Anarcho-Capitalism (Not "Anarcho"-Capitalism)

[Havet]

Response to Anarchist FAQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izEm2OIdwyQ



Are "Anarcho"-Capitalists Anarchists?
One anarchist theory FAQ on the internet addresses the question of anarcho-capitalism. It starts by defining anarcho-capitalism out of the anarchist movement, by pointing out that, though anarcho-capitalism is consistent with the dictionary definition of anarchism, it is not consistent with the ideas expressed by historical anarchist movement:

"The 'anarcho'-capitalist argument hinges on using the dictionary definition of 'anarchism' and/or 'anarchy' - they try to define anarchism as being 'opposition to government,' and nothing else. However, dictionaries are hardly politically sophisticated and their definitions rarely reflect the wide range of ideas associated with political theories and their history. Thus the dictionary "definition" is anarchism will tend to ignore its consistent views on property, exploitation, property and capitalism (ideas easily discovered if actual anarchist texts are read). And, of course, many dictionaries "define" anarchy as "chaos" or "disorder" but we never see 'anarcho'-capitalists use that particular definition! "Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, as noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists." The trouble with this argument, though, is that it says that the reason anarchists cannot be capitalists is because other anarchists in the past weren't, and thus implies that an effective definition of what it is to be an anarchist is "to be like other anarchists." This, obviously is no definition, merely a tautology - "to be an anarchist is to be an anarchist" - so trying define anarchists by how easily they can be fitted into an anarchist tradition is self defeating.



You see the point? Anarchism is a political theory, granted, but political theories change. In order to identify a political theory including its changes, one has to throw off historical anomalies and use an essential and objective definition: "The desire for an absence of government" is such an objective, ahistorical, definition, and such is the dictionary definition that anarcho-capitalism is consistent with.



http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/FAQquotes/Proudhon.gif



To further illustrate the difficulties of using an "historical" definition of anarchism to rule out anarcho-capitalism, we can simply point out that the same strategy can be used to rule out anarchist communism. You say that anarchists cannot be capitalists because anarchists have traditionally opposed capitalism; However, until Kropotkin and Cafiero's address to the Congress of the Jura Federation in 1880, there was no organised anarchist communist movement. In fact one of the anarchist communists at the 1880 meeting, Adhemar Schwitzguebel, said "Thus far, the communist idea has been misunderstood among the general populace where there is still a belief that it is a system devoid of liberty". Bakunin equated communism with statism, and Proudhon hated the idea, whether it was small autonomous communes or state communism, and their followers agreed.



If it is alright, at present, to say that anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists because anarchism has historically always been opposed to capitalism, then it would have been equally legitimate for an anarchist in the 1880s to turn around to Kropotkin or Cafiero and say that anarchists couldn't be communists because anarchist hadn't been up until then.


-----



So the "historical" argument against anarcho-capitalism fails, fortunately, though, the anarchist FAQ uses theoretical arguments, namely the belief that under anarcho-capitalism hierarchy will remain. Anarchy means an absence of archy, and hierarchy is an archy, and so is logically incompatable with anarchy:

'"Anarcho'-capitalists assume that generalised wage labour would remain under their system (while paying lip-service to the possibilities of co-operatives -- and if an 'anarcho'-capitalist thinks that co-operative will become the dominant form of workplace organisation, then they are some kind of market socialist, not a capitalist). It is clear that their end point (a pure capitalism, i.e. generalised wage labour) is directly the opposite of that desired by anarchists. This was the case of the Individualist Anarchists who embraced the ideal of (non-capitalist) laissez faire competition -- they did so, as noted, to end wage labour and usury, not to maintain them (indeed, their analysis of the change in American society from one of mainly independent producers into one based mainly upon wage labour has many parallels with, of all people, Karl Marx's presented in chapter 33 of Capital).
"'Anarcho'-capitalists, in contrast, believe that it is likely that workplaces will remain hierarchical (i.e. capitalistic) even if the public state has been dissolved and that this is of no concern. This belief reveals the priority of their values: "efficiency" (the bottom line) is considered more important than eliminating the domination, coercion, and exploitation of workers. Similarly, they consider that profits, interest and rent as valid sources of income while anarchists oppose these as usury and exploitative.
"Moreover, in practice, wage labour is a major source of oppression and authoritarianism within society -- there is little or no freedom within capitalist production (as Bakunin noted, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time"). So, in stark contrast to anarchists, 'anarcho'-capitalists have no problem with factory fascism (i.e. wage labour), a position which seems highly illogical for a theory calling itself libertarian. If it were truly libertarian, it would oppose all forms of domination, not just statism." However, this argument simply reveals that the authors of the FAQ haven't even been bothered to read the basic texts of anarcho-capitalism. Since Murray Rothbard's death, the leading anarcho-capitalist figure has been David Friedman, whose equivalent of a manifesto is The Machinery of Freedom: A guide to Radical Capitalism. In this text Friedman writes,
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/pictures/davidFriedmanbw.jpg
"I have described what should be done, but not who should organise and control it. I have not said who should command the libertarian legions.
"The answer is, of course, no one. One of the central libertarian ideas is that command, hierarchy, is not the only way of getting things done; it usually is not even the best way. Having abandoned politics as a way of running the country, there is no reason for us to accept politics as a way of running the country, there is no reason for us to accept politics as a way of running the conspiracy to abolish politics." (pp162, my emphasis) Friedman goes on to apply the idea that "command, hierarchy, is not the only way of getting things done; it usually is not even the best way" to the organisation of industrial relations:

"Libertarian anarchy is only a very sketchy framework, a framework based on the idea of individual property rights - the right to one's own body, to what one produces oneself, and to what others voluntarily give one. Within that framework there are many possible ways for people to associate. Goods might be produced by giant, hierarchical corporations, like those that now exist. I hope not; it does not strike me as either an attractive for people to live or an efficient way or producing goods. But other people might disagree; if so, in a free society they would be free to organise themselves into corporations.
"Goods might be produced by communes, group families, inside which property was held in common. That also does not seem to me to be a very attractive form of life. I would not join one, but I would have no right to prevent others from doing so.
"My own preference is for the sort of economic institutions which have been named, I think by Robert LeFevre, agoric. Under agoric institutions almost everyone is self-employed. Instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces. As a free-lance writer (one of my professions), I am part of an agoric economic order." (pp144-5, my emphases)

---

Why do Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism?
This section of the FAQ is the word that, traditionally, I am most obliged to answer, as it more than any other, is a criticism of positions close to my own. It starts:

"Individualists mostly base their economic ideas on the free market. However, as we have argued elsewhere, competition for profits in a free market creates an numerous problems - for example, the creation of an 'ethics of mathematics' and the strange inversion of values in which things become more important than people." I don't know what is meant by an ethics of mathematics, unless it is talking about distribution according to utility. If a piece of wealth is of greater utility to me than to you, then I should have it, if our objective is to maximise social utility. This applies, however, in a commune as much as in a market: Imagine that you are in a commune, and there is a decision that has to be made concerning a road. The road is very busy, and often becomes congested and dangerous to pedestrians. The decision is whether to build a pedestrian crossing or not. Suppose that having the road clear is of greater utility to drivers than a crossing is to pedestrians, by a multiple of two. In that case, having no pedestrian crossing produces a greater degree of welfare than having the pedestrian crossing. Building the pedestrian crossing would be an economic worsening. Now imagine that it the pedestrian crossing was of greater utility to the pedestrians than having a clear road was to the driver by a multiple of two (the pedestrian crossing is twice as useful or satisfying to pedestrians as a clear road is to drivers). In this case, in order to maximise social welfare we ought to build the crossing. However, imagine that using the resources to build the crossing meant that we didn't have enough to build a hospital, and that the hospital produced three times as much utility as the crossing did. If we built the hospital, then we wouldn't be able to build the crossing, and the drivers would have a free road which is worth less to them than the crossing would be to pedestrians. However, we would still have maximised social utility or welfare, as we have built something that makes people even better off than the crossing would make pedestrians. If the commune should be run in an efficient manner - one that producers a situation that any change will not produce a net increase in utility, or welfare - then however the commune is administered, it ought to be by a process that would result in the hospital being built, and not the crossing. In exactly the same way, utilitarians defend the free market by saying that, if a commodity is owned by one person, but is worth more to another (is of greater utility) the free market will make sure that that person will get it. The differences in utility are mathematically represented, but it makes no difference.



