing out other businesses in communities, and they use the strangest justifications. I know it is something about undercutting the prices of their competitors, but if that is the case, it is not Wal-Mart who destroys the other business, it is the consumers. Often is ignored that Wal-Mart lowers price baskets within a community helping the lower rungs greatly, mainly because it is the upper-middle class who recieves political and media attention.

The only valid criticism one can lay on Wal-Mart for its business practices is that it works to streamline the methods that retail stores can be run by, in order to mold acceptable business models into the very model that is best for them. However, not only are most completely silent when it comes to this criticism, but they actually applaud it when Wal-Mart seeks further regulation.

We're talking about a company that rose to power by selling its goods below cost, at a rate that smaller competitors couldn't hope to compete, thus driving out their competition. Wal-Mart is a perfect example of what I mean by 'purchasing power'. They have used such tactics to gain huge financial clout, to the point where they dictate to their suppliers how much they are going to pay them - take it or leave it. You don't turn down Wal-Mart, because it means money.

That being said, I'm not out to bash Wal-Mart per se, but I'm using it as an example of what can happen without intervention.

You are against the idea of monopolies aren't you? What prevents a monopoly in an anarcho-capitalist state?

That being said, I'm not out to bash Wal-Mart per se, but I'm using it as an example of what can happen without intervention.

You are against the idea of monopolies aren't you? What prevents a monopoly in an anarcho-capitalist state?

Absolutely nothing. "Anarcho" capitalism's primary beneficiaries are those who are major investors and corporate executives. Everyone else, in the end, will get shafted.

I would suggest that, since you made the claim, you provide some evidence as well. Also, just breeze through my other posts on this page.

Since you are the one advocating the transition to state-less society, I believe the burden is on you to provide some evidence to back up the claims you are making. Once you have provided some evidence to make your case, I will rebut. Your other posts so far provide arguments, but they do not provide evidence.

Often is ignored that Wal-Mart lowers price baskets within a community helping the lower rungs greatly, mainly because it is the upper-middle class who recieves political and media attention.

They also depress wages in the lower rungs greatly by paying low wages (often sub-minimum wage to illegal immigrants), giving their workers less than full-time hours, and demanding that they work unpaid overtime. Once they have wiped out competition in the retailing industry in a given area, they often enjoy a near monopsonistic position vis a vis employment in the retailing industry, so this can hardly be said to be a situation of qual bargaining power.


The only valid criticism one can lay on Wal-Mart for its business practices is that it works to streamline the methods that retail stores can be run by, in order to mold acceptable business models into the very model that is best for them.

There are several valid criticisms of Wal-Mart:
- it's labour practices as cited above
- it's anti-competitive practices as referred to by mikesburg
- it's dependence on corporate welfare and government subsidies: examples include the huge subsidies to road building necessary to even make it's stores viable, and the fact that it's wages are so low that many of it's US employees qualify for government funded Health Care
- it's near-monopsonistic position that enables it to exploit it's suppliers
- the environmental impact of it's stores

To name but a few ...

And you think some humans deserve to be locked up so that you can preserve your illusions of civilization and safety while all the rest deserve to waste away in their societally enforced roles until they love their chains as much as you do.

Why do you think that the abolition of the state will change this?

Anyone who has worked in the inefficient, dehumanzing corporate bureaucracy knows that corporations aren't necessarily more efficient than government.

This really won the thread. Even though it was the first response.

Anarcho-capitalism is no more intelligent than anarcho-communism, and of course, like anarcho-communism, it works "in theory". In fact, it's probably one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of. It seems to me that it's supporters are generally fairly well-off people who have no idea how the other side really lives. Generally.

Instead of being oppressed by one state, we'd just be oppressed by a bunch of corporations. Great job.

could work in theory.
as long as the police and military are still voted in.

could work in theory.
as long as the police and military are still voted in.

Nope, even then it will still degenerate into a Stalinist nightmare.

Via popular uprising like most successful social changes. How else could it happen?
Most successful social change is accomplished via peaceful means. If innocents die, it isn’t successful.
You support the current system because it is advantageous to you in specific, and the moment it runs counter to your momentary desires you plan to run away and hope that someone else with actual convictions (like Canada) is willing to save your ass. That is hardly in promotion of the general welfare, and, therefore, you cannot be Utilitarian.

I support the system not only because it is advantageous to me, but because it has the greatest potential to help those that cannot help themselves.
They aren't good at "obtaining" power, they're just slightly less worse than the guy running for the other team. These people have the weight of a national party behind them, and they can't even rouse the interest of half of the potential voters in an area (and that is assuming that every vote came from a single, living voter, with no corruption whatsoever).
Most people shouldn't be voting anyway, especially the ones that don't want to.
The US's central authority has been growing consistently stronger since Lincoln, but we don't seem to be getting any better at handling these issues.
What? Since Lincoln we’ve abolished slavery, established Civil Rights and created a great deal of welfare programs. These things would have all been impossible without a strong central power.
Fascism and USSR brand Communism were all about the Strong Central Authority, but they couldn't get their shit together enough to outlast the century, let alone look after their people.

I don not support other of those ideas. Fascism is inherently violent and Stalinism is a lie.
There is no such thing as the Hobbesian "State of Nature",
Uh, yeah there is..
As I've already pointed out, today, several people are going to be killed within New York today, and the number of people who are going to be "only" robbed is even higher.
That is the fault of the government not taking an active enough role in ensuring equality of opportunity for all of its citizens. It is a failure of our government, but that does not mean that all governments are necessarily failures.
Alternately, I fail to see how anyone could think that innovations in advanced physics could occur in an environment where everyone must constantly be looking up at their king for fear of being killed.

In a stable society, people should have no fear of their fellow citizens or the state.
So the same corporations who are going to buy up huge armies and take over the world can't enforce a contract?
That is not how I choose to refute anarcho-capitalism. I do not believe corporations would take over the world. I believe that they would be looted and destroyed without the rule of law to protect them.
Governments don't exist in nature, right? So that means that humans had to invent them, correct? Since Government is, according to you, the greatest and most valuable thing to come from humanity (as, without it, we'd have no other advancements), government could not have logically occured without government already existing to foster the development of government.
Great things can originate from small things. Just look at life.
What if the government moves to deprive you of your "fun"? Its a damn fool that dies for his DVD Player, but you're leaving yourself with no other options here.
Then I would no longer support that government. Once again, just because one government does something I don’t like, that doesn’t mean I throw out the entire idea of stability and order.
To put the difference in the most vulgar terms (since everything else seems above you): Russian Roulette vs Execution.

Either way, you're dead. There is always a middle ground.
And you think some humans deserve to be locked up so that you can preserve your illusions of civilization and safety while all the rest deserve to waste away in their societally enforced roles until they love their chains as much as you do.
People will always find a way to exploit others.
The less fortunate are the ones being most disadvantaged by the current state of affairs, as they are held with no option other than to slave away in Minimum Wage until they die.
As opposed to dieing under anarchy? Without state enforced capitalism to generate arbitrary funds, and without the state to collect taxes and distribute them to welfare programs, the wretched die of starvation and exposure.

I'm not so sure about that. Since NAFTA, and the emerging globalized economy, the trend has been larger distribution chains. It was protectionism that kept business local. Perhaps if there are drastic costs in transportation due to increased fuel costs, that might change. Logistics and supply chain management are increasingly growing fields. Now, is that because of the 'state'? I don't really think so; it's been a result of trade liberalization.

The more responsive a business is to a market, the more efficient it will be. The closer management is to the daily operations of the business, the more efficient it will be. The greater the ease a business can transition its output to meet current demands, the more efficient it will be.

In all of these categories, the small business will completely outclass big business, and will become more efficient.


You are quite correct that larger distribution chains have occurred, but what you call free trade does nothing to ensure that the trade within the nations involved is free.


But my contention with anarcho-capitalism is that it's the laws and stability that the state provides that shelters capitalist enterprise. The moment you take out the arbiter (i.e., the state), the gloves are off, and the bigger you are, the more clout you are going to have. The larger corporations will become the new 'states'.

You are judging the consequences of removing the arbiter based upon our current state capitalism. If I am correct, and the state actually enables big business, then your contention is not valid.

I'm talking about 'business' which is outside the realm of law. The reason the bank doesn't come and bust your kneecaps when you don't pay your mortgage is because the state won't let them. Loan Sharks, on the other hand, provide the same service as the banks, outside of the law. Without the law that the state provides, there's no way to be certain that all lending businesses will essentially become loan sharks. Government intervention into the market has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about a black market, which is a perfect example of what would happen in an anarcho-capitalist scenario. You might get some good deals, but Caveat Emptor; there's no consumer protection act.

It is illegal for loan sharks to bust kneecaps, as well.

Black markets only occur through government intervention, otherwise they would just be markets.

We're talking about a company that rose to power by selling its goods below cost, at a rate that smaller competitors couldn't hope to compete, thus driving out their competition. Wal-Mart is a perfect example of what I mean by 'purchasing power'. They have used such tactics to gain huge financial clout, to the point where they dictate to their suppliers how much they are going to pay them - take it or leave it. You don't turn down Wal-Mart, because it means money.

That being said, I'm not out to bash Wal-Mart per se, but I'm using it as an example of what can happen without intervention.

So you are using a company that has thrived within an economy that is utterly dependent and molded by government regulation to exemplify the consequences of no government intervention?

You are against the idea of monopolies aren't you? What prevents a monopoly in an anarcho-capitalist state?

A monopoly that benefits the consumer would have little prevention amidst an anarcho-capitalist society (I am more of a minarchist, mind you), but it is not likely that a monopoly would benefit the consumer.

Absolutely nothing. "Anarcho" capitalism's primary beneficiaries are those who are major investors and corporate executives. Everyone else, in the end, will get shafted.

Except anybody who would benefit from increased competition, namely everyone involved in a market.

Since you are the one advocating the transition to state-less society, I believe the burden is on you to provide some evidence to back up the claims you are making. Once you have provided some evidence to make your case, I will rebut. Your other posts so far provide arguments, but they do not provide evidence.

It is difficult to provide evidence, since I am mainly appealing to economic principles and logic, but I will see what I can find.

Meanwhile, how are you going to rebut evidence? Aren't you supposed to rebut the argument?

They also depress wages in the lower rungs greatly by paying low wages (often sub-minimum wage to illegal immigrants), giving their workers less than full-time hours, and demanding that they work unpaid overtime. Once they have wiped out competition in the retailing industry in a given area, they often enjoy a near monopsonistic position vis a vis employment in the retailing industry, so this can hardly be said to be a situation of qual bargaining power.

