AnarchoCapitalism is NOT Anarchism!! [Archive]

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 04:13

That's what the word "anarchy" was regarded as when the word was first invented. The word has changed, it now basically is (almost) universally recognized as simply a society without government. Almost universally recognised, by those who are almost universally uninformed about this particular subject.

Anarchy comes from the Greek Anarchos which means "without rulers" and Capitalism is incompatible with this principle (whoever owns property and employs workers in a capitalist society makes the rules... = rulers )

And by the way, when the term "libertarianism" was first invented, it was also strongly anti-capitalist. [quote]
I know. Libertarian used to be another word for anarchism, but then the american 'Libertarian party' came along and distorted the discourse.
[quote] Original "libertarianism" was a form of socialism with strong social liberties.
Yep, original libertarianism was 'libertarian communism' which is another word for anarchism. Libertarianism still means anarchism some places outside america, but this is rapidly changing due to the hegemonic status of 'the leaders of the free world'
But the word changed. I myself am what today is known as an "anarcho-capitalist", but if I could only use words as they originally were defined as, I would be extremely liberal. Being very capitalist, that would just confuse people, even though classic liberalism supported a laissez-faire economy.
Libertarians are vehemently 'anti socialist'. I doubt you will deny this. Every Libertarian I have ever talked to has blamed 'socialism' for every evil under the sun.
Therefore so called Anarcho-Capitalists are utterly opposed to the 'Libertarian socialists' from where they got their name. If Anarchists are anti capitalist, And if Anarchists are in favour of socialism. then there is no possible way that 'Libertarians' who are anti socialist and pro capitalist, can be in any way equated with anarchism.

These political words change meanings...just let it go. If anarchists are inherently anti-capitalist, because first users of the word were, then so are libertarians.
that doesn't make any sense at all.

Words have no meaning? just because 'Door' Meant a 'passageway' for hundreds of years doesn't mean I shouldn't be encouraged to call a flying carpet by the name of 'door'? and then pretend that flying carpets are the same as passageways?

Vittos the City Sacker

16-12-2006, 04:20

i never said anything even remotely like that.

I know.

You said that anarchy in its simplest form is "no rulers".

I asked what of the individual that believed that private property is a natural extension of labor (does the digesting apple never become property?) and therefore required a ruler to appropriate it from the laborer.

Does his distain for what he considers a ruler not qualify for some reason?

Grave_n_idle

16-12-2006, 04:20

nope you're all wrong.

You are taking a 'concise dictionary' definition of anarchism and assuming that you know what anarchism is. If you believe that anarchism is simply 'the rejection of the state' of 'an absence of rules' then you are simply wrong, just as wrong as I would be if i said. "capitalism is the pursuit of freedom"

Anarchism, means in its most simplest form "no rulers". That is inherently anti capitalist, and anti private ownership of the means of production., because both of those situations necessitate that there are rulers. (IE, those who own capital/property, can dictate/rule over those who merely 'rent' their labour.

Not at all, my fiesty friend. Anarchy is about control systems - thus, it may modify a social or economic constraint, but it needn't replace it.

One can easily have private ownership in anarchy, or collective ownership - by simple merit of voluntary status.

If me and my family decide to 'own' the means of production, within an anarchic system, there is no need for imposition of 'rulers'. Similarly, in the more 'capitalistic' model, the only 'rules' that need be observed (inherently) are those governing commerce and whatever stipulations are contracted.

Neither situation inherently requires rules or rulers - except for those rules agreed upon by all members participating.

Dissonant Cognition

16-12-2006, 04:39

Anarchists are ANTI-Private property Libertarians are PRO-Private property

Anarchists are (in general) ANTI-Money, Libertarians are barely for anything but money.

If the above is true of "anarchism," please explain the following:

http://www.mutualist.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Joseph_Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

edit: a quick summary (but do read the other URLs, and emphasis is mine...)

Proudhon's version of mutualism, and the versions of some American individualist anarchists are not identical, but they share some basic similarities. Unlike other anarchists, mutualists are not opposed to the private property in the product of labor. They oppose anarcho-communism where the products of labor go into a community of goods to be owned collectively and shared.

Those who think that anarchism amounts only to a fetish for collectivism for its own sake are wrong and most likely don't know what anarchism/libertarianism actually are.

If you compare any anarchist 'nation' in this game with any 'libertarian' nation you will see how these differences affect the outcomes for the people of that society

While an often interesting game, the idea that NationStates accurately models anything is laughable. Its being a work of satire, that's kind of the point.

Kanabia

16-12-2006, 05:16

Anarcho-communism =/= anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalism =/= anarchism.

Anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism ∈ anarchism (i.e. anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism are subsets of anarchism).

Anarchism refers to any ideology that advocates the overthrow and/or absence of traditional government. Whether that's replaced with a corporately controlled free market, a collective assembly of all citizens, a small group of sentient hippogriffs, or technological regression, it's still anarchism.

Anarchist theory advocates the abolition of heirarchical authority, not all forms of governance. Capitalism is a form of heirarchical authority, so it's incompatible with the ideal. Anarchist communism is not.

EDIT - duh, anarchism, not anarchist communism in the first sentence. I had to type that up quickly before I had to dash out for something.

Note also however that this emphasis on heirarchy does not eliminate other forms of "private ownership" such as mutualism or syndicalism, merely the capitalist system of such.

Congo--Kinshasa

16-12-2006, 05:33

I've heard some anarcho-communists say anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, and I've heard some anarcho-capitalists say anarcho-communism is a contradiction in terms. IMO, they're both forms of anarchism. So, meh.

Neo Undelia

16-12-2006, 06:15

Arguing about irrelevancy is so much fun.

Hyenya

16-12-2006, 07:12

Well, like I've said before, everyone should be entitled to their own stuff. Such as, -my- car, -my- yard, -my- TV, -my- hair gel. Stuff like that.

I just hate companies that barely pay enough to support a family, health care that could put you on the streets, people working for one dollar a day. While 10% of the wealthiest sons of B**ches in America own 80% of property.

You should be able to make an honest day's work. And have your own things (and/or property). But it should be up to the government to prevent large companies from -STEALING- from others.

My great grandfather worked in a steel mil, with sodering rods. He hated that job, but he stuck through it for the retirment money... Eventualy the union began protesting that their pay was too low. So instead of sparing the CEO his $5,000,000,000 dollar pay check, they took the money out of their retirement fund! My grandfather was left with nothing. When he cought parkinsens from all the fumes from the saudering rods, he couldn't offord the medical bills. :upyours:

THIS HAS TO STOP!

Kanabia

16-12-2006, 07:16

Well, like I've said before, everyone should be entitled to their own stuff. Such as, -my- car, -my- yard, -my- TV, -my- hair gel. Stuff like that.
Most anarchists make a distinction between private ownership of capital (ie. the means of production and the required labour) and personal possessions.

Hyenya

16-12-2006, 07:24

Stop arguing over bull sh*t. Put yourself in the victem's shoes! How'd you feel!?! How can you prevent that!?! Thats what the F*ck anarchy's about!:mad:

Curious Inquiry

16-12-2006, 09:01

Everything is anarchism, since government is something we made up and imposed on ourselves.

Soheran

16-12-2006, 09:17

Everything is anarchism, since government is something we made up and imposed on ourselves.

You are merely exploiting the ambiguity of "we."

Some people made it up and imposed it on others.

Curious Inquiry

16-12-2006, 09:24

You are merely exploiting the ambiguity of "we."

Some people made it up and imposed it on others.

But you're only governed by it if you allow yourself to be :cool:

Soheran

16-12-2006, 09:25

But you're only governed by it if you allow yourself to be :cool:

Yeah, but if the alternative is getting shot, that isn't very helpful.

Neu Leonstein

16-12-2006, 09:35

But you're only governed by it if you allow yourself to be :cool:
Hardly.

Ever tried tax evasion?

Free Soviets

16-12-2006, 10:37

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 11:40

I know.

You said that anarchy in its simplest form is "no rulers".

I asked what of the individual that believed that private property is a natural extension of labor (does the digesting apple never become property?) and therefore required a ruler to appropriate it from the laborer.

Does his distain for what he considers a ruler not qualify for some reason?
You are entitled to own the fruits of your own labour, and posessions, and your own home.
The difference between this kind of ownership and ownership in capitalism/ anarcho-capitalism is that they believe they are entitled to own the labour of others and that their ownership entitles them to order them and tell them what to do.

Collective ownership through syndicates or cooperatives or federations is not the same as private ownership in capitalism as long as the collective ownership applies to everyone (and not just an elite set of shareholders)

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 11:51

Not at all, my fiesty friend. Anarchy is about control systems - thus, it may modify a social or economic constraint, but it needn't replace it.

One can easily have private ownership in anarchy, or collective ownership - by simple merit of voluntary status.

But private ownership of property is incompatible with a 'voluntary status' If I am born into a town where all of the property is owned by a number of business people, where do I get to volunteer for that ownership? I presume the owners will defend their property if I try and take it off them.

If me and my family decide to 'own' the means of production, within an anarchic system, there is no need for imposition of 'rulers'. Similarly, in the more 'capitalistic' model, the only 'rules' that need be observed (inherently) are those governing commerce and whatever stipulations are contracted.
If your family starts to employ other, landless, workers, then you become rulers over them. You will probably say that the workers freely choose to work for you, but that free choice can easily be a 'free choice' between slavery or starvation. The owner of the land usually writes up the contract, and has all of the power to set the terms and conditions, while the potential worker usually has an all or nothing decision. That is not anarchism.

Neither situation inherently requires rules or rulers - except for those rules agreed upon by all members participating.
Unless everyone has an equal position when deciding on the rules, then there are rulers. Anarchists insist on non hierarchical organising. It is a Central and non negotiable aspect of the political system. Private property creates Hierarchy

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 11:54

Stop arguing over bull sh*t. Put yourself in the victem's shoes! How'd you feel!?! How can you prevent that!?! Thats what the F*ck anarchy's about!:mad:

Debating whether or not we should have private property is not bull sh*t.

Private ownership of property is the biggest cause of poverty, war and crime in the world.

If your grandfather wasn't working for private owners, if he was working for himself with his community, his pension would not have been stolen from him.

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 11:56

The Pacifist Womble

16-12-2006, 11:57

You're right, but very biased!

Kanabia

16-12-2006, 12:01

what's the story with this 'moderator approval' nonsense? it only applies to long posts? I wrote a detailed response to some people last night and the moderator never approved it, another post is 'waiting for approval' now.

Why are they censoring me? Most trolls don't even write long posts
It's a forum bug.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509104

The mods are even having to approve some of their own posts.

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 14:54

You're right, but very biased!

I'm biased for a reason. I think a society based on Libertarian principles would be a horrific place in which to live.

Vittos the City Sacker

16-12-2006, 15:57

You are entitled to own the fruits of your own labour, and posessions, and your own home.

What if you didn't build your own home? What if some of your most cherished possessions were created by someone else?

The difference between this kind of ownership and ownership in capitalism/ anarcho-capitalism is that they believe they are entitled to own the labour of others and that their ownership entitles them to order them and tell them what to do.

No one is ordered to do anything without contractually agreeing to do it first. It is free association. Mass collectivism is not.

Collective ownership through syndicates or cooperatives or federations is not the same as private ownership in capitalism as long as the collective ownership applies to everyone (and not just an elite set of shareholders)

And if one worker's co-op succeeds while another fails, leaving the failing workers dependent upon the successful ones?

Curious Inquiry

16-12-2006, 15:58

Hardly.

Ever tried tax evasion?

Nope. Because I also understand "consequences." Others would want to put me in jail. But if I thought it was worth the risk . . . no different than mountain climbing. There's risks of consequences with anything.
ETA: I guess my point is, there is no government, there's just other people.

Vittos the City Sacker

16-12-2006, 16:04

But private ownership of property is incompatible with a 'voluntary status' If I am born into a town where all of the property is owned by a number of business people, where do I get to volunteer for that ownership?

Non-sequitor.

Property is not voluntary when you can choose whether you have it, it is voluntary when you choose who else can have it.

I presume the owners will defend their property if I try and take it off them.

For good reason. You may as well be stealing their memories.

If your family starts to employ other, landless, workers, then you become rulers over them. You will probably say that the workers freely choose to work for you, but that free choice can easily be a 'free choice' between slavery or starvation. The owner of the land usually writes up the contract, and has all of the power to set the terms and conditions, while the potential worker usually has an all or nothing decision. That is not anarchism.

I have worked in many areas, from rural to urban, in many different fields. I have even dealt with day laborers, yet I have never seen a situation like the one you describe.

Unless everyone has an equal position when deciding on the rules, then there are rulers. Anarchists insist on non hierarchical organising. It is a Central and non negotiable aspect of the political system. Private property creates Hierarchy

Not necessarily.

It is argued that the necessity one man has for another will force each to abandon any stratification they percieve between each other.

Congo--Kinshasa

16-12-2006, 16:29

is you opinion grounded in a solid knowledge of anarchist theory and history?

Admittedly, it is not.

What would be some good sources for remedying that?

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 16:33

Non-sequitor.

Property is not voluntary when you can choose whether you have it, it is voluntary when you choose who else can have it.
What is that supposed to mean? I can't choose who gets to own Monsanto, and I can't choose to own it myself. I don't see anything voluntary about property ownership for those without the financial or political means to acquire it for themselves.

For good reason. You may as well be stealing their memories.
Nobody can oppress me with their memories, They can oppress me with private property.

I have worked in many areas, from rural to urban, in many different fields. I have even dealt with day laborers, yet I have never seen a situation like the one you describe.
In Libertarianism, there is no social welfare, If you don't work, you starve. It is not a free choice to enter a contract if the alternative is that you and your family are made homeless or hungry, and given that Libertarians also oppose things like Unions and Minimum wages, in a time of labour surplus, Emoloyer/Land owner can pay the minimum subsistance wage needed to keep his workers alive in order to maximise his profits. Libertarians see nothing wrong with this (or else they wouldn't be libertarians)

Not necessarily.

It is argued that the necessity one man has for another will force each to abandon any stratification they percieve between each other.
Argued by whom? Do you see any evidence of this altruism in the business world? No, there is very little solidarity in business. Profitable factories are regularly closed down and the employees fired just because the owner can make more money in a lower cost economy somewhere else. In such a situation, workers are forced to compete amongst one another for lower and lower paid jobs. In America, Real wages are declining, the average wage is below what it was in 1970 if you adjust for inflation, meanwhile, personal debt is skyrocketing and the proportion of wealth held by the richest 5% is increasing at a huge rate. Under Libertarianism, without social welfare, this divide would be even worse for the ordinary person, Instead of a State, you would have tyrant corporations and billionaire kings.

The Lone Alliance

16-12-2006, 16:34

AnarchoCapitalism is still evil however.

Congo--Kinshasa

16-12-2006, 16:36

AnarchoCapitalism is still evil however.

I don't know about "evil," but unworkable, most definitely.

Andaluciae

16-12-2006, 16:37

Doesn't this thread have something to do with kilts and bagpipes?

Congo--Kinshasa

16-12-2006, 16:39

Doesn't this thread have something to do with kilts and bagpipes?

What do you mean? :confused:

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 16:39

What if you didn't build your own home? What if some of your most cherished possessions were created by someone else?
You don't have to produce all of your possessions yourself. Anarchists are not opposed to trade.

No one is ordered to do anything without contractually agreeing to do it first. It is free association. Mass collectivism is not. Not all contracts are freely negotiated or entered into, and very few contracts are fair. If you want a mortgage to buy a house, you have to sign a mortgage agreement. You don't get to negotiate that agreement, it's take it or leave it. There is no other way of buying a house without a mortgage. If you want to rent a house, you have to sign a tenants agreement. If you don't sign, you will be homeless, you are very rarely permitted to negotiate that agreement and it is usually weighted in favour of the landlord. If you buy a CD, you 'implicitly' agree to a contract that you don't even get to read. In fact, if you do almost anything at all, you are entering a contract. Most people have never negotiated a single contract in their entire lives. these contracts are just rules handed down by corporations that we have no choice but to accept (unless we become a hermit and live on the side of a mountain... except in a libertarian world, someone owns that mountain too)

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 16:43

Admittedly, it is not.

What would be some good sources for remedying that?

There is a very detailed document called 'The Anarchist FAQ that you can google for (or go to www.infoshop.org and follow the link)

Here is a good piece detailing why Anarco-Capitalists are NOT anarchists.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secF1.html

Congo--Kinshasa

16-12-2006, 16:47

There is a very detailed document called 'The Anarchist FAQ that you can google for (or go to www.infoshop.org and follow the link)

Here is a good piece detailing why Anarco-Capitalists are NOT anarchists.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secF1.html

Excellent, thanks. :)

Katzistanza

16-12-2006, 17:07

I have worked in many areas, from rural to urban, in many different fields. I have even dealt with day laborers, yet I have never seen a situation like the one you describe.

I have

Czardas

16-12-2006, 17:14

Technically, all "anarchism" means is any system which does not include a government or traditional hierarchy. One could argue that a collectivist anarchy is not truly anarchistic, as the society will not be truly equal -- an advantage would be given to those who were formerly poor, for instance -- and the only way to determine real equality would be to give everyone a starting, equal amount of money and a totally free market on which to use and expand it. This would prevent exploitation of the poor by the wealthy, because everyone would start with the same amount of money; it would also ensure that those with the willpower and determination to succeed would succeed, whereas those without would fall by the wayside and die off, making society as a whole more productive.

Personally, I'm not an anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, since anarcho-anythingism is a utopian, naive dream (except maybe anarcho-fascism, such as Orwell's Oceania -- everyone is equally oppressed, but there is no government doing the oppressing, so in fact they are oppressing themselves); I believe more in a rule by the informed, by those who know what they're talking about instead of the idiots. Government's primary purpose is to protect its citizens from external threats and foster trade and foreign relations; a society without a government, unless the whole world followed the same model, would be easy pickings for every dictatorship and military state out there.

