Interesting quote

[Rosa Provokateur]

A government is, at its core, a monopoly. Monopolies are the antithesis of a freed market. Governments grant monopolies to corporations by creating barriers to entry that prohibit a freed market, while blaming the fictional “free market” for the economic woes within the territory they claim as their own. --http://bureaucrash.com/2009/05/07/nuclear-proliferation-saves-lives/

Discuss.

[GracchusBabeuf]

The government ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
The current state exists only to protect the bourgeois class against the working class.

[trivas7]

A government is, at its core, a monopoly. Monopolies are the antithesis of a freed market. Governments grant monopolies to corporations by creating barriers to entry that prohibit a freed market, while blaming the fictional “free market” for the economic woes within the territory they claim as their own. --http://bureaucrash.com/2009/05/07/nuclear-proliferation-saves-lives/

Yes, government is at core a monopoly -- a monopoly on force and coercion. Was this your point?

[MikeSC]

With any private property being nothing more than the gift of this baseless state monopoly.

[Robert]

With any private property being nothing more than the gift of this baseless state monopoly.I'll take your word for that, but I think you are overstating the value of these "gifts" in a couple of ways.

You own, let's say, a guitar, a small piece of land, and a house on the land.

1. The guitar (you said "any private property," and emphasized "any," so I guess the guitar qualifies) was made by a private luthier working in a shop with his own labor and some inexpensive wood, glue, and other materials. You gave him a check and you're both happy. I don't see much state involvement there, unless you mean the printing of the money backing the check or the police protection to keep me from stealing it. But maybe you aren't talking about personal property (?)

2. The land is "yours," but it's heavily taxed to pay for schools and roads, regardless of whether you have kids in school or a car. If you don't pay the tax and keep it mowed and free from debris, it is seized and sold to someone else. No, you can't grow crops on it to make it pay for itself either.

3. The house deteriorates, and the state doesn't send you a check to fix the roof or replace the air conditioner.

I honestly don't know that it isn't smarter to tell the state to take their "gift" and shove it under these circumstances. Keep the guitar, though.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Yes, government is at core a monopoly -- a monopoly on force and coercion. Was this your point?

Yep, it basically sums up why I believe in anarchism politically and free-market capitalism economically. Was too long for a sig so figured I'd post it here.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yep, it basically sums up why I believe in anarchism politically and free-market capitalism economically. Was too long for a sig so figured I'd post it here.
Too bad that makes absolutely no sense.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Too bad that makes absolutely no sense.

How's it make no sense?

[mykittyhasaboner]

How's it make no sense?
I have challenged your views on "anarcho-capitalism" here, with no reply on your end, so maybe now you could: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1452056&postcount=56

To summarize my point, anarchism and capitalism simply don't mix, its impossible. One cannot speak of non-hierarchical freedom while private ownership still exists. It's madness to think otherwise.

[IcarusAngel]

That actual article is pathetic. It's saying that competition in the nuclear arms race prevented world wars - but it was the concern that Hitler had nukes that the US decided to amp up their weapons proliferation which culminated in one of the worst crimes in world history. Furthermore, fear of "nukes" and countries getting nukes led to numerous wars all around the world, and thus the twentieth century was the bloodiest century of all time.

Bureaucrash is a pathetic site run by people at about the intellectual level of Green_Apostle. They also are sponsored by the CEI, which is sponsored by government-sponsored corporations.

So, ironically, they themselves are not even free-market.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I have challenged your views on "anarcho-capitalism" here, with no reply on your end, so maybe now you could: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1452056&postcount=56

To summarize my point, anarchism and capitalism simply don't mix, its impossible. One cannot speak of non-hierarchical freedom while private ownership still exists. It's madness to think otherwise.

Suppose I own a carwash and I pay two guys $6 an hour for 12 a day, two days a week to operate it. They're free to resign at any time but while they work for me and I'm pating them, they're required to come in on time and follow the rules outlined in the contract I've signed with the both of them. Where's the hierarchy in that?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Bureaucrash is a pathetic site run by people at about the intellectual level of Green_Apostle. They also are sponsored by the CEI, which is sponsored by government-sponsored corporations.

So, ironically, they themselves are not even free-market.