Wal-Mart actually pays rather good wages in comparison to local retailers, which is the central reason that Wal-Mart's CEO called for a raise of the minimum wage (http://www.mises.org/story/1950).

The more the government controls the labor market, the less competition that Wal-Mart has to worry about.

I suspect this puts you into a quandry, however, as one of your principle desires is a direct cause of one of your principle complaints.


There are several valid criticisms of Wal-Mart:
- it's anti-competitive practices as referred to by mikesburg

Undercutting prices is a very competitive practice.

- it's dependence on corporate welfare and government subsidies: examples include the huge subsidies to road building necessary to even make it's stores viable, and the fact that it's wages are so low that many of it's US employees qualify for government funded Health Care

All of which I have argued against as well. Continue to post examples of Wal-Mart's dependency upon government, if you wish.


- it's near-monopsonistic position that enables it to exploit it's suppliers

A position that is granted by government regulation and subsidation of the market.


- the environmental impact of it's stores

I don't know much about this issue, but it would not be possible without the approval of the consumer.

This really won the thread. Even though it was the first response.

It really was appealling to anyone who has strong feelings about the corporation without any real understanding of the corporation or its history.

It seems to me that it's supporters are generally fairly well-off people who have no idea how the other side really lives. Generally.

It seems to me that its detractors are generally people who don't really want to argue the points (as they take tradition as ample reason to take an opinion), and simply resort to ad hominems.

...it would not be possible without the approval of the consumer.

Yes, it would be. The benefit the individual consumer gets from helping the environment is less than the cost of not shopping at Wal-Mart (at least in most relevant cases), but because the benefit of each individual act is social, it's perfectly conceivable that every or almost every Wal-Mart customer would prefer no one doing such things to everyone doing them.

Yes, it would be. The benefit the individual consumer gets from helping the environment is less than the cost of not shopping at Wal-Mart (at least in most relevant cases), but because the benefit of each individual act is social, it's perfectly conceivable that every or almost every Wal-Mart customer would prefer no one doing such things to everyone doing them.

I don't really understand what you mean, but it doesn't appear to absolve the consumer of responsibility.

I don't really understand what you mean,

Either Wal-Mart will cease its environmental destruction, or it won't. Whether or not it will has next to nothing to do with the actions of a single consumer, but the benefits of shopping there are clear and immediate. It's rational to shop there even if you would prefer that they cease their environmental destruction; regardless of their decision, you benefit more than otherwise.

but it doesn't appear to absolve the consumer of responsibility.

You are not responsible for what you do not have the power to prevent.

And why should environmental destruction be tolerated if the consumers don't care?

The more responsive a business is to a market, the more efficient it will be. The closer management is to the daily operations of the business, the more efficient it will be. The greater the ease a business can transition its output to meet current demands, the more efficient it will be.


All of which is irrelevant if big business can collude amongst itself to exclude other producers by erecting barriers to entry (whcih can occur with our without government) or can achieve a near-monopsonistic position that enables them to buy goods for less and negate any efficiency gains that the small business might enjoy. Both of which are entirely possible (if not likely) in the scenario you have described.

It is difficult to provide evidence, since I am mainly appealing to economic principles and logic, but I will see what I can find.

That is the problem. We can both construct seemingly logical arguments, but they are ultimately based on certain assumptions which may or may not be correct. We need to be able to provide evidence that our argument is in fact borne out by real world experience.


Meanwhile, how are you going to rebut evidence? Aren't you supposed to rebut the argument?
I prefer to do both.

It really was appealling to anyone who has strong feelings about the corporation without any real understanding of the corporation or its history.
I have both.



It seems to me that its detractors are generally people who don't really want to argue the points (as they take tradition as ample reason to take an opinion), and simply resort to ad hominems.
I think the point was that very few people on this thread know what it is like to not have any meaningful choice.

Either Wal-Mart will cease its environmental destruction, or it won't. Whether or not it will has next to nothing to do with the actions of a single consumer, but the benefits of shopping there are clear and immediate. It's rational to shop there even if you would prefer that they cease their environmental destruction; regardless of their decision, you benefit more than otherwise.

You are not responsible for what you do not have the power to prevent.

This fatalism exculpates non-voters as well, correct?

And why should environmental destruction be tolerated if the consumers don't care?

That is a very complex question, but it is beside the point.

This fatalism exculpates non-voters as well, correct?

Actually, yes, to some degree. The interesting thing about voting is not why so many people refrain from it, but why so many don't.

That said, there is a difference - the fewer voters there are, the the greater the control each voter has on the result. Shopping at Wal-Mart's competitors is equivalent to voting for a different party, not to not voting at all.

That is a very complex question, but it is beside the point.

No, it isn't. Evil Cantadia pointed out the problems with Wal-Mart, and your excuse for its environmental destruction was that it wouldn't happen unless the consumer approved. I am pointing out that that is no excuse at all.

Wal-Mart actually pays rather good wages in comparison to local retailers, which is the central reason that Wal-Mart's CEO called for a raise of the minimum wage (http://www.mises.org/story/1950).

Do I need to expose the logical fallacies iand inaccuracies in that article?
1) the fact that Wal-Mart's average wage is above the minimum wage does not mean that they would be "unaffected" by an increase in minimum wage; because the average includes those wages at the bottom end of their scale, which would increase if minimum wage were to go up.
2) The article doesn't back up your claim that Wal Mart pays more than local retailers. Only that it pays more than other big chains, although it doesn't even back that claim up with any credible sources.
3) So it does not follow that only Wal-Mart's competitors would be affected by such a change in minimum wage.
4) The rhetoric about social cost is not overblown and ignorant. Wal Mart's low prices are in part a function of (in addition to it's anti-competitive practices) its tremendous ability to externalize. But there is a prisoner's dillemma with regard to choosing to shop there. Of course we could avoid these costs if everyone chose not to shop there. But the reality is, that some people will, and they will be enjoying the benefit of low prices, while externalizing the costs on the rest of us. the optimal scenario would be for no-one to shop there, but it is individually rational for people to shop there, which is to avoid the worst case scenario: that they don't get the benefit of the low prices, but they bear the costs of everyone else's decision to shope there.

Ironically, I actually agree with his suggestion that the minimum wage should be abolished. But only once a negative income tax has been implemented.


I suspect this puts you into a quandry, however, as one of your principle desires is a direct cause of one of your principle complaints.


My complaint was that they were paying their employees below minimum wage or making them work unpaid hours. My complaint is that they are able to impose higher costs on their competitors because their power enables them to get away with avoiding laws by which others are bound.


Undercutting prices is a very competitive practice.


Not if it is designed to put the competition out of business.


A position that is granted by government regulation and subsidation of the market.

Wal-Mart has achieved it's monopsonistic position in part because of its ability to avoid said regulations, not because of them.


I don't know much about this issue, but it would not be possible without the approval of the consumer.

This could only be considered approval if it was realistic to say that people in low income brackets have a choice about buying things at the lowest possible price.

That is the problem. We can both construct seemingly logical arguments, but they are ultimately based on certain assumptions which may or may not be correct. We need to be able to provide evidence that our argument is in fact borne out by real world experience.

You haven't provided an argument.


Evidence:

The Wagner Act: maintained the managerial position of the owners and managers, rendered the labor force answerable to the authority of the state, provided only one source of negotiation for the labor force, pacified a nearly revolutionary labor force, and turned the labor force into a bureaucracy far more likely to negotiate with the bureaucratic corporation rather than the small business. The Wagner Act was also the springboard for the Taft Hartley Act which undermined labor solidarity.

Military Spending by the government is responsible for a great deal of R&D within the private sector, the results of this R&D is then unjustly granted as a monopoly by government interference. 40% of government R&D spending is filtered through the 10 largest private research institutes.

Vietnamese fish imports were banned (http://www.mises.org/story/1890) under the premise of fighting bioterrorism. It seems the Vietnamese fish were preferred in taste tests when compared to American raised fish, and that American producers are limited in their ability to produce safe fish by the government.

The FDA has long been in the pocket of big business lobbyists, revoking and granting drug applications at the corporations' whims.

Lawyers have effectively priced themselves out of the range of a great portion of the population, leaving much of the labor class nearly unrepresented legally.

Shopping at Wal-Mart's competitors is equivalent to voting for a different party, not to not voting at all.

Then it would be very effective.

No, it isn't. Evil Cantadia pointed out the problems with Wal-Mart, and your excuse for its environmental destruction was that it wouldn't happen unless the consumer approved. I am pointing out that that is no excuse at all.

Yes it is, as Wal-Mart is a retail chain, they obligate themselves to serve the consumer. If they must raise their prices to lower their polution, I think we can assume that consumers will lose their utility with Wal-Mart and shop somewhere else that fills Wal-Mart's role as a low-cost polluter.

Responsibility rests with the consumer.

Most successful social change is accomplished via peaceful means. If innocents die, it isn’t successful.
Like the successful social change of Monarchies to Democracies? Global Empires to Self-Determinism?
The road from oppression into freedom is often a violent and unpleasant one.
I support the system not only because it is advantageous to me, but because it has the greatest potential to help those that cannot help themselves.
Help them do what? Survive on the fringes of society? Exist on the whims of people like you who keep them around just to pat yourselves on your bourgeois backs for being so fucking noble?
Most people shouldn't be voting anyway, especially the ones that don't want to.
Just because someone doesn't want to excercise political power doesn't mean that they aren't a better judge of rulers than someone who staggers into the polling station and fills out a straight ticket.
What? Since Lincoln we’ve abolished slavery, established Civil Rights and created a great deal of welfare programs. These things would have all been impossible without a strong central power.
We've also created a precedent for the Chief Executive to wield arbitrary power, violated the central tenant of the "contract" between the states (that it was a voluntary "union" as opposed to a populist dictatorship), and generally tightened the noose around our collective necks.
I don not support other of those ideas. Fascism is inherently violent and Stalinism is a lie.
Fascism was designed with stability in mind. You'd like it: only the "right" people get a voice in government, all the little numbers are kept in the proper columns, and the government is everywhere. The violence is just part of government, it is needed to provide the Suburbanites a direction to blow off some steam. In the US, we get cops, robbers and the death penalty.
Uh, yeah there is..
This has already been stated: "People without government don't just start killing everyone."
That is the fault of the government not taking an active enough role in ensuring equality of opportunity for all of its citizens. It is a failure of our government, but that does not mean that all governments are necessarily failures.
Except that it has been a failure of every government, without exception.
And I thought the government was here for deterrence, when did you start trying to play the "equality" card?
In a stable society, people should have no fear of their fellow citizens or the state.
And the fact that there has, apparently, never been a "stable society" connects in here, how?
That is not how I choose to refute anarcho-capitalism. I do not believe corporations would take over the world. I believe that they would be looted and destroyed without the rule of law to protect them.
Ah, yes, because all people are wild animals, which only begs the question of why you want to trust these animals with governmental control. At least in an anarchy you only need to fear those men standing within gunshot range, in the US you have to worry about everyone of those Wannabe Savages from Florida to Oregon.
Great things can originate from small things. Just look at life.
So you admit that great things can come out of an anarchic world? Interesting.
Then I would no longer support that government. Once again, just because one government does something I don’t like, that doesn’t mean I throw out the entire idea of stability and order.
But you wouldn't fight, simply accept their decision as neccessary for preserving "order", which you still won't get because "order" and "life" are oppositional concepts.
Either way, you're dead. There is always a middle ground.
You're only dead if you lose, and some things are worth that much of a gamble.
People will always find a way to exploit others.
Unless the others are given opportunity to fight back.
And even if exploitation is inevitable, why should they just be furnished with the tools from the start?
As opposed to dieing under anarchy? Without state enforced capitalism to generate arbitrary funds, and without the state to collect taxes and distribute them to welfare programs, the wretched die of starvation and exposure.
Some will die, some will live. Those that die are preserved from thier suffering, those that lived are allowed to deliver themselves from it.