Besides, anarchism ignores one of the most fundamental tenets of human nature, which is a desire for control. All people, quite simply, desire control; first over their own lives, and once they have that, over others. Attempting to suppress this will only lead to the rise of a Stalinist dictatorship; fostering it will lead to true equality, because if everyone is in control of him/herself, attempts to impose control by others will fail and the so-called "exploitation" will not occur. Those who work for others will be able to demand adequate returns or leave to found their own business, if they so choose. And the only way to give people control of their own lives is to afford them freedom to do what they like, with their own bodies, their own thoughts, and their own property.

~ Random Machiavellian-Platonic Objectivist number 2975932
aka Czardas

RobCheesus

16-12-2006, 17:26

Barkozy

16-12-2006, 17:31

I'm not entirely sure why most other anarchists absolutely devote themselves to fighting anarcho-capitalists. I suppose it's a matter of keeping a marginal movement marginal.

I think that it's a bad call for libertarian(right) anarchists to call themselves anarcho-capitalists as the word 'capitalist' carries a lot of baggage .

RobCheesus

16-12-2006, 17:36

I'm not entirely sure why most other anarchists absolutely devote themselves to fighting anarcho-capitalists. I suppose it's a matter of keeping a marginal movement marginal.

That would probably be to over simplify the issue. There may be some element of that, but there are legitimate reasons for 'anarchists' to reject and dislike anarcho-capitalism.

Much of anarchist thought, after all, is about Mutual aid and benevolent. Capitalism, at least in the macro/global sense, clearly isn't benevolent

Free Soviets

16-12-2006, 17:52

One could argue that a collectivist anarchy is not truly anarchistic, as the society will not be truly equal -- an advantage would be given to those who were formerly poor, for instance

this looks like a fundamentally confused conception of equality

the only way to determine real equality would be to give everyone a starting, equal amount of money and a totally free market on which to use and expand it.

and then start over again from scratch tomorrow...

Besides, anarchism ignores one of the most fundamental tenets of human nature, which is a desire for control.

funny, it seems to me that anarchism is one of the few ideologies to take that aspect of humanity seriously.

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 17:54

As anarchism is a loose term to define a huge array of differing positions, it is difficult to have a demarcation criterion of what is and isn't anarchism.

Libertarianism (in the 'right sense) rejects state control and therefore must be considered, at least in a limited sense, an anarchist idea.

It's almost impossible to say whether it is, or isn't, anarchism, because what anarchism is is not clear. And nor should it be!

except that Libertarianism doesn't reject state control, It simply replaces the republic state with an oligarchy of the super wealthy each of whom is a totalitarian despot when dealing with the reach of their own private resources.

How often have you had a disagreement with your boss only to be told "Just do it, this is not a democracy"
Well, that is what Libertarianism is, times a million.

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 17:57

I'm not entirely sure why most other anarchists absolutely devote themselves to fighting anarcho-capitalists. I suppose it's a matter of keeping a marginal movement marginal.
Because, as Noam Chomsky pointed out
"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else." [Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, interview with Tom Lane, December 23, 1996"

I think that it's a bad call for libertarian(right) anarchists to call themselves anarcho-capitalists as the word 'capitalist' carries a lot of baggage .
It's a bad call for Libertarians to call themselves Anarchists, they have nothing in common with Anarchism.

Willfull Ignorance

16-12-2006, 18:09

Lefties will claim freedom only exists in the positive sense, the right will say freedom is only negative.

Collective anarchists will claim anarchism is anti all authority, individualist anarchists say anarchism is only against government authority.

Problem solved?

Free Soviets

16-12-2006, 18:16

I'm not entirely sure why most other anarchists absolutely devote themselves to fighting anarcho-capitalists.

we don't. they only exist on the internet, and for some reason that has never been made clear to me all 17 of them hang around waiting to jump into discussions about anarchism. this has been going on for so long that it is now just one of the running internet arguments. in that continuous argument, occasionally someone will start out specifically to fight them - it has to happen sometime. but overall we mostly just laugh at them.

Barkozy

16-12-2006, 18:17

Because, as Noam Chomsky pointed out
"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else." [Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, interview with Tom Lane, December 23, 1996"

Noam Chomsky assumed that the modern corporations and rich individuals were not helped along by the state. He buys into the lie that the state is in a titanic struggle against the big corporations when they actually work together. It's a great deal for the owners of big corps, who get the only guys legally allowed to use violence to do their bidding. The state gets to work hand in hand with these guys. The modern limited liability corporation certainly could not happen without the help of the state.

You argue from dogmatic anarcho-socialist theory, anyway.

It's a bad call for Libertarians to call themselves Anarchists, they have nothing in common with Anarchism.

I suppose anarchism is a movement only of people approved by you and your friends.

Willfull Ignorance

16-12-2006, 18:20

Different definitions for the same work

Eg. Leftists see freedom as positive, the right see freedom as negative

Collectivists see anarchism as rejecting all authority
Individualists see anarchism as only rejecting state authority (which fits in my opinion to the generally recognised dictionary definition)

Yes from a collectivist viewpoint anarcho capitalism doesnt fit thier anarchist chriteria but similarly I can claim from the view point of someone who beleives in negative freedom that socialism/communism is anti freedom.

This seems like a silly debate ammounting to something along the lines of; my ideologies definition of a word is better than your definition...

Czardas

16-12-2006, 18:23

this looks like a fundamentally confused conception of equality
The whole idea of welfare is unequal, as it proposes giving an advantage to those who, in a truly equal society -- i.e. one in which everyone starts out with the same thing -- would not prosper. If those on welfare remain on welfare because they either cannot or are unwilling to work, they are parasites to society; if we did not have welfare, they would simply die off, leaving society as a whole more productive.

and then start over again from scratch tomorrow...

That doesn't make sense.

"Ok, everyone, here's 100 dollars, by the end of the year those of you who succeed in prospering deserve to remain at the top..."

a year later... "Excellent, you made $10,000, now we're going to redistribute it to everyone else."

It's like... what? If people earn their property in a fair, free market society, wouldn't they deserve to keep it?

funny, it seems to me that anarchism is one of the few ideologies to take that aspect of humanity seriously.
Please explain how, as it would seem to be denying the existence of such an aspect, or at very least suppressing it.

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 18:32

Noam Chomsky assumed that the modern corporations and rich individuals were not helped along by the state. He buys into the lie that the state is in a titanic struggle against the big corporations when they actually work together. It's a great deal for the owners of big corps, who get the only guys legally allowed to use violence to do their bidding. The state gets to work hand in hand with these guys. The modern limited liability corporation certainly could not happen without the help of the state. The Corporations don't need the state to survive. The most powerful of these institutions simply take advantage of the existing structures to their own advantage. If the state were to collapse, Corporate power would be completely unregulated and they would be free to do anything they like

The corporations would simply hire their own private security if the state was not there. They already do this in places like Colombia where they have paid right wing paramilitary groups to suppress unions, murdering activists and kidnapping their families. (Coca Cola). They are getting away with it, because they have so much influence in politics that the governments would rather sell out their citizens than lose the 'investment' that makes their economic figures look impressive.

I know that the state and the corporations work together, but that is because the corporations are powerful enough that they can have that influence. The people most likely to be elected are those with the most resources and those resources come from donations from corporations and the wealthy elites.

You argue from dogmatic anarcho-socialist theory, anyway.
I argue according to how I see the world. I don't agree with something just because it's anarcho-socialist, I agree with anarcho-socialist theory because it fits in with how I see the world. I am not a dogmatic theorist, I am open to all kinds of debate, But not on the subject of Anarcho-Capitalism. You might as well try to tell me that Scientology is a good idea.

I suppose anarchism is a movement only of people approved by you and your friends. Anarchism is a movement only of people who reject Hierarchy and rulers. Capitalism is not a part of anarchism.

New Granada

16-12-2006, 18:35

You're denying the transitive property there, ace.

A = C
B = C
-----
A = B

Where A is "anarchism," B is "anarcho capitalism," and C is "rididulous."

The Evil Worm Overlord

16-12-2006, 18:37

.

Anarchists are in ANTI-Hierarchy, Libertarians are PRO-Hierarchy

Anarchists are ANTI-Private property Libertarians are PRO-Private property

Anarchists are (in general) ANTI-Money, Libertarians are barely for anything but money.

Anarchists believe in Freedom, Libertarian philosophy can only lead to slavery.

So you mean to tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to own property, or money, or be allowed to have a leader? How can you say you believe in freedom? You sound more like a fascist to me. What if I like being able to buy bread at the store with some paper instead of a chicken? You telling me that that's wrong is just as bad as somebody telling you that anarchy is dumb.

I don't know... but to be anti money seems ignorant to me... Money isn't what creates problems, people are. Maybe you should be anti people, like me.

Czardas

16-12-2006, 18:39

Anarchism is a movement only of people who reject Hierarchy and rulers. Capitalism is not a part of anarchism.

Capitalism doesn't necessarily create a hierarchy. If all the people in the world were to be given the same amount of money and placed in a totally free market society -- one without existing monopolies, taxes, or big corporations, all of which actually hinder the free market -- that would be the best example of anarcho-capitalism. Eventually, some would end up with more money than others, but only because they worked harder, were more ambitious or creative, or were psychopaths who could manipulate others into giving up their freedoms to work for extremely low pay in menial jobs with most of their profits going to the board of directors (this last situation does not seem extremely likely in such a society).

There would be, of course, those incapable of working or unwilling to work, but as mentioned, they would quickly die from lack of sustenance and cease to be a problem, or subsist upon charity or something similar (which is rare but possible), making a living begging upon the streets. However, there would be nothing preventing them from going into business themselves and taking control of their own lives, unlike in the corporatist oligarchies that call themselves capitalist today.

Czardas

16-12-2006, 18:41

You're denying the transitive property there, ace.

A = C
B = C
-----
A = B

Where A is "anarchism," B is "anarcho capitalism," and C is "rididulous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 18:45

The whole idea of welfare is unequal, as it proposes giving an advantage to those who, in a truly equal society -- i.e. one in which everyone starts out with the same thing -- would not prosper. If those on welfare remain on welfare because they either cannot or are unwilling to work, they are parasites to society; if we did not have welfare, they would simply die off, leaving society as a whole more productive.
Are these things that you genuinely believe?

"Ok, everyone, here's 100 dollars, by the end of the year those of you who succeed in prospering deserve to remain at the top..."

a year later... "Excellent, you made $10,000, now we're going to redistribute it to everyone else."

It's like... what? If people earn their property in a fair, free market society, wouldn't they deserve to keep it?
What if you 'earn' that money by beating people up and stealing their wallets?
What if you sell 'snake oil products' to unsuspecting customers?
What if you make that money, by polluting the water supply of a whole town?
Do you still deserve your place at the top?
Now, you might reply by saying that these people can be sued by the people they damage, But if they have $10,000 and everyone else is broke, how are they going to afford the legal fees? How would they afford to pay the private police force to investigate the crimes?

What if you invest your money in a good stable business, but there is a flash flood caused by someone else's interference with the water table and everything you have is destroyed?

What if you get sick?

Do all these people deserve to be purged from the population?

Free Soviets

16-12-2006, 18:49

a truly equal society -- i.e. one in which everyone starts out with the same thing

yeah, as i said, fundamentally confused.

That doesn't make sense.

"Ok, everyone, here's 100 dollars, by the end of the year those of you who succeed in prospering deserve to remain at the top..."

a year later... "Excellent, you made $10,000, now we're going to redistribute it to everyone else."

your idea of 'equality' involves the accumulation of inequality in wealth, and therefore power, over time. that is just silly, as that gets us precisely where we are today only much much worse. and where we are today is pretty much the most stratified any culture has ever been.

If people earn their property in a fair, free market society, wouldn't they deserve to keep it?

no.

firstly, because market relations are inherently unjust.

secondly, because doing so means that the accumulated differences in power will be used by your previously mentioned human desire for power over others to perpetuate and increase those differences. so even if the original start was fair (which it wasn't), those starting slightly later start from position of superiority and inferiority, with different societal benefits and handicaps. as i said, we are one of the few to take the problem of people desiring power over others seriously. if you are taking it seriously, it is only in the sense that you intend to institute a system where some people actually get to exercise that power.

Czardas

16-12-2006, 18:58

Are these things that you genuinely believe?

What's wrong with that?

What if you 'earn' that money by beating people up and stealing their wallets?

Then you can expect to be beaten up, or worse, in return. You get what you put in.

What if you sell 'snake oil products' to unsuspecting customers?
If people aren't smart enough to know what they're getting, they deserve to be cheated. If they're simply willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker (forgive the cliche) what some salesman is saying, like Americans and television, then they probably won't be able to thrive anyway.

What if you make that money, by polluting the water supply of a whole town?
How would that make money?

Now, you might reply by saying that these people can be sued by the people they damage,
Actually, I won't.

But if they have $10,000 and everyone else is broke, how are they going to afford the legal fees?
Not everyone else would be broke, because I'm assuming some of them would work as well. Besides, people would go into business as lawyers as well; and if they set their fees too high, people wouldn't hire them, they wouldn't make any money, and they'd fail too.

How would they afford to pay the private police force to investigate the crimes?
See my lawyer reasoning above.

What if you invest your money in a good stable business, but there is a flash flood caused by someone else's interference with the water table and everything you have is destroyed?
If there's a naturally occurring flash flood? That's why there will be people going into insurance.

What if you get sick?
See insurance, and privately owned hospitals. If privately owned hospitals charge too much, again, people won't go, they won't make money, they won't get adequate equipment, they'll fail too.

Do all these people deserve to be purged from the population?
No, only those who contribute nothing to society, and idiots.

I don't believe in the kind of society I described anyway; it's a utopian ideal and would not work very well in real life. Just like collective anarchism. People need to have some kind of government, and the best choice there would be one made up of the informed, as in a democracy every idiot would get a vote and be able to pass legislation that could harm the society overall, whereas in a dictatorship an idiot could become the dictator, which would be equally catastrophic.

Czardas

16-12-2006, 19:17

yeah, as i said, fundamentally confused.
How?

your idea of 'equality' involves the accumulation of inequality in wealth, and therefore power, over time. that is just silly, as that gets us precisely where we are today only much much worse. and where we are today is pretty much the most stratified any culture has ever been.
But the 'accumulation of inequality' through wealth will be determined by the ability and will of the people working to achieve that wealth. The society will not start out with certain groups oppressed. Everyone will be equal. If they do not actually make anything from it, it's due to their own unwillingness to, not the oppression of the petty-bourgeoisie or the big corporations.

no.

firstly, because market relations are inherently unjust.
How?

secondly, because doing so means that the accumulated differences in power will be used by your previously mentioned human desire for power over others to perpetuate and increase those differences.
That's kind of the point. Eventually, those who are more capable will hold power, whereas those who are less capable will not. I don't see what's wrong with that.

so even if the original start was fair (which it wasn't),
Why wasn't it?

those starting slightly later start from position of superiority and inferiority, with different societal benefits and handicaps.
Later than what?

as i said, we are one of the few to take the problem of people desiring power over others seriously.
By attempting to suppress it, which leads to discontent and Stalinist dictatorship. All examples of this in real life have done so.

if you are taking it seriously, it is only in the sense that you intend to institute a system where some people actually get to exercise that power.
But because they have shown they have the ambition, willpower, and ability to exercise it, as opposed to being granted it by heredity or through the work of others forced into working for them. People who survive in this society will be those capable of providing the necessary goods and services to everyone else. If someone else does it better, they will be able to enter the market and supersede those who do it worse and have merely been around longer. That's the whole point of a free market.

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 19:29

Do these people deserve to be purged from the population?

No, only those who contribute nothing to society, and idiots.
[/quote] Well based on the ideas you have just expressed, you would be one of the first people to go extinct

I don't believe in the kind of society I described anyway; it's a utopian ideal A Utopia is supposed to be a nice place, what you described is horrific beyond belief.

and would not work very well in real life. Just like collective anarchism. Anarchism worked very well in Spain for 3 years until their military defeat by Franco in the Spanish civil war.
People need to have some kind of government No they don't Until colonisation, There were many African societies that had no leadership. Tribal chiefs were imposed upon them by the colonists who just 'assumed' that they had 'Chiefs' Aboriginal society has no formal hierarchical leadership either, or it didn't used to have until they were invaded by the British empire

Free Soviets

16-12-2006, 19:29

But the 'accumulation of inequality' through wealth will be determined by the ability and will of the people working to achieve that wealth. The society will not start out with certain groups oppressed. Everyone will be equal. If they do not actually make anything from it, it's due to their own unwillingness to, not the oppression of the petty-bourgeoisie or the big corporations.

until the next generation, at best. but you don't even need to wait that long for the unjust disparities to show up. as soon as someone has the ability to disproportionately benefit themselves through the exercise of power, they will (and that is the exercise of power, not some magical workings on the market). lather, rinse, repeat.

Eventually, those who are more capable will hold power, whereas those who are less capable will not.

and what are those holding power going to do with it in respect to the benefits their idiot children get?

we've got this amazing concept in the real world called 'time'. over the course of this 'time' new and different people come into existence. in the society you are proposing as 'equal' the next generation does not start out equal even in your idiotic sense. which is why i say that you are fundamentally confused.

By attempting to suppress it, which leads to discontent and Stalinist dictatorship. All examples of this in real life have done so.

yes, stalinists were making sure that nobody had access to power over others... do you realize how ludicrous that is? a better example of what anarchism is up to is the project undertaken by the divided power concept of the american government, but without falling into the obvious errors which it did.

Czardas

16-12-2006, 19:38

Well based on the ideas you have just expressed, you would be one of the first people to go extinct[/QIOTE]
That is soon to be decided. If I contribute to society (I don't think I'm an idiot, I have a quite high IQ and am capable of understanding many concepts that are difficult for other people), then I can stay; if not, I'll die out with the rest of them. Doesn't matter.

[QUOTE=AnarchoAkrasia]
A Utopia is supposed to be a nice place, what you described is horrific beyond belief.
Actually, a utopia is just a society that is permanently stable. Orwell's 1984 describes a utopia, just a not very desirable one.

Anarchism worked very well in Spain for 3 years until their military defeat by Franco in the Spanish civil war.
That's kind of the point. Anarchism won't work because someone will always come along who wants more power than the system gives him, which is none, and he'll raise an army and defeat it.

No they don't Until colonisation, There were many African societies that had no leadership.
They had leadership, just collective leadership.

