NationStates Jolt Archive

ive come across this theory from one of my friends, and we've been debating its practicality vs. theory in society as a viable system of government (or the lack thereof). it basically replaces government with total social lassez-faire economics. any comments?

It's an awful idea, for a variety of reasons.

It would be incapable of dealing with vast inequalities in wealth, and if effective, well-organized protection services ever came to be, they would either end up destroying each other or establishing an effective state as an arbitrator.

It would be incapable of dealing with vast inequalities in wealth

interestingly, david friedman claims both that this is a-ok and is one of the major factors that caused the collapse of the icelandic system he so approves of

I
It would be incapable of dealing with vast inequalities in wealth

Well if people are so worried about starving to death, they can work harder. Not my problem.

I love anarcho-capitalism! I feel it is not only the best economically, but also socially- the family, the church, and the community should take back their status as the prime, voluntary foundations of society versus the coercive democratic Leviathan that drags us down.

Well if people are so worried about starving to death, they can work harder.

It's not starving to death I was talking about so much as getting shot by a hired gang for the grievous crime of leaving a job, or organizing a union, or the like.

The more you pay, the more you get... so the rich will control the "protection agencies", and those that offer services to the poor won't want to insure against the better-trained and armed ones that offer services to the rich.

the family, the church, and the community

Market capitalism constantly degrades all three.

Market capitalism constantly degrades all three.

Bull. 90% of businesses in America are family-owned. Not to mention that the increase in material wealth has allowed man to put greater value on theological and philosophical thought with his base needs satisfied, and allowed for the achievement of that highest order of Maslowe's hierarchy of needs- helping others. You are confusing the market economy with the state.

Bull.

wait, you don't even understand the revolutionary nature of your own favored system? just look at the history of all those things once capitalist market relations become dominant.

ive come across this theory from one of my friends, and we've been debating its practicality vs. theory in society as a viable system of government (or the lack thereof). it basically replaces government with total social lassez-faire economics. any comments?
I'm a proponent of the system, but given certain changes to the mainstream theory - mainly a mild incorporation of some of Ayn Rand's thoughts on government, and variations in corporate ownership. Still working on it though.

Bull. 90% of businesses in America are family-owned.

Yeah, so?

Not only would a far more meaningful measure be percentage of GNP, but the proportions were immensely higher before market capitalism.

Not to mention that the increase in material wealth has allowed man to put greater value on theological and philosophical thought with his base needs satisfied,

And the result is radical individualism, mass secularism, "cafeteria" Christians, unprecented atheism, and a culture that openly and unashamedly rejects Christian morality.

But, in fairness, I won't say that that's because we put "greater value on theological and philosophical thought" and thus reject organized religion. The reasons have more to do with the strong antagonism between the values of the market and the values of most organized religion.

"Get rich, wear fashionable clothing, drive cool cars, and have lots of sex with hot women" is in no religious text.

and allowed for the achievement of that highest order of Maslowe's hierarchy of needs- helping others.

Altruism is present at all levels of wealth. Market relations - based on mutual pursuit of maximum selfish advantage - destroys it.

You are confusing the market economy with the state.

The state is the last hope of religious conservatism; that's why the fundamentalist backlash against liberal market culture has so focused on attaining political power.

I don't support it. It would produce just too much abuse and too much inequality to be even remotely supportable. Companies are going to collude regardless of government, and in this case there will be no government to protect us from their corruption or abuse of the market.

Without a government, companies have free reign to do what they want; your decision to boycott a company's products or start your own doesn't mean anything when they can simply send a squad of mercenaries to gun your family down or extort what they want as protection money. Good luck forming a union, or leaving a job, or protesting against environmental abuse.

Rather than mob rule, we'll have Mob rule.

It's not starving to death I was talking about so much as getting shot by a hired gang for the grievous crime of leaving a job, or organizing a union, or the like.

The more you pay, the more you get... so the rich will control the "protection agencies", and those that offer services to the poor won't want to insure against the better-trained and armed ones that offer services to the rich.

Well, if they're weak and can't defend themselves (or pay someone to do it), the market system will rectify this problem by removing the inefficient elements.

(this is fun. ;))

Yeah, so?

So families are obviously an integral engine of the market economy.

Not only would a far more meaningful measure be percentage of GNP,

50%.

but the proportions were immensely higher before market capitalism.

And your ancestors and mine were farming dirt. Just because other methods of production are also chosen, doesn't mean that the family has been weakened.

And the result is radical individualism, mass secularism, "cafeteria" Christians, unprecented atheism, and a culture that openly and unashamedly rejects Christian morality.

Oh. My. God. Are you seriously telling me that people were more secular and atheist before now? That would have to be the case, as before now we had more of a market economy, but now we have far more intervention. According to your logic, our time would be more religious. But it's quite obviously not.

But, in fairness, I won't say that that's because we put "greater value on theological and philosophical thought" and thus reject organized religion. The reasons have more to do with the strong antagonism between the values of the market and the values of most organized religion.

Like the Protestant work ethic?

"Get rich, wear fashionable clothing, drive cool cars, and have lots of sex with hot women" is in no religious text.

But if you'd pay attention, you'll notice that it all started to rise in the interventionist democratic era, not when the market economy was freer.

Altruism is present at all levels of wealth. Market relations - based on mutual pursuit of maximum selfish advantage - destroys it.

No, that's incorrect. If you eat well, the utility of continuing to eat declines. Helping others to eat thus becomes relatively more valuable. It's basic microeconomics.

The state is the last hope of religious conservatism; that's why the fundamentalist backlash against liberal market culture has so focused on attaining political power.

... no. Prior to the state, religion was quite healthy. It was even healthy during its growth. Only with the rise of interventionist democratic policy, opposed to the market, has religion begun to decline.

Rather than mob rule, we'll have Mob rule.

that's the best part about 'anarcho'-capitalism. they literally claim that the state is bad because it is like the mob, and therefore we should hand the state over to the actual mob.

No, that's incorrect. If you eat well, the utility of continuing to eat declines. Helping others to eat thus becomes relatively more valuable. It's basic microeconomics.

That assumes I get utility out of helping others to eat. I might decide to hoard food so I could sell it for a profit later, taking advantage of the shortage. The thing about utility is that it is based upon my own preferences, and if I'm of a more selfish streak I'm not going to be inclined to share.

... no. Prior to the state, religion was quite healthy. It was even healthy during its growth. Only with the rise of interventionist democratic policy, opposed to the market, has religion begun to decline.

Religion and state have been coexistent for thousands of years. The monarchs and emperors of the past were part of a state just like our democratic regimes are today.

Well, if they're weak and can't defend themselves (or pay someone to do it), the market system will rectify this problem by removing the inefficient elements.

"Removing the inefficient elements" has a wonderful sound, like the sound of a body being dumped in to the harbor or photographs of a secretary's head being mailed to the CEO's office.

Well, if they're weak and can't defend themselves (or pay someone to do it), the market system will rectify this problem by removing the inefficient elements.

(this is fun. ;))
Yes, we have to keep the market trim and fit after all. :p

That assumes I get utility out of helping others to eat. I might decide to hoard food so I could sell it for a profit later, taking advantage of the shortage. The thing about utility is that it is based upon my own preferences, and if I'm of a more selfish streak I'm not going to be inclined to share.

You could, but helping others still has a rising level of utility relative to the diminishing returns of eating, and to selling it at a profit, or any number of things you can do for the lower orders of Maslowe's hierarchy of needs. This is why the market economy integrates, not separates, charity. (Many people have the need to help others too.)

Religion and state have been coexistent for thousands of years. The monarchs and emperors of the past were part of a state just like our democratic regimes are today.

But religion is a subsidiary institution- it is not dependent on any other institution, such as the state. It may be perverted by it, but it can exist freely of it.

"Removing the inefficient elements" has a wonderful sound, like the sound of a body being dumped in to the harbor or photographs of a secretary's head being mailed to the CEO's office.

Well, I suppose there's another option. If those inefficient elements can't afford to licence their own protection, I suppose they can pledge their services to an individual who can and enter their family into a permanent servant contract of sorts. The master could perhaps also give them some of his own land on a lease basis so that they can extract some sort of an income from substinence farming, and give the surplus production over to their master as rent. The servants could perhaps also be formed into levies when manpower is required to protect their benevolent master as a form of additional payment.

Well, I suppose there's another option. If those inefficient elements can't afford to licence their own protection, I suppose they can pledge their services to an individual who can and enter their family into a permanent servant contract of sorts. The master could perhaps also give them some of his own land on a lease basis so that they can extract some sort of an income from substinence farming, and give the surplus production over to their master as rent. The servants could perhaps also be formed into levies when manpower is required to protect their benevolent master as a form of additional payment.

Hmm, yes, this could work. I seem to recall that it was used by the extremely wealthy businessmen of the Houses of Bourbon and de'Medici during the Renaissance, and by the successful plantation farmers of the American South. Quite a good way to maximize profits from your property.

You could, but helping others still has a rising level of utility relative to the diminishing returns of eating, and to selling it at a profit, or any number of things you can do for the lower orders of Maslowe's hierarchy of needs. This is why the market economy integrates, not separates, charity. (Many people have the need to help others too.)

Yes, but there's still the issue of how much utility changes. If my utility for eating or hoarding food diminishes at a very slow rate, I will consume a massive amount before I even remotely consider sharing, and if my altruistic utility declines at a very fast rate, I won't share very much before alternatives become more attractive. For some people, their utility for sharing might be next to nothing; if anything, the utility we get from altruism has been declining as our society grows more and more materialistic and self-centered.

But there are a few problems in regard to the hierarchy itself. The first is that Maslow's hierarchy isn't universal; a person might have their upper level needs in a different order, or they might have their needs more equally ranked with less of a hierarchy. A person who places their safety near the top will be far more inclined to hoard and act selfishly than a person with another attribute near the top.

But religion is a subsidiary institution- it is not dependent on any other institution, such as the state. It may be perverted by it, but it can exist freely of it.

Yes, it can. The problem is, that hasn't been the case except a very long time ago and very recently when secularism in government became an established norm. Even in many democratic nations today there is a government church even if the citizens have freedom of worship.

Anarcho-capitalism is as dangerous and unworkable as communism, IMO. Their proponents can make them sound smooth and flawless on paper, but the reality is always something else.

Well, if they're weak and can't defend themselves (or pay someone to do it), the market system will rectify this problem by removing the inefficient elements.

(this is fun. ;))

it seems to me that what in fact happened was the inefficent elements decided to remove the market system.

So families are obviously an integral engine of the market economy.

Because lots of businesses are owned by families? So what?

Families are an "integral engine" of any economy.

And your ancestors and mine were farming dirt.

Indeed. So?

The Industrial Revolution and its long-term consequences and successors is a large part of the culprit... but only because markets can do more with the economy than ever before.

State religious socialism would be far more effective at protecting the church, the family, and the community. (Not that I advocate anything of the sort... I actually find the notion rather revolting.)

That would have to be the case, as before now we had more of a market economy, but now we have far more intervention.

Perhaps, but hardly the sort of intervention that would interfere with the community, the church, and the family. No one is burning down churches.

Like the Protestant work ethic?

The case could be made for arguing that yes, it does... but I'll admit that is more contestable.

However, the only reason the market preserves this is because it's useful on the market... not because it's God's will.

But if you'd pay attention, you'll notice that it all started to rise in the interventionist democratic era, not when the market economy was freer.

The causes are all rooted in the market response to modern production and technology. State intervention has absolutely nothing to do with it... except insofar as state censorship and the like have liberalized over time.

You are aware that religious conservatives and the free-marketists have clashed from the start? Only the shared interest in preserving traditional class society has downplayed this conflict, though it is certainly still present today.

No, that's incorrect. If you eat well, the utility of continuing to eat declines. Helping others to eat thus becomes relatively more valuable. It's basic microeconomics.

Ceteris paribus, yes. Unfortunately, things don't actually remain the same in the real world. First, once we are used to eating well, our desire to eat well increases substantially. Second, material wealth isolates us from those without it. Third, the culture associated with those who pursue material wealth counters the social bonds that produce altruism.

Only with the rise of interventionist democratic policy, opposed to the market, has religion begun to decline.