Then it would be very effective.

Only if lots of people do it. Since it is irrational for any one of them to do it, they won't (except for those who take pleasure in boycotting Wal-Mart independent of any desire to see it halt its policies.)

Yes it is, as Wal-Mart is a retail chain, they obligate themselves to serve the consumer. If they must raise their prices to lower their polution, I think we can assume that consumers will lose their utility with Wal-Mart and shop somewhere else that fills Wal-Mart's role as a low-cost polluter.

Yes. That is why the environmental destruction should be prohibited by law (maybe, anyway, I'm not sure what Evil Cantadia is referring to.) This would be precluded by "anarcho"-capitalism (as would any "market solution," for it would be hard enough to enforce ordinary property rights, let alone property rights over air quality.)

All of which is irrelevant if big business can collude amongst itself to exclude other producers by erecting barriers to entry (whcih can occur with our without government) or can achieve a near-monopsonistic position that enables them to buy goods for less and negate any efficiency gains that the small business might enjoy. Both of which are entirely possible (if not likely) in the scenario you have described.

First off, trusts were ineffective in maintaining artificially high prices or creating barriers to entry.

Also, in my scenario, the advantages to staying localized would preclude monopsonistic business relationships from occurring.

Only if lots of people do it. Since it is irrational for any one of them to do it, they won't (except for those who take pleasure in boycotting Wal-Mart independent of any desire to see it halt its policies.)

How long has it been since you have been to a Wal-Mart? It has been months for me. Do you think the advantages of going to Wal-Mart are so great that even small ecological factors could not influence someone's decision?

Yes. That is why the environmental destruction should be prohibited by law (maybe, anyway, I'm not sure what Evil Cantadia is referring to.) This would be precluded by "anarcho"-capitalism (as would any "market solution," for it would be hard enough to enforce ordinary property rights, let alone property rights over air quality.)

Or it could be done away with in a truly competitive market where people didn't have one retail source to go to.

Assuming that the people actually want ecologically responsible businesses. (that is the point isn't it?)

I think the point was that very few people on this thread know what it is like to not have any meaningful choice.

I may be the only one.

How long has it been since you have been to a Wal-Mart? It has been months for me.

Same here. But I am also one of those people who boycott irrationally.

Do you think the advantages of going to Wal-Mart are so great that even small ecological factors could not influence someone's decision?

No, they can, and they do, but the effect is not great enough - and that insufficiency is not solely due to consumer apathy towards environmental destruction.

Or it could be done away with in a truly competitive market where people didn't have one retail source to go to.

Why should we have to depend on the consumers?

Assuming that the people actually want ecologically responsible businesses. (that is the point isn't it?)

What if the consumers of the good aren't those affected by the environmental destruction?

Or it could be done away with in a truly competitive market where people didn't have one retail source to go to.

You are assuming that a perfectly competitive market can exist, and that it would exist in the absence of a state.


Assuming that the people actually want ecologically responsible businesses. (that is the point isn't it?)

It is not a question of whether they want it, but whether they need it. The simple reality is that human activity of any kind (including a market system) is not possible without the ecosystem to sustain it. As long as we continue to do business as if this ecosystem does not exist (or is a mere externality) then we threaten to undermine the very thing that makes doing business possible.

Currently we have a system where environmental costs are generally treated as externalities by producers. Since the cost of the goods does not reflect their actual costs, they are both overproduced and overconsumed. As such, the natural capital that makes life on this planet possible continues to decline. In fact, they are declining at such a rate that present "economic growth" is probably actually uneconomic growth (i.e. if we were to subtract all of the costs, we would see that our costs actually exceed our revenues).

We could choose voluntarily to be ecologically responsible, but that leads to the type of prisoner's dillema I described above (not to mention free rider problems). Producers are not likely to assume the environmental costs of their activities voluntarily; to do so would put them at a competitive disadvantage with other producers (with the exception of those who are able to appeal to the niche market of the ecologically conscious consumer). So somebody has to require them to do it ... that somebody is in all likelihood going to have to be the state, although I am open to other suggestions as to how it can be done.

The bottom line is we need to stop treating the environment like a luxury, and start treating it like a necessity. Which is what it is.

What if the consumers of the good aren't those affected by the environmental destruction?

Exactly. As long as consumers are able to externalize the costs of their conduct onto others, a free market will not result in the optimal scenario.

Vittos; it would seem to me that you are agruing a case for as little interference as possible into private enterprise, and I can respect that. I'm a capitalist, and a former business owner. Having 'gov' up in your grill is never fun. However, you must admit the minarchists make sense. Even in an anarcho-communist environment, people will get together and decide a set of rules to follow. I believe it's inevitable. It's a human response. When people elect a polictician to represent them, they never praise their lack of doing something. People want to see their representatives get involved. Which is why I feel anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream. A noble concept? Perhaps... but every government style is noble in its idealistic state.

We can argue about Wal-mart till' the cows come home (quaint analogy that it is), but I'm sure you're willing to agree that it's better for businesses to exist in an environment where they feel they can conduct busniess fairly and equitably. Without the coercion of the state, I'm not sure it's even remotely possible.

Sorry... I'm just a statist. The anarchists won't like me for it, but I have no faith in anarchy, and even less faith in capitalism in an anarchist environment.

First off, trusts were ineffective in maintaining artificially high prices or creating barriers to entry.

Yes. Back when we had anti-trust laws that were actually enforced. Your points make a stronger case for enforcing the laws we have (or strengthening them) than eliminating them.


Also, in my scenario, the advantages to staying localized would preclude monopsonistic business relationships from occurring.

Only if they outweigh the advantages to monopsony.

Like the successful social change of Monarchies to Democracies? Global Empires to Self-Determinism?
The road from oppression into freedom is often a violent and unpleasant one.
Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.’s movements are the only ones worth modeling any revolution off of.
Help them do what? Survive on the fringes of society? Exist on the whims of people like you who keep them around just to pat yourselves on your bourgeois backs for being so fucking noble?
No, help them to achieve equality of opportunity. Help it not matter where one comes from but what they are capable of and to provide safety and comfort to even those that fail.
We have the resources to do so.
Just because someone doesn't want to excercise political power doesn't mean that they aren't a better judge of rulers than someone who staggers into the polling station and fills out a straight ticket.
No, it doesn't. Which is why we should have IQ tests and laws requiring the upper 5% of the population to vote and bar the rest.
We've also created a precedent for the Chief Executive to wield arbitrary power,
All power is arbitrary. That isn’t what makes it bad or good. Results do.
violated the central tenant of the "contract" between the states (that it was a voluntary "union" as opposed to a populist dictatorship)
The “contract” is outdated. The lack of centralization is what keeps schools in low income areas from being little more than daycares.
This has already been stated: "People without government don't just start killing everyone."
Some people are only decent because of the law.
And I thought the government was here for deterrence, when did you start trying to play the "equality" card?
Since the beginning. I stated something to the effect that only a central authority can provide stability and comfort. Equality is an inherent part of comfort.
Ah, yes, because all people are wild animals, which only begs the question of why you want to trust these animals with governmental control. At least in an anarchy you only need to fear those men standing within gunshot range, in the US you have to worry about everyone of those Wannabe Savages from Florida to Oregon.

Which is why I am not a fan of Democracy.
So you admit that great things can come out of an anarchic world? Interesting.
I am not an idealist.
But you wouldn't fight, simply accept their decision as neccessary for preserving "order", which you still won't get because "order" and "life" are oppositional concepts.

I would fight it, but not violently.
You're only dead if you lose, and some things are worth that much of a gamble.
I don’t like to take risks. In fact, I never do. Well, everything is technically a risk, but you know what I mean.
Some will die, some will live. Those that die are preserved from thier suffering, those that lived are allowed to deliver themselves from it.
No one should have to struggle like that.

Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.’s movements are the only ones worth modeling any revolution off of.

I'm sure that would've worked wonderfully for the Jews against the Nazis.

I'm sure that would've worked wonderfully for the Jews against the Nazis.
"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."~Gandhi.

If they wished to fight, it was there only option.

Even the Nazis would not have been able to hide mass suicide from the world.

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."~Gandhi.

If they wished to fight, it was there only option.

Even the Nazis would not have been able to hide mass suicide from the world.

Then the Nazis would have won. Do you think they would have felt remorse? Do you think the people who gave the orders for children to be sent to the gas chambers would have flickered an eyelash at the thought of mass Jewish suicide?

Self-defense is not only morally permissible, it is morally obligatory. To abandon it for the sake of some naive and purist notion of "non-violence" is to be complicit in aggression and atrocities.

All of this is not to mention the blatant double standard. You criticize H N Fiddlebottoms for advocating violent revolution, yet for pages you have been defending an institution - the state - that maintains its power through violent coercion. You are willing to trust our rulers with that power, but you are too scared to trust the oppressed with it? You wish to let the Bushes and Kissingers of the world have control over immense means of violence, yet you will not permit victims of genocide to protect their lives when faced by some of the worst mass murderers of human history?