Tribal chiefs were imposed upon them by the colonists who just 'assumed' that they had 'Chiefs' Aboriginal society has no formal hierarchical leadership either, or it didn't used to have until they were invaded by the British empire
Well, look what happened to them. They got conquered by people who actually had governments, proving that societies with government will always trump societies without. Therefore, societies without government are a practical impossibility and will cease to exist as soon as something else appears.

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 19:39

That's kind of the point. Eventually, those who are more capable will hold power, whereas those who are less capable will not. I don't see what's wrong with that.
Why do you assume the most capable will succeed? Is it not more likely that the most ruthless or violent would do best in this kind of society?

Do you want to live in a ruthless society?

By attempting to suppress it, which leads to discontent and Stalinist dictatorship. All examples of this in real life have done so. No, by building the structures that distribute wealth and power most fairly. Do you understand what structuralism is?
By devolving decision making and by preventing individuals from owning vast amounts of property, you limit their ability to secure the totalitarian power that Fascist or Stalinist dictators want to wield.

But because they have shown they have the ambition, willpower, and ability to exercise it, as opposed to being granted it by heredity or through the work of others forced into working for them. People who survive in this society will be those capable of providing the necessary goods and services to everyone else. If someone else does it better, they will be able to enter the market and supersede those who do it worse and have merely been around longer. That's the whole point of a free market. complete nonsense from start to finish. Why do you assume that these 'successful' capitalists have any interest in providing the necessary services to everyone else? And why should we trust them to do so? If they control the resources and can make all the decisions just because they have 'proven themselves', that makes them a dictator, there is no freedom

Soheran

16-12-2006, 19:43

That's kind of the point. Anarchism won't work because someone will always come along who wants more power than the system gives him, which is none, and he'll raise an army and defeat it.

In an anarchist society, no individual will have that kind of power. It is only in statist/propertarian societies where such things are possible - if hierarchical power structures exist, they can be abused and subverted. If they do not, the "army" you suggest would never exist.

Czardas

16-12-2006, 19:44

until the next generation, at best. but you don't even need to wait that long for the unjust disparities to show up. as soon as someone has the ability to disproportionately benefit themselves through the exercise of power, they will (and that is the exercise of power, not some magical workings on the market). lather, rinse, repeat.

Quite true. But if they reach the state where they are capable of doing that, by their own labour, they deserve to benefit.

and what are those holding power going to do with it in respect to the benefits their idiot children get?
.... what?

we've got this amazing concept in the real world called 'time'. over the course of this 'time' new and different people come into existence. in the society you are proposing as 'equal' the next generation does not start out equal even in your idiotic sense. which is why i say that you are fundamentally confused.
The next generation could easily start out 'equal', if all children were raised by the same entity, i.e. a state. Otherwise, they would end up fundametally unequal because different people would raise their children differently. We run into the same problem in an anarcho-collectivist society.

yes, stalinists were making sure that nobody had access to power over others... do you realize how ludicrous that is?
The original ideology of the Russian Revolution was anarchism. It sought to overthrow the existing czarist hierarchy and establish a classless society. Sounds awfully like your anarchism to me. Look what happened as a result.

a better example of what anarchism is up to is the project undertaken by the divided power concept of the american government, but without falling into the obvious errors which it did.
A collectivist version of America would make as much sense as a free-market capitalist version of the USSR.

As a side note, because I'm having rather serious anger problems right now (if you haven't guessed -- "KILL ALL POOR PEOPLE!" "STERILISE THE UNINTELLIGENT!"), this is a bad time for me to debate, so I'll be departing. I may be back later tonight or so, or tomorrow, depending on my state of mind.

Czardas

16-12-2006, 19:49

Why do you assume the most capable will succeed? Is it not more likely that the most ruthless or violent would do best in this kind of society?

Do you want to live in a ruthless society?
If I'm at the top of it, yes. Otherwise, probably not. NIMBY.

No, by building the structures that distribute wealth and power most fairly. Do you understand what structuralism is?
By devolving decision making and by preventing individuals from owning vast amounts of property, you limit their ability to secure the totalitarian power that Fascist or Stalinist dictators want to wield.
But who prevents them from owning vast amount of property? Who actually owns all of the property? There has to be some kind of a state owning everything. If you even give individuals access to the property -- "dividing it up amongst them" or whatever -- they will find a way to get the property of others, and eventually become dictators. Or, they can convince other dissatisfied people to join their cause, raise an army, install dictatorship government etc.

complete nonsense from start to finish. Why do you assume that these 'successful' capitalists have any interest in providing the necessary services to everyone else?
Well, if they don't, they won't be successful. In this society.

And why should we trust them to do so?
Why should we trust anyone?

Last one for this morning, kthxbai.

AnarchoAkrasia

16-12-2006, 19:52

Actually, a utopia is just a society that is permanently stable. Orwell's 1984 describes a utopia, just a not very desirable one.
That's wrong. Utopia is used to describe an ideal or a perfect society. Orwell's book describes a Dystopia

Czardas

16-12-2006, 19:57

That's wrong. Utopia is used to describe an ideal or a perfect society. Orwell's book describes a Dystopia

Oceania is an ideal or perfect society if you happen to be a fascist. It is ideal or perfect because it is stable, and will not collapse due to corruption, or apathy, or external warfare. The same goes for Marx and Lenin's vision, which is ideal if you happen to be a socialist; Adam Smith's vision, which is ideal if you happen to be a capitalist, etc.

"Dystopia" is only the term applied to a utopia you don't agree with.

Clandonia Prime

16-12-2006, 20:28

Ah I long for the day of a true free market and other classical liberal ideas.... Anarco-capitalism is a nice idea, but it will never be accepted as it advocates that people would be dieing in the streets, constant civil war with private armies and such.

Hyenya

16-12-2006, 21:18

Couldn't there just be an orginisation (a government?:p ) that passed laws that prevented -anyone- including the orginisation (government?) from owning labor.

The only way to form companies would be to work together with other laborers. That way, CEO's ain't making 5,000,000 dollars an hour and everyone owns the company.

So everyone gets payed depending on how good their company's doing. The only way to succeed is to work together. If other company's cant keep up, they'r more than welcome to join the bigger company and get payed just as much as everyone else (depending on how good the bigger company is doing).

That way, no one person or elite grupe of people can own labor. Everyone works. So there would still be trade, and labor, and companys. Just laws preventing any one person from owning them.

Commonalitarianism

16-12-2006, 22:13

It is not what you call it that matters. It is whether the system you are describing works. This means can you draw working models from the real world. For example, I might draw from Mondragon Cooperative Corporation
http://www.mcc.es/ing/quienessomos/presidente.html or SAIC http://www.saic.com/empown/ as well as other examples of real world cooperatives or business styles that might work, for example most lawyers work as partnerships. There are numerous examples to build from. Anarchism is an ideal. These are both examples of forms of cooperative capitalist enterprises.

Accelerus

16-12-2006, 22:53

Hyenya

17-12-2006, 00:15

New Genoa

17-12-2006, 02:18

Man 2: Right now we're proving we don't need corporations. We don't need money. This can become a commune where everyone just helps each other.

Man 1: Yeah, we'll have one guy who like, who like, makes bread. A-and one guy who like, l-looks out for other people's safety.

Stan: You mean like a baker and a cop?

Man 2: No no, can't you imagine a place where people live together and like, provide services for each other in exchange for their services?

Kyle: Yeah, it's called a town.

Driver: You kids just haven't been to college yet. But just you wait, this thing is about to get HUGE.

South Park rocks hard.

Minaris

17-12-2006, 02:24

South Park rocks hard.

QFT

I, of course, prefer this passage:

Scientist: Wait a minute... butt sex.
Chef: Butt sex?
Scientist: Butt sex. Butt sex require a lot of lubrication. Lubra- Chupa- Chupacabra! The goat-thief of Mexican folklore. Folklore are fictionalized storeis from the past... Fictionalized to raised drama... Drama... drama student! Students attend university... where they have to ride bicycles a lot... bicyc-bi-binary. It's binary code!

Chef: Who's having butt sex?

but it's a little bit out-of-context.

Vittos the City Sacker

17-12-2006, 02:44

What is that supposed to mean? I can't choose who gets to own Monsanto, and I can't choose to own it myself. I don't see anything voluntary about property ownership for those without the financial or political means to acquire it for themselves.

Property becomes voluntary when it includes the right of disposal and exchange. Property that includes unlimited right to appropriation loses its voluntary nature because it will be taken without the permission of the current possessor.

Nobody can oppress me with their memories, They can oppress me with private property.

Even if you had made any sort of argument to back this up, it is irrelevant.

In Libertarianism, there is no social welfare, If you don't work, you starve. It is not a free choice to enter a contract if the alternative is that you and your family are made homeless or hungry, and given that Libertarians also oppose things like Unions and Minimum wages, in a time of labour surplus, Emoloyer/Land owner can pay the minimum subsistance wage needed to keep his workers alive in order to maximise his profits. Libertarians see nothing wrong with this (or else they wouldn't be libertarians)

You are correct that anarcho-capitalism opposes the violent imposition of social welfare (there is nothing stopping charitable actions, which, considering our nature as compassionate creatures, would likely provide an ample safety net).

Minimum wages are irrelevant, as they will not improve the overall economic situation.

And you are correct that labor surplus will drive down labor prices, but it will also drive down production costs, simply causing deflation and negating any change in real wages. As this takes place, the surplus labor will be eaten up by the lower labor costs and the labor market will return to equilibrium.

Do you see any evidence of this altruism in the business world? No, there is very little solidarity in business. Profitable factories are regularly closed down and the employees fired just because the owner can make more money in a lower cost economy somewhere else. In such a situation, workers are forced to compete amongst one another for lower and lower paid jobs. In America, Real wages are declining, the average wage is below what it was in 1970 if you adjust for inflation, meanwhile, personal debt is skyrocketing and the proportion of wealth held by the richest 5% is increasing at a huge rate. Under Libertarianism, without social welfare, this divide would be even worse for the ordinary person, Instead of a State, you would have tyrant corporations and billionaire kings.

First off, I don't see any semblance of a free market in the business world. The business world is full of subsidies and regulations (like your minimum wage) that skew the decision making processes of the participants and enforce the stratification of haves and have nots.

The flow of resources and capital to low priced labor pools is an unsolvable problem without the implementation of some form of protectionism. (Protectionism can be a voluntary action, but there is nothing stopping voluntary protectionism in a capitalist economy)

Real wages in the US have been steady for 25 years.

Finally, the pooling of wealth into a few hands is the result not of the market, but of the state cartelization of industry. It is the regulation of industry that completely undermines competition and amplifies the benefits of economies of scale, thereby centralizing markets when the market would naturally be decentralized.

Vittos the City Sacker

17-12-2006, 02:55

Not all contracts are freely negotiated or entered into, and very few contracts are fair. If you want a mortgage to buy a house, you have to sign a mortgage agreement. You don't get to negotiate that agreement, it's take it or leave it. There is no other way of buying a house without a mortgage. If you want to rent a house, you have to sign a tenants agreement. If you don't sign, you will be homeless, you are very rarely permitted to negotiate that agreement and it is usually weighted in favour of the landlord. If you buy a CD, you 'implicitly' agree to a contract that you don't even get to read. In fact, if you do almost anything at all, you are entering a contract. Most people have never negotiated a single contract in their entire lives. these contracts are just rules handed down by corporations that we have no choice but to accept (unless we become a hermit and live on the side of a mountain... except in a libertarian world, someone owns that mountain too)

How many mortgages have you taken on?

How many apartment/house leases have you dealt with?

And it is ridiculous to assume that people would want to barter for every single retail good they purchased. A wonderful thing about the market is that it does most of your haggling for you allowing you to get on with your life without having to deal with every clerk you meet.

And that last sentence is nonsense.

Tech-gnosis

17-12-2006, 04:23

You are correct that anarcho-capitalism opposes the violent imposition of social welfare (there is nothing stopping charitable actions, which, considering our nature as compassionate creatures, would likely provide an ample safety net).

Of course a totally non-existant safety net would satisfy anarcho-capitalism just as much.

Andaluciae

17-12-2006, 04:24

What do you mean? :confused:

EVERYTHING

Tech-gnosis

17-12-2006, 04:26

EVERYTHING

and NOTHING!

GreaterPacificNations

17-12-2006, 04:30

Anarchy
An-Archy
An=Not/anti/against
Archy=Powerstructure/state/organisation/authority.

Therefore
Anarchy= against the organised state.

The term is purely political. Economics doesn't come into it. You can have capitalist anarchists and communist anarchists, just as you can have christian anarchists, and thespian anarchists. The term only stipulates that the ideaology is against the establishment of a power structure.

Vittos the City Sacker

17-12-2006, 05:00

Of course a totally non-existant safety net would satisfy anarcho-capitalism just as much.

Indeed. It would satisfy many or all forms of anarchism.

Linus and Lucy

17-12-2006, 05:46

You are entitled to own the fruits of your own labour, and posessions, and your own home.
The difference between this kind of ownership and ownership in capitalism/ anarcho-capitalism is that they believe they are entitled to own the labour of others
Oh, bullshit.

A capitalist believes that he is only entitled to "own" the labor of another if that other AGREES to it, and is obligated to adhere to whatever terms were part of the agreement.
and that their ownership entitles them to order them and tell them what to do.
Well, yeah--that's what "ownership" is.

Linus and Lucy

17-12-2006, 05:50

If your family starts to employ other, landless, workers, then you become rulers over them. You will probably say that the workers freely choose to work for you, but that free choice can easily be a 'free choice' between slavery or starvation.
So what?

You are not entitled to a choice between suck and not suck. If all you can get is a choice between suck and suck less, well, tough shit for you. The only way to provide an alternative would be to compel someone else to act against his will--which is hardly proper.

The owner of the land usually writes up the contract, and has all of the power to set the terms and conditions, while the potential worker usually has an all or nothing decision.
Only because one has more to offer than the other--so it is as it should be.

Saint-Newly

17-12-2006, 06:35

Well, yeah--that's what "ownership" is.

And if he has the power to order someone around, it ceases to be an anarchy. It's just feudalism by another name.

Aequilibritas

17-12-2006, 06:49

[T]he exploitative, force- and rule-based system of capitalism is not championed by any anarchists, not even the anarcho-capitalists. The critique directed from the leftist camps of anarchism towards anarcho-capitalism is therefore misplaced, inaccurate and rather ignorant. To refute the ideas and values of a philosophical movement one will have to use their definitions, or the critique will be virtually worthless.
Anarcho-capitalism is thus not the oxymoron many anarchists claim it to be. The term “capitalism” is here rather used in a way of emphasizing the importance people of this movement put in the creation of value in the free market. This position of advocating the free market without interference is shared by individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker, of whom the latter demanded that interferences with the free market must be abolished. As Tucker claimed, “if a man has labor to sell, he has a right to a free market in which to sell it.”

http://anarchism.net/anarchism_anarchismcapitalismandanarchocapitalism.htm

Edit: This is a good one, too:

http://anarchism.net/anarchism_bartertradenotcapitalism.htm

Tech-gnosis

17-12-2006, 07:30

Indeed. It would satisfy many or all forms of anarchism.

Agreed.

Soheran

17-12-2006, 07:38

Well, yeah--that's what "ownership" is.

A good reason to abolish it (in those contexts, anyway), no?

At least if you're really an anarchist, and actually oppose hierarchy and subordination.

AnarchoAkrasia

17-12-2006, 15:48

Even if you had made any sort of argument to back this up, it is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant at all, Anarchism is supposed to be against oppression. Private property is a tool of oppression, Where as i can't think of any plausible way that your private memories could be used to oppress me (unless you're just blackmailing me)
Are you telling me that you can't think of how private property leads to oppression?

You are correct that anarcho-capitalism opposes the violent imposition of social welfare (there is nothing stopping charitable actions, which, considering our nature as compassionate creatures, would likely provide an ample safety net). We are compassionate 'creatures' but your system of Libertarian would reward ruthless behaviour far more than compassionate behaviour, and this would mean that the bulk of the wealth would be in the hands of the selfish and the greedy. Charity is not a replacement for the social welfare safety net (as inadequate as it is in current neoliberal society)
And it's certainly not a replacement for a socialist compassionate society as advocated by anarchists.

Minimum wages are irrelevant, as they will not improve the overall economic situation. An adequate minimum wage prevents excessive exploitation by employers of their labour force. People are not just 'factors of production' A capitalist would try to extract the most value from a machine by running it 24 hours a day 7 days a week, What is to stop the capitalist taking the same logic and applying it to labour? They already force human beings to work 18 hour days 7 days a week in sweatshops in the 'developing world' and they pay them appallingly for their labour just so they can make more profits.

And you are correct that labor surplus will drive down labor prices, but it will also drive down production costs, simply causing deflation and negating any change in real wages. As this takes place, the surplus labor will be eaten up by the lower labor costs and the labor market will return to equilibrium.

Your understanding of economics is deeply flawed. Inflation is caused by the Money Supply, and the money supply is altered by Banks who provide credit and charge interest. If the money supply is going up, And the profits of the Capitalist are going up, and wages are falling, then this means each worker gets less and less as a proportion of the money supply, and so their labour is less valuable and they lose competitiveness and get stuck in what is called the 'Poverty trap' Yeah, maybe the price of subsistence products like food and cheap clothes might fall slightly, but they will never be able to accumulate enough wealth to be able to buy property or pull themselves out of a subsistence wage slavery existence.

Your claim that 'as labour costs fall, the surplus labour will be sucked into the labour market as the employers take advantage of cheap workers' really doesn't hold any water at all. Employers will tend to only employ the minimum number of workers that they need to produce their product or service. they don't look around and say 'gee, labour is so cheap, I'd better open up a new factory' unless there is a pent up demand for a particular product, and as wages fall, the ability of workers to consume also falls, so demand for consumer products is low, unless you can export them to a wealthy (non libertarian) country or just use all the labour providing luxury products and services for the wealthy capitalists.

The flow of resources and capital to low priced labor pools is an unsolvable problem without the implementation of some form of protectionism. (Protectionism can be a voluntary action, but there is nothing stopping voluntary protectionism in a capitalist economy) It's an unsolvable problem in libertarianism, but don't worry about there being a lack of protectionism. Anarcho Capitalism would be awash with cartels and anti competitive activities so that colluding corporations and businesspeople can maximise their own short term profits.