Full Essay: Response to Anarchist FAQ (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html)

[RGacky3]

You see the point? Anarchism is a political theory, granted, but political theories change. In order to identify a political theory including its changes, one has to throw off historical anomalies and use an essential and objective definition: "The desire for an absence of government" is such an objective, ahistorical, definition, and such is the dictionary definition that anarcho-capitalism is consistent with.

Not historically also presently, the vast majority of Anarchists oppose Capitalism. Poilitical theories can change, but the basic pricniples of anarchism are constant, and one of them is opposition to Capitalism.

Another way would be taking the concept of voting out of democracy, thats not changing democracy, thats not democracy.


"Libertarian anarchy is only a very sketchy framework, a framework based on the idea of individual property rights - the right to one's own body, to what one produces oneself, and to what others voluntarily give one. Within that framework there are many possible ways for people to associate. Goods might be produced by giant, hierarchical corporations, like those that now exist. I hope not; it does not strike me as either an attractive for people to live or an efficient way or producing goods. But other people might disagree; if so, in a free society they would be free to organise themselves into corporations.
"Goods might be produced by communes, group families, inside which property was held in common. That also does not seem to me to be a very attractive form of life. I would not join one, but I would have no right to prevent others from doing so.
"My own preference is for the sort of economic institutions which have been named, I think by Robert LeFevre, agoric. Under agoric institutions almost everyone is self-employed. Instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces. As a free-lance writer (one of my professions), I am part of an agoric economic order."

Thats fine, but unfortunately private property has been shown to nessesarily result in hiarchies.


In exactly the same way, utilitarians defend the free market by saying that, if a commodity is owned by one person, but is worth more to another (is of greater utility) the free market will make sure that that person will get it. The differences in utility are mathematically represented, but it makes no difference.


Well some people have more money than others, and money runs markets, not peoples needs.

[Havet]

Not historically also presently, the vast majority of Anarchists oppose Capitalism. Poilitical theories can change, but the basic pricniples of anarchism are constant, and one of them is opposition to Capitalism.

"Anarchism is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) encompassing theories and attitudes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought) which consider the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state), as compulsory government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and promote the elimination of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society) or anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)."

"According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oxford_Companion_to_Philosophy), "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance).""

"There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-5) Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_left) ideology,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-brooks-6) and much of anarchist economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_economics) and anarchist legal philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law) reflect anti-statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statism) interpretations of communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism), collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism), syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism) or participatory economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics); however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism) strain,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-7) with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism) and private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) (like classical mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) or today's anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) and agorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism))."

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)



Thats fine, but unfortunately private property has been shown to nessesarily result in hiarchies.

1. if it results in hierarchies, but one can leave those hierarchies at any time, then they are voluntary hierarchies, and i see nothing wrong with them.
2. even if it led to forceful hierarchies (like state hierarchies), the benefit of private property (which can be seen over the last 100 years) is tremendous



Well some people have more money than others, and money runs markets, not peoples needs.

If businessmen did not try to supply people's needs (aka demand) then they would not make money.

in practical reality, some people will always be richer than other, because people have wildly differing abilities, and those abilities affect ability to make money, but over time we can all become richer.

The idea that everyone should be as wealthy as each other is as ridiculous as wanting everyone to have the same intelligence or the same musical ability.

[RGacky3]

however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism) strain,

Yeah, and democracy has always included North Korea, just because they call themselves democratic.

Btw, most individualist anarchists also oppose private property in the Capitalist sense and thus Capitalism.


1. if it results in hierarchies, but one can leave those hierarchies at any time, then they are voluntary hierarchies, and i see nothing wrong with them.
2. even if it led to forceful hierarchies (like state hierarchies), the benefit of private property (which can be seen over the last 100 years) is tremendous


1. When I say hiarchies I mean forceful hierchies, I don't mean like listeninig to your doctor. Private property alwasy results in forceful hiearchies, as has been shown in many pats posts

2. In the last 100 years, there have been benefits however how can you know they would'nt have been more enhanced with anarchist-communism, and also with anarchist communism they would be benefits for everyone, not just a few.