It's about as relevant as this site. Thanks for the shout-out:cool:

[mykittyhasaboner]

Suppose I own a carwash and I pay two guys $6 an hour for 12 a day, two days a week to operate it. They're free to resign at any time but while they work for me and I'm pating them, they're required to come in on time and follow the rules outlined in the contract I've signed with the both of them. Where's the hierarchy in that?

Right where you own the carwash, and your paying them to work for you.

However, society isn't as simple as a carwash.

If you think that capitalism is possible with out hierarchy, or state monopolies; then you ignore all significant historical development of capitalism (which of course, only got where it is today by having a state). Of course the problem in my opinion is not "hierarchy" in general, but hierarchical organization of the means of production, which manifests itself through private ownership forming the top of this hierarchy. With these private owners at the top, being a small minority, they hold most of the wealth in society; while billions of others are left to starve. Now tell me, in what way is anarchism compatible with private ownership, when said ownership by definition implies that exploitation, and hierarchical oppression is taking place. You can't claim to have anarchy, meaning a classless society, when you uphold the ruling class of capitalism.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Right where you own the carwash, and your paying them to work for you.

However, society isn't as simple as a carwash.

If you think that capitalism is possible with out hierarchy, or state monopolies; then you ignore all significant historical development of capitalism (which of course, only got where it is today by having a state). Of course the problem in my opinion is not "hierarchy" in general, but hierarchical organization of the means of production, which manifests itself through private ownership forming the top of this hierarchy. With these private owners at the top, being a small minority, they hold most of the wealth in society; while billions of others are left to starve. Now tell me, in what way is anarchism compatible with private ownership, when said ownership by definition implies that exploitation, and hierarchical oppression is taking place. You can't claim to have anarchy, meaning a classless society, when you uphold the ruling class of capitalism.

They chose to work and I'm rewarding them based on what I think their labor is worth, sounds fair to me.

Agreed.

Then maybe it wasnt meant to be what it is today, which is what I believe. My interest is in small business and as soon as I get my money saved up I'll start one. These huge corporations have every right to exist but the way they get their bread; bribing politicians, passing laws to low-blow the competition, joining groups like the WTO and NAFTA to decide what nations deserve trade and which ones dont, and taking hand-outs from the State is no bueno. The elimination of the State would end all of this causing hollowed out business like GM to fall and level the playing-field for everyone else.

Private ownership and anarchism are compatible in that anarchism is centered on the core principle of freedom, this includes freedom of the individual and freedom of the individual to take a role in their own destiny. Nothing personifies this individual freedom more to me than the ability of a person to own something, make it theirs, and do with it as they please without interference from outside forces, namely the State. If the individual is compelled by ingenuity to sharpen their assets into a desirable commodity that can be traded for a profit of some-sort then we should congragulate them, not ostacize them.

As for classlesness, I have no opinion. It's a Marxist virtue and if it can be accomplished then I applaud it but it's not on my laundry list of "to-do's".

[Jack]

You act like if the state disappears, so does al coercion.

Ignoring, of course, the long history of "private defense" killing unionists and strikers, or beating insubordinate employeees. Also, the use of Mafia-esque guards to enforce a monopoly. A capitalist doesn't need the state to create "barriers to entry" when he can do it with a couple of thugs.

[MikeSC]

I'll take your word for that, but I think you are overstating the value of these "gifts" in a couple of ways.

You own, let's say, a guitar, a small piece of land, and a house on the land.

1. The guitar (you said "any private property," and emphasized "any," so I guess the guitar qualifies) was made by a private luthier working in a shop with his own labor and some inexpensive wood, glue, and other materials. You gave him a check and you're both happy. I don't see much state involvement there, unless you mean the printing of the money backing the check or the police protection to keep me from stealing it. But maybe you aren't talking about personal property (?)

2. The land is "yours," but it's heavily taxed to pay for schools and roads, regardless of whether you have kids in school or a car. If you don't pay the tax and keep it mowed and free from debris, it is seized and sold to someone else. No, you can't grow crops on it to make it pay for itself either.

3. The house deteriorates, and the state doesn't send you a check to fix the roof or replace the air conditioner.

I honestly don't know that it isn't smarter to tell the state to take their "gift" and shove it under these circumstances. Keep the guitar, though.