Real wages in the US have been steady for 25 years. while the money supply has increased massively and the amount of individual and collective debt has grown exponentially. so the share of the wealth held by the 'middle income' workers has fallen dramatically, and the share of the wealth held by the poorest in America has plummeted
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42041000/gif/_42041256_wages_prod_416gr.gif

Finally, the pooling of wealth into a few hands is the result not of the market, but of the state cartelization of industry. It is the regulation of industry that completely undermines competition and amplifies the benefits of economies of scale, thereby centralizing markets when the market would naturally be decentralized. are you saying that if there was no state that there would be no cartels? think again buddy. Things would be a thousand times worse. And without regulations, there would be no environmental protection, no labour protection (someone could be fired for daring to challenge the authority of his employer, or even worse, and equally as likely, Employers could rape their workers and threaten them with dismissal if they tell anyone. (this is a widespread practise in sweatshops (you know, those factories that corporations deliberately set up in places with minimal regulations)

AnarchoAkrasia

17-12-2006, 15:53

Anarchy
An-Archy
An=Not/anti/against
Archy=Powerstructure/state/organisation/authority.

Therefore
Anarchy= against the organised state.

Actually the word comes from the greek An-Archos, and it translates as 'NO RULERS' and the last time I checked, my Boss at work was a ruler too.
(if you don't believe me, next time your boss tells you to do something, tell him 'to do it himself' and see what happens)

The term is purely political. Economics doesn't come into it. You can have capitalist anarchists and communist anarchists, just as you can have christian anarchists, and thespian anarchists. The term only stipulates that the ideaology is against the establishment of a power structure.
Ownership of the means of production is purely political. Economics exists to explain how relationships work within societal structures. Economics is not a set of unbreakable rules.

AnarchoAkrasia

17-12-2006, 16:05

and that their ownership entitles them to order them and tell them what to do.

Well, yeah--that's what "ownership" is.

yeah, and that's why ownership of property is incompatible with anarchism.

remember, anarchism is 'no rulers' and what is the difference between a state making laws, and an employer making rules? Because the employee has the right to quit? and then starve to death?
If I don't like my State, I can build a boat and float around in the atlantic ocean until it sinks or I run out of supplies. it's the same result. You have the choice to obey a ruler, or to die

AnarchoAkrasia

17-12-2006, 16:09

So what?

You are not entitled to a choice between suck and not suck. If all you can get is a choice between suck and suck less, well, tough shit for you. The only way to provide an alternative would be to compel someone else to act against his will--which is hardly proper.

No, that is not the only way to provide an alternative. there is the anarchist alternative, whereby the farmer, who needs more labour to increase his production, will invite someone to help him, and then they would both own the farm. where the means of production are collectively owned by the workers and the community, and all decisions are made democratically by those who are affected by them. Where there are NO RULERS

AnarchoAkrasia

17-12-2006, 16:14

http://anarchism.net/anarchism_anarchismcapitalismandanarchocapitalism.htm

Edit: This is a good one, too:

http://anarchism.net/anarchism_bartertradenotcapitalism.htm

Um, that is a site run by 'Anarcho capitalists' for 'anarcho capitalists'

You might as well take a statement from the British Nationalist Party saying "we're not racists" as proof that they're not racists.

Vittos the City Sacker

17-12-2006, 17:54

It's not irrelevant at all, Anarchism is supposed to be against oppression. Private property is a tool of oppression, Where as i can't think of any plausible way that your private memories could be used to oppress me (unless you're just blackmailing me)
Are you telling me that you can't think of how private property leads to oppression?

I am saying that what constitutes oppression is always molded to fit the person's ideology. You, undoubtedly would spout the non-existent oppression of exploitation, while I would spout the oppression of the violent seizure of property and labor.

We are compassionate 'creatures' but your system of Libertarian would reward ruthless behaviour far more than compassionate behaviour, and this would mean that the bulk of the wealth would be in the hands of the selfish and the greedy.

When one man's wealth is totally dependent upon the assosciation of others, how can he afford to be ruthless?

Charity is not a replacement for the social welfare safety net (as inadequate as it is in current neoliberal society)
And it's certainly not a replacement for a socialist compassionate society as advocated by anarchists.

I completely support an altruist social revolution. I also believe that it will come about through forced solidarity. Force people to realize that their strength comes through collective action and they will act collectively. Continue to regulate the rational behavior of market participants and they will continue to act solely for themselves, because that is what is more profitable.

Two other extremely important points:

1. No one has yet lived in a neoliberal society.

2. If said compassionate social revolution takes place, any form of anarchy will work.

An adequate minimum wage prevents excessive exploitation by employers of their labour force. People are not just 'factors of production' A capitalist would try to extract the most value from a machine by running it 24 hours a day 7 days a week, What is to stop the capitalist taking the same logic and applying it to labour? They already force human beings to work 18 hour days 7 days a week in sweatshops in the 'developing world' and they pay them appallingly for their labour just so they can make more profits.

Competition and the intelligence of the labor force.

How do you explain that only three percent of American workers make minimum wage and that the majority of them are teenagers who don't actually need their income?

How do you explain that most industries, to maintain any competition in the labor market must offer starting salaries?

Developed markets with constant investment combined with good education will always result in a market that regulates itself at a reasonable level. Minimum wage is pointless in this type of market.

Your understanding of economics is deeply flawed. Inflation is caused by the Money Supply, and the money supply is altered by Banks who provide credit and charge interest. If the money supply is going up, And the profits of the Capitalist are going up, and wages are falling, then this means each worker gets less and less as a proportion of the money supply, and so their labour is less valuable and they lose competitiveness and get stuck in what is called the 'Poverty trap' Yeah, maybe the price of subsistence products like food and cheap clothes might fall slightly, but they will never be able to accumulate enough wealth to be able to buy property or pull themselves out of a subsistence wage slavery existence.

I said that deflation would occur. Deflation is a general fall in prices. While a shrinking of the actual monetary supply can be very bad as it can spiral out of control, a natural deflation in price levels can be a very useful kickstart to the economy, as it spurs production.

Ironically, I believe it is only the Austrians who believe that inflation and deflation are only caused by the the money supply manipulation of central banks.

As for everything outside of the last two sentences, it appears to be economic word salad. Perhaps if you put it in some form other than "If this and this and this, then this causes this causes this." I might be able to counter it.

Your claim that 'as labour costs fall, the surplus labour will be sucked into the labour market as the employers take advantage of cheap workers' really doesn't hold any water at all. Employers will tend to only employ the minimum number of workers that they need to produce their product or service. they don't look around and say 'gee, labour is so cheap, I'd better open up a new factory' unless there is a pent up demand for a particular product, and as wages fall, the ability of workers to consume also falls, so demand for consumer products is low, unless you can export them to a wealthy (non libertarian) country or just use all the labour providing luxury products and services for the wealthy capitalists.

You are correct that employers will only expend the bare minimum on labor to produce a good of a particular quality, but that is beside the point.

The only point I am making is that, if there is a fall in labor prices, the market will immediately respond to the lower cost of production and drive prices down too. In the end, there is no change in the CPI, so only nominal wages change.

It's an unsolvable problem in libertarianism, but don't worry about there being a lack of protectionism. Anarcho Capitalism would be awash with cartels and anti competitive activities so that colluding corporations and businesspeople can maximise their own short term profits.

Red Herring. Your poor prediction of the state of a free market economic system has nothing to do with my statement.

Unless you can show me that undeveloped markets will not bleed resources away from developed markets without some sort of protectionism, then I must assume that it is a equal problem for all forms of anarchy.

It is funny, though, that you would say that it is an unsolvable problem for a libertarian, and then immediately guess how they would resolve it.

while the money supply has increased massively and the amount of individual and collective debt has grown exponentially. so the share of the wealth held by the 'middle income' workers has fallen dramatically, and the share of the wealth held by the poorest in America has plummeted

Government regulation has always been a method for big business to entrench their position by offering modest gains to workers. Workers start striking, allow them to join unions, but make sure that the unions are structured exactly like big business and limited in their competition. Workers appalled by the poor? Offer up a worthless minimum wage.

In the end, all regulation does is remove areas of competition, entrenching the elite as owners, while offering a jar of vaseline to the workers so their ass doesn't hurt as bad.

Your woefully shallow data actually supports this trend.

are you saying that if there was no state that there would be no cartels? think again buddy. Things would be a thousand times worse. And without regulations, there would be no environmental protection, no labour protection (someone could be fired for daring to challenge the authority of his employer, or even worse, and equally as likely, Employers could rape their workers and threaten them with dismissal if they tell anyone. (this is a widespread practise in sweatshops (you know, those factories that corporations deliberately set up in places with minimal regulations)

Because workers and consumers are completely inept, correct? They must have government take on all of their battles for them, I guess.

Take the government buffer off of big business and then see what a unified workforce actually looks like.

Vittos the City Sacker

17-12-2006, 17:55

yeah, and that's why ownership of property is incompatible with anarchism.

remember, anarchism is 'no rulers' and what is the difference between a state making laws, and an employer making rules?

You are not eliminating the employer, bud. You are merely substituting.

Vittos the City Sacker

17-12-2006, 17:59

At least if you're really an anarchist, and actually oppose hierarchy and subordination.

Bullshit.

There are very few anarchists who actually want to do away with subordination, and your hierarchy simply becomes a social factor rather than an economic one.

The good liars simply become the bosses.

EDIT: Rather than the good businessmen.

AnarchoAkrasia

17-12-2006, 20:08

When one man's wealth is totally dependent upon the assosciation of others, how can he afford to be ruthless?
You seriously don't get it? His wealth is dependent on his control of capital. He gets it by manipulating others to get them to work for him. There is nothing in that system that prevents him from being ruthless.

If you need somewhere to live, and someone else has all of the land, then the fact that the landlord is an asshole isn't going to stop others from renting his property. If you need a job, and the only person who is prepared to hire you is renowned as being a cruel employer, you still have no choice but to work for him.

Then there is the fact that people who buy the products of a factory don't usually know whether the factory owner is ruthless or nice, and even if they do know, they rarely let that affect their purchase decision.

1. No one has yet lived in a neoliberal society.

Because every-time they were moving towards a 'truly neoliberal society' increasing capitalist activity and reducing government regulation, the results were such a catastrophic failure that it usually led to a collapse of the entire economy

Competition and the intelligence of the labor force. which you would like to restrict by opposing labour unions

I said that deflation would occur. Deflation is a general fall in prices. While a shrinking of the actual monetary supply can be very bad as it can spiral out of control, a natural deflation in price levels can be a very useful kickstart to the economy, as it spurs production. Falling wages and rising productivity = a massive transfer of wealth from the lower paid to the super rich.

Ironically, I believe it is only the Austrians who believe that inflation and deflation are only caused by the the money supply manipulation of central banks.
It was the central argument made by Milton Friedman, A poster boy for Libertarianism. Monetarism is the belief that the money supply is the cause of inflation. He was right, but the official inflation statistics don't track increases in the money supply because very often those increases are fed into speculative bubbles which aren't included in inflation statistics. The House Market Crash in America right now is a result of the massive increase in the supply of money due to over enthusiastic lenders, but also because the wealthy capitalists are making so much extra profit from their businesses, that they can't spend that money on anything tangiable, so they invest it all in stocks and property. Ultimately, big business benefits enormously from bubbles and crashes because they have the resources to cushion themselves from the impact of those crashes, and the means to capitalise by buying up the underpriced assets at the bottom of the market when the smaller players are desperate to sell. (that is not to say that there aren't a few businesses that make very bad decisions and lose out)

As for everything outside of the last two sentences, it appears to be economic word salad. Perhaps if you put it in some form other than "If this and this and this, then this causes this causes this." I might be able to counter it.

If You make $500 a week at a constant real wage, but your productivity increases by 10% a year (straight line). In 10 years time, you will be making at least double the amount of profit for your employer, but your real wages are still $500. So your income has stayed the same, but your employer's has doubled. You might be compensated by the fact that some consumer products have fallen in value, but the means of production will increase in value because the employer will now have more resources to spend on acquiring them for himself and will easily be able to out bid you if he/she wishes.

The purchasing power of the Wealthy capitalist is increasing geometrically while the purchasing power of the employee remains at best stagnant, but more likely, is actually falling, and In a Libertarian society, Purchasing power is pretty much the most important kind of power that there is.

You are correct that employers will only expend the bare minimum on labor to produce a good of a particular quality, but that is beside the point.

The only point I am making is that, if there is a fall in labor prices, the market will immediately respond to the lower cost of production and drive prices down too. In the end, there is no change in the CPI, so only nominal wages change. The CPI does not include the means of production. It does not measure purchasing power. And you are assuming that the prices will fall at the same rate that the wages will decline. There is nothing to stop the employer cutting wages by more than the rate of 'deflation' if there is a high level of unemployment and a desperate workforce who are ripe for exploitation.

Red Herring. Your poor prediction of the state of a free market economic system has nothing to do with my statement.

Unless you can show me that undeveloped markets will not bleed resources away from developed markets without some sort of protectionism, then I must assume that it is a equal problem for all forms of anarchy.
Anarchists are not in favour of letting 'free markets' decide how we use our resources. In a free market, a Cartel is a very damaging thing. In Anarchism, a Cartel is a good thing. In an unregulated free market, cartels will be widespread. Of course there would be collusion between sellers to fix their prices or to carve up markets. They would be stupid not to if their aim is to maximise profits, and that is their aim.

Anarchists prefer to decide how resources are allocated through a system of consumer and producer councils and the decisions will be made democratically based on what the needs of the community are, and not just who has the most purchasing power. Anarchist society is based on Mutual Aid, not competition.

Because workers and consumers are completely inept, correct? They must have government take on all of their battles for them, I guess.

Take the government buffer off of big business and then see what a unified workforce actually looks like. Slaves were a unified workforce

AnarchoAkrasia

17-12-2006, 20:09

You are not eliminating the employer, bud. You are merely substituting.

I'm substituting a ruler for a true democracy. I'm substituting a private dictatorship, for a collectively owned workplace

AnarchoAkrasia

17-12-2006, 20:11

Bullshit.

There are very few anarchists who actually want to do away with subordination, and your hierarchy simply becomes a social factor rather than an economic one.

When you say 'there are very few' you really mean 'almost all' right

AnarchoAkrasia

18-12-2006, 01:42

When you say 'there are very few' you really mean 'almost all' right

I've just watched a long Milton Friedman Lecture.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7261962210478584499&q=economics
He is a very smart guy, but he's still completely wrong (if you're any kind of real anarchist, and not a fake 'anarcho capitalist who values freedom of capital far more than freedom of humanity.

Friedman is asking himself the fundamentally wrong questions.

Friedman is utterly dependent on the effectiveness of the 'trickle down effect' and he comprehensively ignores every other kind of income redistribution mechanism... so he ignores the fact that the 'trickle down effect' doesn't actually have any trickle down effect.

He admits exactly what I said just a few post ago. He says "In times of a bubble, the market over-reacts it and then quickly adjusts" which is just what i said. There is a bubble and then the corporations let the market crash so they can take advantage of the bounce...... and in this entire analysis, the welfare of the citizen is the least important factor in this ideology.

Vittos the City Sacker

18-12-2006, 03:59

I'm substituting a ruler for a true democracy. I'm substituting a private dictatorship, for a collectively owned workplace

And the democracy is not a ruler?

Vittos the City Sacker

18-12-2006, 04:02

When you say 'there are very few' you really mean 'almost all' right

Outside of primitivists, how many anarchists do not make the individual subordinate to the society?

Unless you propose that the individual will give up his own product of his own free will (which will eliminate the difference between capitalism and communism), then there must be a subordination of the individual to the society.

EDIT: You have even said yourself that there will be democratic leadership.

Vittos the City Sacker

18-12-2006, 05:28

You seriously don't get it? His wealth is dependent on his control of capital. He gets it by manipulating others to get them to work for him. There is nothing in that system that prevents him from being ruthless.

Capital is worthless without labor.

If you need somewhere to live, and someone else has all of the land, then the fact that the landlord is an asshole isn't going to stop others from renting his property. If you need a job, and the only person who is prepared to hire you is renowned as being a cruel employer, you still have no choice but to work for him.

When you start dealing with reality, get back to me.

Then there is the fact that people who buy the products of a factory don't usually know whether the factory owner is ruthless or nice, and even if they do know, they rarely let that affect their purchase decision.

Consumers negotiates the product, the workforce negotiates the labor. What's your point?

Because every-time they were moving towards a 'truly neoliberal society' increasing capitalist activity and reducing government regulation, the results were such a catastrophic failure that it usually led to a collapse of the entire economy

How would you like me to respond?

which you would like to restrict by opposing labour unions

This is twice that you have said that. Find me an ancap who opposes labor unions.

I am extremely favorable of labor unions, ask anyone who has ever discussed the topic with me.

Falling wages and rising productivity

There is no such thing.

It was the central argument made by Milton Friedman, A poster boy for Libertarianism. Monetarism is the belief that the money supply is the cause of inflation. He was right, but the official inflation statistics don't track increases in the money supply because very often those increases are fed into speculative bubbles which aren't included in inflation statistics. The House Market Crash in America right now is a result of the massive increase in the supply of money due to over enthusiastic lenders, but also because the wealthy capitalists are making so much extra profit from their businesses, that they can't spend that money on anything tangiable, so they invest it all in stocks and property. Ultimately, big business benefits enormously from bubbles and crashes because they have the resources to cushion themselves from the impact of those crashes, and the means to capitalise by buying up the underpriced assets at the bottom of the market when the smaller players are desperate to sell. (that is not to say that there aren't a few businesses that make very bad decisions and lose out)

So those big businesses that overinvest in intangible things like stocks and property (that's a good one) are in the best position when stocks and real estate bubbles pop? That doesn't make very much sense.

Also, this is an irrelevant tangent, as ancaps strictly oppose state manipulation of the money supply.