If businessmen did not try to supply people's needs (aka demand) then they would not make money.

Be people's needs what you mean is people with moneys needs and wants. Businessmen have no reason to supply people without money's needs.

My point is, if 5 people have millions of dollars only 95 people only have one. How do you make the money? By supplying the 95 peoples needs? or by catering to the 5 people?

Thats what happens in the real world, which is why mansions are being made and newer iphones are being made when millions of people starve and millions have inadequite housing.


in practical reality, some people will always be richer than other, because people have wildly differing abilities, and those abilities affect ability to make money, but over time we can all become richer.

Thats not why people become richer in Capitalism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Anarchism is a political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) encompassing theories and attitudes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought) which consider the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state), as compulsory government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government), to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and promote the elimination of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society) or anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)."
Wikipedia? Come on! You know as well as we do that the Wikipedia definition of anything is a temporary, ever-changing matter. What is there today may be different tomorrow.


1. if it results in hierarchies, but one can leave those hierarchies at any time, then they are voluntary hierarchies, and i see nothing wrong with them.
By that logic, as long as you can leave the territory controlled by a state, the state is voluntary.


2. even if it led to forceful hierarchies (like state hierarchies), the benefit of private property (which can be seen over the last 100 years) is tremendous
Anarchists are opposed to hierarchies. If you support hierarchies for whatever reason, then you are not an anarchist.

If you think private property is beneficial, fine. Many people also think the state is beneficial. Their arguments must be discussed. But regardless of whether they are right or wrong, the fact is that they are not anarchists.


If businessmen did not try to supply people's needs (aka demand) then they would not make money.
Socialists oppose businessmen for what they do to workers, not what they do to consumers.


in practical reality, some people will always be richer than other, because people have wildly differing abilities, and those abilities affect ability to make money
Wrong. People may have different abilities, but there is no objective way to determine which abilities are better than others. Should a doctor make more money than a professor? Should an actor make more money than a singer? Should a construction worker make more money than a taxi driver?

Who gets to decide? The market? Ah, then, you see, differences of wealth are not caused by differences in ability, but by the market.

[Havet]

Yeah, and democracy has always included North Korea, just because they call themselves democratic.

Btw, most individualist anarchists also oppose private property in the Capitalist sense and thus Capitalism.

"however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism) strain,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-7) with that strain supporting an anarchist free-market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism) and private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property) (like classical mutualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) or today's anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) and agorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism)).[/URL]"

From anarchy faq response:

"In fact, though, anarcho-capitalism does have historical precedent. There were capitalists in the Abolitionist movement in pre-Civil War USA who advocated the abolition of all government, its services to be provided on the market. Charles Lane is one such example. He advocated "Voluntary Government," market supply of roads, schools, banks, free trade, and state welfare to be replaced by private charity. And if you say that this notion of "Voluntary Government" destroys the notion that their were anarchists in the abolitionist movement, I can simply respond that the fact is that some of Charles Lane's contemporaries told him that they agree with his attack on government, with his desire to replace government services with voluntary ones, but pointed out that "Voluntary Government" was a contradiction in terms. Meanwhile, in France, the laissez faire economist Gustave de Molinari, who was influenced by the anarchist William Godwin, and liberal economist such as Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say, decided that if Smith and Say were right about the inefficiency and harmfulness of government intervention and monopoly, then government monopoly of protective force would be just as inefficient and harmful. Under this government monopoly, he argued, Justice becomes slow and costly, the police vexatious, individual liberty is no longer respected, [and] the price of security is abusively inflated and inequitably apportioned. . . ." He argued that competition ought to be introduced in the provision of security of person and property, "If this industry were free, we would witness as many companies founded as could be usefully formed. Too few, and the high price of security would make the formation of more [companies] profitable. Too many, and the superfluous ones would quickly dissolve. Thus the price of security would alwavs be held to the cost of production". You might try to argue that these people cannot be included in the history of anarchist movements and ideas because they never called themselves anarchists. But neither did Godwin or Tolstoy, but they are included in the history of anarchism. Why are such people included in anarchist history? Godwin was an immense influence on the development of socialism, and Tolstoy advocated socialistic arrangements. But they are not included in anarchist history for advocating socialism. They are icluded because they wanted to abolish government and states, just as these capitalist I have referred to did."