To the extent this is true, this is a case of shared causes... not cause and effect. "Interventionist democratic policy" is largely a response to the problems of the Industrial Revolution and its consequences... so is the degradation of religion.

it seems to me that what in fact happened was the inefficent elements decided to remove the market system.

Which is certainly the more desireable option.

Which is certainly the more desireable option.

Why do you hate freedom? :P

Why do you hate freedom? :P

Freedom stole my goat; I've been furious with her ever since.

when the market economy was freer

you think capitalist market relations are less dominant now than they were in the past?!

Why do you hate freedom? :P

gotta hate somethin'

you think capitalist market relations are less dominant now than they were in the past?!

I believe he is referring specifically to the United States.

Freedom stole my goat; I've been furious with her ever since.

I believe I have your goat. I will happily trade it for a female relative of yours.

I believe I have your goat.

You're an associate of Freedom?

*shakes fist* I hate you, too.

I will happily trade it for a female relative of yours.

How closely related do we have to be?

would the free market, without corporative or social welfare of any kind, nor taxes, allot for the ability of the corporation's power to be subject ENTIRELY to the will of the public interest, so anything going against the moral views of the public would be bad for business, with of course ensured constant competition.

of course playing the devil's advocate here, your vote would essentially correlate to sheer investment in corporate affairs.

Why do you hate freedom? :P

In Soviet Russia, freedom hates YOU!






Gah, I need to cut out these Russian reversals! :headbang:


:p

I believe he is referring specifically to the United States.

quite possibly. though this is another one of those areas where ancaps want it both ways - freer markets coincide nicely with the state's armed enforcers officially slaughtering strikers.

Gah, I need to cut out these Russian reversals!

in soviet russia, russian reversal need to cut out YOU!

in soviet russia, russian reversal need to cut out YOU!

LOL :D

As much as a free market system sounds good on paper, a business-intensive economy ironically thrives on regulation. Without regulation, you end up with monopolies and trusts, political corruption, boom-and-bust cycles, environmental collapse, and corporate states, none of which are good for the market economy. A powerhouse economy without a government to contain it and keep it equitable and responsible will eventually annihilate itself and become a corrupt pseudo-corporate autocracy, like in the coal mining towns of Appalachia or the East India companies. Government exists in part to keep the playing field level. Thomas Friedman, mentioned earlier, is careful to make this point.

As much as a free market system sounds good on paper, a business-intensive economy ironically thrives on regulation. Without regulation, you end up with monopolies and trusts, political corruption, boom-and-bust cycles, environmental collapse, and corporate states, none of which are good for the market economy.

So, no real change then?

Because lots of businesses are owned by families? So what?

If the market economy wasn't fused to the family, we wouldn't see quite so many family owned businesses... especially if they outnumber all the other kinds of businesses 9 to 1.

Indeed. So?

So it's obvious that other methods have been discovered to increase the economy's producing power. That doesn't mean the family has been "weakened."

The Industrial Revolution and its long-term consequences and successors is a large part of the culprit... but only because markets can do more with the economy than ever before.

No, the democratic state is the culprit. The family, church and community were still strong long into the mid-century. It's only very recently that we've seen this social unravelling.

State religious socialism would be far more effective at protecting the church, the family, and the community. (Not that I advocate anything of the sort... I actually find the notion rather revolting.)

The church, family, and community don't need anyone to prop them up, if people are free. They began to exist because people saw voluntary purpose in them, not because of the state.

Perhaps, but hardly the sort of intervention that would interfere with the community, the church, and the family. No one is burning down churches.

Bullshit. The state desires to supplant the family, the church, and the community through social intervention, so that it becomes the target of admiration as opposed to these voluntary, subsidiary institutions. They may not literally be burning down churches, but they're doing so metaphorically.

The case could be made for arguing that yes, it does... but I'll admit that is more contestable.

However, the only reason the market preserves this is because it's useful on the market... not because it's God's will.

You speak of "the market" as if it were some kind of overseer. It's merely the aggregate sum of individual action. In fact, the market is ultimately the "creator" of family, church and community because these institutions began through voluntary action.

liberalized[/i] over time.

No, no, no. The state has always desired to become more powerful, and its new mode is to take away the power of voluntary institutions through social regulation. It wishes to assume a paternalistic mantle and supplant freely chosen associations so as to imbed itself further in the people's consciousness.

You are aware that religious conservatives and the free-marketists have clashed from the start? Only the shared interest in preserving traditional class society has downplayed this conflict, though it is certainly still present today.

The problem with the religious conservatives is that they're Hobbesian, and think that the state is the creator of order. They don't see how freedom is the mother, not the daughter, of order, as Moliniari said. In other words, they're too stupid to realize the truth.

Ceteris paribus, yes. Unfortunately, things don't actually remain the same in the real world. First, once we are used to eating well, our desire to eat well increases substantially. Second, material wealth isolates us from those without it. Third, the culture associated with those who pursue material wealth counters the social bonds that produce altruism.

Interesting that you should bring up the culture, since it is a culture created by the state that has destroyed the basic moral foundation of the people in the democratic populace, through degradation of the family, church, and community. So yes, it does become harder in the democratic, interventionist state for altruism to spring up. But that's because it's the democratic, interventionist state and not the free market.

To the extent this is true, this is a case of shared causes... not cause and effect. "Interventionist democratic policy" is largely a response to the problems of the Industrial Revolution and its consequences... so is the degradation of religion.

Wrong. The interventionist democratic policy is the result of government pursuing its self-interest to maintain and gain power, not any wish to protect people. They are the ones who have degraded religion while they were at it, through their various social policies.

Yes, but there's still the issue of how much utility changes. If my utility for eating or hoarding food diminishes at a very slow rate, I will consume a massive amount before I even remotely consider sharing, and if my altruistic utility declines at a very fast rate, I won't share very much before alternatives become more attractive. For some people, their utility for sharing might be next to nothing; if anything, the utility we get from altruism has been declining as our society grows more and more materialistic and self-centered.

Maybe. But one way for people to change utility is to be brought up with good moral fiber. Unfortunately, in the democratic state that encourages profligacy and wastefulness, this is not possible. But in the free market, with the voluntary subsidiary institutions, it is the natural outcome that people become more altruistic.

But there are a few problems in regard to the hierarchy itself. The first is that Maslow's hierarchy isn't universal; a person might have their upper level needs in a different order, or they might have their needs more equally ranked with less of a hierarchy. A person who places their safety near the top will be far more inclined to hoard and act selfishly than a person with another attribute near the top.

But the lower needs are the more basic needs. Don't tell me that people want to work on rocket-science and help the poor first and then be safe.

Yes, it can. The problem is, that hasn't been the case except a very long time ago and very recently when secularism in government became an established norm. Even in many democratic nations today there is a government church even if the citizens have freedom of worship.

But it still is a subsidiary institution, regardless of what the state has done.

In practice this looks like it will be almost like the feudal system where those in power can do whatever they want to those without it and never have to fear the rule of law, as they control the law.

You're poor/middle class.
Some rich guy rapes your daughter.
You hire an agency to bring him to justice.
He outbids you and has you killed by the agency or has you killed by his own 'staff'.
He faces no penalty as nobody who can rival his bid cares about you or your daughter.

It's basically a dressed-up 'theory' of feudalism.

It is a return to rule by the people with the most prowess at arms, and serfdom or slavery for the rest.

Well if people are so worried about starving to death, they can work harder. Not my problem.
Isn't that what they usualy call turbo or predator capitalism? Sounds pretty Charles Dickensish.

So it's obvious that other methods have been discovered to increase the economy's producing power. That doesn't mean the family has been "weakened."

It has been, and in a way that has nothing to do with family ownership. The connection of families to specific locations has been broken.

No, the democratic state is the culprit. The family, church and community were still strong long into the mid-century. It's only very recently that we've seen this social unravelling.

All cultural changes take time... state intervention has hardly been on the increase "very recently" either.

The church, family, and community don't need anyone to prop them up, if people are free.

The church does, because it has always thrived on people's lack of freedom. The community and the family... well, it depends on what kind of families and communities you want.

They began to exist because people saw voluntary purpose in them,

The family and the community, yes. Organized religion... much less so.

And market capitalism is only superficially "voluntary."

The state desires to supplant the family, the church, and the community through social intervention,

And how is it doing so?

You speak of "the market" as if it were some kind of overseer. It's merely the aggregate sum of individual action.

No, it isn't. Parents feeding children is not a market relation, but it certainly is voluntary individual action.

In fact, the market is ultimately the "creator" of family, church and community because these institutions began through voluntary action.

The market can be destroyed with voluntary action... indeed, amongst families and friends it generally is.

The state has always desired to become more powerful, and its new mode is to take away the power of voluntary institutions through social regulation.

That is hardly "new" and does not at all correlate with the degradation of religion, family, and community.

Indeed, separation of church and state is a fairly new concept.

The problem with the religious conservatives is that they're Hobbesian, and think that the state is the creator of order. They don't see how freedom is the mother, not the daughter, of order, as Moliniari said. In other words, they're too stupid to realize the truth.

I agree that freedom and order can go hand in hand, but the religious conservatives desire a specific kind of order - one that is antithetical to freedom, even the kinds of freedom available under market capitalism.

Implicitly, they recognize this... that is why they recruit the state to their side.

Leave people alone, let them be free, and they will engage in same-sex intercourse, they will abort pregnancies, they will watch pornography, they will have premarital and extramarital sex, they will ignore traditional gender roles, and so on. Those who want people to obey their stringent interpretation of God's Law have good reason to fear individual freedom.

Interesting that you should bring up the culture, since it is a culture created by the state that has destroyed the basic moral foundation of the people in the democratic populace, through degradation of the family, church, and community.

And how does it do this?

So yes, it does become harder in the democratic, interventionist state for altruism to spring up. But that's because it's the democratic, interventionist state and not the free market.

It's not the democratic, interventionist state that promotes materialism and self-interest.

Wrong. The interventionist democratic policy is the result of government pursuing its self-interest to maintain and gain power, not any wish to protect people.

Then why do you call it "democratic"?

They are the ones who have degraded religion while they were at it, through their various social policies.

Again, how so?

Maybe. But one way for people to change utility is to be brought up with good moral fiber.

And with long working hours and a corporate (not state - I'll admit that they fuse together, but the initiative here is from corporations trying to sell things) mass culture that rejects such "good moral fiber", that isn't going to happen.

Unfortunately, in the democratic state that encourages profligacy and wastefulness, this is not possible.

"Profligacy and wastefulness" are features of material wealth... indeed, in our market-suffused culture, they are practically status symbols.

would not an unregulated economy, devoid of government grants or corporate welfare, allow for corporations to be subject entirely to the will of the people, hence, and unlawful business move in offense to the morality views of the nation, whether in religious morality, or corporate ethics, hurt the business of that corporations, of course with a constantly ensured system of competition as would exist in anarchy, without government grants of the like.

would not an unregulated economy, devoid of government grants or corporate welfare, allow for corporations to be subject entirely to the will of the people
Erm, think this through - firms granted subsidies, and which are thereby sheltered from competition which better serves consumer demands (as opposed to garnering the favour of corrupt politicians), are going to be more responsive to said demands? That is somewhat specious...

would not an unregulated economy, devoid of government grants or corporate welfare, allow for corporations to be subject entirely to the will of the people, hence, and unlawful business move in offense to the morality views of the nation, whether in religious morality, or corporate ethics, hurt the business of that corporations, of course with a constantly ensured system of competition as would exist in anarchy, without government grants of the like.

That would be easier to understand if you added a few full stops where needed. But theres no reason why corporations wouldn't survive despite doing things seen as unethical.

It has been, and in a way that has nothing to do with family ownership. The connection of families to specific locations has been broken.

That was caused by things such as the Enclosure Act, not voluntary market relations.

All cultural changes take time... state intervention has hardly been on the increase "very recently" either.

So I suppose Social Security, welfare, books and books worth of regulations, legislative law etc. have been with us since we were cavemen? They arose most spectacularly after World War I, along with social disintegration.

The church does, because it has always thrived on people's lack of freedom. The community and the family... well, it depends on what kind of families and communities you want.

The church is based upon man's desire to understand his place in the world, and is a natural manifestation of that desire to know more. It is also a voluntary institution. And what families and communities are you proposing that I want? (No, I don't believe in a Roman pater familias with the power of life and death, but that was enforced by the Roman's laws, not voluntarism (obviously.))