If You make $500 a week at a constant real wage, but your productivity increases by 10% a year (straight line). In 10 years time, you will be making at least double the amount of profit for your employer, but your real wages are still $500. So your income has stayed the same, but your employer's has doubled. You might be compensated by the fact that some consumer products have fallen in value, but the means of production will increase in value because the employer will now have more resources to spend on acquiring them for himself and will easily be able to out bid you if he/she wishes.

Don't lecture me on my economics knowledge anymore.

As productivity rises, economic forces will do one of two things:

1. Lower prices, meaning that the there will be rise in real wages even though there was no rise in nominal wages.

2. Pay greater wages, as demand for labor will force employers to maintain their productive employees.

In the end, the market always exerts pressure towards the lowest acceptable profit margin, and barring external intervention, it will teeter around that margin.

The CPI does not include the means of production. It does not measure purchasing power.

1. To measure purchasing power, you'd compare against price index such as CPI.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/purchasingpower.asp

And you are assuming that the prices will fall at the same rate that the wages will decline. There is nothing to stop the employer cutting wages by more than the rate of 'deflation' if there is a high level of unemployment and a desperate workforce who are ripe for exploitation.

Deflation follows the wage cuts, not vise versa.

Anarchists are not in favour of letting 'free markets' decide how we use our resources. In a free market, a Cartel is a very damaging thing. In Anarchism, a Cartel is a good thing. In an unregulated free market, cartels will be widespread. Of course there would be collusion between sellers to fix their prices or to carve up markets. They would be stupid not to if their aim is to maximise profits, and that is their aim.

None of this makes sense.

How could any anarchist system not be a free market when you consider the alternative is a controlled market?

You actually have part of it backwards, as a free market is very damaging to a cartel, because any business owner would be insane to tie his prices to the prices of one of his competitors. It only causes him to be undercut.

If all businesses in an industry agree to set their prices artificially high, then there is a massive inducement for entrants to the market.

Anarchists prefer to decide how resources are allocated through a system of consumer and producer councils and the decisions will be made democratically based on what the needs of the community are, and not just who has the most purchasing power.

The naivete required to hold to this system is incredible both in its quantity and frequency.

How a hierarchy of democratic councils can manage an infinitely complex and constant resource chain, and how it could maintain a fair distribution free of shortages is beyond me.

Nevermind the poor soul who has different needs than the masses.

Anarchist society is based on Mutual Aid, not competition.

This is a complete non-sequitor, how do you say that a system run by self-interested voters is based upon mutual aid?

You, at one point, claim a controlled economy run by a democratic bureaucracy, and the in the same point claim some moral altruistic high ground.

Slaves were a unified workforce

Right.

Vittos the City Sacker

18-12-2006, 05:38

He admits exactly what I said just a few post ago. He says "In times of a bubble, the market over-reacts it and then quickly adjusts" which is just what i said. There is a bubble and then the corporations let the market crash so they can take advantage of the bounce...... and in this entire analysis, the welfare of the citizen is the least important factor in this ideology.

"Corporations let the market crash"? That is nonsense.

When a bubble occurs, prices are above their natural level. It would be insane to think that businesses would invest at exaggerated prices so that they could "take advantage" of lower prices in the future.

Just in case you need to do some investing in the future, you buy low, sell high, not buy high, buy low.

And anyway, it was the Fed that set the interest rates that caused the bubble to counteract 9/11, and it is the Feds contracting of the monetary supply that is collapsing the bubble.

Aequilibritas

18-12-2006, 09:48

Um, that is a site run by 'Anarcho capitalists' for 'anarcho capitalists'.

I'm well aware of that, thankyou.

You might as well take a statement from the British Nationalist Party saying "we're not racists" as proof that they're not racists

It's not the same thing at all.

The trouble with the term 'anarcho-capitalism' is that some people refuse to acknowledge capitalism to mean anything other than state sponsored, corporate capitalism. That's not the definition an anarcho-capitalist would give, as explained quite clearly in the paragraph I cut & paste.

I now see that you've made up your mind and not even someone pointing out that you've got the wrong end of the stick is going to change it.

My apologies, I over-estimated you.

Soheran

18-12-2006, 09:58

And the democracy is not a ruler?

Not really. Not unless there is a more or less static minority-majority relationship, and with the abolition of classes that is unlikely.

Free Soviets

18-12-2006, 10:18

The trouble with the term 'anarcho-capitalism' is that some people refuse to acknowledge capitalism to mean anything other than state sponsored, corporate capitalism. That's not the definition an anarcho-capitalist would give, as explained quite clearly in the paragraph I cut & paste.

even on their own stupid terminological terms, the system they propose is fundamentally not anarchistic. the system they propose is to have a tiny elite that owns essentially everything be completely in charge of making all of the rules that the rest of us have to follow. your home may be your castle, but when you step outside at all you will be completely subject to the will of rich assholes who will own everything else, including the roads. and anyone who has ever had a landlord knows that freedom is just about the last thing they are concerned about promoting.

Dissonant Cognition

18-12-2006, 10:46

And anyone who has ever had a landlord knows that freedom is just about the last thing they are concerned about promoting.

This is completely true. However, I would assert that it has also tended to be true of committees, electorates, soviets, and any number of other entities of collective decision making.

Since similar creatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens) occupy the roles or institutions of "landlord" or "soviet," this is to be expected.

Vittos the City Sacker

18-12-2006, 12:01

even on their own stupid terminological terms, the system they propose is fundamentally not anarchistic. the system they propose is to have a tiny elite that owns essentially everything be completely in charge of making all of the rules that the rest of us have to follow. your home may be your castle, but when you step outside at all you will be completely subject to the will of rich assholes who will own everything else, including the roads. and anyone who has ever had a landlord knows that freedom is just about the last thing they are concerned about promoting.

I am not sure that homeowner's associations are much better.

Vittos the City Sacker

18-12-2006, 12:02

Not really. Not unless there is a more or less static minority-majority relationship, and with the abolition of classes that is unlikely.

Why have a democracy if everyone agrees on the path to take?

AnarchoAkrasia

18-12-2006, 12:55

And the democracy is not a ruler?
Not democracy in it's truest sense.

A ruler is someone who can unilaterally make decisions that affect other people and enforce compliance. That is a boss in a job, a landlord, a politician, an army general etc

In anarchism, all decisions are made through direct democracy by the people who are affected by them. How often do I have to say that?

AnarchoAkrasia

18-12-2006, 13:06

Outside of primitivists, how many anarchists do not make the individual subordinate to the society?

Unless you propose that the individual will give up his own product of his own free will (which will eliminate the difference between capitalism and communism), then there must be a subordination of the individual to the society. [/quote]
Look, people are not stupid. We are social animals, most of us realise that we are better off by working together and pooling our resources. In capitalism, we pool our resources in return for a wage which we can then spend on other goods and services. In anarchism we pool our resources because we realise that we're all better off by working together.
Under anarchism, you are perfectly free to live on your own and provide for all of your own needs completely separate from society if that is what you want to do. But if you want to be a part of the community, you are expected to contribute.

Things will get done if people are prepared to do them for their own good, not just because they're getting paid and ordered by a capitalist. In this way, only the most socially valuable work will be done. People will be prepared to do the messy tasks if they are necessary, and this work will be shared and decided democratically. The interests of the community would be served because it is the community who would benefit and who would have to do the work. Under capitalism, the interests of the wealthy are served because it is they who decide what is produced where and by whom

AnarchoAkrasia

18-12-2006, 13:45

Capital is worthless without labor.

That doesn't mean the capitalist will treat his labour well. this is not a difficult thing to understand you know. I shouldn't have to say it more than once. There is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents someone 'freely contracting' himself into slavery.

When you start dealing with reality, get back to me. after you

Consumers negotiates the product, the workforce negotiates the labor. What's your point? My point was that the profits made have little if anything to do with how nice the capitalist is, You were suggesting that it is in the capitalists interest to treat his workers well because he needs workers to make a profit. But that is complete nonsense. You are assuming several things that never happen in the real world.
1. perfect knowledge of what an employer is like (so the potential employees can make an informed decision before they enter into a work contract)
2. perfect competition in the labour market, where workers are free to choose the best conditions to work in. again, a nonsense.

This is twice that you have said that. Find me an ancap who opposes labor unions. Most libertarians that I have ever talked to are opposed to organised labour because it 'distorts the free market in labour'

So those big businesses that overinvest in intangible things like stocks and property (that's a good one) are in the best position when stocks and real estate bubbles pop? That doesn't make very much sense.
The value of these assets is intangiable. The property market contains buildings and land which are valued because of the state of the property market. If the price increases dramatically, the wealthy capitalist can sell off his/her existing stock of property for a big profit. If the price collapses, they still have those assets which they can still earn money from, or use to control the market. One of the biggest distortions in the property Market in Ireland is the fact that private developers who own vast tracts of development land are sitting on it and leaving it idle in order to drive up the prices and profiteer on the land that they do decide to develop.
The ordinary joe soap has no control over this market and is highly vulnerable in times of a market crash, and so is the medium sized capitalist, but the biggest players are cushioned from the crash due to the way they structure their assets.

Also, the stock market is based on speculating on the value of existing assets (companies) If there is a stock market bubble, the strong companies will survive a market crash because the stock price has very little effect on the revenue of the company and any clever corporation will sink assets into property or gold or other low risk investments.
But for the small time investor who just wants a pension scheme, the crash of a speculative bubble could wipe out everything he has, or a housing crash could leave him homeless (especially in a time of rising interest rates if he has a big mortgage to pay)

Also, this is an irrelevant tangent, as ancaps strictly oppose state manipulation of the money supply. Leaving private banks to manipulate it instead? By the way, the Federal reserve is a private company. Banks will still give out loans and set interest rates according to how they think they can make the most money. The Private banks will flood the money supply by providing crazy mortgages to ordinary people to fuel a bubble and make quick profits. It doesn't matter to them that Joe Soap will soon be suffering from serious negative equity when they're paying back a 120% mortgage on a property that has fallen in value (meaning they are essentially slaves to the bank unless they want to become homeless and lose any chance of ever being given a loan again)

As productivity rises, economic forces will do one of two things:
wrong

1. Lower prices, meaning that the there will be rise in real wages even though there was no rise in nominal wages.

2. Pay greater wages, as demand for labor will force employers to maintain their productive employees.

In the end, the market always exerts pressure towards the lowest acceptable profit margin, and barring external intervention, it will teeter around that margin.
you forgot option number 3. make unprecedented profits for the capitalist as he takes an even bigger proportion of the available wealth.

Libertarian principles are 100% reliant on the myth that there can ever be 'perfect competition'. It's a farce. there are more factors at play than just the law of demand and supply. there are natural barriers to entry in all markets, and there are human factors as well. In an unregulated economy there would be predatory pricing, cartels, ghost competition, there would be clever marketing and advertising campaigns to fool the unsuspecting consumer to buy a bad product.

There are loads of examples of colluding amongst businesses to increase profits at the expense of the consumer. Petrol stations do this all the time. Make a quick phone call to the guy down the road "hey, I'm putting my prices up by 2 cents, maybe you should do the same, that way we'll both make a higher profit and it won't affect our market share"
Your only mechanism to prevent this is that if prices are too high, competition will enter the market, but that is still no guarantee that there will be true competition. the existing shops could easily get together and say, there's no room for the new guy, lets all drop our prices to below cost for a few weeks and he won't be able to survive.....

You actually have part of it backwards, as a free market is very damaging to a cartel, because any business owner would be insane to tie his prices to the prices of one of his competitors. It only causes him to be undercut.

If all businesses in an industry agree to set their prices artificially high, then there is a massive inducement for entrants to the market.
you're assuming there is perfect competition. Do you know what predatory pricing is?

Aequilibritas

18-12-2006, 17:57

the system they propose is to have a tiny elite that owns essentially everything be completely in charge of making all of the rules that the rest of us have to follow.

I'm not sure I really buy this, oft given, argument, tbh.

I think in a truly free market, without any government, communities would club together to build roads and you'd see a lot more businesses in the Mondragon mold. The idea that anarcho-capitalism would to a small group of ultra rich business people runing the show and oppressing the rest of us, I think, stems from the belief that all capitalism is corporate.

Call me weird, but I've always thought that a free market would bring us much closer to the utopia of anarchist dreams than the ideas presented by most (non capitalist) anarchists, which strike me as a fast track to PolPotsville, frankly.

Admittedly, most anarcho-capitalists don't see that either. Maybe I should start my own branch of anarchist thought? Anarcho-Darrenism, yeah, I like that! :D

Czardas

18-12-2006, 18:06

You are correct that anarcho-capitalism opposes the violent imposition of social welfare (there is nothing stopping charitable actions, which, considering our nature as compassionate creatures, would likely provide an ample safety net).

Dude... go out and meet some real people.

Maybe 0.1% of all humans actually have "compassion" for others.

The rest, if they do engage in compassionate acts, it is only to reinforce their sense of self-worth, to compensate for basic insecurities exacerbated by guilt, or for some other selfish reason.

Altruism is a myth and relying upon it for the basis of a philosophy is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit.

... sorry, I just feel strongly about all these people screeching "OMG COMPASSION! OMG DO STUFF FOR OTHERS! OMG SELF-SACRIFICE! BLAH BLAH".... that attitude makes me want to go out and engage in shooting sprees at kindergartens and hospitals. (That's something else I'm working on, getting rid of these relics of my rather unhealthily violent early teens. Eventually I hope to become a Vulcan.)

Llewdor

18-12-2006, 18:40

People will be prepared to do the messy tasks if they are necessary, and this work will be shared and decided democratically.
And this is where you violate your own definition about there being no rulers.

Any system that makes decisions democratically is necessarily antithetical to individual freedom. If you're handing power to the majority, then they're the rulers.

By your own definition, the only true anarchist system is one where people are never suvbjected to the will of the majority, and that system would be anarcho-capitalism (where there are no rulers - just people defending their own interests).

Trotskylvania

18-12-2006, 21:05

I'm not sure I really buy this, oft given, argument, tbh.

I think in a truly free market, without any government, communities would club together to build roads and you'd see a lot more businesses in the Mondragon mold. The idea that anarcho-capitalism would to a small group of ultra rich business people runing the show and oppressing the rest of us, I think, stems from the belief that all capitalism is corporate.

Call me weird, but I've always thought that a free market would bring us much closer to the utopia of anarchist dreams than the ideas presented by most (non capitalist) anarchists, which strike me as a fast track to PolPotsville, frankly.

Admittedly, most anarcho-capitalists don't see that either. Maybe I should start my own branch of anarchist thought? Anarcho-Darrenism, yeah, I like that! :D

The kind of anarchism you speak of isn't anarcho capitalism as it is usually defined. Its much more like left-wing mutualist anarchism, which is based around a truly free-market and worker cooperatives and mutual aid.

Mainstream "anarcho"-capitalism doesn't really abolish the state. It just privatizes it in the form of private defense firms. That is why mainstream "anarcho" capitalism is untenable as a philosophy. Private tyrannies owned by wealthy and powerful is not libertarian.

You can call mutualism "socialism" if you like, or "capitalism" for that matter. But it really transcends value laden terms like socialism and capitalism. I feel that mutualism fills the middle ground between left-wing libertarians and right wing libertarians.

Free Soviets

18-12-2006, 21:15

Any system that makes decisions democratically is necessarily antithetical to individual freedom.

you have a group project. there are precisely two ways to make decisions about it.
1) democratically with input from all those involved
2) by an elite

one of these is an instance of individual freedom and the other is not.

Free Soviets

18-12-2006, 21:18

Free Soviets

18-12-2006, 21:24

This is completely true. However, I would assert that it has also tended to be true of committees, electorates, soviets, and any number of other entities of collective decision making.

Since similar creatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens) occupy the roles or institutions of "landlord" or "soviet," this is to be expected.

I am not sure that homeowner's associations are much better.

well first off, democratic rather than elite decision making is itself an instance of individual freedom.

secondly, we don't intend to just implement the same old structures come the revolution. there are various ways that institutions can be formed so that freedom can be preserved - particularly in the rules governing the accumulation of rules and how they can be overturned, as well as in the nature of power within collective structures (who sets the agenda, are decisions made on straight up-down votes, to what extent are those opposed allowed to opt out, etc).

Refused-Party-Program

18-12-2006, 21:24

You can call mutualism "socialism" if you like, or "capitalism" for that matter. But it really transcends value laden terms like socialism and capitalism. I feel that mutualism fills the middle ground between left-wing libertarians and right wing libertarians.

Let's just call it what it is: ultra-liberalism.

Trotskylvania

18-12-2006, 21:36

Let's just call it what it is: ultra-liberalism.

If you mean liberal as in classic-liberalism, yes.

Llewdor

18-12-2006, 22:43

you have a group project. there are precisely two ways to make decisions about it.
1) democratically with input from all those involved
2) by an elite

one of these is an instance of individual freedom and the other is not.
If they agreed to the group project, either could be an exercise in individual freedom. If they did not agree, then neither can be.

The only group decisions that are consistent with individual freedom involve consensus. If there are any dissenters, someone is necessarily disenfranchised.

Free Soviets

18-12-2006, 23:06

If they agreed to the group project, either could be an exercise in individual freedom.

only if you believe obvious nonsense like the existence of 'free slavery' and 'free dictatorships'. elite rule is not and cannot be an instance of freedom, as participation in group decision making is a fundamental requirement for freedom. if you lack the ability to participate in the process of decision making then you automatically are in a system of order-givers and order-followers, otherwise known as rulers and ruled.

(this is not to say that mere participation means you automatically have freedom - it is a necessary but not sufficient condition)

Llewdor

19-12-2006, 00:04

only if you believe obvious nonsense like the existence of 'free slavery' and 'free dictatorships'. elite rule is not and cannot be an instance of freedom, as participation in group decision making is a fundamental requirement for freedom. if you lack the ability to participate in the process of decision making then you automatically are in a system of order-givers and order-followers, otherwise known as rulers and ruled.

(this is not to say that mere participation means you automatically have freedom - it is a necessary but not sufficient condition)
Let's say there's a group project in which you'd like to take part. However, you're well aware that neither you nor most of your comrades have any idea how to go about accomplishing the task at hand. But there is one who does. So you all voluntarily choose to put the expert - the elite - in charge for the duration of the project.

That's an exercise in individual freedom.