1. When I say hiarchies I mean forceful hierchies, I don't mean like listeninig to your doctor. Private property alwasy results in forceful hiearchies, as has been shown in many pats posts

2. In the last 100 years, there have been benefits however how can you know they would'nt have been more enhanced with anarchist-communism, and also with anarchist communism they would be benefits for everyone, not just a few.

1. I've been in those posts and people have failed to demonstrate how private property results in forceful hierarchies. If you have new arguments, please state them.

2. I know because i looked how they appeared. I also know force (stealing a plant from an owner, steal some to give to others) is not a very good way of achieving good results.

It has been people relatively free to own property and relatively free to trade it, with the incentive of achieving rewards for creating and increasing innovation, that has led to more diversity in products. Im not saying communes should be forbiden, of course not, im saying that there is historical evidence to private property having greatly benefited the lives of many people.


Be people's needs what you mean is people with moneys needs and wants. Businessmen have no reason to supply people without money's needs.

My point is, if 5 people have millions of dollars only 95 people only have one. How do you make the money? By supplying the 95 peoples needs? or by catering to the 5 people?

Thats what happens in the real world, which is why mansions are being made and newer iphones are being made when millions of people starve and millions have inadequite housing.

Wow you sure are selective in your representation of reality.

Mansions and iphones are not the only things being made

[URL="http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13837400"]Indian property developers cater to the masses with low-cost housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-8)


"The developers say the potential for very cheap housing in India is huge. Many of those living in slums today are employed as drivers, factory workers or tailors, with incomes of around 90,000 rupees a year—easily enough to afford a flat which costs 200,000-400,000 rupees."

Food
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food#International_exports_and_imports)
"The variety and availability of food is no longer restricted by the diversity of locally grown food or the limitations of the local growing season.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food#cite_note-30) Between 1961 and 1999, there has been a 400% increase in worldwide food exports."

"In the pre-modern era, the sale of surplus food took place once a week when farmers took their wares on market day, into the local village marketplace. Here food was sold to grocers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grocer) for sale in their local shops for purchase by local consumers.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food#cite_note-silhnc-12)[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food#cite_note-Jango-28) With the onset of industrialization, and the development of the food processing industry, a wider range of food could be sold and distributed in distant locations."

"Consumers worldwide faced rising food prices, it was reported on March 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_24), 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008). Reasons for this development are freak weather, dramatic changes in the global economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_economy), including higher oil prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price), lower food reserves and growing consumer demand in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) and India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). In the long term, prices are expected to stabilize."

Overall trend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Support)

"While the measurements are not identical, proponents argue that increasing GDP (per capita) is empirically shown to bring about improved standards of living, such as better availability of food, housing, clothing, and health care.[122] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-121) The decrease in the number of hours worked per week and the decreased participation of children and the elderly in the workforce have been attributed to capitalism.[123] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-122)[124] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-123)[125] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-124)[126] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#cite_note-125) Proponents also believe that a capitalist economy offers far more opportunities for individuals to raise their income through new professions or business ventures than do other economic forms. To their thinking, this potential is much greater than in either traditional feudal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal) or tribal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe) societies or in socialist societies."



Thats not why people become richer in Capitalism.

Oh really? How do people get rich in capitalism then? By "exploiting"? Or by creating something valuable and then trading it?

[Havet]

Wikipedia? Come on! You know as well as we do that the Wikipedia definition of anything is a temporary, ever-changing matter. What is there today may be different tomorrow.

Stop *****ing about wikipedia and focus on my arguments. It doesnt matter whether im using wikipedia or oxford dictionary. I can find other sources to show that there have been anarchists before that didnt oppose to private property. See my reply to Rgacky above.



By that logic, as long as you can leave the territory controlled by a state, the state is voluntary.