Then the Nazis would have won. Do you think they would have felt remorse? Do you think the people who gave the orders for children to be sent to the gas chambers would have flickered an eyelash at the thought of mass Jewish suicide?
The public, who were not fully aware of the holcaust, would have cared.
Self-defense is not only morally permissible, it is morally obligatory. To abandon it for the sake of some naive and purist notion of "non-violence" is to be complicit in aggression and atrocities.
To take a life, to end another persons existence, except if they are suffering horribly in some way, is the worst thing a human being can do. Period.
All of this is not to mention the blatant double standard. You criticize HP Fiddlebottoms for advocating violent revolution, yet for pages you have been defending an institution - the state - that maintains its power through violent coercion.
Only when it uses that power to prevent violence.
You are willing to trust our rulers with that power, but you are too scared to trust the oppressed with it?
Not the oppressed. The stupid.
You wish to let the Bushes and Kissingers of the world have control over immense means of violence,
No. I want others to have control over it.
yet you will not permit victims of genocide to protect their lives when faced by some of the worst mass murderers of human history?
Did what they do work? No. Did even the uprising at Warsaw result in anything but the deaths of all involved? No. When you resort to violence, you lose. The unaffiliated can always console themselves with the fact that you fought and were a potential threat to the innocent.

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."~Gandhi.

If they wished to fight, it was there only option.

Even the Nazis would not have been able to hide mass suicide from the world.
I think Gandhi qualifies for Bush Award.

I mean, the Nazi's would have loved to see that. After making sure that the Jew was dead, their prime concern was profitability. If they Jews started doing themselves in, they would save a ton on gas and boast this fact.

Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.’s movements are the only ones worth modeling any revolution off of.
MLK's movement was accompanied by a hearty amount of militant action, though he stayed out of that.
I also notive that you apparently feel that revolution should only be staged against Anglo-Saxon societies with a basic understanding of human rights who are already guilt-tripping about the issue in question. I suppose the rest of world should just sit on its hands and wait.
No, help them to achieve equality of opportunity. Help it not matter where one comes from but what they are capable of and to provide safety and comfort to even those that fail.
We have the resources to do so.
Your supporting of those who fail only allows them to produce children who grow up in an environment of failings and will fail as well: there is no opportunity for most.
And "equality of opportunity" is impossible in any system that has inheritences or social strata that position one person differently to another.
No, it doesn't. Which is why we should have IQ tests and laws requiring the upper 5% of the population to vote and bar the rest.
IQ has little to do with intelligence, and, even if it did, the smartest 5% would have no reason to care about the lower 95% (smart=/=ethical).
Such a system would just further reniforce the current sheep to shepherd relationship between people and government.
All power is arbitrary. That isn’t what makes it bad or good. Results do.
Results like taxation, imprisonment without trial, and foriegn wars?
Yeah, I'll pass on that.
And power that is freely given by those under the power is not arbitary. My boss' power over me, for instance, is only held because I agreed to follow her orders in return for money.
The “contract” is outdated. The lack of centralization is what keeps schools in low income areas from being little more than daycares.
We've had a centralized Department of Education for a long time, that hasn't helped. The fact is, people care very little for what isn't in their field of view, thus Central Governments become tools which high population centers use to bludgeon everyone else into submission.
Some people are only decent because of the law.
We've had this argument before: People do as they will with minimal concern for the law, because law enforcement is inefficient, incompetent, and rarely motivated.
Since the beginning. I stated something to the effect that only a central authority can provide stability and comfort. Equality is an inherent part of comfort.
Yet "comfortable" societies (Industrialized Democracies) tend to be the least equal, possessing both the most extravagant wealth and large areas of crippling poverty.
Which is why I am not a fan of Democracy.
So you're willing to trust one, randomly chosen, Wannabe Savage from that area and hand him the power?
Oh, yes, the 5%, but you still haven't explained how being smarter makes them more likely to be decent.
These people are the most likely to exercise foresight and objective reasoning, correct? Which means that they would also be the ones who you're trying to deter.
I am not an idealist.
But you did argue that you couldn't see how a "great" innovation could come out of anarchy, yet government seems to be pretty damn "great" in your eyes.
I would fight it, but not violently.
Non-violence is nice and all, but any rational person has to acknowledge that their comes a time when you have to lash out.
No one should have to struggle like that.
Better to struggle than to atrophy; I've tried both.

The public, who were not fully aware of the holcaust, would have cared.

So? How many Jews would that have saved? How would that have interfered with the Nazis' genocide?

To take a life, to end another persons existence, except if they are suffering horribly in some way, is the worst thing a human being can do. Period.

No. To fundamentally deprive somebody of their autonomy, yet "permit" them to live, is the worst thing a human being can do.

Only when it uses that power to prevent violence.

You are hopelessly naive if you believe that the state will ever be content with merely preventing violence, and you are blind if you do not see that it does not do far more every day.

It is not "violence" to steal food. Yet the state decrees that this is forbidden.

Not the oppressed. The stupid.

As long as you imagine the state to be our benevolent parent, you will never be able to tell the difference.

No. I want others to have control over it.

If our leaders were saints, perhaps I will tolerate them more. But they are not, have never been, and will never be.

Did what they do work? No. Did even the uprising at Warsaw result in anything but the deaths of all involved? No. When you resort to violence, you lose.

It is better to fight and lose than to head passively off to death. It is better to resist at all costs, to fight desperately if not for your life, then for everyone else's, than to let mass murderers like the Nazis do what they do without trouble.

The unaffiliated can always console themselves with the fact that you fought and were a potential threat to the innocent.

There comes a point where the unaffiliated can do nothing. And as long as you rely on the unaffiliated to liberate you, your liberation will be incomplete and conditional.

I mean, the Nazi's would have loved to see that. After making sure that the Jew was dead, their prime concern was profitability. If they Jews started doing themselves in, they would save a ton on gas and boast this fact.
Well, leaping off into the sea would have made it pretty damned inconvenient to harvest the gold from their fillings . . .

And the Jewish uprisings did accomplish something: it helped the word get out about what was happening and it made the entire operation a greater drain on the resources of the Nazis.

MLK's movement was accompanied by a hearty amount of militant action, though he stayed out of that.
I also notive that you apparently feel that revolution should only be staged against Anglo-Saxon societies with a basic understanding of human rights who are already guilt-tripping about the issue in question. I suppose the rest of world should just sit on its hands and wait.
People are essentially the same. It worked in India.
Your supporting of those who fail only allows them to produce children who grow up in an environment of failings and will fail as well: there is no opportunity for most.
We should give them that opportunity through extensive programs of job education. We should create jobs if need be. We can afford it.
And "equality of opportunity" is impossible in any system that has inheritences or social strata that position one person differently to another.
I’m not a big fan of inheritance, either.
IQ has little to do with intelligence,
I find, without failing, that smart people have high IQs
and, even if it did, the smartest 5% would have no reason to care about the lower 95% (smart=/=ethical).
I also find, that more intelligent people tend to be caring and ethical.
Results like taxation, imprisonment without trial, and foriegn wars?
There is nothing wrong with taxes, as long as it serves the greater good. The second and third one, not so good.
There wouldn't be trials at all in anarchy and the wars would be with your neighbors.
Yeah, I'll pass on that.
That isn't your choice.
And power that is freely given by those under the power is not arbitary. My boss' power over me, for instance, is only held because I agreed to follow her orders in return for money.

Money is arbitrary. Property is arbitrary. The worker- employer relationship is arbitrary. All these things work, though.
We've had a centralized Department of Education for a long time, that hasn't helped.
It isn’t centralized enough, and certainly not in a financial sense.
We've had this argument before: People do as they will with minimal concern for the law, because law enforcement is inefficient, incompetent, and rarely motivated.
Which is why we should also eliminate the causes of crime. Poverty.
But you did argue that you couldn't see how a "great" innovation could come out of anarchy, yet government seems to be pretty damn "great" in your eyes.
It would be hard. It took a long time for our ancestors to come up with working governments and the systems that make them work.
Non-violence is nice and all, but any rational person has to acknowledge that their comes a time when you have to lash out.
No. There is never an acceptable time to kill innocents or to pursue a course of action that could potentially harm innocents.
Better to struggle than to atrophy; I've tried both.
Nothing is stopping you from living out in a cabin in the woods.

No. There is never an acceptable time to kill innocents or to pursue a course of action that could potentially harm innocents..

What kind of utilitarian are you?

And considering that states are far and away in the lead in the innocent-killing scale, is not advocating states "[pursuing] a course of action that could potentially harm innocents"?

What kind of utilitarian are you?
One with a humanist bent, I guess.
And considering that states are far and away in the lead in the innocent-killing scale, is not advocating states "[pursuing] a course of action that could potentially harm innocents"?
I don't advocate states that do, so not my own. Sweden's? Sure.

And power that is freely given by those under the power is not arbitary. My boss' power over me, for instance, is only held because I agreed to follow her orders in return for money.

In an unfree society, that sort of "free association" rarely actually qualifies as "freely given."

One with a humanist bent. I guess.

If it benefits the greater happiness (or preference satisfaction, or whatever scheme you use) to kill innocent people, shouldn't I do it?

I don't advocate states that do, so not my own. Sweden's? Sure.

Off-hand, I can't think of a recent incident where the Swedish government has killed innocent people, but there is still a risk, and there are other forms of freedom deprivation as well. Also, some of Sweden's recent unbloody record in that respect is due to letting other countries, like the US, do the work instead.

I just have to wonder aloud: Has anyone else in this thread read Jennifer Government?

4) The rhetoric about social cost is not overblown and ignorant. Wal Mart's low prices are in part a function of (in addition to it's anti-competitive practices) its tremendous ability to externalize. But there is a prisoner's dillemma with regard to choosing to shop there. Of course we could avoid these costs if everyone chose not to shop there. But the reality is, that some people will, and they will be enjoying the benefit of low prices, while externalizing the costs on the rest of us. the optimal scenario would be for no-one to shop there, but it is individually rational for people to shop there, which is to avoid the worst case scenario: that they don't get the benefit of the low prices, but they bear the costs of everyone else's decision to shope there.

No, the optimal scenario is to remove their ability to externalize their costs through government intervention and subsidation.


Ironically, I actually agree with his suggestion that the minimum wage should be abolished. But only once a negative income tax has been implemented.

I very much believe that the minimum wage hurts the labor force more than it helps it. Businesses simply pass the costs back on to the consumer.

My complaint was that they were paying their employees below minimum wage or making them work unpaid hours. My complaint is that they are able to impose higher costs on their competitors because their power enables them to get away with avoiding laws by which others are bound.

I don't know anything about making workers work unpaid hours, but I completely agree with you about their ability to gain advantages from our legal system.

I run into this all the time, I try to argue for capitalism by saying that capitalism has been hijacked by the relationship between big business and government, and by the end, I am half-heartedly defending a completely different definition of Capitalism.


Not if it is designed to put the competition out of business.

Rethink that one for a second.