Why can't one voluntarily surrender one's participation in decision-making? Why doesn't thta count as an act of freedom? Why is ongoing participation is decision-making necessary?

Vittos the City Sacker

19-12-2006, 00:09

A ruler is someone who can unilaterally make decisions that affect other people and enforce compliance. That is a boss in a job, a landlord, a politician, an army general etc

A democracy represents the imposition of one policy for all people, one opinion overrides all other opinions.

In anarchism, all decisions are made through direct democracy by the people who are affected by them. How often do I have to say that?

You didn't have to say it the first time. This stuff is not new to me.

What you haven't explained is why a person shouldn't just deal with a boss, sense the democracy is a boss.

Free Soviets

19-12-2006, 00:22

Let's say there's a group project in which you'd like to take part. However, you're well aware that neither you nor most of your comrades have any idea how to go about accomplishing the task at hand. But there is one who does. So you all voluntarily choose to put the expert - the elite - in charge for the duration of the project.

That's an exercise in individual freedom.

Why can't one voluntarily surrender one's participation in decision-making? Why doesn't thta count as an act of freedom? Why is ongoing participation is decision-making necessary?

key difference - that person doesn't actually hold decision-making power. they can't unilaterally do anything at all. you have decided to defer to their expertise, not submit to their rule. in real elite decision-making situations, if you decide to not submit then you have to leave (assuming that's allowed). the power lies with the elite, not the collective of individuals.

Vittos the City Sacker

19-12-2006, 00:26

Look, people are not stupid. We are social animals, most of us realise that we are better off by working together and pooling our resources. In capitalism, we pool our resources in return for a wage which we can then spend on other goods and services. In anarchism we pool our resources because we realise that we're all better off by working together.

Exactly why people, left to natural valuations, will act in collective ways to maximize their benefit.

Under anarchism, you are perfectly free to live on your own and provide for all of your own needs completely separate from society if that is what you want to do. But if you want to be a part of the community, you are expected to contribute.

I have heard this before, and it is untrue. Not only is any sort of social contract a farce due to our complete necessity on social interaction, but the idea that a person can freely provide for himself while competing with a collective that claims resources at its democratic whim is ludicrous.

Things will get done if people are prepared to do them for their own good, not just because they're getting paid and ordered by a capitalist.

That people will not act if they know others will perform the job in their stead is a common argument on each side of this debate.

In this way, only the most socially valuable work will be done. People will be prepared to do the messy tasks if they are necessary, and this work will be shared and decided democratically. The interests of the community would be served because it is the community who would benefit and who would have to do the work.

The distribution and specialisation of labor without incentive is the foremost problem with the elimination of private property. It could fill meaningless page after meaningless page.

Under capitalism, the interests of the wealthy are served because it is they who decide what is produced where and by whom

I could repeat that producers are bound by the whims of the market until I am blue in the face, but it would never get through.

Tech-gnosis

19-12-2006, 00:53

I have heard this before, and it is untrue. Not only is any sort of social contract a farce due to our complete necessity on social interaction, but the idea that a person can freely provide for himself while competing with a collective that claims resources at its democratic whim is ludicrous.

The social contract is more of a metaphor than reality. Your arguement is oddly enough often used by communitarians. The social contract, after all, is an agreement made by "autonomous individuals" for mutual benefit. Kinda ironic.

Llewdor

19-12-2006, 00:58

key difference - that person doesn't actually hold decision-making power. they can't unilaterally do anything at all. you have decided to defer to their expertise, not submit to their rule. in real elite decision-making situations, if you decide to not submit then you have to leave (assuming that's allowed). the power lies with the elite, not the collective of individuals.
The collective isn't a thing. Each individual has, for the purposes of the project, surrendered power.

Now you're just presupposing a lack of choice.

Vittos the City Sacker

19-12-2006, 01:26

That doesn't mean the capitalist will treat his labour well. this is not a difficult thing to understand you know. I shouldn't have to say it more than once. There is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents someone 'freely contracting' himself into slavery.

From your small post count, I am guessing that you don't know how many times that actually has been said, or how many times it has been said specifically to me.

It generally comes from people who completely sidetracked around my point just as you did.

after you

I didn't know that reality contained a developed market with an omnipresent employer and landowner.

My point was that the profits made have little if anything to do with how nice the capitalist is, You were suggesting that it is in the capitalists interest to treat his workers well because he needs workers to make a profit. But that is complete nonsense. You are assuming several things that never happen in the real world.
1. perfect knowledge of what an employer is like (so the potential employees can make an informed decision before they enter into a work contract)
2. perfect competition in the labour market, where workers are free to choose the best conditions to work in. again, a nonsense.

(Barring moral beliefs) It is in the capitalists interest to improve his economic position, that is all. If this means that he feels that this is best served by underpaying labor and being a general tyrant, then this is how he will act. Will there be incidents where workers are treated poorly? Of course.

However, market pressure will always send labor to the highest bidder, therefore mistreatment of labor will consistently provide momentum for businesses that treat their workers well, and especially new entrants.

Most libertarians that I have ever talked to are opposed to organised labour because it 'distorts the free market in labour'

You haven't spoken with many libertarians.

From the Libertarian Party Platform:

The Issue: Government interference in the employer/employee relationship has imposed undue burdens on our economy, destroying the rights of both to contract in the free market.

The Principle: We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.

Solutions: We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or the imposition of an obligation to bargain. Therefore, we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state right-to-work laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary contracts with unions. We oppose all government back-to-work orders as the imposition of a form of forced labor.

Transitional Action: Government-mandated waiting periods for closure of factories or businesses hurt, rather than help, the wage-earner. We support all efforts to benefit workers, owners and management by keeping government out of this area. Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers and innocent bystanders.

The value of these assets is intangiable. The property market contains buildings and land which are valued because of the state of the property market. If the price increases dramatically, the wealthy capitalist can sell off his/her existing stock of property for a big profit. If the price collapses, they still have those assets which they can still earn money from, or use to control the market. One of the biggest distortions in the property Market in Ireland is the fact that private developers who own vast tracts of development land are sitting on it and leaving it idle in order to drive up the prices and profiteer on the land that they do decide to develop.
The ordinary joe soap has no control over this market and is highly vulnerable in times of a market crash, and so is the medium sized capitalist, but the biggest players are cushioned from the crash due to the way they structure their assets.

The value is a matter of their scarcity and revenue and is not intangible.

And you keep imagining that market crashes don't hurt highly illiquid capitalists. The capitalist who makes his living in housing speculation who owns 200 houses is in horrible condition compared to the worker who lives in his one house.

Also, the stock market is based on speculating on the value of existing assets (companies) If there is a stock market bubble, the strong companies will survive a market crash because the stock price has very little effect on the revenue of the company

Because the company provided a valuable good or service and was not dependent upon the monetary manipulation of the government.

and any clever corporation will sink assets into property or gold or other low risk investments.

Every stupid investor knows to have a diversified portfolio to avoid specific risk.

By the way, the Federal reserve is a private company.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

Read up.

Of if you like the road less traveled, try starting up an independent bank or your own currency.

Banks will still give out loans and set interest rates according to how they think they can make the most money. The Private banks will flood the money supply by providing crazy mortgages to ordinary people to fuel a bubble and make quick profits. It doesn't matter to them that Joe Soap will soon be suffering from serious negative equity when they're paying back a 120% mortgage on a property that has fallen in value (meaning they are essentially slaves to the bank unless they want to become homeless and lose any chance of ever being given a loan again)

In your scenario, both Joe Soap and the bank are stupid. The bank does not want Joe Soap to default, and Joe Soap is not going to render himself a slave to a ridiculous mortgage.

wrong
you forgot option number 3. make unprecedented profits for the capitalist as he takes an even bigger proportion of the available wealth.

Libertarian principles are 100% reliant on the myth that there can ever be 'perfect competition'. It's a farce. there are more factors at play than just the law of demand and supply. there are natural barriers to entry in all markets, and there are human factors as well. In an unregulated economy there would be predatory pricing, cartels, ghost competition, there would be clever marketing and advertising campaigns to fool the unsuspecting consumer to buy a bad product.

100% efficiency doesn't exist, no matter what field you are studying. However, it is probable that a developed market will be efficient enough to not allow prolonged arbitrage.

There are loads of examples of colluding amongst businesses to increase profits at the expense of the consumer. Petrol stations do this all the time. Make a quick phone call to the guy down the road "hey, I'm putting my prices up by 2 cents, maybe you should do the same, that way we'll both make a higher profit and it won't affect our market share"

It is impossible for a business to maintain unnaturally high prices and not lose a market share.

Your only mechanism to prevent this is that if prices are too high, competition will enter the market, but that is still no guarantee that there will be true competition. the existing shops could easily get together and say, there's no room for the new guy, lets all drop our prices to below cost for a few weeks and he won't be able to survive.....

Predatory pricing simply doesn't work.

It should be noted that those who control the market stand to lose a great deal more than the start-up company as it has a much bigger market share. This loss is most likely not recoverable as the dramatic hike in prices will immediately spur more entrants to the market, requiring another lowering of price.

Vittos the City Sacker

19-12-2006, 01:28

Dude... go out and meet some real people.

Maybe 0.1% of all humans actually have "compassion" for others.

The rest, if they do engage in compassionate acts, it is only to reinforce their sense of self-worth, to compensate for basic insecurities exacerbated by guilt, or for some other selfish reason.

Altruism is a myth and relying upon it for the basis of a philosophy is, to put it plainly, fucking bullshit.

... sorry, I just feel strongly about all these people screeching "OMG COMPASSION! OMG DO STUFF FOR OTHERS! OMG SELF-SACRIFICE! BLAH BLAH".... that attitude makes me want to go out and engage in shooting sprees at kindergartens and hospitals. (That's something else I'm working on, getting rid of these relics of my rather unhealthily violent early teens. Eventually I hope to become a Vulcan.)

The rant of a cynical teenager.

Llewdor

19-12-2006, 01:34

The rant of a cynical teenager.
Even if he's right, and all people are selfish, isn't that even more reason to be a libertarian?

Otherwise, you're forcing redistribution, except you can't trust the people doing it, or contributing to it, or benefitting from it.

Vittos the City Sacker

19-12-2006, 04:08

Even if he's right, and all people are selfish, isn't that even more reason to be a libertarian?

Otherwise, you're forcing redistribution, except you can't trust the people doing it, or contributing to it, or benefitting from it.

Actually, I think that it impugns regulation more than redistribution.

Vittos the City Sacker

19-12-2006, 04:13

The social contract is more of a metaphor than reality. Your arguement is oddly enough often used by communitarians. The social contract, after all, is an agreement made by "autonomous individuals" for mutual benefit. Kinda ironic.

I do like the idea of a social contract as a model for a natural society, but it is insane to think that people actually choose whether they are a member of society or not.

Tech-gnosis

19-12-2006, 05:27

I do like the idea of a social contract as a model for a natural society, but it is insane to think that people actually choose whether they are a member of society or not.

But does the fact that it is not voluntary make it, society, less important? We do not choose out parents yet they are imporatant to us.

Dissonant Cognition

19-12-2006, 23:22

well first off, democratic rather than elite decision making is itself an instance of individual freedom.

Of course.

secondly, we don't intend to just implement the same old structures come the revolution.

Of course not. Tyranny wasn't the intention of the glorious revolution the first time through either, but...

Dissonant Cognition

19-12-2006, 23:57

If you mean liberal as in classic-liberalism, yes.

I'm not seeing the equation. If I understand correctly, the mutualists assert the labor theory of value, as support for "labor for labor" trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29), and reject rent and interest. Contemporary economic neo/liberalism soundly rejects the labor theory of value, removing any notion of "labor for labor" trade, and is essentially all about rent and interest. The comparison doesn't work very well for "classic-liberalism" either, as "classic-liberalism" is simply the foundation for the contemporary version thereof.

I understand that it is common practice among the political religions ("left" and "right") to try to equate any differing idea to the equal and opposite extreme (one is either for me or against me, and other such nonsense), but to try to equate, or see a significant similarity between, mutualism and contemporary (or past) capitalist practice doesn't seem to work very well.

Llewdor

20-12-2006, 00:24

Actually, I think that it impugns regulation more than redistribution.
But then the regulators will regulate for their own benefit.

No, selfishness requires a free market to limit the damage people can do to each other.

Vittos the City Sacker

20-12-2006, 02:18

But does the fact that it is not voluntary make it, society, less important? We do not choose out parents yet they are imporatant to us.

It makes it all the more important.

Tech-gnosis

20-12-2006, 03:22

It makes it all the more important.

Elaborate, please.

Vittos the City Sacker

20-12-2006, 03:42

Elaborate, please.

If we can't choose whether we belong to society, we had better make sure it reflects the society we would have chosen.

Aequilibritas

20-12-2006, 10:04

so all the cases in the real world where we have actually seen that allowing more power to go to the hands of the capitalists results in even greater concentrations of wealth and power for them are just illusions? or is it that you hope that despite the entire stack of evidence, this next time it will be different?

I assume when you refer to 'capitalists' you mean corporate capitalists?

In which case, no, I don't think the cases you refer to are illusions. I think corporate capitalists only acheive and maintain their positions through government funding and favourable legislation, two things that would be unavailable to them in an anarchist society.

To suggest that this is what capitalism is, is like saying all socialism is Stalinist, IMO.

Aequilibritas

20-12-2006, 10:17

The kind of anarchism you speak of isn't anarcho capitalism as it is usually defined. Its much more like left-wing mutualist anarchism, which is based around a truly free-market and worker cooperatives and mutual aid.

Mainstream "anarcho"-capitalism doesn't really abolish the state. It just privatizes it in the form of private defense firms. That is why mainstream "anarcho" capitalism is untenable as a philosophy. Private tyrannies owned by wealthy and powerful is not libertarian.

You can call mutualism "socialism" if you like, or "capitalism" for that matter. But it really transcends value laden terms like socialism and capitalism. I feel that mutualism fills the middle ground between left-wing libertarians and right wing libertarians.

Hmm, that's interesting. Thankyou.

*Moves Proudhons work to the top of the 'Things I should have read by now' list.*

Soheran

20-12-2006, 10:42

Why have a democracy if everyone agrees on the path to take?

Obviously that would be pointless. There will be winners and losers - but there will be no permanent winners and no permanent losers. And if there are, then I agree, the system would have failed.

Llewdor

20-12-2006, 20:43

Obviously that would be pointless. There will be winners and losers - but there will be no permanent winners and no permanent losers. And if there are, then I agree, the system would have failed.
Idiosyncratic people eixst. The system is guaranteed to fail.

Trotskylvania

20-12-2006, 21:34

I'm not seeing the equation. If I understand correctly, the mutualists assert the labor theory of value, as support for "labor for labor" trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29), and reject rent and interest. Contemporary economic neo/liberalism soundly rejects the labor theory of value, removing any notion of "labor for labor" trade, and is essentially all about rent and interest. The comparison doesn't work very well for "classic-liberalism" either, as "classic-liberalism" is simply the foundation for the contemporary version thereof.

I understand that it is common practice among the political religions ("left" and "right") to try to equate any differing idea to the equal and opposite extreme (one is either for me or against me, and other such nonsense), but to try to equate, or see a significant similarity between, mutualism and contemporary (or past) capitalist practice doesn't seem to work very well.

Classic Liberalism is the foundation of both modern right-wing libertarianism as well as left-wing libertarianism/anarchism. Classic liberal thought ranged from left-wing influenced to more right wing influenced. It's not one coherant theory.

Free Soviets

20-12-2006, 22:47

I assume when you refer to 'capitalists' you mean corporate capitalists?

In which case, no, I don't think the cases you refer to are illusions. I think corporate capitalists only acheive and maintain their positions through government funding and favourable legislation, two things that would be unavailable to them in an anarchist society.

To suggest that this is what capitalism is, is like saying all socialism is Stalinist, IMO.

so what are you going to do differently? how are you going to prevent the poeple that own fucking everything already from using their control of access to resources to gain control of society more generally? expropriate all of their shit first, and then say go?

Llewdor

21-12-2006, 00:20

so what are you going to do differently? how are you going to prevent the poeple that own fucking everything already from using their control of access to resources to gain control of society more generally? expropriate all of their shit first, and then say go?
Remove power from government, or incentive for government people to cater to business interests.

It's the government that screws up the market. Don't let them.

AnarchoAkrasia

21-12-2006, 11:58

you people keep repeating that 'governments distort markets' line, but you have not shown how they do so, nor how the 'undistorted markets' would lead to a fair society.

If there is no government, what stops rich individuals from buying up everything and from using their 'ownership rights' to enforce 'contracts' with rules more oppressive than the most tyranical government.

Why do libertarians complain about governments 'violently' collecting taxation while you see no problem with collecting rent and interest?

What exactly is the difference between rent and tax?

Why do libertarians completely and utterly reject all forms of democracy (other than dollar democracy, where the richer you are, the more votes you get)

Willfull Ignorance

21-12-2006, 15:52

you people keep repeating that 'governments distort markets' line, but you have not shown how they do so, nor how the 'undistorted markets' would lead to a fair society.

A classic example would be Walmart pushing to raise the minimum wage. Its profits are already so large that it can afford the extra labour costs but it knows its weaker competition could not continue to compete with higher labour costs.
Assuming undistorted markets could function with mass competition society may not be "fair" but everyone would benefit from more consumer choice and lower prices.

If there is no government, what stops rich individuals from buying up everything and from using their 'ownership rights' to enforce 'contracts' with rules more oppressive than the most tyranical government.

How could they enforce a contract you don't agree to?

Why do libertarians complain about governments 'violently' collecting taxation while you see no problem with collecting rent and interest?

As an individual you may not have consented to paying X ammount of tax, nor have you consented to how it should be spent (Perhaps on paying the wages of inefficient public service workers).
With rent the money you pay is used directly to provide you with a service that you can decide to stop using should a better alternative present itself.

The point with government taxation is if you don't like what they're doing theres not much you can do about it.

Why do libertarians completely and utterly reject all forms of democracy (other than dollar democracy, where the richer you are, the more votes you get)

Tyranny of the majority vs sellers responding to your prefferences to sell you something that is more likely to provide mutual benefit.

Vittos the City Sacker

21-12-2006, 17:53

you people keep repeating that 'governments distort markets' line, but you have not shown how they do so, nor how the 'undistorted markets' would lead to a fair society.