Actually, that is a theme i have been discussing with Sedrox lately:

"From some time i believed that taxation was theft because i had not agreed to be born in my country and to pay for the services. I thought that in a community such problem would be solved, but if a person is born in a community with those same policies, he is in our same situation. This is why i now view every state as one giant community.

however, there is a fundamental difference. In cases of normal communities, there is a written contract that people agreed to this. There is physical proof of consent. In current states, there is no contract, you just pay or go to jail or leave. It is likely that in the case of a community the "taxes" would be payed by the family of the baby until it grew and then he bought a house and decided whether he wanted to pay the taxes or not. if he chose to stay, he would have to sign a written contract in which he accepted the conditions, and should any problems arise, the contract could serve to solve them"

In other words, states are not voluntary associations because they force claims on others who have not agressed anyone, inside their [state's] jurisdiction (which they have no claim on)



Anarchists are opposed to hierarchies. If you support hierarchies for whatever reason, then you are not an anarchist.

You are misunderstanding hierarchies. There are forced hierarchies and voluntary hierarchies.

Anarchists are opposed to forced hierarchies. If they were against all hierarchies then they would have to be against all forms of organization (including communes), because "A hierarchy can link entities either directly or indirectly, and either vertically or horizontally." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy)


If you think private property is beneficial, fine. Many people also think the state is beneficial. Their arguments must be discussed. But regardless of whether they are right or wrong, the fact is that they are not anarchists.

Obviously you didnt bother to read the initial part of my post. The problem with your argument is that you claim: "just because some anarchists in the past were against private property, then one can only be an anarchist if he opposes private property", when in fact there have been contemporary movements to those on the radical left who did not oppose private property, as stated above.



Socialists oppose businessmen for what they do to workers, not what they do to consumers.

this was not what he was arguing. He claimed businessmen were not supplying people's needs, whether they were workers or consumers.



Wrong. People may have different abilities, but there is no objective way to determine which abilities are better than others. Should a doctor make more money than a professor? Should an actor make more money than a singer? Should a construction worker make more money than a taxi driver?

WHo fucking said anything about "an objective way to determine which abilities are better than others"


Who gets to decide? The market? Ah, then, you see, differences of wealth are not caused by differences in ability, but by the market.

Markets (individuals changing freely) reward those with better abilities (a company that produces a product more effectively and cheaply) than a company that produces the same product worse and more costly. Therefore, the best company will be the one who will make the most money (the reward), because it is the one consumers will want to buy more from.

Differences in wealth are caused by ability

Differences in wealth are caused by the market as well (more people think your product is more valuable than another)

[RGacky3]

They are icluded because they wanted to abolish government and states, just as these capitalist I have referred to did."

My point as to the North korea example, is that the ones that actually support capitlaism, are so few, and so outside the general principles of mainstream anarchism, they can hardly be counted, the same way North Korea cannot be counted as democractic.


1. I've been in those posts and people have failed to demonstrate how private property results in forceful hierarchies. If you have new arguments, please state them.

Thats because you ignore the arguments. Capitalism creates extreme differences in wealth, and wealth means control of resources and capital, which means control of people. The hiearchies that wealth creates is backed by force (private property, which paradoxoly needs a state), not given to the capitalists voluntarily.


Im not saying communes should be forbiden, of course not, im saying that there is historical evidence to private property having greatly benefited the lives of many people.

and vise versa.


Mansions and iphones are not the only things being made

Yes I know, I was'nt making a set in stone statement, my point was, the market is about MONEY, not about needs or wants. Meaning some peoples needs and wants are nessesarily much much more catered to than other peoples. Thats the market.

Now are there exceptions to the rule? of coarse, because sometimes making stuff for the poor can be profitable.


Oh really? How do people get rich in capitalism then? By "exploiting"? Or by creating something valuable and then trading it?

Generally speaking, by getting other people to do the work for you, and being able to work the market place, knowing who has money and how to get it from them. Thats how things work in the real world.