Wal-Mart has achieved it's monopsonistic position in part because of its ability to avoid said regulations, not because of them.

If Wal-Mart achieved this position by avoiding regulations, can't it be said that it achieved this position by the effects these regulation had on its competition?

That is what I have been saying all along, that big business throughout history has been approving and pushing regulation that helps them and avoiding regulation that hurts them. The other end of this negotiation consists of middle class voters and upper class attorneys brimming with economic naivety and a complete lack of touch with the lower class. So while there has been pushes for the worker, and the worker has made gains, the other affect of all this legislation is a growing entrenchment of the aristocracy. The worker makes more money in wages, but that is just passed off in higher prices, and now it is almost impossible for the worker to be self-employed in some industries.

Same here. But I am also one of those people who boycott irrationally.

I don't go, but I don't boycott irrationally.

Why should we have to depend on the consumers?

If you seek society control through free association, I think you should.

What if the consumers of the good aren't those affected by the environmental destruction?

Then there is varying liability based upon how informed the consumers were. Those who were affected by the damage can seek litigation for any lost value.

Vittos; it would seem to me that you are agruing a case for as little interference as possible into private enterprise, and I can respect that. I'm a capitalist, and a former business owner. Having 'gov' up in your grill is never fun. However, you must admit the minarchists make sense. Even in an anarcho-communist environment, people will get together and decide a set of rules to follow. I believe it's inevitable. It's a human response. When people elect a polictician to represent them, they never praise their lack of doing something. People want to see their representatives get involved. Which is why I feel anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream. A noble concept? Perhaps... but every government style is noble in its idealistic state.

I am not actually an anarchist (I am very close). I just want to show the distinction between economic capitalism and political capitalism. I believe that there need to be a system of laws and liability at the core of any capitalistic system.

We can argue about Wal-mart till' the cows come home (quaint analogy that it is), but I'm sure you're willing to agree that it's better for businesses to exist in an environment where they feel they can conduct busniess fairly and equitably. Without the coercion of the state, I'm not sure it's even remotely possible.

I do not want to argue about Wal-Mart as it is nowhere near anything that would get my approval. Instead of arguing about the actual nature of the corporation and big business, I am picking out particular parts of Wal-Mart (there are few) that I can actually justify.

Even though I am a capitalist, I agree with most of the new left that all state coersion has the effect of benefitting the elite first.

Sorry... I'm just a statist. The anarchists won't like me for it, but I have no faith in anarchy, and even less faith in capitalism in an anarchist environment.

I feel like I am approaching it from a different viewpoint as you, but it is not a big deal.

Yes. Back when we had anti-trust laws that were actually enforced. Your points make a stronger case for enforcing the laws we have (or strengthening them) than eliminating them.

No, back when we didn't, around the turn of the century.

The greatest example is US Steel. They were never broken up by anti-trust laws, and even before any anti-trust laws were attempted, they had lost an enormous share of the market to smaller rivals.

Only if they outweigh the advantages to monopsony.

Or if it precludes monopsony or monopoly.

Which is why we should also eliminate the causes of crime. Poverty.


Not the only cause of crime.


Very often crime is caused by other factors, and quite often that's what drives the most despicable crimes. Could you really claim that pedophilia is caused by poverty? No you can't, because it's an inner psychological condition whose origins are not totally known, but knowing where other people's sexual drives come from, it's probably more nature than nuture.

Or rape, which is driven not out of a lack of money or personal suffering, but a desire to dominate another human being for the sake of dominating another human being.

People are essentially the same. It worked in India.
It worked once, for one specific group against another specific group in a time and palce that were ripe for it. That all the stars lined up for Gandhi doesn't mean that it will ever happen again for someone else.
We should give them that opportunity through extensive programs of job education. We should create jobs if need be. We can afford it.
Who is this we that should start trying to take over other people's lives? And who can afford it?
I find, without failing, that smart people have high IQs
IQs are effected by culture and socio-economic status just as much as by intelligence.
I also find, that more intelligent people tend to be caring and ethical.
I find the opposite. The smarter and more educated someone is, the more likely they are to find ways of shitting on you and getting away with it.
There is nothing wrong with taxes, as long as it serves the greater good. The second and third one, not so good.
Aside from the whole "seizing the products of someone else's labor without their consent", I agree. The problem with taxation is that it allows government to do whatever the Hell they want with the money, as they never have to convince people to give it up, but simply get to rely on their thugs to extort it.
There wouldn't be trials at all in anarchy and the wars would be with your neighbors.
So we have "no trials" vs "no trials" and "fighting wars for other people" vs "fighting wars for myself."
That isn't your choice.
And it is because I have no choice in the matter that the government is inherently wrong.
Money is arbitrary. Property is arbitrary. The worker- employer relationship is arbitrary. All these things work, though.
Money and employment are not arbitrary because they are mutually agreed upon methods of exchange. Property (ie, objects) are not arbitrary because a person has the right to own the products of their labor, and to decide the ends that they work towards.
It isn’t centralized enough, and certainly not in a financial sense.
They're fucking up so far, let's give them more responsibility!
Which is why we should also eliminate the causes of crime. Poverty.
I thought that crime was caused by the inherently wild and violent nature of men, that is only narrowly restrained by having government enforcers nosing around all over the place.
Poverty is merely a form of the forces that trap people and make them feel that the only escape they have is violent, and often poorly directed, aggression.
It would be hard. It took a long time for our ancestors to come up with working governments and the systems that make them work.
Technological advancement is always hard, it took centuries for someone to figure out antibiotics after the discovery of bacteria.
No. There is never an acceptable time to kill innocents or to pursue a course of action that could potentially harm innocents.
Driving a car could "potentially" harm innocents, selling alcohol or cigarettes that can cause serious diseases is "potentially" harming innocents, the technological advances that you enjoy only came about because researchers were, at the very least, will to "potentially" harm innocents, there are a million things which one can do where the "potential" to harm an innocent exists. The only way to avoid it is to lie down in your bed and never stand up again.
Nothing is stopping you from living out in a cabin in the woods.
Regretfully, that is no longer really an option. The world is almost out of places to run to and escape it all.

If you seek society control through free association, I think you should.

In that case I am relying on the consumer to look out for her own welfare, which is very different than relying on the consumer to look out for the welfare of everyone.

And my notion of free association has always been egalitarian free association; not only can you choose whether or not to join, but as much as possible, the terms of association should be the work of equals. Capitalism, to the extent that its association is free at all, repeatedly fails this requirement.

Then there is varying liability based upon how informed the consumers were. Those who were affected by the damage can seek litigation for any lost value.

How do you measure the "lost value" caused by, say, a reduction in air quality?

There is no "other" option, so I have to pick the one nearest my position. My actual position, however, is: "Don't like it, and we've already got it, and we should get rid of it."

Within the study of international relations, the "Realist" school of thought makes the following assertions about the international arena:


States behave as individual actors
States are rational actors that pursue their own self interest (the "national interest")
The international arena lacks any kind of central government or governmental authority higher than said individual rational actors, and is thus anarchical


Essentially, the "Realist" school concludes that international relations, the specific relations between sovereign states, amounts to nothing more than competitive power politics. The projection and balancing of economic, military, diplomatic, and other kinds of power. All of this occurs with a lack of any kind of meaningful central authority above the state.

Thus, taking the "realist" description of international relations into the sphere of global economics, it would appear that anarchist capitalism is alive and well, at least in one particular form. At the international level, the global capitalist market exists in a situation where the individual actors at that level (states) interact with each other in the absense of further centralized governing authority in a self-interested and competitive manner.

Assuming that the "realist" description of international politics is accurate, what is the result of such a state of affairs? Taking as empirical evidence the state of international politics as exists now, international politics would appear to be dominated by a single actor, the United States, in essentially every way; the United States holds by far the most voting power in the IMF and WTO, the President of the World Bank has by tradition always been a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. holds veto power in the UN Security Council. In short, in international anarchistic capitalism, all the goodies belong to he who can project the political, economic, and, most importantly, military power with the greatest effect and impact. Free enterprise and competition has nothing to do with it. Such does not promote the self-interest of the individual state, and so, the state's primary goal is to eliminate competition. Which, as demonstrated by the way it clearly dominates the international arena is essentially every way, is exactly what the United States has itself done.

Now, I can hear some already objecting that the behavior of states does not necessarily translate into the behavior or individual human beings, so real anarcho-capitalism between individual humans will not reflect the same struggles to maximize and monopolize power. Perhaps. However, I would also note that, governments are nothing more than collections of individual human beings. As such, individual human beings direct and control those governments (whether democratically or otherwise). I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the values and behaviors of states acting in the international arena reflect the values and behaviors of the individual human beings who control those governments.

Thus, if individual states (for example, the United States) behave by projecting political and military power to maximize and monopolize power and control, it should not be that surprising if the individual human beings directing that government would themselves behave in a similar manner, within a state of anarchy similar to that which exists at the international level. Individuals will seek means to monopolize and maximize the projection of power, and they will do so without any consideration for the way such affects others.

Going back to the international level, we have a group of actors who all seek to maximize and monopolize individual gain. Some are able to do so to a far greater extent than others (the United States), and thus dominate the international economic process. Now, the really interesting phemomina in all this is how the United States insists that other states globalize, open borders, and in other ways reduce their sovereignty, but as soon as someone else insists that the United States do the same, the United States immediately retreats behind the shield of "state sovereignty" and immediately assumes a "unilateralist" posture. The United States advances the rhetoric of open borders, free trade, and the global market, but then refuses to, say, participate in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or refuses to heed the UN Security Council and invades Iraq despite a lack of authorization.

In short, in international anarchical capitalism, the most powerful actor engages in behavior that seeks to maximize gain while minimizing responsibility to the other actors for that very behavior. I would argue that this reflects another problem with anarcho-capitalism, the inability to adequately deal with negative externalities. Because of the lack of a centralized authority, the most (economically or militarily) powerful actors can behave however they wish with no regard to the effect that such behavior has on any other actor. By refusing to participate in the ICC or to abide by the wishes of the UN, the United States is completely free to invade whatever country it wishes; who stands in any position to stop it? Likewise, in the absense of a governmental authority with the ability to enforce, say, environmental standards, Conglomo, Inc. can dump and spew however it wishes, without any concern for any other actor; who stands in any position to stop it? (yes, polution can be considered an act of trespass, thus making property rights a means of stopping Conglomo, Inc. But, which entity has and currently enforces property rights? See the problem?)