The family and the community, yes. Organized religion... much less so.

Organized religion can be perverted, but it is originally a voluntary institution. The early Christians, for example, weren't 'forced' into Christianity (in fact, they were often forced to be otherwise.) Of course, once the State decided it liked that religion, it all went downhill from there.

And market capitalism is only superficially "voluntary."

Yes, I was forced to go and buy toothpaste today because of the evil class enemy, not because I wanted it.

And how is it doing so?

Judging from the rise in crime, disintegration of the family, and decrease in church attendance, wonderfully.

No, it isn't. Parents feeding children is not a market relation, but it certainly is voluntary individual action.

Yes, it is. They use their property to feed their children. It is not a buying and selling, but it is still a transfer of their property to others.

The market can be destroyed with voluntary action... indeed, amongst families and friends it generally is.

This is nonsense. You conflate transfer of property without money to non-market action. But the fact that it is property that is transferred makes it inherently a market action.

That is hardly "new" and does not at all correlate with the degradation of religion, family, and community.

But before the state didn't dare mess with the family. But now, since it can wave its impervious "Will of the People" banner, it can expand its power to destroy even these subsidiary institutions and greatly increase its power.

Indeed, separation of church and state is a fairly new concept.

Yes, and that is because the state wished to make itself a materialist church of sorts.

I agree that freedom and order can go hand in hand, but the religious conservatives desire a specific kind of order - one that is antithetical to freedom, even the kinds of freedom available under market capitalism.

I wouldn't argue with that, hence why I said that they think order is more important than liberty.

Implicitly, they recognize this... that is why they recruit the state to their side.

Leave people alone, let them be free, and they will engage in same-sex intercourse, they will abort pregnancies, they will watch pornography, they will have premarital and extramarital sex, they will ignore traditional gender roles, and so on. Those who want people to obey their stringent interpretation of God's Law have good reason to fear individual freedom.

No. Without the state taking over their lives, family, church and community, the original social safety net, will be restored. And it is being raised in this context that people will regain their morals. So they will behave well without being forced to do so.

And how does it do this?

Easy. It degrades the value of the family, church and community by providing those social services at no cost where the family, church and community would desire reciprocation. With the state taking care of their retirement, parents have less incentive to have children, which were the manner by which the old were taken care of originally, and less desire to raise their children well, since they do not need their good will. We can also see this in the raise of divorce- married couples do not need the other person as much and can thus afford to separate, and can also treat each other much worse than would be allowed in a free order. And on and on and on. Bismarck knew this perfectly well, that's why he made Prussia a welfare state.

It's not the democratic, interventionist state that promotes materialism and self-interest.

Yes it is, because the state promises to coddle everyone regardless of how deleterious their actions are. All of the ill effects are socialized, so they can act as poorly as they wish.

Then why do you call it "democratic"?

Because democracy depends on a fictitious "will of the people" over patrimony. The state is still out for itself in all cases.

Again, how so?

The state places it in such a place that people can get aid without even trying to behave well. A church would require moral standards of those it helps, and would try to promote them. The state just helps out because it wants that person's continued support, regardless of how irresponsible they are.

And with long working hours and a corporate (not state - I'll admit that they fuse together, but the initiative here is from corporations trying to sell things) mass culture that rejects such "good moral fiber", that isn't going to happen.

No. Without inflation and taxes making it necessary that both parents work or welfare that makes people not work at all and gain the life skills that labor gains, the family will resurge and build moral fiber in people. The companies will either have to change their act in light of these consumer preferences, or go out of business.

"Profligacy and wastefulness" are features of material wealth... indeed, in our market-suffused culture, they are practically status symbols.

But these are new elements based upon the present-orientation that the democratic state brings. Beforehand, farsightedness and wisdom were the celebrated aspects of material wealth. That's why the old rich, who are far more conservative in the use of their wealth and focus upon the long-term, despise the nouveaux rich, who are most often brought up by working the state to their advantage and have been raised in a social strata that celebrates wastefulness.

That was caused by things such as the Enclosure Act, not voluntary market relations.

And that's why it continues unabated to this day, and is present in all developed market economies?

So I suppose Social Security, welfare, books and books worth of regulations, legislative law etc. have been with us since we were cavemen?

No, but "social regulation" has been.

They arose most spectacularly after World War I, along with social disintegration.

Again, the causes were the same.

The church is based upon man's desire to understand his place in the world,

Perhaps, but it is much more than that. Typically, organized religion seeks to control people's behavior, and as far as individual freedom goes, enforcing the rules through social taboo or state intervention is at most just a difference of degree.

It is no surprise - indeed, fully predictable - that when social taboos fail, or they seem insufficient, it has historically turned to the state for aid.

It is also a voluntary institution.

In a manner of speaking, yes... these days, no one is ordered at gunpoint to join. But the historical variation there is considerable as well.

And what families and communities are you proposing that I want?

I have no idea, in all honesty.

Organized religion can be perverted, but it is originally a voluntary institution. The early Christians, for example, weren't 'forced' into Christianity (in fact, they were often forced to be otherwise.)

Certain religions began as voluntary institutions, yes. Most of them today are voluntary institutions. But organized religion itself has been propagated and manipulated by states from the start. It is a very ancient method of control.

Yes, I was forced to go and buy toothpaste today because of the evil class enemy, not because I wanted it.

Like I said - it is indeed superficially voluntary. The problem is that the voluntary aspect is only superficial. Both our needs and the ways in which we satisfy them are in large part artificially determined by the economic system.

Judging from the rise in crime, disintegration of the family, and decrease in church attendance, wonderfully.

You are giving the effects, but you have abstained to mention the methods.

Yes, it is. They use their property to feed their children. It is not a buying and selling, but it is still a transfer of their property to others.

Yeah, so?

Under this sort of logic, a commune operating according to communist economics can embody market relations, which is clearly a nonsensical conclusion. Your definitions are far too broad.

This is nonsense. You conflate transfer of property without money to non-market action.

No, barter is a market action. Contingent transfer with the explicit expectation of recipricocity is a market action. Mere transfer of goods is not necessarily.

But before the state didn't dare mess with the family.

State regulation of marriage is very old.

it can expand its power to destroy even these subsidiary institutions

And yet it hasn't done so. The only families with which the state interferes are non-traditional ones.

Yes, and that is because the state wished to make itself a materialist church of sorts.

Then shouldn't the social disintegration you refer to be very old, instead of a new thing?

No. Without the state taking over their lives, family, church and community, the original social safety net, will be restored. And it is being raised in this context that people will regain their morals. So they will behave well without being forced to do so.

I don't follow your logic here at all.

Easy. It degrades the value of the family, church and community by providing those social services at no cost where the family, church and community would desire reciprocation.

It seems to me that your objection in this respect is not so much that the state violates individual freedom (though that would no doubt come into play with regard to property rights) as that when the state sets conditions on its aid, those conditions are not the same as the conditions you think the family, church, and community would set.

Your objection here, if anything, is that the state permits its dependents too much freedom... and in your anarcho-capitalist society, the institutions you value would strive to ensure that their dependents would have proper "moral fiber" by threatening to cut off their aid otherwise.

This is precisely the degrading logic of the market - the notion that people should use their economic power to control others, to make a profit off others, instead of valuing their dignity and autonomy and giving unconditionally. (Or, if there are conditions, having those conditions be directed towards ensuring that the person has the strength and independence to be truly free - not towards ensuring that he or she complies with a set of rules.)

It is immoral and exploitative to demand reciprocation from a needy person. Her welfare is valuable in and of itself.

With the state taking care of their retirement, parents have less incentive to have children, which were the manner by which the old were taken care of originally,

And this is a perfect example of how a free market denies people freedom.

Why should anyone have to have children to ensure that they are provided for in retirement?

and less desire to raise their children well, since they do not need their good will.

The fact that they are not dependent on their children means that they are MORE capable of raising them well, not less... it means that they can value their children's welfare and freedom for its own sake, instead of seeking to ensure that their children will aid them later.

Independence (or non-contingent dependence) protects personal autonomy, and also curbs the desire to deprive others of their autonomy. The market, by promoting dependence, does the opposite.

But to return for a moment to the point of this argument, the question of whether the market promotes or degrades the family, community, and church - consider the way in which economic pressures encourage long, taxing hours of work distant from the home, work that robs the opportunity for parents to raise their children well, however we wish to define "well." The result is a high degree of reliance on corporate-dominated mass culture.

It seems to me that if you want to find a culprit, that is a far more likely one... social programs that protect people from such economic pressures permit more, not less, decent child-raising.

We can also see this in the raise of divorce- married couples do not need the other person as much and can thus afford to separate, and can also treat each other much worse than would be allowed in a free order.

If a marriage is harder to dissolve, it is less difficult, not more, to treat the other person horribly; if the marriage is easier to dissolve, the other person will simply leave. This is the immense benefit of free association, and is yet another area where market pressures restrict individual autonomy. Make someone economically dependent on his or her partner, and he or she has no way out.

Yes it is, because the state promises to coddle everyone regardless of how deleterious their actions are.

To themselves, perhaps (not really, but I'll give it for this moment.)

It follows that such state "coddl[ing]" means that people can focus less on their personal material needs, and more on other pursuits.

Because democracy depends on a fictitious "will of the people"

If the "will of the people" is fictitious, then it is not democracy.

No. Without inflation and taxes making it necessary that both parents work or welfare that makes people not work at all and gain the life skills that labor gains, the family will resurge and build moral fiber in people.

Considering that working hours are lowest in areas with higher taxes and better-funded social programs, that hardly makes much sense.

I love anarcho-capitalism! I feel it is not only the best economically, but also socially- the family, the church, and the community should take back their status as the prime, voluntary foundations of society versus the coercive democratic Leviathan that drags us down.

You know, I vomited and swallowed it after reading that.

So I suppose Social Security, welfare, books and books worth of regulations, legislative law etc. have been with us since we were cavemen? They arose most spectacularly after World War I, along with social disintegration.

You're talking about social fragmentation. Sociologists ascribe the breakdown of traditional social norms and structures to many factors. However, the most notable among them are the astronomical improvements in communication technology since the turn of the 20'th century and the increasing hyper-urbanization and impersonality of modern societies. When taken in tandem these two factors create a cold, impersonal, gigantic global society with no emotional or personal safety net for the common man. This leads to the buildup of social alienation or "anomy," which creates a renewed search for structure and familiarity in new places. Hence the breakdown of traditional structures, since they have proved incapable of providing support in the current day and age.


[QUOTE]Organized religion can be perverted, but it is originally a voluntary institution. The early Christians, for example, weren't 'forced' into Christianity (in fact, they were often forced to be otherwise.) Of course, once the State decided it liked that religion, it all went downhill from there.

No, religion is not a voluntary institution once it reaches a certain threshold. Threats of hellfire and damnation only work so well at converting the original flock, but once whole communities accept the faith, social pressure and institutionalized momentum take over, and it becomes much harder to leave the fold without significant social penalties.


No. Without the state taking over their lives, family, church and community, the original social safety net, will be restored. And it is being raised in this context that people will regain their morals. So they will behave well without being forced to do so.

Yeah....Somalia is sure thriving under the "original safety net....." Looks like religion, the family, and anarchy are doing a bang-up job there. :headbang:

And that's why it continues unabated to this day, and is present in all developed market economies?

It continues unabated today because of urban welfare programs.

No, but "social regulation" has been.

Bertrand de Jouvenel writes "The monarch was looked only as a judge and not a legislator. He made subjective rights respected and respected them himself; he found these rights in being and and did not dispute that they were anterior to his authority... Subjective rights were not held on precarious tenure of grant but were freehold possessions. The sovereign's right was also a freehold. It was also a subjective right as much as the other rights, although of a much more elevated dignity, but it could not take other's rights away." This obviously precludes monarchical social regulation. However, now we have books and books worth of various regulations that the state has imposed through legislative law.

Again, the causes were the same.

The cause of all this social disintegration is the democratic interventionist state. Not capitalism.

Perhaps, but it is much more than that. Typically, organized religion seeks to control people's behavior, and as far as individual freedom goes, enforcing the rules through social taboo or state intervention is at most just a difference of degree.