It is likely that in the case of a community the "taxes" would be payed by the family of the baby until it grew and then he bought a house and decided whether he wanted to pay the taxes or not. if he chose to stay, he would have to sign a written contract in which he accepted the conditions, and should any problems arise, the contract could serve to solve them"


Thats rich, so signing a contract would justify the power, even though the nature of the power has'nt changed AT ALL.


this was not what he was arguing. He claimed businessmen were not supplying people's needs, whether they were workers or consumers.


Capitalism has nothing to do with supplying peoples needs it has to do with profit, that may or may not include supplying some peoples needs.


Markets (individuals changing freely) reward those with better abilities (a company that produces a product more effectively and cheaply) than a company that produces the same product worse and more costly. Therefore, the best company will be the one who will make the most money (the reward), because it is the one consumers will want to buy more from.

Thats an extreamly simplistic way or putting it. You fail to take into account capital, class interests, and starting wealth.


Differences in wealth are caused by ability


Ability to do what?

[Agrippa]

The main problem with anarcho-capitalists is that their definition of "capitalism" is totally wrong. They usually use capitalism as a term loosely meaning "the free exchange of goods and services", whereas the etymology of the word makes it clear it has more to do with commodity-accumulation.

I've met self-described anarcho-capitalists who have claimed medieval Iceland, Mongolian and American Indian hunter-gatherers, and the Zapatistas as examples of "free market capitalism". Many self-described anarcho-capitalists are fascists and technocrats who deserve to be banished to OI. Others are harmless, and potential allies.

[mikelepore]

Differences in wealth are caused by ability

So much for the article of faith that grammar school made us memorize. But now, compare it to facts about a few of the families that own a sizable portion of the U.S.A.

I usually post the following data online about once a year. Something that I copied from an old magazine.

While scanning the following facts, people may remind themselves, "I am now checking to see whether these facts seem to be consistent with the claim that differences in wealth can be explained by personal characteristics (skill, diligence, etc.)."

G. P. Getty, $1.9 billion inheritance
J. P. Getty, Jr. $1 billion inheritance
C. M. Getty, $670 million inheritance
A. C. Getty Earhart, $670 million inheritance
C. E. Getty Perry, $670 million inheritance
W. C. Ford, $1.4 billion inheritance
J. Ford, $800 million inheritance
R. A. Hearst, $1.4 billion inheritance
W. R. Hearst III, $800 million inheritance
D. W. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
G. R. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
A. Hearst, $700 million inheritance
P. Hearst Cooke, $700 million inheritance
O. M. Dupont Bredin, $500 million inheritance
C. S. Du Pont Darden, $500 million inheritance
I. Du Pont, Jr., $500 million inheritance
I. S. Du Pont May, $500 million inheritance
A. F. Du Pont Mills, $515 million inheritance
J. C. Walton, $6.5 billion inheritance
H. R. Walton, $6.4 billion inheritance
A. L. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
S. R. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
J. T. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
A. K. Walton, $660 million inheritance
L. M. Walton, $660 million inheritance

-- Source: Forbes magazine, December 1997

[Kwisatz Haderach]

By the way, Hayenmill, arguments in favour of the existing capitalist system, such as the ones you quoted, cannot be used to support radical changes to the existing system - such as anarcho-capitalism.


Stop *****ing about wikipedia and focus on my arguments.
I would focus on your arguments if you actually made any - as opposed to quoting others.


however, there is a fundamental difference. In cases of normal communities, there is a written contract that people agreed to this. There is physical proof of consent. In current states, there is no contract, you just pay or go to jail or leave. It is likely that in the case of a community the "taxes" would be payed by the family of the baby until it grew and then he bought a house and decided whether he wanted to pay the taxes or not. if he chose to stay, he would have to sign a written contract in which he accepted the conditions, and should any problems arise, the contract could serve to solve them"
Cool. So if the existing state put such a contract in front of you at the age of 18, and said you could take it or leave the country, you would stop opposing the state?

But what's the point in making you sign the contract, if you can clearly indicate your decision by staying inside the country or leaving? The state just needs to show you the contract, and you can either accept (by staying) or refuse (by leaving).

And guess what? Such a contract already exists. Assuming you live in the United States, you can read it here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

By staying in the country, you agree to the terms and conditions stipulated in the constitution.