To the extent that international politics reflects how human beings behave in a state of anarchy, where there is a lack of higher governmental regulation or control over the basic individual actors at the level of study, I am not confident that anarcho-capitalism is capable of producing a society based on free and competitive enterprise. Taking the current state of international politics into account, the anarchical capitalist global market has produced a global hegemon that behaves however it wishes, regardless of who it hurts, and which continues to seek to further centralize and monopolize its power to the detriment of all others. Since governments are nothing more than collections of individual human beings, I see no reason to conclude that individual human beings would not behave in the same way on their own, since their own individual values, ideas, and beliefs are also those used to direct state governments.

Heck, if you drop a group of people into a state of anarchy, I'd bet everything I have that the first thing they do is write a constitution and form a parliament.

As such, individual human beings direct and control those governments (whether democratically or otherwise). I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the values and behaviors of states acting in the international arena reflect the values and behaviors of the individual human beings who control those governments.
Governments aren't guided by a random cross-section of humanity, they are guided by the most aggressive and power-hungry members of each state, as it is those people who are the most willing and capable to acquire political power.
Power disparities as are demonstrated on the international stage are also exaggerated beyond what would occur between individuals. The US wields the power it does because it could destroy most of the world, should it feel the absolute need to, and because it is capable of enduring an onslaught from most other world powers simply on account of having that many people it can offer up to the slaughter.

Governments aren't guided by a random cross-section of humanity, they are guided by the most aggressive and power-hungry members of each state, as it is those people who are the most willing and capable to acquire political power.


OK. But this doesn't really change the larger point. An anarchical state of affairs gives a green light to those sorts of people to behave in the manner described with essentially no opposition. Granted, the sort of individual that helps produce a power mad global hegemon might reflect only part of the greater human society. But the power mad global hegemon still exists, and still operates, and is still a problem.


Power disparities as are demonstrated on the international stage are also exaggerated beyond what would occur between individuals.


True. I'm not arguing that in a state of anarcho-capitalism, individual homeowners would invade foreign countries. I'm simply arguing that, even if on a much smaller scale, a state of anarcho-capitalism among individual human beings would still consist of individuals working to maximize and monopolize power at the expense of all others, regardless of ideals like competition and free enterprise.


The US wields the power it does because it could destroy most of the world, should it feel the absolute need to, and because it is capable of enduring an onslaught from most other world powers simply on account of having that many people it can offer up to the slaughter.

And, again, the United States is able to gather up and exercise such abusive power exactly because of the lack of a higher authority with the ability to say "no." The anarchistic nature of the international arena allowed the rise of the global hegemon unchallenged. In a state of anarchy, as described by the anarcho-capitalists themselves, there is no higher authority with the ability to prevent such a thing from occuring.

To DC,

Your analogy is somewhat valid, and I agree that individuals will behave quite like states in international relations, to maximize their own power on the marketplace.

You did not touch on two items, however. Firstly, you ignored that, while the US is able to act unilaterally, it is not without restraining peers and factors. It has been common throughout history that economically interdependent nations have taken on peaceful and often friendly measures for settling differences. I cannot imagine at this point, the US usurping the soveriegnty of the EU, Russia, or China. Even smaller players enjoy this economic peace.

Another important factor involves the overwhelming disparity between nations and the relatively small number of them. No one can deny that anarcho-capitalism will lead to inequality amongst the individuals in terms of social power (to some that is an advantage of it), however, the analogy that you use involves individuals that are so disparate in the resources that they have at their disposal, and furthermore disallows any collective action on a large scale, that it cannot reasonably reflect the outcome of a truly free market or an anarcho-capitalist system.

And my notion of free association has always been egalitarian free association; not only can you choose whether or not to join, but as much as possible, the terms of association should be the work of equals.

Oh, so free association as long as it fits your unreasonable ideal.

Capitalism, to the extent that its association is free at all, repeatedly fails this requirement.

You will never find any system that meets that requirement.

How do you measure the "lost value" caused by, say, a reduction in air quality?

Courts. They already assign monetary value to emotional pain, so air quality doesn't seem difficult at all.

Oh, so free association as long as it fits your unreasonable ideal.

No, free association period.

Free association, preferably, that is also equal - because if it is not, it is not truly free. I may have control over whether or not to accept the terms, but if I have no control over the terms this freedom is very limited.

You will never find any system that meets that requirement.

You will never find any perfect system. So?

Courts. They already assign monetary value to emotional pain, so air quality doesn't seem difficult at all.

If someone dies of cancer, how can you tell whether it was because of pollution caused by industry or not?

How can you tell whose pollution caused it?

Oh, so free association as long as it fits your unreasonable ideal.
You will never find any system that meets that requirement.

It's not unreasonable, and it has worked in the past. Take a look at the anarchist revolts during the Spanish Civil War. Left-wing anarchism worked on a large scale for several months until it was crushed between the pincers of Franco and the Loyalists.

Courts. They already assign monetary value to emotional pain, so air quality doesn't seem difficult at all.

Courts have routinely shown themselves to be more likely to cater to sources of power than to the people.

To DC,
Firstly, you ignored that, while the US is able to act unilaterally, it is not without restraining peers and factors. It has been common throughout history that economically interdependent nations have taken on peaceful and often friendly measures for settling differences. I cannot imagine at this point, the US usurping the soveriegnty of the EU, Russia, or China. Even smaller players enjoy this economic peace.


This peace only exists to the extent that the United States is able to exert control via other avenues. While it is absolutely true that the idea of invading Canada or the EU is entirely absurd, the United States nonetheless exerts overriding control over those very same entities exactly because it exerts so much power the international arena via the UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank, and other intergovernmental organizations to an unparalled degree. Indeed, it is argued that reducing that very dominance is the entire point and purpose of the EU in the first place. Granted, the struggle is relatively peaceful and often good natured. But military conflict is not the only way to exert power.

Additionally, conflict with China is considered a very real possibility in at least two areas:


North Korea
Taiwan


Relations with China are relatively good for now, so long as Taiwan does not make an explicit move to sovereignty. And in the event that it does, one should expect North Korea to take advantage of the chaos that is created by the resulting war between the United States and China. As such, the relationship with China, and the overall stability of that entire region, is questionable at best.

Finally, the democratic peace theory regarding economic trade might account for relatively peaceful relationships between developed first world democracies, however, it does not explain why developed first world democracies invade and occupy smaller less developed and less democratic states, like Iraq. If the United States pursues relatively peaceful relationships with other states, it is only because it feels there is more to gain or that the cost of doing otherwise is too great. However, as concerns those "smaller players," the United States can essentially operate with a free hand.


Another important factor involves the overwhelming disparity between nations and the relatively small number of them. No one can deny that anarcho-capitalism will lead to inequality amongst the individuals in terms of social power (to some that is an advantage of it), however, the analogy that you use involves individuals that are so disparate in the resources that they have at their disposal, and furthermore disallows any collective action on a large scale, and therefore cannot reasonably reflect the outcome of a truly free market or an anarcho-capitalist system.


This overwhelming disparity between individual states is simply a reflection of the overwhelming disparity that exists between individual human beings within individual states. As you've said, to some the inevitable inequality in terms of social power is considered an advantage. And naturally, just as the anarchical international system provides a means to further widen the gap between states (as this enhances the relative power of some), anarcho-capitalism will provide the means for widening the gap between individual human beings.

It worked once, for one specific group against another specific group in a time and palce that were ripe for it. That all the stars lined up for Gandhi doesn't mean that it will ever happen again for someone else.
It worked for Martin Luther King Jr. As well.
Who is this we that should start trying to take over other people's lives? And who can afford it?
Helping someone is not taking over their lives, and the rich can certainly afford it.
IQs are effected by culture and socio-economic status just as much as by intelligence.
Which is why we need to eliminate the problems the poor have with getting the same ecucatin as everyone else.
I find the opposite. The smarter and more educated someone is, the more likely they are to find ways of shitting on you and getting away with it.
Really, I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Money and employment are not arbitrary because they are mutually agreed upon methods of exchange.
So?
Property (ie, objects) are not arbitrary because a person has the right to own the products of their labor, and to decide the ends that they work towards.

Based on what?
They're fucking up so far, let's give them more responsibility!
It is the local authorities and financial restrictions that hurt our education system, not what little the federal government is involved in.
I thought that crime was caused by the inherently wild and violent nature of men, that is only narrowly restrained by having government enforcers nosing around all over the place.
Most crime is caused by a lack of resources. Only a government can ensure that everyone has the resources to be content. The inherently violent people, they must be checked as well.
Technological advancement is always hard, it took centuries for someone to figure out antibiotics after the discovery of bacteria.
As of late, it has become more and more easy.
Driving a car could "potentially" harm innocents, selling alcohol or cigarettes that can cause serious diseases is "potentially" harming innocents, the technological advances that you enjoy only came about because researchers were, at the very least, will to "potentially" harm innocents, there are a million things which one can do where the "potential" to harm an innocent exists. The only way to avoid it is to lie down in your bed and never stand up again.
Well of course. But that isn't what I meant and you know it.
If it benefits the greater happiness (or preference satisfaction, or whatever scheme you use) to kill innocent people, shouldn't I do it?
My preference is that nobody should suffer an early death or suffer. If someone directly causes others to die and suffer through deliberate action or negligence, then they are no longer innocent, and could thus be killed. Though, some sort of humane imprisonment would be preferable.

No, free association period.

Free association, preferably, that is also equal - because if it is not, it is not truly free. I may have control over whether or not to accept the terms, but if I have no control over the terms this freedom is very limited.

It is possible to be unequal and be a free negotiator, it only requires an abundance avenues for negotiation.

You will never find any perfect system. So?

You exclude all systems from gaining your approval because you seek qualities that will never exist.

It's not unreasonable, and it has worked in the past. Take a look at the anarchist revolts during the Spanish Civil War. Left-wing anarchism worked on a large scale for several months until it was crushed between the pincers of Franco and the Loyalists.

There has never been nor will there ever be a system where everyone is equally dependent upon the workings of society. There will always be a variation of dependency, and thereby, freedom.

This peace only exists to the extent that the United States is able to exert control via other avenues. While it is absolutely true that the idea of invading Canada or the EU is entirely absurd, the United States nonetheless exerts overriding control over those very same entities exactly because it exerts so much power the international arena via the UN, WTO, IMF, World Bank, and other intergovernmental organizations to an unparalled degree. Indeed, it is argued that reducing that very dominance is the entire point and purpose of the EU in the first place. Granted, the struggle is relatively peaceful and often good natured. But military conflict is not the only way to exert power.

Additionally, conflict with China is considered a very real possibility in at least two areas:


North Korea
Taiwan


Relations with China are relatively good for now, so long as Taiwan does not make an explicit move to sovereignty. And in the event that it does, one should expect North Korea to take advantage of the chaos that is created by the resulting war between the United States and China. As such, the relationship with China, and the overall stability of that entire region, is questionable at best.