No, it really isn't. You have no right to make me associate with you. The difference between social taboo and state intervention is that in social taboo I don't associate with you; in state intervention, I force make you do what I want.

It is no surprise - indeed, fully predictable - that when social taboos fail, or they seem insufficient, it has historically turned to the state for aid.

Hence why we should get rid of the state so that it does not corrupt the other foundations.

In a manner of speaking, yes... these days, no one is ordered at gunpoint to join. But the historical variation there is considerable as well.

But religion's genesis is voluntary, even if it may evolve into a coercive mess.

I have no idea, in all honesty.

Oh. Damn. I wanted you to elaborate.

Certain religions began as voluntary institutions, yes. Most of them today are voluntary institutions. But organized religion itself has been propagated and manipulated by states from the start. It is a very ancient method of control.

Hence, again, why we should get rid of the state so that it stops corrupting religion.

Like I said - it is indeed superficially voluntary. The problem is that the voluntary aspect is only superficial. Both our needs and the ways in which we satisfy them are in large part artificially determined by the economic system.

So, applying them to my toothpaste, I do not actually want healthy, clean teeth. The class enemy is making me buy the toothpaste so that they can get money, and are thus exploiting me.

You are giving the effects, but you have abstained to mention the methods.

I elaborate below.

Yeah, so?

Under this sort of logic, a commune operating according to communist economics can embody market relations, which is clearly a nonsensical conclusion. Your definitions are far too broad.

No, my definitions are perfectly fine. They may not be necessarily buying and selling, but they are transferring property voluntarily. So it is a market transaction.

No, barter is a market action. Contingent transfer with the explicit expectation of recipricocity is a market action. Mere transfer of goods is not necessarily.

Yes, it is, because it is our property that we are transferring, and property is part of market transactions.

State regulation of marriage is very old.

But it didn't try and take away marriage's place, and it mostly just enforced what the church said in its marriage contracts.

And yet it hasn't done so. The only families with which the state interferes are non-traditional ones.

It interferes with the traditional family too, because it is trying to take its place through social welfare and the like, which has traditionally been the place of the family, not the state.

Then shouldn't the social disintegration you refer to be very old, instead of a new thing?

No, because they didn't overstep their bounds and try to erradicate the institution beforehand. Now, however, it wishes to supplant the original institution for its own benefit.

I don't follow your logic here at all.

I explain this below.

It seems to me that your objection in this respect is not so much that the state violates individual freedom (though that would no doubt come into play with regard to property rights) as that when the state sets conditions on its aid, those conditions are not the same as the conditions you think the family, church, and community would set.

Yes, but the family, church and community are voluntarily created institutions based upon free action. Their actions, since they are merely abstractions of individuals, are the reflections of what those free individuals desire. Therefore, the state IS eliminating individual freedom because it wishes to supplant its standards in the place of those of free individuals.

Your objection here, if anything, is that the state permits its dependents too much freedom... and in your anarcho-capitalist society, the institutions you value would strive to ensure that their dependents would have proper "moral fiber" by threatening to cut off their aid otherwise.

No, it is not that the state permits "too much freedom." It is that it subsidizes people for bad behavior. People are free to behave badly in an anarcho-capitalist society, but they will have to weigh their bad behavior in terms of its full effects, rather than being able to enjoy the good effects of their misdeeds and shove the bad effects onto others.

This is precisely the degrading logic of the market - the notion that people should use their economic power to control others, to make a profit off others, instead of valuing their dignity and autonomy and giving unconditionally. (Or, if there are conditions, having those conditions be directed towards ensuring that the person has the strength and independence to be truly free - not towards ensuring that he or she complies with a set of rules.)

But no one has the right to make others his servants, as making people "give unconditionally" would have. If my neighbor is smoking crack and having sex with prostitutes all the time, why should I have to subsidize his lifestyle?

It is immoral and exploitative to demand reciprocation from a needy person. Her welfare is valuable in and of itself.

What if that reciprocation helps that person from getting into the trouble again? If you teach that needy person the work ethic that will give her the chance to support herself in exchange for the assistance you give now, why should you choose NOT to help her in this fashion?

And this is a perfect example of how a free market denies people freedom.

No. Though you may have the power to do almost whatever you want, you do not have the right to make other people accept it. That is their right to their conscience.

Why should anyone have to have children to ensure that they are provided for in retirement?

They don't necessarily have to have children- they could take care of nephews and nieces or adopt ones. But they should not be able to expect to be bastards in their youth and then have everyone cowtow to them in their old age.

The fact that they are not dependent on their children means that they are MORE capable of raising them well, not less... it means that they can value their children's welfare and freedom for its own sake, instead of seeking to ensure that their children will aid them later.

If I have the government eager to give me money for absolutely nothing than possible political support, why should I raise my child to take care of me in my old age? His good will is far more irrelevant to me, and thus I can treat him however badly I feel like, since it doesn't really matter whether or not he supports me.

Independence (or non-contingent dependence) protects personal autonomy, and also curbs the desire to deprive others of their autonomy. The market, by promoting dependence, does the opposite.

There's nothing wrong with dependence, because people cannot truly be independent, or at least cannot do so and expect a good standard of living. Could you feed, clothe, entertain and do all the other things for yourself if you were living on an island?

But to return for a moment to the point of this argument, the question of whether the market promotes or degrades the family, community, and church - consider the way in which economic pressures encourage long, taxing hours of work distant from the home, work that robs the opportunity for parents to raise their children well, however we wish to define "well." The result is a high degree of reliance on corporate-dominated mass culture.

But both parents working has arisen not because of the corporations, but because of inflation and taxation robbing people of their purchasing power and thus necessitating that they both go to work to provide for their needs.

It seems to me that if you want to find a culprit, that is a far more likely one... social programs that protect people from such economic pressures permit more, not less, decent child-raising.

But social programs encourage present-orientation, a "something for nothing" attitude, as do the taxes and inflation that support them. There was already a social program that protected children- family, church, and community. The social programs simply gave license to parents to ignore their family ties, what their church said and what their community said in order to act as badly as they wanted to. And this same present-oriented irresponsibility is in turn fostered in the children, thus making them worse off than they could have been.

If a marriage is harder to dissolve, it is less difficult, not more, to treat the other person horribly; if the marriage is easier to dissolve, the other person will simply leave. This is the immense benefit of free association, and is yet another area where market pressures restrict individual autonomy. Make someone economically dependent on his or her partner, and he or she has no way out.

No. The economic aspect of marriage is thus- if you go around cheating on your spouse or abusing them, you will lose their economic support. If the other person thinks you are a cheater or an abuser, they will be more likely to deny you that economic support in the first place. So it is imperative if you want the economic support that you treat your spouse well. But if the government is always ready to step in and subsidize you no matter how irresponsible you are, the support and good will of your spouse (and the families) is irrelevant. This is why we have seen a rise in single-parenting and divorce.

It follows that such state "coddl[ing]" means that people can focus less on their personal material needs, and more on other pursuits.

No. If people can reject the good will of their family, their church, and their community, then they can be far more selfish than otherwise, since they can get someone to subsidize them no matter how rotten they are.

If the "will of the people" is fictitious, then it is not democracy.

But it is still based upon this fiction- hence why I call it democracy.

Considering that working hours are lowest in areas with higher taxes and better-funded social programs, that hardly makes much sense.

In the US, women started going away from the home and to the workplace in the 70's and 80's, which coincided with high inflation and bracket creep. Take these out of the equation, you have more purchasing power to take care of basic needs, which means that the value of using your time to raise children rises relatively. Perhaps social programs will reduce the working hours, but this has the unforeseen side-effects of reducing work ethic since the government will take care of you regardless of what you do, and also weakens the other voluntary institutions.

I have a quick question: Why are you so gung-ho about the state's social programs? Being an anarcho-communist, I would think you would be more cynical about them, perhaps thinking that they were some sort of tool of the class enemy. But you rather seem to like what the state does here. Why is that?

Yeah, so?

Under this sort of logic, a commune operating according to communist economics can embody market relations, which is clearly a nonsensical conclusion. Your definitions are far too broad.

No, barter is a market action. Contingent transfer with the explicit expectation of recipricocity is a market action. Mere transfer of goods is not necessarily.
Since when do market transactions only apply to exchanges with a profit-seeking intention? Gifts, too, are a form of exchange (under which category charity itself falls). Of course, I could say that someone who devotes their time and resources to someone else does profit - psychologically.

What would distinguish an anarcho-capitalist from a left-anarchist commune is that the former would be based off private property, the latter off communal ownership of resources.

Considering that working hours are lowest in areas with higher taxes and better-funded social programs, that hardly makes much sense.
Well, when the State grants larger welfare subsidies to larger families, it does of course encourage procreation for the purpose of self-enrichment on part of the parents.

the boom bust cycle is caused by government's central bank's printing up money, thereby lowering interest rates below that which they would (should) be. There would now be more creditors than debtors, given the increase in money, explainging the lower rates.
The interest rate should be at is reflective of consumers time preference, that is, their value of the present over the future.

the boom can also be caused by fractional reserve banking, which essentially expands the money supply in a similar way, as not all the money on the market is backed, this is how the depression of 1873 and 93 were caused

the boom allows for business to expand into areas not profitable given normal circumstances, ie, no money pumping. these business' are not profitable in real terms, just funny money terms during the money supply's expansion. Therefore, they're losing money even the entire time the boom is in effect, and when the money supply fully adjusts to the new amount, the loss is then reflected, and those businesses also must be shut down, Recession.

What there would be is a business that doesn't practice fractional reserve banking, which is essentially fraud, taking someone's money out, loaning it at risk, and then returning it, people go to jail for that, Governments go to... um... hell, I hope.

And regulation simply leads to reduced competition. They push out competition by raising the costs of doing business. and then yes, that regulation can lead to abusive monopolies. subsidies also can lead to monopolies, despite not being the most efficient at meeting consumer demands. Say agriculture is exposed to free trade. Then local farmers should get an edge over distant producers, as they avoid transportation, but it isn't so, because government subsides massive farms out in ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />California to produce all the strawberries of the nation. An example of government being hurtful to the environment

But forget about eliminating the business cycle, Helicopter Ben will keep at it

but Abusive monopolies aren't actually possible without the state. With no regulation, there would be no reason a new company can't simply start up. This potential competition in effect, forces the 'monopoly' to not extort, as they'd lose their market share to startups.

Political Corruption of what? There would be no area for them to get earmarks out of, subsidies, loans (although the government wants to do the latter, it's part of how the Fed expands the money supply)

All of those are horrible for the economy too, instead of purchasing from business with the lowest cost, you're now purchasing from the one with political connections. This is why America is so wasteful. Costs are hidden from consumer's through subsidy's and loans. What they spend isn't reflective of it's actual cost. If it was, there would be less usage, as higher costs always do.

And once again, Investors will always invest in the corporation that is most profitable, but the corporation that is most profitable is the one that best meets consumer demands (without government interference, as it would be in anarcho-capitalism) therefore, if the consumer demands any given object, produced in a certain manner, environmentally friendly for instance, it would be so.

As long as consumer's desire to not have a state, it wouldn't happen, they'd simply fund a business to fight the corporation attempting a takeover. And really, if it is realistic to have no state, why would you want one again, when you know for a fact it's uselessness.

So, Government is the cause of things being uneven, even granting advantage, not a regulator to keep it even.

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't last long because corporations would become governments.

Judging from the rise in crime, disintegration of the family, and decrease in church attendance, wonderfully.

The rate for violent crimes is going down. I'm an agnostic. Church attendance rates dropping are ok with me.

No. Without the state taking over their lives, family, church and community, the original social safety net, will be restored. And it is being raised in this context that people will regain their morals. So they will behave well without being forced to do so.

Ummmm.....they will be forced to behave by economic circumstances at least in your view. I don't see how people will regain their morals when they are forced by circumstances to do things out of self-interest.

Easy. It degrades the value of the family, church and community by providing those social services at no cost where the family, church and community would desire reciprocation. With the state taking care of their retirement, parents have less incentive to have children, which were the manner by which the old were taken care of originally, and less desire to raise their children well, since they do not need their good will. We can also see this in the raise of divorce- married couples do not need the other person as much and can thus afford to separate, and can also treat each other much worse than would be allowed in a free order. And on and on and on. Bismarck knew this perfectly well, that's why he made Prussia a welfare state.