Any property. The very concept of property. The luthier has the means of production as his private property under capitalism because of forceful seizure sometime in the past. The problem here is that in all of your examples, you take it as an axiom that property has been acquired legitimately- which is impossible. And capitalists know that it's impossible, or else they wouldn't rely on Enlightenment falsities like Locke's "finders-keepers" version of history that arbitrarily legitimises property based on assumptions about how civilisation developed that we now know to be false.

In short- the idea that natural resources were created for a monarch to distribute legitimately- False. The idea that no person has a legitimate non-arbitrary claim to anything that exists in nature above any other person- True.

Also, even if you do for some reason subscribe to Locke's "theory" that first possession grants eternal property rights over land and resources, you would still find that communism is the logical result. He thought that it legitimised private property because he didn't know the form the earliest civilisations took- and guessed wrongly. It is historical fact that the earliest civilisations held land and resources in common, with no concept of private property until much later. Capitalists today hark back to the good old days of Adam Smith because the advances we've made since then have shown their excuses to be false.

[Robert]

The problem here is that in all of your examples, you take it as an axiom that property has been acquired legitimatelyIncorrect. Even your "earliest civilisations [that] held land and resources in common" more likely than not displaced some prior and weaker tribe. By force. Put that in your smoke and pipe it.

That doesn't validate the concept of private property, of course, not at all; but it does mean no one has clean hands for as far back as I can see.

Where we differ, I think, is that you see the landowner and I guess the guitar builder in all cases as some kind of usurper, a trespasser. "Why, the land and the glue and the wood aren't his; they're ours!" Something like that?

What you're ignoring is the responsibility he has, at least in my neck of the woods, to answer to the community for his neglect or abuse of the "property." There are conditions and obligations placed on his right of occupancy, described in my prior post, that are not in practice going to be any different after the Revolution. He has to live somewhere. If he's a musician, he has to have the right of possession of the instrument in order to practice diligently and undisturbed. No sane society will deny him that.

As for the guitar builder, why don't you just leave him alone. He ain't hurting anybody.

[Pogue]

They chose to work and I'm rewarding them based on what I think their labor is worth, sounds fair to me.

Agreed.

Then maybe it wasnt meant to be what it is today, which is what I believe. My interest is in small business and as soon as I get my money saved up I'll start one. These huge corporations have every right to exist but the way they get their bread; bribing politicians, passing laws to low-blow the competition, joining groups like the WTO and NAFTA to decide what nations deserve trade and which ones dont, and taking hand-outs from the State is no bueno. The elimination of the State would end all of this causing hollowed out business like GM to fall and level the playing-field for everyone else.

Private ownership and anarchism are compatible in that anarchism is centered on the core principle of freedom, this includes freedom of the individual and freedom of the individual to take a role in their own destiny. Nothing personifies this individual freedom more to me than the ability of a person to own something, make it theirs, and do with it as they please without interference from outside forces, namely the State. If the individual is compelled by ingenuity to sharpen their assets into a desirable commodity that can be traded for a profit of some-sort then we should congragulate them, not ostacize them.

As for classlesness, I have no opinion. It's a Marxist virtue and if it can be accomplished then I applaud it but it's not on my laundry list of "to-do's".

Thats not what anarchism is though. Your mis-using the word anarchism. Anarchism didn't come out of a bunch of people sitting down in a room and deciding they don't like government, it came out of the libertarian wing of the socialist movement, i.e. calling for communism by non-heirachial means in a free society, i.e. classless and stateless. What you have done is taken a word, twisted and abused it. Anarchism only has its roots in the socialist movement.

[MikeSC]

Incorrect. Even your "earliest civilisations [that] held land and resources in common" more likely than not displaced some prior and weaker tribe. By force. Put that in your smoke and pipe it.
"Even your "earliest civilisations [that] held land and resources in common" more likely than not displaced some prior and weaker tribe. By force."

Which of those societies would you say I was describing when I said "earliest"? The earliest societies had the land they used appropriated, and then appropriated in turn by some others, and then turned into property illegitimately- so what? The accepted history contradicts the view of history that the capitalist philosophers made up to legitimise property. Which was my point.




That doesn't validate the concept of private property, of course, not at all; but it does mean no one has clean hands for as far back as I can see.Yes, that is the conclusion. You accept it to be true, but say it's "incorrect" because you don't like what that means? Because what it means is, like I keep saying, that private property is illegitimate according to the justifications of the capitalists themselves.