This is all true.


Finally, the democratic peace theory regarding economic trade might account for relatively peaceful relationships between developed first world democracies, however, it does not explain why developed first world democracies invade and occupy smaller less developed and less democratic states, like Iraq. If the United States pursues relatively peaceful relationships with other states, it is only because it feels there is more to gain or that the cost of doing otherwise is too great. However, as concerns those "smaller players," the United States can essentially operate with a free hand.

This is also mostly true. The US does persue relatively peaceful relationships because it is the least costly thing method, that is the entire point of peace through trade. Furthermore, the fact that many smaller nations do not fit into the theory (they are not major players in international trade) is exactly the reason why developed democracies invade and occupy them. It is almost always a desire to open up their markets to foreign business that motivates said occupations.

This overwhelming disparity between individual states is simply a reflection of the overwhelming disparity that exists between individual human beings within individual states. As you've said, to some the inevitable inequality in terms of social power is considered an advantage. And naturally, just as the anarchical international system provides a means to further widen the gap between states (as this enhances the relative power of some), anarcho-capitalism will provide the means for widening the gap between individual human beings.

So you are saying that this disparity:

US:
Area: 9,631,420 sq km
Population: 298,444,215
GDP: $12.36 trillion

Iraq:
Area: 437,072 sq km
Population: 26,783,383
GDP: $94.1 billion

Can be reflected by the disparities in individuals?

I believe that there need to be a system of laws and liability at the core of any capitalistic system.


In the absence of a state, who would provide that system?

No, the optimal scenario is to remove their ability to externalize their costs through government intervention and subsidation.

It is not government intervention alone that enables business to externalize. In fact, it is often due to lack of government intervention (although that intervention might be limited to forcing them to accept a market-based mechanism, such as emissions trading).


I very much believe that the minimum wage hurts the labor force more than it helps it. Businesses simply pass the costs back on to the consumer.


Sure, but the idea being that the increased cost to the many is outweighed by the benefit to the few at the bottom of the wage ladder. I am not sure that is borne out in reality, but it's not because I feel sorry for the consumer.


Rethink that one for a second.


Sorry, it should have read ... with the intention of putting the competition out of business in order to attain monopoly power.


If Wal-Mart achieved this position by avoiding regulations, can't it be said that it achieved this position by the effects these regulation had on its competition?

Sure. Or it could be more accurately said that it achieved this position (again, in part) because the laws weren't properly enforced.


That is what I have been saying all along, that big business throughout history has been approving and pushing regulation that helps them and avoiding regulation that hurts them.

I don't disagree with you per se. You asked me for my argument, and I guess this is it. I agree with you that regulation is a factor in why big business is able to gain such excessive power. However, I disagree with you that it is the only or even the most important factor, or that the answer to this is less regulation (although it might be part of the answer). I think a big factor is inherent in the nature of the corporation ... Adam Smith correctly predicted that it would enable a level of capital accumulation that would lead inevitably to monopoly power.

I think part of it is the market imperfections and externalities that allow big business to pass off the cost of doing business onto society as a whole. Sometimes the state is complicit in this but I don't think that means the state is the cause of the problem or can't be part of the solution. In fact, I think it has to be, because who else has the coercive power to force business to internalize costs when they have absolutely no incentive to do so? I think I asked that question before and I am not sure I got an answer ...

In any event, some of what you have said about the role of regulation has made me want to read up on the subject a bit more ... I would be interested if you could suggest any readings.

I run into this all the time, I try to argue for capitalism by saying that capitalism has been hijacked by the relationship between big business and government, and by the end, I am half-heartedly defending a completely different definition of Capitalism.


Sure, but it's important to remember that the capitalism is not an end in and of itself, it is a means. It's not even a means to an end. It's a means to a means (economic efficiency) to a means (wealth maximization) to an end (maximizing utility or human happiness or human flourishing or whatever you perceive the ultimate end to be). It should be used only when it serves those ends it is meant to serve.

There has never been nor will there ever be a system where everyone is equally dependent upon the workings of society. There will always be a variation of dependency, and thereby, freedom.

But there can be societies closer to the ideal of genuine independence or equal dpeendence than our current society is, or any capitalist society ever could be.

In the absence of a state, who would provide that system?

I don't really advocate the complete absense of the state, I am simply arguing on the side anarcho-capitalism to draw the line between political capitalism (the systematic exploitation of regulation and subsidation by parasidic big business) and economic capitalism (workers, laborers, and owners recieving fair return for the input they provide to society).

I believe that all government intervention to money flows, resource distribution, and labor negotiations will ultimately be exploited for the benefit of those with the most wealth.

There are violent methods that society takes to strip the freedom of the market and its participants, (strike breaking, theft) and I think that government should exist to prevent that violence.

It is not government intervention alone that enables business to externalize. In fact, it is often due to lack of government intervention (although that intervention might be limited to forcing them to accept a market-based mechanism, such as emissions trading).

OK

Sure, but the idea being that the increased cost to the many is outweighed by the benefit to the few at the bottom of the wage ladder. I am not sure that is borne out in reality, but it's not because I feel sorry for the consumer.

The consumer is the laborer.

If nominal (currency amount without adjusting for inflation) wages are raised, but prices are also raised, then real wages (buying power) do not increase, and there has been no gain by the laborer/consumer.

The only way to effectively increase the well-being of the laborer, is to ensure that he gets the true value of his labor and to increase production efficiency.

Sorry, it should have read ... with the intention of putting the competition out of business in order to attain monopoly power.

That is why it is a competitive practice. Of course, if that is their method for maintaining a monopoly, they will have to continuously do it to maintain their market share. And I don't think you can really dislike artificially low prices.

I think part of it is the market imperfections and externalities that allow big business to pass off the cost of doing business onto society as a whole. Sometimes the state is complicit in this but I don't think that means the state is the cause of the problem or can't be part of the solution. In fact, I think it has to be, because who else has the coercive power to force business to internalize costs when they have absolutely no incentive to do so? I think I asked that question before and I am not sure I got an answer ...

What externalizations do you see that are not enabled by government?

In any event, some of what you have said about the role of regulation has made me want to read up on the subject a bit more ... I would be interested if you could suggest any readings.


http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/strombrg.html <--Argument from the Austrian side

http://www.mutualist.org/id81.html <--Argument from the new left, starting with the prior article

Sure, but it's important to remember that the capitalism is not an end in and of itself, it is a means. It's not even a means to an end. It's a means to a means (economic efficiency) to a means (wealth maximization) to an end (maximizing utility or human happiness or human flourishing or whatever you perceive the ultimate end to be). It should be used only when it serves those ends it is meant to serve.

To me it is the means to making sure all participants of society gain true value of what they put into society. Anything else would represent an exploitation of the person's natural or artificial drive to be social.

In the absence of a state, who would provide that system?
http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm - for more, read the Production of Security by Gustav de Molinari.
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism3.html (revises 1 & 2)

Rothbard in For a New Liberty, D. Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom and Hoppe in Democracy - the God that failed, outline a similar system to Molinari's. In order to better understand anarchocapitalism, I recommend you read their works. Especially Hoppe's, even if you're minarchist.

It is a misconception that an anarchocapitalist state is also lawless - although you may not agree with the suggestions provided by these individuals, you should at least have a look at them - they make for interesting reading. This movement has attracted serious intellectuals, who are well aware that the sine qua non of Capitalism is a legal framework; to think that the proponents of market anarchism don't know this is to underestimate them.

Vittos, out of curiosity, are you an Austrian Minarchist? If so, what led you to it? If not, do you perhaps belong to some other school? I am leaning strongly toward the Austrian School. Fiddles, I didn't know you where an anarchocapitalist. Nice to know though. :)

It worked for Martin Luther King Jr. As well.
He had the assistance of a large number of militant activists, though he managed to keep his hands clean of them. He also came after a period of several generations of that same struggle being waged, much like Gandhi.
So, as I said, your answer is that, in the face of injustice, one should simply hope to get lucky.
Helping someone is not taking over their lives, and the rich can certainly afford it.
The "rich", again, with the undefined terms. "Rich" by whose standards? You and I have access to the Internet, which makes us "rich" by international standards.
Which is why we need to eliminate the problems the poor have with getting the same ecucatin as everyone else.
It isn't just education, it is cultural.
Really, I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
I am using a claim, backed up by anecdotal evidence, to disprove your claim, backed up by anecdotal evidence. In my experience, intelligence and ethics are unrelated.
The smarter one is, the better they are at keeping their noses and consciences clean.
So?
So, you made a claim (all positions of power are arbitrarily handed out) and I issued a countering statement (a situation in which power isn't). Then you issued a counter-counter (that the basis for my situation was, in fact, arbitrary) and I provided support for my countering statement (an argument about how the basis for my boss' authority isn't arbitrary).
Now you issue support for your claim or concede the point, and our shared knowledge is advanced just a little bit further, this is how arguments work.
Based on what?
Self-Ownership, Individual Liberty, basically all the same arguments that I would use to condemn slavery or tyrranny.
It is the local authorities and financial restrictions that hurt our education system, not what little the federal government is involved in.
Financing for public schools has been on a consistent rise, yet grades aren't going up. Centrally based initiatives like No Child Left Behind have started demanding that local authorites meet elaborate centrally mandated testing levels, yet grades aren't going up.
The central government isn't doing shit for anyone, other than providing an outlet for Middle Class Guilt.
Most crime is caused by a lack of resources. Only a government can ensure that everyone has the resources to be content. The inherently violent people, they must be checked as well.
I was simply using your words against you, my own argument was, the following part (that you omitted, I note):
"Poverty is merely a form of the forces that trap people and make them feel that the only escape they have is violent, and often poorly directed, aggression."
As of late, it has become more and more easy.
Not particularly. Being developed now are "improvements" on existing technology (better antibiotics, smaller computer components), the "big" innovations are still rare and hard to come by.
Well of course. But that isn't what I meant and you know it.
No, I'd say it would have to be what you meant. Revolutions are out of the question under any circumstances because one should never potentially harm innocents. Since the people being revolted against are oppressors, they're not innocent, and the people choosing to take up arms sacrifice their innocence the moment they start shooting, so the only "potential harm" that can befall "innocents" in this case is that they should step out into the crossfire.
Well, innocents can step out in front of cars pretty regularly, so any method of transportation that causes as much death and destruction as the car (nearly 43,000 dead in the US in the year 2003 alone), should be right out.
And that isn't even taking the additional harm being caused by air pollution, the lives lost to industrial actions whilst making those cars, and the people who get killed in car jackings into account.