The birthrate was falling before Social Security came about and increased during the baby boom after it was set up. Families, churches, and communities weren't very efficient since the poverty rate among the elderly decreased significantly since the onset of Social Security. Married couples no longer need each other as much because of the material wealth of our society. And how could Bismark destroy the family? When he instituted state pensions the age of retirement was beyong the average life expectancy of the German citizenry.

Yes it is, because the state promises to coddle everyone regardless of how deleterious their actions are. All of the ill effects are socialized, so they can act as poorly as they wish.

Yes, our social welfare system is so very generous. :rolleyes:


Because democracy depends on a fictitious "will of the people" over patrimony. The state is still out for itself in all cases.

Unlike you and your fictitious "natural rights".

The state places it in such a place that people can get aid without even trying to behave well. A church would require moral standards of those it helps, and would try to promote them. The state just helps out because it wants that person's continued support, regardless of how irresponsible they are.

Yes lets accept the active paternalism of churches over the more passive paternalism of government.

No. Without inflation and taxes making it necessary that both parents work or welfare that makes people not work at all and gain the life skills that labor gains, the family will resurge and build moral fiber in people. The companies will either have to change their act in light of these consumer preferences, or go out of business.

Ummm... inflation has been pretty low the last couple decades. Also more women work because incomes have increased. Having children now leads to a high opportunity costs even though the cost for their basic necessities is down as a percentage of income. Lowering taxes would make having children even more costly in terms of what they could have made otherwise.

But these are new elements based upon the present-orientation that the democratic state brings. Beforehand, farsightedness and wisdom were the celebrated aspects of material wealth. That's why the old rich, who are far more conservative in the use of their wealth and focus upon the long-term, despise the nouveaux rich, who are most often brought up by working the state to their advantage and have been raised in a social strata that celebrates wastefulness.

You mean the old rich who gained their wealth through aristicratic privelages granted by the state or state granted monopolies?

yeh it's the ideology for people who only ever think of economics and don't believe in the social aspect of humans.

the boom bust cycle is caused by government's central bank's printing up money, thereby lowering interest rates below that which they would (should) be. There would now be more creditors than debtors, given the increase in money, explainging the lower rates.
The interest rate should be at is reflective of consumers time preference, that is, their value of the present over the future.

the boom can also be caused by fractional reserve banking, which essentially expands the money supply in a similar way, as not all the money on the market is backed, this is how the depression of 1873 and 93 were caused

the boom allows for business to expand into areas not profitable given normal circumstances, ie, no money pumping. these business' are not profitable in real terms, just funny money terms during the money supply's expansion. Therefore, they're losing money even the entire time the boom is in effect, and when the money supply fully adjusts to the new amount, the loss is then reflected, and those businesses also must be shut down, Recession.

What there would be is a business that doesn't practice fractional reserve banking, which is essentially fraud, taking someone's money out, loaning it at risk, and then returning it, people go to jail for that, Governments go to... um... hell, I hope.

And regulation simply leads to reduced competition. They push out competition by raising the costs of doing business. and then yes, that regulation can lead to abusive monopolies. subsidies also can lead to monopolies, despite not being the most efficient at meeting consumer demands. Say agriculture is exposed to free trade. Then local farmers should get an edge over distant producers, as they avoid transportation, but it isn't so, because government subsides massive farms out in ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />California to produce all the strawberries of the nation. An example of government being hurtful to the environment

But forget about eliminating the business cycle, Helicopter Ben will keep at it

but Abusive monopolies aren't actually possible without the state. With no regulation, there would be no reason a new company can't simply start up. This potential competition in effect, forces the 'monopoly' to not extort, as they'd lose their market share to startups.

Political Corruption of what? There would be no area for them to get earmarks out of, subsidies, loans (although the government wants to do the latter, it's part of how the Fed expands the money supply)

All of those are horrible for the economy too, instead of purchasing from business with the lowest cost, you're now purchasing from the one with political connections. This is why America is so wasteful. Costs are hidden from consumer's through subsidy's and loans. What they spend isn't reflective of it's actual cost. If it was, there would be less usage, as higher costs always do.

And once again, Investors will always invest in the corporation that is most profitable, but the corporation that is most profitable is the one that best meets consumer demands (without government interference, as it would be in anarcho-capitalism) therefore, if the consumer demands any given object, produced in a certain manner, environmentally friendly for instance, it would be so.

As long as consumer's desire to not have a state, it wouldn't happen, they'd simply fund a business to fight the corporation attempting a takeover. And really, if it is realistic to have no state, why would you want one again, when you know for a fact it's uselessness.

So, Government is the cause of things being uneven, even granting advantage, not a regulator to keep it even.

Since when do market transactions only apply to exchanges with a profit-seeking intention? Gifts, too, are a form of exchange

since market relation meant something specific rather than 'anything and everything people happen to do'

Since when do market transactions only apply to exchanges with a profit-seeking intention?

Since we decided to go with terms that actually mean something.

"Market" refers to trade - to buying and selling.

Gifts, too, are a form of exchange

Not in the sense that a market transaction is.

Of course, I could say that someone who devotes their time and resources to someone else does profit - psychologically.

Perhaps, but this is an entirely different kind of profit.

What would distinguish an anarcho-capitalist from a left-anarchist commune is that the former would be based off private property, the latter off communal ownership of resources.

And if all the property is owned privately... but the owners unconditionally permit the members of the commune to treat it as if it were communally owned? Or if the commune itself owned it all through voluntary transfers?

Well, when the State grants larger welfare subsidies to larger families, it does of course encourage procreation for the purpose of self-enrichment on part of the parents.

Perhaps it lessens the disincentive, but if you're looking to make yourself richer, having lots of children is not a very good idea.

It's not starving to death I was talking about so much as getting shot by a hired gang for the grievous crime of leaving a job, or organizing a union, or the like.You already get shot for the grievous crime of not paying the gang (government).


The more you pay, the more you get... so the rich will control the "protection agencies", and those that offer services to the poor won't want to insure against the better-trained and armed ones that offer services to the rich.The rich already control the "protection agencies" they have just convinced people like you that you have a choice.

Perhaps, but this is an entirely different kind of profit.

Profit in pecuniary terms serves the purpose of acquiring goods in order to consume them, providing oneself with increased happiness, or however you want to term it. So ultimately it does not differ much at all.

And if all the property is owned privately... but the owners unconditionally permit the members of the commune to treat it as if it were communally owned?
Then it would have a communal nature to it. I do not deny that families may have this structure, but I fail to see how this defies the market. One exchanges effort/time/resources for whatever benefit they feel they will derive from their kin. If they feel no utility is there to be maximised, they will refrain from having a family.

You already get shot for the grievous crime of not paying the gang (government).

that's the best part about 'anarcho'-capitalism. they literally claim that the state is bad because it is like the mob, and therefore we should hand the state over to the actual mob.

;)

The rich already control the "protection agencies"

I don't know; the state, however subordinate it is to the class interests of the rich, hasn't been able to murder striking unionists and troublesome radicals in a while.

Anarchy is only possible when the individual not only is able but knows he is able to defend himself from the rest of society.

The person can only find himself in this position by becoming both an economic end unto himself, while at the same time an economic means unto another.

Under a collective system of property ownership, this is simply not possible, as the man becomes an economic means and not an end. He can never truly feel safe within society as he is despensable to society, yet society is indespensable to him.

The only way for anarchy to occur is for all individuals to develop the means to secede from government peacefully, and it simply cannot happen if they do not control their own product.

Profit in pecuniary terms serves the purpose of acquiring goods in order to consume them, providing oneself with increased happiness, or however you want to term it. So ultimately it does not differ much at all.

Yes, it does... because we are talking about completely different kinds of goods.

I do not deny that families may have this structure, but I fail to see how this defies the market.

It does not "defy" it so much as it ignores it.

Under a collective system of property ownership, this is simply not possible, as the man becomes an economic means and not an end.

Yes, just as he is under market capitalism.

For the economic structures to treat human beings as ends-in-themselves, they must either make everyone independent or make the areas in which people are dependent largely non-contingent.

Yes, just as he is under market capitalism.

For the economic structures to treat human beings as ends-in-themselves, they must either make everyone independent or make the areas in which people are dependent largely non-contingent.

Or mutually contingent.

Yes, it does... because we are talking about completely different kinds of goods.
In order to insure we're talking about the same thing, elaborate if you will.

Anarchy is only possible when the individual not only is able but knows he is able to defend himself from the rest of society.

The person can only find himself in this position by becoming both an economic end unto himself, while at the same time an economic means unto another.

Under a collective system of property ownership, this is simply not possible, as the man becomes an economic means and not an end. He can never truly feel safe within society as he is despensable to society, yet society is indespensable to him.

The only way for anarchy to occur is for all individuals to develop the means to secede from government peacefully, and it simply cannot happen if they do not control their own product.


So basically your saying anarchy is impossible? No one person is indispensable to society and no society is dispensable to any individual. Youre peaceful secession is only possible if everyone has tactical nukes and eveyone is rational. Either that or alter the the laws of the universe so that no one can harm another.

So basically your saying anarchy is impossible? No one person is indispensable to society and no society is dispensable to any individual. Youre peaceful secession is only possible if everyone has tactical nukes and eveyone is rational. Either that or alter the the laws of the universe so that no one can harm another.

Certainly a man must not offer benefit to all of society in order to find himself safe.

Certainly a man must not offer benefit to all of society in order to find himself safe.

Eh?

You said to feel safe a man must be able to and knows he can defend himself from the rest of society. As the rest of society is larger in number and has more guns then single person this is far fetched.

Eh?

You said to feel safe a man must be able to and knows he can defend himself from the rest of society. As the rest of society is larger in number and has more guns then single person this is far fetched.

Mutually assured distruction is not the only method for finding peace.

Mutually assured distruction is not the only method for finding peace.

I know. Its not even a good one. However its the only semi-reasonable way one can know they can defend themselves from all of society.

It continues unabated today because of urban welfare programs.

The phenomenon is far more widespread than that.

This obviously precludes monarchical social regulation.

Only in actual fact, monarchs did engage in social regulation... and any failure of theirs to do so had far more to do with limited capacity than unwilligness.

Anyway, the state-protected church did the rest.

No, it really isn't. You have no right to make me associate with you. The difference between social taboo and state intervention is that in social taboo I don't associate with you; in state intervention, I force make you do what I want.

I am not talking about "right"... that is, I am not saying that the preferable alternative to social taboos is for the state to force people to associate with people who engage in taboo behaviors.

What I am saying is that social taboos, like state laws, are a method of control... and since human beings are social animals for whom social acceptance is an essential good, this method, too, is coercive.

Hence why we should get rid of the state so that it does not corrupt the other foundations.

The problem is that, even if you are right about the roots of corruption, you have merely moved from one method of restricting individual freedom to another... and because the attitude underlying it is the same ("people must be controlled"), the shift backward will not be difficult.

That is why I said that the church thrives on unfreedom.

But religion's genesis is voluntary

The real test is what would happen if you removed all the laws, taboos, and indoctrination.

Would you still have religion? Probably. In a way that resembles its present form? Probably not.

Oh. Damn. I wanted you to elaborate.

Like I said, I honestly don't know.

So, applying them to my toothpaste, I do not actually want healthy, clean teeth.

No, you undoubtedly do... most rational people do. But did you choose to be born into a society where typical diets run counter to this objective? Did you choose to be born into a society where toothpaste is bought and sold? Did you choose to be born into a society where the producers of toothpaste are certain specific institutions with certain specific owners and certain specific motives? Did you choose to born into a society where you need to do certain things in order to get the money to buy toothpaste and to actually physically go to the location where you wish to buy toothpaste?

So it is a market transaction.

Since this argument is clearly repetitive, I suggest we simply continue this discussion with the awareness that when I say "market transaction" I mean one thing and when you say "market transaction" you mean something else.

It's not just a matter of stubborness. I don't know how else to refer generally to the transactions I'm talking about.

It interferes with the traditional family too, because it is trying to take its place through social welfare and the like, which has traditionally been the place of the family, not the state.

And what happens if the particular "family", "community", or "church" doesn't like your variety of "moral fiber"?

What happens if market pressures prevent the family from pursuing this role as much as it desires, perhaps because they are in economically hard times?