Where we differ, I think, is that you see the landowner and I guess the guitar builder in all cases as some kind of usurper, a trespasser. "Why, the land and the glue and the wood aren't his; they're ours!" Something like that?

What you're ignoring is the responsibility he has, at least in my neck of the woods, to answer to the community for his neglect or abuse of the "property." There are conditions and obligations placed on his right of occupancy, described in my prior post, that are not in practice going to be any different after the Revolution. He has to live somewhere. If he's a musician, he has to have the right of possession of the instrument in order to practice diligently and undisturbed. No sane society will deny him that.

As for the guitar builder, why don't you just leave him alone. He ain't hurting anybody. Today 10:31So what if a guy, given a piece of land that an illegitimate state had siezed, has to look after it according to the state's wishes? If I'm ignoring it it's because it's not pertinent, it doesn't justify property.

And I have no idea what you're banging on about musical instruments for?

[Robert]

The accepted history contradicts the view of history that the capitalist philosophers made up to legitimise property. Which was my point.

And I'm trying to concede the point if you'll relax a bit and let me!


You accept it to be true, but say it's "incorrect" because you don't like what that means?


NO! I never said it was incorrect. The problem is that I think you are only looking at the arguably artificial "rights" the landowner has "illegitimately" (in your view) derived from the state's collaboration, and you're ignoring all the obligations that come with it. After the revolution, you have to live in a shelter of some kind, and somebody has to keep it in good repair. That would be you under any scenario.


So what if a guy, given a piece of land that an illegitimate state had siezed, has to look after it according to the state's wishes?


He does. But to me that's not any worse than the result that would obtain under your system. If "the state" (assuming we're not talking Saddam Hussein here) does not place reasonable and workable restrictions on the owner's use and maintenance of the property, then yes, absolutely, the people would be justified in getting the pitchforks out if necessary to remedy the situation. We're not there at this time in the view of the overwhelming majority of People. What shall we do? Force them to be indignant and rise up even if they'd rather stay home?


And I have no idea what you're banging on about musical instruments for?

No idea? Then I give up. You win.

[mykittyhasaboner]

They chose to work and I'm rewarding them based on what I think their labor is worth, sounds fair to me.
Yeah, it sounds fair to you since your the one who owns the carwash, and gets to decide how much others' labor is worth.




Then maybe it wasnt meant to be what it is today, which is what I believe. My interest is in small business and as soon as I get my money saved up I'll start one. These huge corporations have every right to exist but the way they get their bread; bribing politicians, passing laws to low-blow the competition, joining groups like the WTO and NAFTA to decide what nations deserve trade and which ones dont, and taking hand-outs from the State is no bueno. The elimination of the State would end all of this causing hollowed out business like GM to fall and level the playing-field for everyone else.

This all sounds nice and dandy, but wheres the explanation as to how all of this will simply vanish once the state is abolished? Corporations would potentially gain from the state being abolished, because no one would be left to tell them what they can and cannot do. Hence, in all probability, corporations would most likely welcome the state's non-existence and assume their roles of (now unbridled) owners of society.


Private ownership and anarchism are compatible in that anarchism is centered on the core principle of freedom, this includes freedom of the individual and freedom of the individual to take a role in their own destiny.
Nothing personifies this individual freedom more to me than the ability of a person to own something, make it theirs, and do with it as they please without interference from outside forces, namely the State.
This is a gross misrepresentation of private ownership of the means of production means, and it's effect on class and economic relationships. Private ownership, does not mean personal property, it defines how the means of production (railroads, factories, etc) are owned by capitalists who do accumulate the overwhelming majority of wealth generated by the worker's said capitalist employs. I'm getting sick of repeating this, so I'll just make it short: you can't have private ownership while claiming to have anarchism; nor has private ownership (as it has manifested itself as the dominant form of organization in society) ever operated on the voluntary and free associative means as you advocate.


If the individual is compelled by ingenuity to sharpen their assets into a desirable commodity that can be traded for a profit of some-sort then we should congragulate them, not ostacize them.
Too bad economic development doesn't run along idealism.