I don't really advocate the complete absense of the state, I am simply arguing on the side anarcho-capitalism to draw the line between political capitalism (the systematic exploitation of regulation and subsidation by parasidic big business) and economic capitalism (workers, laborers, and owners recieving fair return for the input they provide to society).
To help avoid misconceptions, what you are referring to is politicised Capitalism. When we speak of Capitalism as both a socioeconomic and a political system, then we are speaking of Libertarianism (also Capitalism proper) - naturally, the economic system on its own is simply called Capitalism (perversions thereof excluded).

The current economic system in operation is the Third Way, or Keynesian system - essentially a mixture of various capitalist, socialist and nationalist ideologies, which make up the so-called Social Democracies. The US variant of this system is most aptly called corporatist, given the collusion of big government with big business. This system is by no means pure Capitalism, in any of its forms. It merely contains elements thereof.

The consumer is the laborer.

If nominal (currency amount without adjusting for inflation) wages are raised, but prices are also raised, then real wages (buying power) do not increase, and there has been no gain by the laborer/consumer.

The only way to effectively increase the well-being of the laborer, is to ensure that he gets the true value of his labor and to increase production efficiency.


I agree. But I think the idea is that because the wage increase is targeted at those at the bottom of the wage-ladder, they get all of the benefit of the increase, while the cost of the increase is spread across all consumers. So the wage gain to minimum-wage earners would exceed inflation, and therefore there would be a real wage gain for them, albeit at the expense of everyone else. In practice, I agree with you that it probably does not work that way.


That is why it is a competitive practice. Of course, if that is their method for maintaining a monopoly, they will have to continuously do it to maintain their market share. And I don't think you can really dislike artificially low prices.


I disagree. If the purpose is to put the competition out of business so they can gain a monopolistic position, then it is predatory pricing and it is an anti-competitive practice. It's not that I dislike artificially low prices, it's that I am concerned about what the prices might be if a monopoly emerges. They will only need to keep prices low to maintain market share if there is perfect competition.


What externalizations do you see that are not enabled by government?


I would say that the externalities inherent in the use of fossil fuels (cost of emissions, etc.) are an externality that is not enabled by the government (except insofar as they remain an externality due to lack of government intervention).

To help avoid misconceptions, what you are referring to is politicised Capitalism. When we speak of Capitalism as both a socioeconomic and a political system, then we are speaking of Libertarianism (also Capitalism proper) - naturally, the economic system on its own is simply called Capitalism (perversions thereof excluded).

The current economic system in operation is the Third Way, or Keynesian system - essentially a mixture of various capitalist, socialist and nationalist ideologies, which make up the so-called Social Democracies. The US variant of this system is most aptly called corporatist, given the collusion of big government with big business. This system is by no means pure Capitalism, in any of its forms. It merely contains elements thereof.

Well put.

To me it is the means to making sure all participants of society gain true value of what they put into society. Anything else would represent an exploitation of the person's natural drive to be social. But doesn't that assume that the value people derive from society can be quantified and reduced to some kind of material flow (money, goods, services, etc.)? Is it an exploitation of that drive or a manifestation of it?

snip

I guess my main concern with your arguments (if I understand them correctly) is that you seem to be using economic efficiency as the common metric for evaluating the effectiveness of regulations.

However, I would say that most regulation results from situations where society has decided that a different value should prevail over economic efficiency. That may have the unintentional but forseeable consequence of impeding economic efficiency. As we already discussed, the regulatory burden tends to fall more heavily on small business, benefiting big business and reducing competition. But the fact that big business benefits does not necessarily mean that was the objective of the regulation, or that the stated objective of that regulation is not valid.

So, for example, with health and safety regulations, society has decided that protecting the health and safety of workers should prevail over the additional wealth that might flow from leaving this area unregulated. I think you might be able to argue that health and safety regulations are not effective at meeting their stated objective, that there might be a way of protecting health and safety that is more economically efficient, or that health and safety is not a value that should prevail over economic efficiency. But I think you lose me when your starting point is that economically inefficient regulations are inherently bad.

Vittos, out of curiosity, are you an Austrian Minarchist? If so, what led you to it? If not, do you perhaps belong to some other school?

I'm not really a follower of any school, although my thoughts on the issue are most similar to the Austrian school. I have never read a convincing (at least to me) rebuttal to their arguments.

I'm not really a follower of any school, although my thoughts on the issue are most similar to the Austrian school. I have never read a convincing (at least to me) rebuttal to their arguments.
Indeed, they put a huge effort into being intellectually coherent. Most "rebuttals" against them tend to be ad hominem attacks, or at the most, weak criticism, usually stemming from misunderstandings of their work, and consisting of nitpicking and dull sarcasm. One thing to remember is that however capitalist the US claims being, it still sees the AS as radical extremists, and therefore views them in the same light as the Communists, in some regards - if their positions are "tainted" by logic it is in the interest of those maintaining the status quo (be it big business, big government or whomever else stands to benefit) to rebutt them however they are able to. Usually quite meekly.

I agree. But I think the idea is that because the wage increase is targeted at those at the bottom of the wage-ladder, they get all of the benefit of the increase, while the cost of the increase is spread across all consumers. So the wage gain to minimum-wage earners would exceed inflation, and therefore there would be a real wage gain for them, albeit at the expense of everyone else. In practice, I agree with you that it probably does not work that way.

The central reason for the failure of minimum wages is that the added cost of labor is not the only cost unloaded upon the consumer, also included is the added cost of investment. In general, the higher the cost of the investment, the greater the profit margin a company requires.

This means that there are two results:

1. There is a loss of demand with the raise in prices, and jobs at the lower end of the pay scale are cut. I believe that some studies (one in particular, but I can't think of the researcher's name) have shown that raising the miminum wage has not significantly cut employment levels (I read some convincing rebuttals to the research, however), so I would consider this one less likely.

2. Demand continues on at higher prices. Investors require a greater rate of return on the added risk and cost of investment. Profit margins are pushed up to cover this required ROR, and the owner class improves as much if not more than the worker class.

These two scenarios reflect the ineffectiveness of artificial wage levels, the market will shift to compensate, and often it will overcompensate.

I disagree. If the purpose is to put the competition out of business so they can gain a monopolistic position, then it is predatory pricing and it is an anti-competitive practice. It's not that I dislike artificially low prices, it's that I am concerned about what the prices might be if a monopoly emerges. They will only need to keep prices low to maintain market share if there is perfect competition.

It does not require perfect competition, it just requires a relative ease of entry.

I would say that the externalities inherent in the use of fossil fuels (cost of emissions, etc.) are an externality that is not enabled by the government (except insofar as they remain an externality due to lack of government intervention).

Why is that something unique to corporations?

Secondly, what stops the people from seeking damages against corporate polluters.

But doesn't that assume that the value people derive from society can be quantified and reduced to some kind of material flow (money, goods, services, etc.)? Is it an exploitation of that drive or a manifestation of it?

Certainly the economy and markets are a manifestation of a person's social desires and needs, but we can assume that no person would want to be a part of society that took his/her labor without exchanging something in return if there were no desire or need to be social. Therefore, when it does happen that someone does not recieve fair return for their labor, we can assume that society in general, or individuals in particular, has taken advantage of them.

As for the first question, if we allow someone to make claims to what is "theirs" (granted there is a big difficulty in this in the first place), with obligations placed on all others in regards to their claim, the scarcity of that good, resource, intangible asset, causes its value to automatically form in the marketplace.

I guess my main concern with your arguments (if I understand them correctly) is that you seem to be using economic efficiency as the common metric for evaluating the effectiveness of regulations.

However, I would say that most regulation results from situations where society has decided that a different value should prevail over economic efficiency. That may have the unintentional but forseeable consequence of impeding economic efficiency. As we already discussed, the regulatory burden tends to fall more heavily on small business, benefiting big business and reducing competition. But the fact that big business benefits does not necessarily mean that was the objective of the regulation, or that the stated objective of that regulation is not valid.

So, for example, with health and safety regulations, society has decided that protecting the health and safety of workers should prevail over the additional wealth that might flow from leaving this area unregulated. I think you might be able to argue that health and safety regulations are not effective at meeting their stated objective, that there might be a way of protecting health and safety that is more economically efficient, or that health and safety is not a value that should prevail over economic efficiency. But I think you lose me when your starting point is that economically inefficient regulations are inherently bad.

My starting point is that competition is the ultimate check to corporate power, and that any limitation of competition only helps big business consolidate. Efficiency only comes into play in that it is a central focus of competition. So regulations that impose inefficiency through violent methods remove a very important quality in which big business would be forced to be competitive and would be severely handicapped. Only with the elimination of competition on the grounds of efficiency does this "purchasing power" that you speak of come into play.

These two scenarios reflect the ineffectiveness of artificial wage levels, the market will shift to compensate, and often it will overcompensate.


I agree. As I said, I favour the elimination of the minimum wage, after the introduction of a negative income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_Income_Tax).


It does not require perfect competition, it just requires a relative ease of entry.


Which does not exist in all industries, and not always due to government intervention. For example, thos industries requiring huge up front capital investments.


Why is that something unique to corporations?


It is probably not unique to corporations, but would be true of any profit-seeking entity. It would seek to cut costs, even if that means externalizing them onto society at large.


Secondly, what stops the people from seeking damages against corporate polluters.

Excessive legal costs. Unfavourable laws. Other reasons, all of which I suspect you'll tell me are rooted in the corporatist-statist model. But I'm not convinced that increased competition would necessarily address them.

Certainly the economy and markets are a manifestation of a person's social desires and needs, but we can assume that no person would want to be a part of society that took his/her labor without exchanging something in return if there were no desire or need to be social. Therefore, when it does happen that someone does not recieve fair return for their labor, we can assume that society in general, or individuals in particular, has taken advantage of them.

The economy and markets are merely a way of meeting a person's material desires and needs, which are usually among their more basic needs. There are some higher-order social desires and needs that a market cannot meet (love, for example). How does one determine a "fair return" for something like time invested in a relationship, or in raising children, or in time spent volunteering in one's community (all of which stem, at least in part, from people's desire to be social)? Obviously, people would not engage in these activities if they did not feel they were receiving some kind of value for it, but it is impossible to put a price tag on that.


As for the first question, if we allow someone to make claims to what is "theirs" (granted there is a big difficulty in this in the first place), with obligations placed on all others in regards to their claim, the scarcity of that good, resource, intangible asset, causes its value to automatically form in the marketplace.

I'm not sure I follow ...

My starting point is that competition is the ultimate check to corporate power

Fair enough. Then that is what I need to be convinced of. Which maybe the readings you have suggested will do.