The result will be the breakdown of social bonds... which makes sense, since profit-seeking is not respectful of social bonds or tradition. It is interested in profit. Mutual dependence, and the culture that accompanies it, makes such profit-seeking very difficult to avoid.

Therefore, the state IS eliminating individual freedom because it wishes to supplant its standards in the place of those of free individuals.

I have no right to control the behavior of others with my "standards."

No, it is not that the state permits "too much freedom." It is that it subsidizes people for bad behavior. People are free to behave badly in an anarcho-capitalist society, but they will have to weigh their bad behavior in terms of its full effects, rather than being able to enjoy the good effects of their misdeeds and shove the bad effects onto others.

This applies to areas where the harm is personal and monetary, yes... if I become a drug addict, I must suffer the consequences. It applies much less in other areas. Few people are bankrupted by pornography, or by acting cruelly to others, or by not attending church, or by not believing in God, or by forming same-sex, polyamorous, or similarly non-traditional relations.

And to return to the greater point, this consideration of monetary harm does not distinguish. I can be economically harmed by treating others well, too... having my economic security constantly under threat is likely to make me focus on my own benefit rather than those of others (because all of us, to one degree or another, are selfish), and is likely to make me choose monetary benefit over moral values (whatever variety of moral values those may be.)

But no one has the right to make others his servants, as making people "give unconditionally" would have.

Mutual aid is not servility.

If my neighbor is smoking crack and having sex with prostitutes all the time, why should I have to subsidize his lifestyle?

You shouldn't, but then, he is not in need unless he cannot get out of this situation on his own without great difficulty.

What if that reciprocation helps that person from getting into the trouble again? If you teach that needy person the work ethic that will give her the chance to support herself in exchange for the assistance you give now, why should you choose NOT to help her in this fashion?

I anticipated this point, and responded to it:

"Or, if there are conditions, having those conditions be directed towards ensuring that the person has the strength and independence to be truly free - not towards ensuring that he or she complies with a set of rules."

No. Though you may have the power to do almost whatever you want, you do not have the right to make other people accept it. That is their right to their conscience.

And would you welcome this as much in an atheist society as in a religious one?

Perhaps they find organized religion to be immoral, and only offer aid to those who are not a part of it... leaving the small religious community marginalized and desperate.

But they should not be able to expect to be bastards in their youth and then have everyone cowtow to them in their old age.

Agreed, but like you said: freedom is the foundation of order.

Don't control them... and they will come to value other people's freedom as they do their own.

If I have the government eager to give me money for absolutely nothing than possible political support, why should I raise my child to take care of me in my old age? His good will is far more irrelevant to me, and thus I can treat him however badly I feel like, since it doesn't really matter whether or not he supports me.

You are not subject to his will, no. But then you have no motive to make him subject to your will, either - you have no desire to control him. All you have is the natural paternal or maternal instinct to care for your children... and since you are secure, why disregard it?

There's nothing wrong with dependence, because people cannot truly be independent, or at least cannot do so and expect a good standard of living.

Dependence is not so much the problem as dependence that is exploited is.

Children are dependent on their parents, but (good) parents don't exploit this dependence by making their children work ceaselessly for their profit. More generally, people can be dependent on others and still be free as long as their access to the fruits of cooperative production is more or less unconditional (not necessarily unlimited).

But both parents working has arisen not because of the corporations, but because of inflation and taxation robbing people of their purchasing power and thus necessitating that they both go to work to provide for their needs.

Taxation does not go nowhere; most of the money spent in taxes would, in an anarcho-capitalist society, be spent paying for the services currently provided by the government. Indeed, for a substantial portion of the population, the cost would be much higher.

But social programs encourage present-orientation, a "something for nothing" attitude, as do the taxes and inflation that support them. There was already a social program that protected children- family, church, and community. The social programs simply gave license to parents to ignore their family ties, what their church said and what their community said in order to act as badly as they wanted to. And this same present-oriented irresponsibility is in turn fostered in the children, thus making them worse off than they could have been.

I think I've already responded to the substance of this.

No. The economic aspect of marriage is thus- if you go around cheating on your spouse or abusing them, you will lose their economic support.

You have forgotten - they are dependent on you, too. So you will not lose their economic support. They will have no other choice.

If the other person thinks you are a cheater or an abuser, they will be more likely to deny you that economic support in the first place.

And that applies regardless.

So it is imperative if you want the economic support that you treat your spouse well.

And, again... what if your spouse is dependent on you?

But if the government is always ready to step in and subsidize you no matter how irresponsible you are, the support and good will of your spouse (and the families) is irrelevant.

Which means you are free to escape a bad relationship... at least "free" as far as economic well-being goes. That is a good thing.

The alternative is that the person with more economic power, the one with the edge in the contest of dependence, has power over the other, and can abuse and exploit as he or she sees fit.

No. If people can reject the good will of their family, their church, and their community, then they can be far more selfish than otherwise, since they can get someone to subsidize them no matter how rotten they are.

No, they are acting selfishly regardless... they are serving the family, the church, and the community so as to derive monetary benefit from it.

That means they will do it only insofar as to preserve their good will... and nothing more. It means that they have an incentive to deceive, manipulate, and coerce as long as they get the monetary benefit they are after.

If you want them to consider family, church, and community values to be good in themselves, you must make them free... you must give them the economic security to worry about other things.

In the US, women started going away from the home and to the workplace in the 70's and 80's, which coincided with high inflation and bracket creep.

And also, and more importantly, with a change in social taboos.

I have a quick question: Why are you so gung-ho about the state's social programs?

I'm not, really.

Being an anarcho-communist, I would think you would be more cynical about them,

I tend to think that they are better than private charity in general (in part because private charity is insufficient and permits free-riders), but plausible private alternatives probably exist that would be superior.

I am indeed cynical about them... they serve to entrench capitalism and the state. But I recognize their utility in staving off economic pressure.

perhaps thinking that they were some sort of tool of the class enemy.

For what it's worth, I've never, ever used the term "class enemy" seriously.

ummm, there are no taxes in anarcho capitalism, because there is no government no grants, just a market. corporations feed the demand, yet are subject to the will of the people. its mob rule, in a way, but logical and channeled through money, the essence of human nature

.
It will be 'mob rule' for a little while, and then fighting power will concentrate, and eventually force will be locally monopolized like it was in the middle ages, with the weak being slaves and serfs to the armed and strong.

We would have Mob rule, not mob rule.

ummm, there are no taxes in anarcho capitalism, because there is no government no grants, just a market. corporations feed the demand, yet are subject to the will of the people. its mob rule, in a way, but logical and channeled through money, the essence of human nature

Not mob rule through money, not even close.

It will be 'mob rule' for a little while, and then fighting power will concentrate, and eventually force will be locally monopolized like it was in the middle ages, with the weak being slaves and serfs to the armed and strong.

Or mutually contingent.

When they are mutually contingent, what you have is a contest of power... and if at any point one is able to get the upper hand, she will seek to exploit it.

In order to insure we're talking about the same thing, elaborate if you will.

External material rewards versus someone else's welfare.

I may regard both as goods, but they are still different kinds.

Just imagine this, the Empire of Walmart and the Empire of Microsoft controlling most of the continental US w/ private armies and serf/slave labor.

Just imagine this, the Empire of Walmart and the Empire of Microsoft controlling most of the continental US w/ private armies and serf/slave labor.

I find it incredible that people on both ends of the economic spectrum are coming together to reject the idea of anarcho-capitalism. I guess we can all see how frightening the idea of unrestricted greed is, and how threatening such a system would be to the things that we hold as necessary for a fair and free society.

External material rewards versus someone else's welfare.

I may regard both as goods, but they are still different kinds.
They are both sought after with the end-justification of maximising one's utility. Any differentiation between them is purely arbitrary. Both are goods.

I find it incredible that people on both ends of the economic spectrum are coming together to reject the idea of anarcho-capitalism.
There is absolutely nothing incredible about it. I have never seen so many fallacies repeated in one thread; well, perhaps in the "Socialism's disdain for the common man" one... Anarcho-capitalism has got certain points that need tweaking, though.

They are both sought after with the end-justification of maximising one's utility.

If we make "utility" equivalent to "that which people want", yes.

Of course, then the argument is circular.

Any differentiation between them is purely arbitrary. Both are goods.

Goods garnered in different ways, with different social effects... and with different fundamental moral characters.

The good derived from torturing children and the good derived from feeding starving children are in no way equivalent.

If we make "utility" equivalent to "that which people want", yes.

Of course, then the argument is circular.
What is utility then? Is it not satisfaction of one's preferences?

Goods garnered in different ways, with different social effects... and with different fundamental moral characters.

The good derived from torturing children and the good derived from feeding starving children are in no way equivalent.
In terms of outcome, this is true. In terms of how they benefit the actor, it all comes down to satisfying one's wants in the end, be it charity or buying a car.

What is utility then? Is it not satisfaction of one's preferences?

Of course it is. But then your statement is substanceless. Obviously, actions based upon preferences are directed towards satisfaction of those preferences.

In terms of outcome, this is true. In terms of how they benefit the actor, it all comes down to satisfying one's wants in the end, be it charity or buying a car.

So?

to go from a corporation to a state in a stateless society is virtually impossible. Imagine a people who have rejected a state and found that it's not needed. Now someone wishes to establish a state, something the people would know is useless. There would be an enourmous backlash.

It'd be like attempting to establish a dictatorship in the US, it'd be violently turned down, as we know we don't need one, and we have plenty of examples of how dictatorships are much worse than democracy

however, the threat of that happening keeps it from happening. It would be a bad business move, plus a bad move in the game of life for the heads of the company.

So?
I fail to see then how the profit derived from these goods for the actor differs (which was the original point of contention). Unless, of course, you mean the outcome from satisfying these needs is different, in that being charitable you aid others (and help them profit too). Even so, psychological profit is still restricted to the actor, and is derived both from material goods and eleemosynary activities.

to go from a corporation to a state in a stateless society is virtually impossible. Imagine a people who have rejected a state and found that it's not needed. Now someone wishes to establish a state, something the people would know is useless. There would be an enourmous backlash.
So...? :confused:

I fail to see then how the profit derived from these goods for the actor differs (which was the original point of contention).

Not all good feelings are equivalent.

psychological profit is still restricted to the actor.

But the psychological profit is based on recognition of the worth and dignity of others.

Not only is the outcome different, but also the character.

Not all good feelings are equivalent.

But the psychological profit is based on recognition of the worth and dignity of others.

Not only is the outcome different, but also the character.
But surely this is completely subjective!?

But surely this is completely subjective!?

All morality is subjective.

Imagine a people who have rejected a state and found that it's not needed.

Way to beg the question.

Now someone wishes to establish a state, something the people would know is useless. There would be an enourmous backlash.

Unless they lack the power to resist. Which is the whole point.

After all, you aren't really abolishing the state... you're just putting it into private hands.

All morality is subjective.
I think the problem is that we are arguing about different things - I am referring to value (in an economic sense) to the actor, you seem to be referring to moral value.

it wouldn't be mob rule. as some of the people above in the thread claim
Alright, I misread your post. It makes more sense now.

The phenomenon is far more widespread than that.

There are probably more government interventions than that to satisfy those interested in the outcomes of cities, but that was the one that seemed the most readily apparent.

Only in actual fact, monarchs did engage in social regulation... and any failure of theirs to do so had far more to do with limited capacity than unwilligness.

But monarchs didn't run around determining what working hours people should work and the like. It's only been recently that the list of regulations has exploded into books and books worth of writing.

Anyway, the state-protected church did the rest.

And I'd imagine quite unfairly, if we know anything about what the state does to the institutions it can get a hold of.

I am not talking about "right"... that is, I am not saying that the preferable alternative to social taboos is for the state to force people to associate with people who engage in taboo behaviors.

What I am saying is that social taboos, like state laws, are a method of control... and since human beings are social animals for whom social acceptance is an essential good, this method, too, is coercive.

But social taboos are merely a part of the right to association- shunning someone for doing something you don't like requires nothing of the person who is shunned. If I told you to hang out with my cousin Bob, who is a crack-smoking, obscene flatulent fellow, would it be 'coercive' for you to refuse to be around him? If you choose not to, then it's merely you exercising your freedom of association to not hang around those whom you feel are socially unacceptable (like most crack-smoking, obscene flatulent fellows are.)