As for classlesness, I have no opinion. It's a Marxist virtue and if it can be accomplished then I applaud it but it's not on my laundry list of "to-do's".
Wrong. Anarchism by definition implies classlessness; capitalism by definition implies class rule. You contradict yourself.

[MikeSC]

NO! I never said it was incorrect. The problem is that I think you are only looking at the arguably artificial "rights" the landowner has "illegitimately" (in your view) derived from the state's collaboration, and you're ignoring all the obligations that come with it. After the revolution, you have to live in a shelter of some kind, and somebody has to keep it in good repair. That would be you under any scenario.I thought the "incorrect" at the beginning of the last post was for more than just the quoted area, sorry :blushing:

I don't see why the obligations the state expects of people makes it any different, morally. Slavery is slavery whether you have to feed them because the state says so or do so only to sustain profits.


He does. But to me that's not any worse than the result that would obtain under your system. If "the state" (assuming we're not talking Saddam Hussein here) does not place reasonable and workable restrictions on the owner's use and maintenance of the property, then yes, absolutely, the people would be justified in getting the pitchforks out if necessary to remedy the situation. We're not there at this time in the view of the overwhelming majority of People. What shall we do? Force them to be indignant and rise up even if they'd rather stay home?
Yeah, this is a problem. I certainly 't have the first idea how people would go about instituting communism in a country content to sit back and enjoy the fruits of 9 year old children's labour. That's why I'm content to talk about theory and stuff :)


No idea? Then I give up. You win. No, no- that's not what I'm after or anything like that. I just don't know how you'd infer that people wouldn't have musical instruments under communism? The point is just that everyone in a society that has an equality of rights has an equal right over natural resources, and should have an equal say as to how they're used, along with an equal responsibility to work and an equal share of the end product.

If it's about musicians not getting paid to make music (unless society democratically decides it's a profession worth funding) then I'd have to say I agree with Oscar Wilde- that under socialism and communism people would be freer to pursue art if the work-burden is spread out more evenly, and art is made in leisure time because people want to do it rather than for the cash. Others might disagree here, I don't know.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Thats not what anarchism is though. Your mis-using the word anarchism. Anarchism didn't come out of a bunch of people sitting down in a room and deciding they don't like government, it came out of the libertarian wing of the socialist movement, i.e. calling for communism by non-heirachial means in a free society, i.e. classless and stateless. What you have done is taken a word, twisted and abused it. Anarchism only has its roots in the socialist movement.

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism). Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[Rosa Provokateur]

You act like if the state disappears, so does al coercion.

Ignoring, of course, the long history of "private defense" killing unionists and strikers, or beating insubordinate employeees. Also, the use of Mafia-esque guards to enforce a monopoly. A capitalist doesn't need the state to create "barriers to entry" when he can do it with a couple of thugs.

The flexibility of the market and lack of State control will make it nearly impossible for monopolies to exist long-term, if at all. As for unions and strikers, they're free to provide for their own defense and when push comes to shove between them and the business owner, they'll be free to work it out by whatever means both sides agree is necessary without State interference to back either side... basically leveling the playing-field.

Why would any intelligent entrepeneur want to create barriers? Barriers clog the flow of cash and goods, hurting both seller and buyer. Barriers are in no one's interest except for those wishing to monopolize, which would be impossible to maintain without a State.

[Jack]

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism). Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

A couple of years ago, that shit wasn't on Wikipedia, only your kind's constant internet badgering made them put that shit up.

Wikipedia also has a page on National Anarchism, if they kept badgering in the way your kind do, they'd be on there too.

[Robert]

I just don't know how you'd infer that people wouldn't have musical instruments under communism?

I don't. The guitar was just an example of a "thing," or res, that cannot be legitimately owned by an individual because we are going to do away with property, "[a]ny property. The very concept of property."

It sounds to me like both of us would let the musician have exclusive use of the instrument, even though he doesn't "own" it, for different theoretical reasons that just don't amount to very much under any imaginable economic system.

Look, I'm sorry for popping off. I know you're an honest debater and you want what's best. Please take the last word on this. I'll listen and shutup.:ninja:

[Jack]

The flexibility of the market and lack of State control will make it nearly impossible for monopolies to exist long-term, if at all. As for unions and strikers, they're free to provide for their own defense and when push comes to shove between them and the business owner, they'll be free to work it out by whatever means both sides agree is necessary without State interference to back either side... basically leveling the playing-field.