By skewing the risks and rewards of market participants.

My opinion of a fair society is one in which a person possesses all he produces with the freedom of exchange and disposal. I believe that a person places a part of himself into all he produces and is therefore entitled to that product. A free market is simply an economic model where government protects the individual rights to his labor and produce. Of course, my definition of fair is very different from yours.

If there is no government, what stops rich individuals from buying up everything and from using their 'ownership rights' to enforce 'contracts' with rules more oppressive than the most tyranical government.

You wouldn't accept the most likely reason, so I won't even bother.

Why do libertarians complain about governments 'violently' collecting taxation while you see no problem with collecting rent and interest?

Did you sign a lease or contract with the government?

What exactly is the difference between rent and tax?

You already know.

Why do libertarians completely and utterly reject all forms of democracy (other than dollar democracy, where the richer you are, the more votes you get)

Democracy is simply another corrupt justification for government. Apparently behavior control is justified as long as you get a vote in just how your behavior gets controlled.

Democracy is such an efficient way to distribute a nation's resources that the feasibility of such a plan is slim to none.

But I don't actually reject all forms of democracy.

EDIT: Did you halt our discussion for any particular reason?

The Blaatschapen

21-12-2006, 18:23

Being very capitalist, that would just confuse people, even though classic liberalism supported a laissez-faire economy.

In europe liberalism still means the classical definition of it :)

Free Soviets

21-12-2006, 20:10

Remove power from government, or incentive for government people to cater to business interests.

done and done.

now you've got a tiny number of people that own pretty much everything, and no government for them to use to their advantage. but they still own fucking everything, and are still the same people who were not at all above using the state to gain an unfair advantage before. are they now in less of a position to do whatever they feel would be to their benefit? they do, as i mentioned, still own fucking everything - you'd be amazed the sort of toys you can pay for with that...

Trotskylvania

21-12-2006, 20:49

Hmm, that's interesting. Thankyou.

*Moves Proudhons work to the top of the 'Things I should have read by now' list.*

Just remember that his work is definitely a product of his time. What he calls capitalism is what you would probably more relate to mercantilism.

Aequilibritas

28-12-2006, 13:03

The kind of anarchism you speak of isn't anarcho capitalism as it is usually defined. Its much more like left-wing mutualist anarchism, which is based around a truly free-market and worker cooperatives and mutual aid.

Apologies for resurrecting a long dead thread, but I'd like more information.

What about property rights to the extent that they apply to landlords, then? Some people might consider themselves better off renting, for whatever reason.

What if I didn't want to be a part of a cooperative?

What if I wanted to be part of a cooperative temporarily? What if I wanted to buy a dutch barge and travel the northern hemisphere, working with one cooperative for, say, six months before moving on? Would I be able to accumulate enough food, gas bottles, charged batteries etc. To get me from one place to another? Especially if I don't now how long that may take?

I'm fully expecting this post to be ignored, so if anyone, more knowledgeable than myself, can find time to educate me it'd be much appreciated.

Jello Biafra

28-12-2006, 13:12

Apologies for resurrecting a long dead thread, but I'd like more information.

What about property rights to the extent that they apply to landlords, then? Some people might consider themselves better off renting, for whatever reason.In mutualism, land ownership only happens via occupancy and use (which is the way it should be, anyway).

What if I didn't want to be a part of a cooperative?You'd probably be subsistence farming, though I suppose it's conceivable you could do some art or something and make a living that way.

What if I wanted to be part of a cooperative temporarily? What if I wanted to buy a dutch barge and travel the northern hemisphere, working with one cooperative for, say, six months before moving on? Would I be able to accumulate enough food, gas bottles, charged batteries etc. To get me from one place to another? Especially if I don't now how long that may take?Probably, especially since they believe in the LTV; if you're worried about money running low, you can always work more.

I'm not well versed in mutualism, myself, but I know a little bit.

Aequilibritas

28-12-2006, 13:33

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra;12140636]
You'd probably be subsistence farming, though I suppose it's conceivable you could do some art or something and make a living that way[.QUOTE]

But I couldn't accumulate any wealth? So, if I stick a fork through my foot and can't work for a few weeks, I'm screwed?

(Assuming, of course, that there's a helibulance (or ambulicopter or whatever they're called) that I could phone.)

Aequilibritas

28-12-2006, 17:48

so what are you going to do differently? how are you going to prevent the poeple that own fucking everything already from using their control of access to resources to gain control of society more generally? expropriate all of their shit first, and then say go?

Apologies. I didn't see your post 'til now or I'd have replied sooner.

What am I going to do differently to what?

Surely, the point of an anarchist society is that no-one gains control of it?

Willfull Ignorance

28-12-2006, 18:09

Surely, the point of an anarchist society is that no-one gains control of it?

I think the collectivist point is that to make sure people don't gain control of "too many" resources in a society of private ownership only the state can stop them...

The Plastic Ear

28-12-2006, 19:25

Anarchy is the same thing as Communism.

I don't see why everyone says that it's not.

ANARCHY IS THE BEST!:cool:

Free Soviets

28-12-2006, 19:35

Surely, the point of an anarchist society is that no-one gains control of it?

indeed. but in addition to all the other reasons why 'anarcho'-capitalism isn't anarchism, you guys intend to leave a tiny elite class of people holding 90% of all the wealth and resources of the world. we happen to know that with access to resources like that these people can and do buy favorable government, and doing so is by your own admission quite beneficial to them. what makes you think they won't do the same after you abolish the welfare state and privatize the police and military? to me it looks like they would just exercise direct ownership of the new governing forces. doing so would be exactly as beneficial to them then as indirect ownership is now, if not even more so. and they still are and will be the ones that own fucking everything.

The Freest people

28-12-2006, 21:14

you guys intend to leave a tiny elite class of people holding 90% of all the wealth and resources of the world.
Uhm - no, that's not what we intend to do.

The fear of someone being rich is repeated in all your posts.
Tell me, how could those people become this rich?
In a capitalist society, by trading. Why would anyone want to trade? Because they gain by trading. So the only way to become rich is to help other people.

And why does it harm me, specifically, if there is one rather than two rich people owning the factory I work at? For all I care, it could be ten wild elephants, as long as they uphold their contract.

And why would there be more rich people in an anarcho-capitalist society than in our current society? There are no rules against being wealthy today.

A little question for you little enemies of the property right:
If I went into your house and occupied your bed, would you use your property rights to force me off it?

Free Soviets

28-12-2006, 21:31

Uhm - no, that's not what we intend to do.

ah, so you intend to expropriate all their shit first?

The Freest people

28-12-2006, 22:50

Of course not. In an anarcho-capitalist society you would be allowed to keep your justly acquired wealth. One person being wealthy doesn't harm another person, so it's no violation of anyone's right.

Edit:
Ahah. I understand what you mean. You actually believe that a "tiny elite class" holds 90 % of the worlds resources. I thought you meant it would become so if the anarcho-capitalist solutions were used.

I wouldn't say that "a tiny elite class" owns 90% today, and even if it is true, rich people is not a problem since the only way to get rich and continue being so in a capitalist society is by voluntary and mutually beneficient exchange.

Aequilibritas

28-12-2006, 23:38

indeed. but in addition to all the other reasons why 'anarcho'-capitalism isn't anarchism, you guys intend to leave a tiny elite class of people holding 90% of all the wealth and resources of the world. we happen to know that with access to resources like that these people can and do buy favorable government, and doing so is by your own admission quite beneficial to them. what makes you think they won't do the same after you abolish the welfare state and privatize the police and military? to me it looks like they would just exercise direct ownership of the new governing forces. doing so would be exactly as beneficial to them then as indirect ownership is now, if not even more so. and they still are and will be the ones that own fucking everything.

"You guys"?

Free Soviets

29-12-2006, 00:38

I wouldn't say that "a tiny elite class" owns 90% today, and even if it is true, rich people is not a problem since the only way to get rich and continue being so in a capitalist society is by voluntary and mutually beneficient exchange.

firstly, it is just a fact about the world. a ridiculously tiny class of people own pretty much everything, with the rest of us fighting over the scraps. secondly, even if we accept this weird usage of 'capitalism' - why would those that own fucking everything feel bound by these alleged rules of capitalism? they don't now, why will they then?

Jello Biafra

29-12-2006, 00:53

Uhm - no, that's not what we intend to do.

The fear of someone being rich is repeated in all your posts.
Tell me, how could those people become this rich?
In a capitalist society, by trading. Why would anyone want to trade? Because they gain by trading. So the only way to become rich is to help other people. False. To get someone to trade with you, you simply have to make them think that they benefit from trading with you. An actual benefit need not exist.
Furthermore, simply because the other person benefits, this does not mean that the trade is just. Extortion results in benefits for both parties, but would you say that it's okay to extort something from somebody? Of course not.

And why does it harm me, specifically, if there is one rather than two rich people owning the factory I work at? For all I care, it could be ten wild elephants, as long as they uphold their contract.It harms you because the factory could be controlled by the workers, which means you would likely get a bigger share of the profits.

And why would there be more rich people in an anarcho-capitalist society than in our current society? There are no rules against being wealthy today.The problem is that there are too many rich people today, especially those who have become so via unscrupulous methods.

A little question for you little enemies of the property right:
If I went into your house and occupied your bed, would you use your property rights to force me off it?No, but I would use my usage rights to do so, assuming, of course, that I use the house and the bed.

Free Soviets

29-12-2006, 05:23

"You guys"?

sorry, been awhile with this thread

Aequilibritas

29-12-2006, 10:31

The problem is that there are too many rich people today, especially those who have become so via unscrupulous methods..

Is there any such thing as 'too many rich people'? Surely the problem is there are too many poor people?

Also, there'll always be wrong 'uns. What makes you think that, in a society such as the one you describe, the unscrupulous will suddenly cease to be or, at least, cease to benefit from their lack of scruples?

No, but I would use my usage rights to do so, assuming, of course, that I use the house and the bed.

See, this is where I become all confused.

Obviously, I don't lose my usage rights (on my house) by going out for the day? I'd assume I would retain them if I went on holiday for a week or two? What about if I went away for a month? Two months? Six? Where's the cut off point?

Aequilibritas

29-12-2006, 10:33

Anarchy is the same thing as Communism.

I don't see why everyone says that it's not.

ANARCHY IS THE BEST!:cool:

Why?

Jello Biafra

29-12-2006, 13:46

Is there any such thing as 'too many rich people'? Surely the problem is there are too many poor people?It's both. Too many poor people who don't have food and other necessities. Too many rich people who can and will exploit this.

Also, there'll always be wrong 'uns. What makes you think that, in a society such as the one you describe, the unscrupulous will suddenly cease to be or, at least, cease to benefit from their lack of scruples?By rendering it unlikely or impossible for them to do so. Direct democracy goes a long way towards this.

See, this is where I become all confused.

Obviously, I don't lose my usage rights (on my house) by going out for the day? I'd assume I would retain them if I went on holiday for a week or two? What about if I went away for a month? Two months? Six? Where's the cut off point?Well, it would depend on what you use your home for. I think that most people use their home for many things, but one of those things is to have some modicum of privacy. I think that if you were to go out for the day knowing that somebody was going to come in, you wouldn't feel that you had the same sense of privacy that you would if this didn't occur. So, no, simply by leaving the house for the day or a week or two, you wouldn't be giving up your usage rights.
The summer home, though, someone could and should be able to use it while you're not there.

Willfull Ignorance

29-12-2006, 15:47

Well, it would depend on what you use your home for. I think that most people use their home for many things, but one of those things is to have some modicum of privacy. I think that if you were to go out for the day knowing that somebody was going to come in, you wouldn't feel that you had the same sense of privacy that you would if this didn't occur. So, no, simply by leaving the house for the day or a week or two, you wouldn't be giving up your usage rights.
The summer home, though, someone could and should be able to use it while you're not there.

What if we don't have over 6 billion good quality houses. Some people will want to "use" the house you've made when you're not in, even if its just for a day. With not ownership rights why does the fact you were using the property in the morning matter to someone who has no house, or who has a poorly built house and likes your one better.

Jello Biafra

29-12-2006, 15:51

What if we don't have over 6 billion good quality houses. Then make more. (We wouldn't need that many, though, some people will be living together.)

Some people will want to "use" the house you've made when you're not in, even if its just for a day. With not ownership rights why does the fact you were using the property in the morning matter to someone who has no house, or who has a poorly built house and likes your one better.Why should anybody have the exclusive use of a good quality house if some people have poor quality houses/no houses?

Willfull Ignorance

29-12-2006, 16:04

Then make more. (We wouldn't need that many, though, some people will be living together.)

Unless the house you were building was one you planned to live in yourself, wouldn't you think people wouldn't put their full effort into making it nice, what would be the point (other than the greater good, which isnt great motivation for the bulk of people).

Why should anybody have the exclusive use of a good quality house if some people have poor quality houses/no houses?

Eek. Okay so I'll make sure I won't keep my house too clean or do any extra work on it to make it a pleasent place to live in, other wise I'll live in fear of it being "too high" quality for a person to live in, while others won't keep thier houses in as good condition.

Jello Biafra

29-12-2006, 16:13

Unless the house you were building was one you planned to live in yourself, wouldn't you think people wouldn't put their full effort into making it nice, what would be the point (other than the greater good, which isnt great motivation for the bulk of people).You don't think construction workers nowadays put their full effort into construction, do you?

Eek. Okay so I'll make sure I won't keep my house too clean or do any extra work on it to make it a pleasent place to live in, other wise I'll live in fear of it being "too high" quality for a person to live in, while others won't keep thier houses in as good condition.Then such would be their decision. I thought you were talking of people who started out with poor quality houses.

Aequilibritas

29-12-2006, 16:23

By rendering it unlikely or impossible for them to do so. Direct democracy goes a long way towards this.

Does it? What if they were to use unscrupulous means to secure a majority, thus ensuring any vote goes their way?

Well, it would depend on what you use your home for. I think that most people use their home for many things, but one of those things is to have some modicum of privacy. I think that if you were to go out for the day knowing that somebody was going to come in, you wouldn't feel that you had the same sense of privacy that you would if this didn't occur. So, no, simply by leaving the house for the day or a week or two, you wouldn't be giving up your usage rights.
The summer home, though, someone could and should be able to use it while you're not there.

What if I went travelling for a year or two? I might not have a problem with someone occupying the house while I was away, but how would I ensure they vacated it when I returned?

Jello Biafra

29-12-2006, 16:26

Does it? What if they were to use unscrupulous means to secure a majority, thus ensuring any vote goes their way?How do you propose somebody might do this?

What if I went travelling for a year or two? I might not have a problem with someone occupying the house while I was away, but how would I ensure they vacated it when I returned?If you lived in a community that had established usage rights, you would ask them to leave, and if they didn't leave, you would ask the community's militia to remove the person.
I suppose they also might just have you use a different house, if all your stuff is with you and not in the other house.
It would, of course, be a good idea to let the community know that you were leaving before you left, to make it easier to enforce your usage rights.

Aequilibritas

29-12-2006, 16:43

How do you propose somebody might do this?.

Bribery, threats of violence or just good old fashioned, silver tongued manipulation.

If you lived in a community that had established usage rights, you would ask them to leave, and if they didn't leave, you would ask the community's militia to remove the person.
I suppose they also might just have you use a different house, if all your stuff is with you and not in the other house.
It would, of course, be a good idea to let the community know that you were leaving before you left, to make it easier to enforce your usage rights.

Hmm. I might not want to live in a different house. I might like the first one better. Besides if there's spare houses sitting around, why does anyone need to live in mine? They might not take care of it as well as I'd like them to.

That aside, thanks for your answers, you've been very helpful and certainly given me some food for thought.

Jello Biafra

29-12-2006, 16:51

Bribery, threats of violence or just good old fashioned, silver tongued manipulation.Since everyone would have access to an equal amount of resources, their ability to bribe would be severely reduced. Threats of violence would be a problem, but they would need to threaten a bunch of people. Isn't it likely that these people would band together and fight back? As far as convincing people that their ideas should be implemented...well, I suppose if they're lying, that's a problem, but ideally the people will be vigilant against this and research the issue themselves.

Hmm. I might not want to live in a different house. I might like the first one better. Besides if there's spare houses sitting around, why does anyone need to live in mine? They might not take care of it as well as I'd like them to.Perhaps they'd initially just planned to live in the area for a couple years, so there was no need for the community to build more houses, but since you came back, there would be.

That aside, thanks for your answers, you've been very helpful and certainly given me some food for thought.Well, thanks. Bear in mind that this is merely my point of view, and does not represent the mutualist point of view (which you asked about earlier), though there are some similarities.

The Freest people

29-12-2006, 17:56

False. To get someone to trade with you, you simply have to make them think that they benefit from trading with you. An actual benefit need not exist.
Of course. But in most cases people are able to evaluate whether they gain from it or not.

It harms you because the factory could be controlled by the workers, which means you would likely get a bigger share of the profits.
Using this logic, a woman withholding sex from me harms me because I would have had more sex otherwise.

Since everyone would have access to an equal amount of resources, their ability to bribe would be severely reduced.
"Vote for me and I will give you ....." should not be unknown to you. It is said that nobody except politicians are allowed to buy votes.

Now a few questions regarding usage rights:
First, how is usage rights established? If I steal your gameboy and use it long enough, does it become mine? If I create something, is it automatically mine or someone else's?

Another: Assume I owned a spade. I didn't really need it for some while, so my neighbor borrows it. Will he gain the right to use it then? When I come to him, after a few months, and tell him "dude, I need that spade" can he tell me to f**k off because he used it in the past few months and he intends to use it for whatever he was doing with it?
And what if he breaks it?

Lastly, the most important question: Would I be allowed to disagree with your vision of the anarchist future? Could I establish a town close to yours with established property rights, or would your people constantly raid the stores because the goods just lay there and nobody held the usage rights to them?

Trotskylvania

29-12-2006, 22:36

But I couldn't accumulate any wealth? So, if I stick a fork through my foot and can't work for a few weeks, I'm screwed?

(Assuming, of course, that there's a helibulance (or ambulicopter or whatever they're called) that I could phone.)