The problem is that, even if you are right about the roots of corruption, you have merely moved from one method of restricting individual freedom to another... and because the attitude underlying it is the same ("people must be controlled"), the shift backward will not be difficult.

But taboos etc. are not coercion. The person is just as free to do whatever he wants. He just doesn't have the power to make people accept what he does.

The real test is what would happen if you removed all the laws, taboos, and indoctrination.

Would you still have religion? Probably. In a way that resembles its present form? Probably not.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by laws (statutory laws), but I happen to like my church and its teachings (most of them, at least.) If you take that away from me, that makes me less free to choose what religion I want to practice.

Like I said, I honestly don't know.

Ah, OK. Still. I was curious.

No, you undoubtedly do... most rational people do. But did you choose to be born into a society where typical diets run counter to this objective? Did you choose to be born into a society where toothpaste is bought and sold? Did you choose to be born into a society where the producers of toothpaste are certain specific institutions with certain specific owners and certain specific motives? Did you choose to born into a society where you need to do certain things in order to get the money to buy toothpaste and to actually physically go to the location where you wish to buy toothpaste?

No. But I don't expect people to accomodate me just because I exist. I would not expect of them what they would not expect of me.

Since this argument is clearly repetitive, I suggest we simply continue this discussion with the awareness that when I say "market transaction" I mean one thing and when you say "market transaction" you mean something else.

OK, if you want to.

It's not just a matter of stubborness. I don't know how else to refer generally to the transactions I'm talking about.

I can't really think of any either. I understand what you're trying to get at, but I can't really think of it.

And what happens if the particular "family", "community", or "church" doesn't like your variety of "moral fiber"?

Then they can boot me. I'll find another one- if any will take me. And if none want to take me, then that's their right- they shouldn't be forced to accomodate me.

What happens if market pressures prevent the family from pursuing this role as much as it desires, perhaps because they are in economically hard times?

Then there are other avenues for help. First of all, when I say 'family', I do not mean the one man-one woman nuclear family that the conservatives have focused so ardently on (and, unfortunately, corrupted.) I mean the extended family, cousins, uncles, aunts, and all. This automatically creates a much broader safety net. Not to mention the interlinking of the various communities and churches, who can also get help from elsewhere to help this deserving family.

The result will be the breakdown of social bonds... which makes sense, since profit-seeking is not respectful of social bonds or tradition. It is interested in profit. Mutual dependence, and the culture that accompanies it, makes such profit-seeking very difficult to avoid.

I don't follow. If people seek help from others, this would strengthen social bonds, as they try to move themselves deeper into the social network. And purposeful action is not limited just to monetary profit as the sole good- it can pursue other worthy goals. Sure, monetary profit, the alleviation from the burdens of scarcity, is nice, but if diminishing returns tells us anything it will become less and less worthwhile a pursuit over time.

I have no right to control the behavior of others with my "standards."

Do they have a right to control your standards because of their irresponsible behavior?

This applies to areas where the harm is personal and monetary, yes... if I become a drug addict, I must suffer the consequences. It applies much less in other areas. Few people are bankrupted by pornography, or by acting cruelly to others, or by not attending church, or by not believing in God, or by forming same-sex, polyamorous, or similarly non-traditional relations.

But these people will band together and form their own families, churches and communities. Thus they will be liberated from having to deal with those who would look down on them. So it all works out in the end with voluntary action.

And to return to the greater point, this consideration of monetary harm does not distinguish. I can be economically harmed by treating others well, too... having my economic security constantly under threat is likely to make me focus on my own benefit rather than those of others (because all of us, to one degree or another, are selfish), and is likely to make me choose monetary benefit over moral values (whatever variety of moral values those may be.)

Yes. But the family, church and community are a solution to this, in that they provide both a social safety net AND a system to strengthen moral fiber. It's basically killing two birds with one stone.

Mutual aid is not servility.

How is it not servility if you MUST give unconditionally to others?

You shouldn't, but then, he is not in need unless he cannot get out of this situation on his own without great difficulty.

But why should he make others help him out of a situation that he forced himself into in the first place? Why does he have a right to be a burden on others?

I anticipated this point, and responded to it:

"Or, if there are conditions, having those conditions be directed towards ensuring that the person has the strength and independence to be truly free - not towards ensuring that he or she complies with a set of rules."

But what if the rules, you feel, make that person truly free? It's not like a church tells people to act a certain way because they feel like it. They do it because they feel that that is the just way to act, and it helps to make them better. That is being truly free.

And would you welcome this as much in an atheist society as in a religious one?

Sure. Do you think that I'm prejudiced against atheists or something? If that is what their reason leads them to believe, then I cannot force them to do otherwise. I may respectfully disagree with them, and try to reason with them towards my viewpoint, but I wouldn't ever force them to agree with me.

Perhaps they find organized religion to be immoral, and only offer aid to those who are not a part of it... leaving the small religious community marginalized and desperate.

That's their right to do so, so long as they do not use force against the small religious community. And the small religious community could rely on the help of other religious communities. Of course, the atheist society might forceably keep the other religious communities away, but that's more a matter of force than freedom of conscience.

Agreed, but like you said: freedom is the foundation of order.

That was Moliniari. :D

Don't control them... and they will come to value other people's freedom as they do their own.

When did I ever advocate 'controlling' them? They should be able to act as they wish, but they should do it with thought to how others will treat them in turn.

You are not subject to his will, no. But then you have no motive to make him subject to your will, either - you have no desire to control him. All you have is the natural paternal or maternal instinct to care for your children... and since you are secure, why disregard it?

But I will want to be a good parent all the more if I wish him to care for me in my old age. If I was a monster to him as a child, why would he want to 'repay' me for my misdeeds? I will not only want to make sure that he is financially able and has a good work ethic, but that he is happy and likes me. If I only do one, then I have not only failed him but failed myself.

Dependence is not so much the problem as dependence that is exploited is.

Define exploited.

Children are dependent on their parents, but (good) parents don't exploit this dependence by making their children work ceaselessly for their profit. More generally, people can be dependent on others and still be free as long as their access to the fruits of cooperative production is more or less unconditional (not necessarily unlimited).

Yes, the children are dependent on the parents, but parents wouldn't do such a thing because they know that they will, in turn, be dependent on their children. And people can be dependent and free, just so long as they are not forced into being dependents by others.

Taxation does not go nowhere; most of the money spent in taxes would, in an anarcho-capitalist society, be spent paying for the services currently provided by the government. Indeed, for a substantial portion of the population, the cost would be much higher.

Maybe most of the tax money would be spent for services, but the competition between protection agencies and arbiters would make a higher quality product, as opposed to the state which even gives itself the privilege of hearing the own cases against it. And, if I may assume that the "substantial portion" of the population means the poor, they would have the family and church and community to fall back upon and help themselves rise up and become better in all manners.

I think I've already responded to the substance of this.

OK. This is getting terribly long. :)

You have forgotten - they are dependent on you, too. So you will not lose their economic support. They will have no other choice.

But they will have an extended family to fall back upon, as well as the church and the community. I, on the other hand, will (rightly) be ostracized for my misdeeds, and suffer for it accordingly.

And that applies regardless.

Which helps to make marriages right, so that they avoid misdeed and have both partners be more careful in their selections.

And, again... what if your spouse is dependent on you?

If I treat her like dirt, then I get ostracized by my social safety net. It's not the kind of position I'd want to put myself in.

Which means you are free to escape a bad relationship... at least "free" as far as economic well-being goes. That is a good thing.

Or free to destroy your marriage with far less repercussion. That is a very bad thing.

The alternative is that the person with more economic power, the one with the edge in the contest of dependence, has power over the other, and can abuse and exploit as he or she sees fit.

No, it would be that the other spouse would be able to fall back upon her social safety net, which would sympathize with her, and in turn the rotten abusing bastard would face ostracism and likely lose out on any future marriages (Who wants to marry a guy who you know treated his spouse awfully?)

No, they are acting selfishly regardless... they are serving the family, the church, and the community so as to derive monetary benefit from it.

These institutions include ostracism and shame and the like, which are not monetary things. I, for example, would never do certain things because I wouldn't want to face being disgraced in the eyes of my family and friends.

That means they will do it only insofar as to preserve their good will... and nothing more. It means that they have an incentive to deceive, manipulate, and coerce as long as they get the monetary benefit they are after.

Ah, but if they deceive, manipulate, and coerce, they run the risk of it being discovered and them absolutely losing any possibility of monetary benefit, not to mention the psychological costs of shame. And they would want to increase their good will, just in case they do something irresponsible by accident, and to receive pride from those with whom they associate.

If you want them to consider family, church, and community values to be good in themselves, you must make them free... you must give them the economic security to worry about other things.

But if you force these institutions to give them everything they want, then why should they obey their standards? These monetary benefits act as a motive for them to treat others well. A good deed is a good deed.

And also, and more importantly, with a change in social taboos.

Maybe. But I doubt that such a demographic shift that basically had so many children basically abandoned would necessitate such a rapid change.

I'm not, really.

Ah, it just seemed like it. Sorry.

I tend to think that they are better than private charity in general (in part because private charity is insufficient and permits free-riders), but plausible private alternatives probably exist that would be superior.

One moment you say that the family, church and community are too discriminating because of their monetary benefits, the next you say it provides for too much free-riding. Which one do you mean? ;)

pqyite]I am indeed cynical about them... they serve to entrench capitalism and the state. But I recognize their utility in staving off economic pressure.[/quote]

I don't agree about the economic pressure, and I still find it peculiar that you find a benefit in them even though they're not your mutual aid institutions, but at least we have a bit to agree about. ;)

For what it's worth, I've never, ever used the term "class enemy" seriously.

I'm just teasing you. :D You're a reasonable guy who I doubted liked those kinds of buzzwords (I actually don't like my ideological compatriots buzzwords that much.)

Greill: I'll respond to that, but not now. Look for one tomorrow afternoon.

I am referring to value (in an economic sense)

And I am absolutely not... though I am certainly not referring exclusively to moral value, either. There are other relevant differences between goods. Some are scarce, some aren't. Some are external to an activity, others internal. Some are "objectively" superior to others insofar as they tend to better satisfy fundamental human desires than others.

Unless they lack the power to resist. Which is the whole point.

After all, you aren't really abolishing the state... you're just putting it into private hands.

So a newly established system is strong enough to defend itself? Histroy speaks against this; see Shays' Rebellion.

Now granted, a diferent time period, with less massive security forces, but the uprising would be equally larger in the present.

its mob rule, in a way, but logical and channeled through money, the essence of human nature

If money were the "essence of human nature", as you put it, it would predate humanity. It does not.

I know. Its not even a good one. However its the only semi-reasonable way one can know they can defend themselves from all of society.

The person can make society keenly interested in wanting the person a contributing member of society.

I've always wondered that how theoretical research would get funding in anarcho-capitalist society. I really can't imagine corporations funding, for example, particle accelerators when there is no money to be gained. I imagine that places such as CERN and Fermilab would simply die.

The person can make society keenly interested in wanting the person a contributing member of society.

Which doesn't change the fact that indivduals are still unable to defend themselves against society if society so chooses. Individuals are still dispensible.

isnt morality simply a demand of the people. how would that not affect investment in to business. a company is fraudulent, people wont buy from them. they could also support a court system to administer punishments.

Which doesn't change the fact that indivduals are still unable to defend themselves against society if society so chooses. Individuals are still dispensible.

Certainly the society can destroy any individual it so desires, but a man can defend himself in no better way than to eliminate that desire.

As for defense purposes, the coin is far more effective than the bullet.

Individuals are still dispensible.

And they aren't under the current system? It seems to me, that with the implications under the current globally accepted systems of governance, that often many lives are considered dispensable, and they therefore force the public to do their bidding, even if death is the inevitable result (i.e conscription).

In anarchy people have to sacrifice something of their own to harm others, and in the business world thats simply illogical. especially under a free market, where your business is inevitably affected by your ethics. in the current system, the state is given the free will to interfere in one's life, without their consent.

i would much rather choose to be coerced instead of having the same done without consent.

[QUOTE=Eddislovakia;12380125]And they aren't under the current system?/QUOTE]

They are under any system unless the death of any individual would bring the whole system done. That was my point.