Why would any intelligent entrepeneur want to create barriers? Barriers clog the flow of cash and goods, hurting both seller and buyer. Barriers are in no one's interest except for those wishing to monopolize, which would be impossible to maintain without a State.

What if the workers decide to overthrow their boss?

Who wouldn't want to create a monopoly? If I owned a business and I could run it without competitors of course I could. I just told you how they can be maintained, through the private state (I'm sorry "private security).

What about monopolies caused because of no copyright laws? Not a total monopoly, but an oligopily can be formed. If I invent something, but don't have enough money to market it or only have a small business, that invention can be stolen from me and sold by larger businesses. Big business would be able to spread my invention across the world, with me getting nothing for it and being unable to sell it. It would be difficult to sell because me, in my fictional small business, has much less money to spend on production, and can't hire people as cheaply (I can't exactly export the labor to a land where I can pay people even worse without the money). Big businesses can get materials cheaper by striking deals with the manufacturers for them, because they can buy in bulk, while I would have to pay more for it because I won't have the money to mass produce.

The increase for me in the cost of labor and materials would drive up the cost of the product. While a large establishment can sell goods cheaper, even though I invented it, and spread it across the world where I am geologically confined (unless, say, I use the internet, but the point still stands). Thus it would create an oligopily where big business reigns because it can provide goods cheaper than small businesses.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

These huge corporations have every right to exist but the way they get their bread; bribing politicians, passing laws to low-blow the competition, joining groups like the WTO and NAFTA to decide what nations deserve trade and which ones dont, and taking hand-outs from the State is no bueno. The elimination of the State would end all of this causing hollowed out business like GM to fall and level the playing-field for everyone else.
So let's see... we have a bunch of corporations paying the state (or to be more exact, certain parts of the state) to do their dirty work. And you suggest that the solution to this is merely to take away the state? Guess what, corporations will then pay someone else to do their dirty work. Someone like the mafia, or your friendly neighborhood warlord.

The idea that you can get wealthy entities to "play nice" and stop using their wealth to buy guns to shoot you with is insane. If they have more money than you, they can buy more firepower than you, and they will use it to enslave you. It's as simple as that. Wealth is power. Wealthy people will always have power over others - unless private wealth is abolished.


Private ownership and anarchism are compatible in that anarchism is centered on the core principle of freedom, this includes freedom of the individual and freedom of the individual to take a role in their own destiny. Nothing personifies this individual freedom more to me than the ability of a person to own something, make it theirs, and do with it as they please without interference from outside forces, namely the State.
The State is not an outside force. The State is the only thing that ensures your property remains yours and cannot be taken away by someone who overpowers you. Without the State, you ability to own property is limited by your ability to defend it.


As for classlesness, I have no opinion. It's a Marxist virtue and if it can be accomplished then I applaud it but it's not on my laundry list of "to-do's".
Do you not want freedom? Freedom cannot exist while some people have more power than others.

[Jack]

Also, Mafia-style tactics would enforce monopolies, if you try to start a small business that poses a threat to my big business, I can always pay a few hundred dollars to have you beaten and/or have your store burnt down.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The flexibility of the market and lack of State control will make it nearly impossible for monopolies to exist long-term, if at all.
Define "long-term." Sure, all monopolies must end eventually... because everything must end eventually. In the "long-term," you will die, generations will pass, another ice age will begin, and five billion years from now the Sun will destroy life on Earth.

The fact that free-market monopolies, like all things, do not last forever, does not make them any less real.

[Rosa Provokateur]

What if the workers decide to overthrow their boss?

Who wouldn't want to create a monopoly? If I owned a business and I could run it without competitors of course I could. I just told you how they can be maintained, through the private state (I'm sorry "private security).

What about monopolies caused because of no copyright laws? Not a total monopoly, but an oligopily can be formed. If I invent something, but don't have enough money to market it or only have a small business, that invention can be stolen from me and sold by larger businesses. Big business would be able to spread my invention across the world, with me getting nothing for it and being unable to sell it. It would be difficult to sell because me, in my fictional small business, has much less money to spend on production, and can't hire people as cheaply (I can't exactly export the labor to a land where I can pay people even worse without the money). Big businesses can get materials cheaper by striking deals with the manufacturers for them, because they can buy in bulk, while I would have to pay more for it because I won't have the money to mass produce.