First of all, you can trade your goods with any nearby collectives. Second of all, since anarchists are really big into that mutual aid idea, all you would have to do is ask for help (make sure you have a phone ;) ).

Aequilibritas

30-12-2006, 10:31

First of all, you can trade your goods with any nearby collectives. Second of all, since anarchists are really big into that mutual aid idea, all you would have to do is ask for help (make sure you have a phone ;) ).

But would there be any such thing as phones? Or helicopters?

It would take a hell of a lot of trading between communes and a hell of a lot of specialist knowledge just to come up with a gearbox let alone an entire helicopter. Why would anyone bother?

I think, when the whole political/economic system collapes and we find ourselves plunged into a 'Mad Max' style world-wide wild west, small (possibly federated) autonomous communities would spring up, out of nessescity. But assuming we don't want to go through that dystopic nightmare first, can we get there from here? How?

Trotskylvania

30-12-2006, 18:25

But would there be any such thing as phones? Or helicopters?

It would take a hell of a lot of trading between communes and a hell of a lot of specialist knowledge just to come up with a gearbox let alone an entire helicopter. Why would anyone bother?

I think, when the whole political/economic system collapes and we find ourselves plunged into a 'Mad Max' style world-wide wild west, small (possibly federated) autonomous communities would spring up, out of nessescity. But assuming we don't want to go through that dystopic nightmare first, can we get there from here? How?

You are assuming that this new system requires a radical change in the means that civilization is organized. You can have mutualist anarchism, and have both order and massive technical wizardry. The point is not to smash the machines luddite style, but rather to use them for humanistic goals.

Free Soviets

30-12-2006, 19:15

I think, when the whole political/economic system collapes and we find ourselves plunged into a 'Mad Max' style world-wide wild west, small (possibly federated) autonomous communities would spring up, out of nessescity. But assuming we don't want to go through that dystopic nightmare first, can we get there from here? How?

revolution

more specifically, the formation of dual power institutions to both take on the roles currently filled with hierarchical power and to socialize people into the idea of self management - which is how we'll bring about the revolution. its sort of like how democratic revolutions have usually based themselves on either preexisting home-grown democratic institutitions or the inspiration of other democratic revolutions.

nobody wants mad max. except maybe some of the primmies, but mostly they just think it's inevitable in the face of the looming environmental collapse and resource wars.

Aequilibritas

30-12-2006, 20:40

revolution

more specifically, the formation of dual power institutions to both take on the roles currently filled with hierarchical power and to socialize people into the idea of self management - which is how we'll bring about the revolution. its sort of like how democratic revolutions have usually based themselves on either preexisting home-grown democratic institutitions or the inspiration of other democratic revolutions..

Not the quickest revolution ever, then?!

I'd be interested in hearing more about this if you have the time or can recommend a good source?

nobody wants mad max. except maybe some of the primmies, but mostly they just think it's inevitable in the face of the looming environmental collapse and resource wars.

I fear they might be right. More because of economic collapse than enviromental.

Utaho

30-12-2006, 21:18

Really. It isn't. Not by a very very long shot.

Anybody who thinks 'Libertarianism' is the same as anarchism just because both political philosophies oppose the state, is wrong and most likely don't know what Anarchism actually is.

Anarchists are ANTI-Capitalist, Libertarians are 'PRO-Capitalist

Anarchists are in ANTI-Hierarchy, Libertarians are PRO-Hierarchy

Anarchists are ANTI-Private property Libertarians are PRO-Private property

Anarchists are ANTI-Exploitation, Libertarians get rich off the back of the working poor.

Anarchists are (in general) ANTI-Money, Libertarians are barely for anything but money.

Anarchists believe in Freedom, Libertarian philosophy can only lead to slavery.

These are just some of the most obvious differences between Anarchism and Libertarianism.

If you compare any anarchist 'nation' in this game with any 'libertarian' nation you will see how these differences affect the outcomes for the people of that society

I agree totally with you that anarchism and libertarianism are NOT the same,as some like to think.Libertarianism is a political philosophy(and a very good one at that)wherein governmnents only enforce the rule of law and uphold society,and allow the people to do as they please in terms of going about there daily business.Governmnet is limited to making sure people play fair and is small.It is the philosophy all of us REAL conservative rightists(not Bushes absurb "compassionate conservativsm")believe in.Anarchism,on the other hand,is just stupid.You cant believe in anarchism as a political ideology.Why?Because it isnt one.It is simply chaos,a belief that nothing should exist.Anarchists should be shot.Theres is just a philosophy of destruction.It is not a means for society to exist,just a means to drive us back into the Stone Age by destroying everything.Anarchism is retarded,annyone that seriously believes that "anarcho-syndacalism" is a real way to run the world should be rounded up and imrprisoned,because it is a threat to society that they exist.

Utaho

30-12-2006, 21:22

You are assuming that this new system requires a radical change in the means that civilization is organized. You can have mutualist anarchism, and have both order and massive technical wizardry. The point is not to smash the machines luddite style, but rather to use them for humanistic goals.

NONONONO.Anarchism is not logical.Destroying everything is not good.Revolution is NEVER good for society.It is also pointless,since what you are talking about is slowly redeveloping Earth back to its present state,even if you dont realize it.

Utaho

30-12-2006, 21:23

Utaho

30-12-2006, 21:32

Czardas

30-12-2006, 21:34

@Utaho: Anarchism need not advocate violent overthrow of government... merely offer an explanation for how society can function with an absence thereof.

I personally disagree with any anarchist philosophy -- let's face it, people as a whole are incapable of self-rule, petty, selfish, greedy, and hypocritical, and these qualities cannot be changed by any system of government -- and would support instead an oligarchy of the informed, the few intelligent capable of making decisions for both themselves and everyone else. This is a system that would not lead to abuse, as being intelligent the people in question would comprehend what would be best for both themselves and the society they govern; if some member of this ruling oligarchy thought of stripping other individuals of some or all of their rights, he or she would be overruled by everyone else due to the illogic of such a move -- it would make citizens unhappy, and cause them to desire to implement a different form of government, ruining the "perfect" society.

But anywho. Continue.

Shangilla

30-12-2006, 22:41

@topic: Well, today´s "Libertarians" and Anarcho-Capitalists, like Anarchists, seek to abolish government in the sense of one having power over others. But sadly, they just fail to see that economical power can be as oppressive as political power. So Anarcho-Capitalism is a movement that wants to create anarchy, but would (in my eyes) create a feudal-style system which would actually be rather authoritarian. On the other hand, "Leftist" Anarchism or libertarian socialism (which I think is the more realistic philosophy) can also deliver no actual proof that it is able to achieve it´s goals. So both Anarchisms are philosophies who want to achieve anarchy.
On the other other hand (the third hand? Jesus...) it is quite amusing how rightwing theories manage to take over leftist names. Originally, "Liberal" was a quite left label (in the US it still is), which, in European countries changed to a word for rather right, pro-capitalist views, the word socialist was stolen by Adolf Hitler (is there anybody who could actually claim that Hitler was in any way left?), and today it´s anarchy and libertarianism. Shit happens.

@Czardas: Is anarchy possible? Well, I once read a nice quote:
Anarchy is like brushing your teeth. You´ll never have totally clean teeth and you´ll never have anarchy, but you still brush your teeth, don´t you?
So you will never achieve a society in which political and economical power is totally democratisiced (which would be anarchy, cause when everybody has the same power, there is no leader, in greek: an archos), but through social change (or sometimes, but not necessarily evertime and hopefully not to often, through revolutions) societies can become more egalitarian, less elitarian and therefore more anarchist. And both Syndicalism (or today Parecon) and social market systems (which grew out of Oppenheimer´s "liberal socialism"), are in my eyes able to make the world less authoritarian than most societies are today and should therefore be promoted, constructivelly criticised and made better step by step to get closer to the impossible ideal.
(Whoah, why does such idealistic stuff always sound so weird? I feel like Barney the anarchist Dinosaur right now...)

Jello Biafra

31-12-2006, 13:37

Of course. But in most cases people are able to evaluate whether they gain from it or not. They would gain more if they had it without having to trade for it.

Using this logic, a woman withholding sex from me harms me because I would have had more sex otherwise.That's just silly, your having sex with her without her consent interrupts her use of her body.

"Vote for me and I will give you ....." should not be unknown to you. It is said that nobody except politicians are allowed to buy votes.We're talking about direct democracy here. No representatives.

Now a few questions regarding usage rights:
First, how is usage rights established? If I steal your gameboy and use it long enough, does it become mine? If I create something, is it automatically mine or someone else's?

Another: Assume I owned a spade. I didn't really need it for some while, so my neighbor borrows it. Will he gain the right to use it then? When I come to him, after a few months, and tell him "dude, I need that spade" can he tell me to f**k off because he used it in the past few months and he intends to use it for whatever he was doing with it?
And what if he breaks it?I'd hope that the community would make spades for people who need them, but if they didn't, you'd have the right to ask for your spade back. I'd recommend you have someone there to witness the initial transaction, though.

Lastly, the most important question: Would I be allowed to disagree with your vision of the anarchist future? Could I establish a town close to yours with established property rights, or would your people constantly raid the stores because the goods just lay there and nobody held the usage rights to them?It depends; I think a treaty could be established where your town's property rights are respected.

Llewdor

03-01-2007, 00:23

you people keep repeating that 'governments distort markets' line, but you have not shown how they do so, nor how the 'undistorted markets' would lead to a fair society.
Because the advantages gained in an undistorted market are gained according to merit.
What exactly is the difference between rent and tax?
Rent is voluntary.
Why do libertarians completely and utterly reject all forms of democracy
Because we'd rather disenfranchise the unsuccessful than the idiosyncratic.

Llewdor

03-01-2007, 00:28

It harms you because the factory could be controlled by the workers, which means you would likely get a bigger share of the profits.
Who invested the capital to build the factory?
Then make more. (We wouldn't need that many, though, some people will be living together.)
Who would make them? Why would they?
Why should anybody have the exclusive use of a good quality house if some people have poor quality houses/no houses?
Why shouldn't they? You ask the question like you position is the only reasonable default position. But your position is the one dependent upon a value judgement. Mine requires none.

Jello Biafra

03-01-2007, 13:50

Who invested the capital to build the factory?Someone who had capital that they weren't using.

Who would make them? The construction workers in the community.

Why would they?A combination of it being their job, because they enjoy that kind of work, and the need for more housing.

Why shouldn't they? You ask the question like you position is the only reasonable default position. But your position is the one dependent upon a value judgement. Mine requires none.Really? Saying that property rights should be established is devoid of value judgments?

Trotskylvania

03-01-2007, 21:11

Because the advantages gained in an undistorted market are gained according to merit.

Rent is voluntary.

Because we'd rather disenfranchise the unsuccessful than the idiosyncratic.

Why should someone failing to meet your defintion of merit be left out to hang?

Taxes are voluntary just like rent. You choose not to pay your taxes, and you lose your home. Choose not to pay your rent, and guess what! You lose your home.

Once again, when did meritocracy become any better than any other kind of hierarchy?

Trotskylvania

03-01-2007, 21:13

NONONONO.Anarchism is not logical.Destroying everything is not good.Revolution is NEVER good for society.It is also pointless,since what you are talking about is slowly redeveloping Earth back to its present state,even if you dont realize it.

Revolution is always good for society. Revolution isn't about destroying the machines, its about using them for humanistic ends. I thought I made that clear.

Trotskylvania

03-01-2007, 21:16

People-I just mentioned this to you leftwing tards in a very long,elaborate response in a different thread.Let me give you the short-Mutualism DOES NOT WORK.Capitalism is the only way to run a society with more than a few thousand people.This has been backed up by such brilliant writings as those of Jared Diamonds Guns,Germs,and Steel,who explianed how it is societys developed and why a state and capitalism are both nessarary in any group of people seeking to progress beyond hunter-gatherer level,and David Horowitz,who explained why it is that socialist societies where always worse off materially than free market ones.If you want to return to a land where you hunt the buffalo and cook it over a fire and live in a cave,join these dumbasses and there grand revolution.

Once again, you've shown yourself to be completely ignorant of what is nescesary for society to work, Neither capitalism nor the state is nescesary. People have time and time again shown that the best form of governance is self government.

A state might have been nescesary at one time, but it is not nescesary anymore. And David Horowitz is scholarly buffoon who ignores half of human history to justify his attacks.

Czardas

03-01-2007, 21:23

Once again, you've shown yourself to be completely ignorant of what is nescesary for society to work, Neither capitalism nor the state is nescesary. People have time and time again shown that the best form of governance is self government.

Depends on what you mean by "best". Perhaps most egalitarian, yes. Long lasting? The few that have existed are almost always overthrown or subverted within a few years. Wealthy or powerful? Admittedly neither. Happiest? Debatable. Most free? Not really.

Dosuun

03-01-2007, 22:21

Why should someone failing to meet your defintion of merit be left out to hang?
Why should someone who fails to perform tasks neccessary for something be allowed reap the rewards of the labor of others?

Taxes are voluntary just like rent. You choose not to pay your taxes, and you lose your home. Choose not to pay your rent, and guess what! You lose your home.
When you pay for something up front, purchase it, you shouldn't have to continue to pay for it for the rest of the time you own it. Taxes are lifelong but fees can be a one time occurance.

Once again, when did meritocracy become any better than any other kind of hierarchy?
It's better because it's based on achievement not popularity.

If you're on a ship with a breached hull and there are popular people that would be trapped and die if you sealed it to keep the ship afloat and the rest of the crew alive you're action may be viewed as unpopular by some of the crew but it would save the ship and everyone else.

Trotskylvania

03-01-2007, 22:26

Why should someone who fails to perform tasks neccessary for something be allowed reap the rewards of the labor of others?

That doesn't answer my question. Why should someone who is willing to work be denied a chance to do so because his merit is "lacking"?

When you pay for something up front, purchase it, you shouldn't have to continue to pay for it for the rest of the time you own it. Taxes are lifelong but fees can be a one time occurance.

Taxes aren't a fee for ownership. They're like the dues in a country club.

It's better because it's based on achievement not popularity.

If you're on a ship with a breached hull and there are popular people that would be trapped and die if you sealed it to keep the ship afloat and the rest of the crew alive you're action may be viewed as unpopular by some of the crew but it would save the ship and everyone else.

That still doesn't answer my question. When did rule by merit become any better than anykind of elitist oligarchy?

Czardas

03-01-2007, 22:32

That still doesn't answer my question. When did rule by merit become any better than anykind of elitist oligarchy?

The question was already answered:

It's better because it's based on achievement not popularity.

Trotskylvania

03-01-2007, 22:34

The question was already answered:

So you are going to automatically assume that the meritorious few will always rise, and the rest can just hang?

Dosuun

03-01-2007, 22:56

That doesn't answer my question. Why should someone who is willing to work be denied a chance to do so because his merit is "lacking"?
Why should a bagger be allowed to design a house when he hasn't been trained in architecture or engineering? Some people are simply better at certain tasks then others. If you want to design a house you need the education and skills.

In a meritocracy the one who makes something gets to decide what to do with it. If that means keeping it, they can. If that means trading it for something else, they can. If that means giving it away, they can. But someone who did nothing to earn ownership of that thing has no say in what happens to it.

Under socialism everyone has ownership of that thing, even those who had no hand in the making of that it.

A factory owner provides the resources for the creation of the factory and by extension has a hand in the making of everything that is produced within it. So does anyone who works in the factory. But it wouldn't exist without the factory owner having it built in the first place.

Jello Biafra

04-01-2007, 13:37

It's better because it's based on achievement not popularity.Of course it's based on popularity, except it's even worse, because not everybody gets to pay people their "merit".

Trotskylvania

04-01-2007, 21:13

Why should a bagger be allowed to design a house when he hasn't been trained in architecture or engineering? Some people are simply better at certain tasks then others. If you want to design a house you need the education and skills.

In a meritocracy the one who makes something gets to decide what to do with it. If that means keeping it, they can. If that means trading it for something else, they can. If that means giving it away, they can. But someone who did nothing to earn ownership of that thing has no say in what happens to it.

Under socialism everyone has ownership of that thing, even those who had no hand in the making of that it.

A factory owner provides the resources for the creation of the factory and by extension has a hand in the making of everything that is produced within it. So does anyone who works in the factory. But it wouldn't exist without the factory owner having it built in the first place.

Ok, so anyone who can't meet your definition of merit can just go hang! Of couse, the meritorious few will always be the ones to rise, so we don't have to worry. :headbang:

Meritocracy is the worst kind of oppression. It provides a justification for the abuse of those who don't meet a particular definition of "merit", which often has more to do with luck than anything.

Vittos the City Sacker

05-01-2007, 11:19

Once again, you've shown yourself to be completely ignorant of what is nescesary for society to work, Neither capitalism nor the state is nescesary. People have time and time again shown that the best form of governance is self government.

How many anarchists have not called for a role for capitalism or government in bringing about the anarchist revolution?

And your last sentence is a non-sequitor, self-government does not exclude capitalism.

Europa Maxima

05-01-2007, 12:51

How many anarchists have not called for a role for capitalism or government in bringing about the anarchist revolution?

And your last sentence is a non-sequitor, self-government does not exclude capitalism.
To add to this, how are you "self-governed" in a society where resources are communally owned? You still rely on majoritarian decisionmaking (perhaps even representative, if need be) to use resources, ergo you rely on others (assuming a community that does not claim ownership over its constituent members). Furthermore, what if one decides they will not work, and decides to make use of the resources in the community? They will become a parasite. Either the productive members of the society will allow this to happen voluntarily, or, if the society adopted the use of compulsion by force, they'd force the productive members to provide for this individual or they would force it to provide for itself. Or, they might just exclude it from use of the community's resources. In which case again it is left to its own powers to survive. This all assuming scarcity of resources.

There is no less dependence than in a capitalist system. The community becomes the new government (the State if it uses force to compel individuals into submission). Either we accept that self-governance is possible in any society barring the use of compulsive force, or we submit that it is only possible were man to become a purely individualistic animal, such as the tiger, doing away with society altogether. By this logic, complete anarcho-individualism devoid of society becomes the only true form of anarchism.

NationStates Jolt Archive

AnarchoCapitalism is NOT Anarchism!!