Greill: I'll respond to that, but not now. Look for one tomorrow afternoon.

Hey, take your time.

But monarchs didn't run around determining what working hours people should work and the like.

Yes, they did - just in the other direction.

And I'd imagine quite unfairly, if we know anything about what the state does to the institutions it can get a hold of.

Certainly, but in doing so, it entrenched the traditional family, church, community model.

The elimination of this sort of regulation - the separation of church and state - has played a significant part in secularization.

But social taboos are merely a part of the right to association- shunning someone for doing something you don't like requires nothing of the person who is shunned. If I told you to hang out with my cousin Bob, who is a crack-smoking, obscene flatulent fellow, would it be 'coercive' for you to refuse to be around him? If you choose not to, then it's merely you exercising your freedom of association to not hang around those whom you feel are socially unacceptable (like most crack-smoking, obscene flatulent fellows are.)

I'm not saying it's not within my rights... I'm saying that to the person excluded, it's coercive when this is done to him or her universally or almost universally, and especially when it's specifically intended to enforce social rules.

While I have no obligation to associate with him or her, I do have an obligation (though not one that should be enforced) to make my judgments of him or her on fair bases. It's immoral to refuse to associate with people of a certain race, for instance.

But taboos etc. are not coercion. The person is just as free to do whatever he wants. He just doesn't have the power to make people accept what he does.

Can I not similarly say that the person in jail is free to do whatever he wants - he just doesn't have the power to make the bars go away?

To be less flippant, the point is that when social taboos are attached to behaviors that are not in and of themselves anti-social - same-sex relationships, non-traditional gender roles, non-conformist religious beliefs, and so on - their function is to enforce social rules. It isn't a matter of not liking a person's company; it's a matter of not approving of a person's behavior, and either trying to get him or her to stop or trying to punish him or her. Social taboos of that sort, like the state's laws, attempt to enforce rules - and if we are really interested in respecting self-determination, both must be limited.

While the political implications of this problem are limited, the philosophical point here is an important problem with libertarianism: when all freedom is conceived of in the negative sense (not having a gun pointed to my head) and all harm is conceived of in the positive sense (actually getting shot), the nature of the human being as a social creature living in a society with needs that can only be satisfied collectively is ignored.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by laws (statutory laws),

All the laws still existing. Not in this country, where there are essentially none; around the world.

but I happen to like my church and its teachings (most of them, at least.) If you take that away from me, that makes me less free to choose what religion I want to practice.

Of course it does; I wasn't saying that we should ban religion. All I said was that I think it would take an entirely different form in a free society.

No. But I don't expect people to accomodate me just because I exist.

You don't expect them to treat you decently?

If you were less of a private property absolutist, I wouldn't even need to make this argument... I would instead say that economic institutions are, at most, only held in trust by private "owners", and are rightfully directed at accomodating people - at the pursuit of the public good and the maximization of genuine freedom.

I would not expect of them what they would not expect of me.

They should expect the same of you.

The worth and dignity persons recognize in themselves should be recognized in others as well.

Then they can boot me. I'll find another one- if any will take me. And if none want to take me, then that's their right- they shouldn't be forced to accomodate me.

Then the prospects for organized religion are questionable, at least theoretically.

Then there are other avenues for help. First of all, when I say 'family', I do not mean the one man-one woman nuclear family that the conservatives have focused so ardently on (and, unfortunately, corrupted.) I mean the extended family, cousins, uncles, aunts, and all. This automatically creates a much broader safety net. Not to mention the interlinking of the various communities and churches, who can also get help from elsewhere to help this deserving family.

The point is not that no one will get help - the point is that the supply will not meet the demand.

I don't follow. If people seek help from others, this would strengthen social bonds, as they try to move themselves deeper into the social network.

I'm not referring to mutual aid, but to mutual dependence.

Mutual dependence will, at least sometimes, be expressed as market relations in the sense I have used it... and this is self-reinforcing, for the reasons I've mentioned. Economic pressure leads to economic pressure being leveled against others.

And purposeful action is not limited just to monetary profit as the sole good- it can pursue other worthy goals.

The problem is that in a society characterized by mutual dependence, we too easily focus on monetary profit over other goals, for two reasons.

First, we wish to maintain both our absolute and relative level of wealth; we are used to the material pleasures we enjoy, and don't want to lose them, and we don't want to be marginalized and left behind.

Second, the relative powerlessness we have - we are at the mercy of others - makes us desire power over others for our own security. This requires the pursuit of wealth.

The solution is to abolish economic power - to establish a radically egalitarian society where economic security is non-contingent, to replace relationships characterized by power and inequality with relationships characterized by humanity and freedom.

Only in such a society could the family and community truly prosper. Only in such a society could religion overcome the historic taint and corruption of wealth and power. And only in such a society could we overcome our headlong rush into disaster with the constant drive for increased material wealth.

Sure, monetary profit, the alleviation from the burdens of scarcity, is nice, but if diminishing returns tells us anything it will become less and less worthwhile a pursuit over time.

So it's been said. But then, by that logic, we should have reached utopia a long time ago.

Do they have a right to control your standards because of their irresponsible behavior?

No.

But these people will band together and form their own families, churches and communities. Thus they will be liberated from having to deal with those who would look down on them. So it all works out in the end with voluntary action.

Actually, I agree... those who disregard social taboos are not as oppressed by the market as they would be by, say, religious statism.

What you say actually fits into my point. The attempt of the church, the family, and the community to enforce their standards of morality is far more difficult in a market society; the result is a substantial decline in their influence. Keep those who disregard your taboos isolated, ostracized, and marginalized, and they can't do much about it; let them congregate with one another, and they are a power, and can counter the influence of traditional institutions on the culture.

For clarity, I have made two claims in this argument:

1. Market societies weaken the church, the family, and the community.
2. Market societies (especially capitalist market societies) deny people freedom.

The claims share certain arguments, but not others... indeed, some applications of (1) serve to increase freedom, not impede it (though, I would claim, not as much as libertarian communism would.)

Yes. But the family, church and community are a solution to this, in that they provide both a social safety net AND a system to strengthen moral fiber. It's basically killing two birds with one stone.

But they are fighting an uphill battle... and the more uphill it is, the more it becomes, because the alleviation of the factors I mentioned is reduced.

How is it not servility if you MUST give unconditionally to others?

Because they must do the same for you when YOU are in need.

But why should he make others help him out of a situation that he forced himself into in the first place?

Because the mere fact that he is responsible for his predicament (to a greater or lesser degree) does not change the fact that he is morally worthy.

If he is free to escape, and does not, that is another issue entirely.

Why does he have a right to be a burden on others?

Again, it's rooted in our obligation to treat others decently.

We accept ourselves as "burdens" on our actions... as ends-in-ourselves. Because we are not better than other people, because we do not have some exclusive right to privilege, we similarly must treat others as ends-in-themselves: as people whose needs and desires ought to be met (and whose ends we should not seek to impede or make subject to our will, even if we do it through "voluntary" exchange.)

But what if the rules, you feel, make that person truly free? It's not like a church tells people to act a certain way because they feel like it. They do it because they feel that that is the just way to act, and it helps to make them better. That is being truly free.

Hmm, I anticipated this difficulty too, but I didn't have a quick response to it.

I guess I can say two things:

First, the justifications of the church's rules are not so much that they make people free as that they are in accordance with the will of God.

Second, they may honestly believe that they are making the person freer... but what if they're wrong?

This kind of problem occurs all the time; if someone honestly and sincerely is convinced that sodomy is as morally bad as murder, and that society must seek to prevent one as it seeks to prevent the other, simply repeating platitudes about "victimless crimes" isn't going to help. You have to argue with them on their own terms - and you may not share terms. How do you deal with an irreconcilable difference like that?

Similarly, you may maintain that the conditions put upon a transfer of property makes someone freer, and I may disagree... and our difference may be rooted in a different conception of freedom, or simply in the fact that you're a Christian and I'm an atheist with a general antipathy towards organized religion (the institution, not the participants). We have to go with one or the other... and whichever we choose, one side will be convinced that it was the wrong choice, and cannot be rationally swayed otherwise.

Sure. Do you think that I'm prejudiced against atheists or something?

No, but I think you might be rightly concerned for your welfare.

I'm not prejudiced against atheists, I am one, but I still think that sort of decision would unjustly impede people's freedom. The reason is imbedded in the rest of your response:

If that is what their reason leads them to believe, then I cannot force them to do otherwise. I may respectfully disagree with them, and try to reason with them towards my viewpoint, but I wouldn't ever force them to agree with me.

REASON with people who disagree with you, yes. But not "force"; indeed, I would say, not "compel" in any way at all, not with social taboos and not with economic power.

(This does not hold with people who are actually harming others, of course - but then the intent is not to sway them, but to prevent harm.)

That's their right to do so, so long as they do not use force against the small religious community.

Well, you're consistent... but do you not see the difficulty? A group has been marginalized and oppressed against its will.

When did I ever advocate 'controlling' them? They should be able to act as they wish, but they should do it with thought to how others will treat them in turn.

"They should be able to act as they wish, but they should do it with thought to how others will imprison them in turn." ;)

Until we develop mind control, we cannot actually control another person's actions - but we can act so as to compel them towards one direction or another.

I see no reason to distinguish between "positive" compulsion and "negative" compulsion. (I may refrain from giving someone something for reasons that have nothing to do with compelling him or her, but then that is a difference of motive, and a different question.)

But I will want to be a good parent all the more if I wish him to care for me in my old age. If I was a monster to him as a child, why would he want to 'repay' me for my misdeeds? I will not only want to make sure that he is financially able and has a good work ethic, but that he is happy and likes me. If I only do one, then I have not only failed him but failed myself.

The parent need not make the child happy; he or she may merely instill in the child a sense of servility and obedience, and the same goal will be accomplished.

There are other ways to get people to do things for me than to make them happy.

Define exploited.

A person is exploited when he or she is treated by someone in a position of power as merely a means to the powerful person's ends.

(I'm not anywhere near as much of a Kantian as I sound.)

Yes, the children are dependent on the parents, but parents wouldn't do such a thing because they know that they will, in turn, be dependent on their children.

The children are not only dependent on the parents, but they are molded by the parents. This is an even more profound kind of power.

And people can be dependent and free, just so long as they are not forced into being dependents by others.

But we are - by nature when we are very young and very old, and by society throughout th rest of our lives.

Maybe most of the tax money would be spent for services, but the competition between protection agencies and arbiters would make a higher quality product, as opposed to the state which even gives itself the privilege of hearing the own cases against it.

The democratic accountability of the state when it comes to public services is actually pretty significant... and the people for whom it's not, the poor, the same problem would exist in anarcho-capitalism.

The more you pay, the more you get - that is the unfortunate truth of all class societies.

And, if I may assume that the "substantial portion" of the population means the poor,

Actually, probably a lot of the middle class too.

they would have the family and church and community to fall back upon

And why should we assume that their aid would be sufficient?

OK. This is getting terribly long. :)

It is... long enough that I'm going to speed through the rest of this with just a few comments.

But they will have an extended family to fall back upon, as well as the church and the community.

That may well condemn divorce, or not know the full circumstances of the situation, or not be capable of effectively providing for their needs.

If I treat her like dirt, then I get ostracized by my social safety net.

That is much more of a punishment for the poor than the well-off.

As well say, "I will be forbidden to sleep under bridges."

These institutions include ostracism and shame and the like, which are not monetary things.

Why are those weakened by welfare programs?

Ah, but if they deceive, manipulate, and coerce, they run the risk of it being discovered and them absolutely losing any possibility of monetary benefit, not to mention the psychological costs of shame.

Perhaps, but they also need not contribute as much to the cause.

It's a weighing of costs... and it's not clear that the right side will win as often as you make it out to be.

But if you force these institutions to give them everything they want, then why should they obey their standards?

Why should they?

One moment you say that the family, church and community are too discriminating because of their monetary benefits, the next you say it provides for too much free-riding. Which one do you mean? ;)

Free-riding in that the rich can escape providing for the poor.

I still find it peculiar that you find a benefit in them even though they're not your mutual aid institutions

Mutual aid as I envision it has as a necessary condition a more or less classless society.

I'm just teasing you. :D

Okay. :) I take these things too seriously sometimes.

Seven pages on OpenOffice Writer... no wonder it took me so long.