The increase for me in the cost of labor and materials would drive up the cost of the product. While a large establishment can sell goods cheaper, even though I invented it, and spread it across the world where I am geologically confined (unless, say, I use the internet, but the point still stands). Thus it would create an oligopily where big business reigns because it can provide goods cheaper than small businesses.

That's their priority and I leave it to them. So long as it's in self-defense, I have no objection to it.

Smart people, thats who. In 2006 a Coca-Cola employee tried selling the recipe to Pepsi but, rather than get a monopoly in the soda industry, Pepsi turned her in to the FBI. The reason being that competition is a much beter way to make money. If Coca-Cola went under there'd be nothing to push Pepsi towards more inovation and while they'd rule the industry, the stock-value would probably drop and they'd lose customers. That's why the State-ownership of Chrysler and GM is gonna fuck alot of people, thats why monopoly is for stupid people. Monopoly is power but not profits and profit is what I'm about.

You could sell it to a larger business or get a contract giving you creative control. Demonstrate it to several large businesses and sell to the highest bidder or demand a certain percentage of income. If you feel inclined you can give the money to a union or divvy it out to workers, maybe even make some demands on behalf of the workers in return for giving them the product. The options are endless.

[Glenn Beck]

Smart people, thats who. In 2006 a Coca-Cola employee tried selling the recipe to Pepsi but, rather than get a monopoly in the soda industry, Pepsi turned her in to the FBI. The reason being that competition is a much beter way to make money. If Coca-Cola went under there'd be nothing to push Pepsi towards more inovation and while they'd rule the industry, the stock-value would probably drop and they'd lose customers.

moar liek because we have a state with laws about trade secrets and they would not have been able to make profitable use of the formula without losing out in the long run likely from being forced to pay massive remuneration to Coca Cola

[RGacky3]

That's why the State-ownership of Chrysler and GM is gonna fuck alot of people

Thats a wonderful quote, and just shows who deep in the sand your head is.


In 2006 a Coca-Cola employee tried selling the recipe to Pepsi but, rather than get a monopoly in the soda industry, Pepsi turned her in to the FBI. The reason being that competition is a much beter way to make money.

Are you sure the threat of massiave law suits was'nt the reason?


As for unions and strikers, they're free to provide for their own defense and when push comes to shove between them and the business owner, they'll be free to work it out by whatever means both sides agree is necessary without State interference to back either side... basically leveling the playing-field.

In that case, (without the state) chances are we'd go to communism relatively quickly, with workers taking over without state reprocussions.


Why would any intelligent entrepeneur want to create barriers? Barriers clog the flow of cash and goods, hurting both seller and buyer.

Oh I don't know, ask American and European corporations that demand the third world to embrace neo-libralism while they want their countries to embrace protectionism. Its called power, and its what Capitalism is all about.


anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain, with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy and private property (like classical mutualism or today's anarcho-capitalism and agorism

A few American college professors don't count.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Are you sure the threat of massiave law suits was'nt the reason?



In that case, (without the state) chances are we'd go to communism relatively quickly, with workers taking over without state reprocussions.



Oh I don't know, ask American and European corporations that demand the third world to embrace neo-libralism while they want their countries to embrace protectionism. Its called power, and its what Capitalism is all about.



A few American college professors don't count.

It's possible.

So let it happen; the only way to find out is to go for it.

Protectionism is a stupid idea and it's people that advocate it who are destroying the idea of free-trade. This is another reason for abolishing the State; without it, there can be no protectionism.

[RGacky3]

This is another reason for abolishing the State; without it, there can be no protectionism.

Or property laws.

[Chambered Word]

If it's about musicians not getting paid to make music (unless society democratically decides it's a profession worth funding) then I'd have to say I agree with Oscar Wilde- that under socialism and communism people would be freer to pursue art if the work-burden is spread out more evenly, and art is made in leisure time because people want to do it rather than for the cash. Others might disagree here, I don't know.

Onto something here. Perhaps I won't have to listen to crappy artists knocking out poor music just to get a quick buck off teenage girls anymore. Then again, they might just make crap in their spare time to get more money. Oh well.