You are misunderstanding hierarchies. There are forced hierarchies and voluntary hierarchies.
Define "forced" and "voluntary." So far the distinction you've offered between them is vague and contradictory.

I will make a bet with you: Whatever "force" you claim the state can use, I bet I can show you that certain private property owners, in certain conditions, can use the exact same "force."


The problem with your argument is that you claim: "just because some anarchists in the past were against private property, then one can only be an anarchist if he opposes private property", when in fact there have been contemporary movements to those on the radical left who did not oppose private property, as stated above.
Actually, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that private property (specifically, private property over land) is equivalent to state power. Anarchic landowner = state. That is my argument. Whatever the state can do, a landowner in anarchy can also do.

Therefore, it makes no sense to oppose the state while supporting private ownership of land.

And this is the crucial difference between "anarcho"-capitalism and those older individualist anarchist movements. They did not support private ownership of land.


this was not what he was arguing. He claimed businessmen were not supplying people's needs, whether they were workers or consumers.
And for many (though not all) businessmen, that is true. See below.


WHo fucking said anything about "an objective way to determine which abilities are better than others"
If there is no objective way to determine which abilities are better than others, then differences in wealth are based on nothing but public opinion.

Do you want public opinion to determine how much you should earn?


Therefore, the best company will be the one who will make the most money (the reward), because it is the one consumers will want to buy more from.

[...]

Differences in wealth are caused by the market as well (more people think your product is more valuable than another)
You talk about the market as if it were a democracy, with consumers voting on which company is best. That's not how it works at all. Your number of "votes" in the market is equal to your number of dollars (or pounds, or euros, or whatever).

So no, the market does not reward companies that produce things wanted by "more people." The market rewards companies that produce things which can attract the most money. Since people do not all have equal amounts of money, it is very possible for a company to be successful on the market by producing things for a rich minority and ignoring the poor majority.

(Note: I said possible, not necessary. Some companies are successful by producing things for the rich minority. As long as even one such company exists, the market cannot be said to always reward those who produce things wanted by "more people.")

[Havet]

My point as to the North korea example, is that the ones that actually support capitlaism, are so few, and so outside the general principles of mainstream anarchism, they can hardly be counted, the same way North Korea cannot be counted as democractic.

okay, but i was not talking of democracy. i was talking of anarchism, and the specific anarchist case and examples in history.



Thats because you ignore the arguments. Capitalism creates extreme differences in wealth, and wealth means control of resources and capital, which means control of people. The hiearchies that wealth creates is backed by force (private property, which paradoxoly needs a state), not given to the capitalists voluntarily.

The wealth disparity free markets create, even if the gap between rich and poor widens, the poor themselves are actually better off than they would have been in the more equal state without free enterprise. There is historical evidence to back this up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL0ygI-5dco&feature=PlayList&p=823CD02829DEE102&index=0)



and vise versa.


yup, because those communities lived in places with private property (even though inside they might have held property in common), they traded with the outside.



Yes I know, I was'nt making a set in stone statement, my point was, the market is about MONEY, not about needs or wants. Meaning some peoples needs and wants are nessesarily much much more catered to than other peoples. Thats the market.

Now are there exceptions to the rule? of coarse, because sometimes making stuff for the poor can be profitable.

The market always responds to needs and wants. If i make a product and nobody wants it or needs it, i will lose money.




Generally speaking, by getting other people to do the work for you, and being able to work the market place, knowing who has money and how to get it from them. Thats how things work in the real world.

And how do you get others to work for you? How do you get others to buy from you? you are leaving all these aside intentionally.



Thats rich, so signing a contract would justify the power, even though the nature of the power has'nt changed AT ALL.

By signing a contract you are agreeing in staying in other people's property (the commune/community), with certain rights and obligations. Therefore, you are consenting to the power they will have on you inside the community while you stay there.



Capitalism has nothing to do with supplying peoples needs it has to do with profit, that may or may not include supplying some peoples needs.

The current system, even though inneficient and bad in many ways, has allowed for many people's needs to be supplied. (data above on link)



Thats an extreamly simplistic way or putting it. You fail to take into account capital, class interests, and starting wealth.

i failed intentionally, because it didn't fucking matter to the argument i was raising.



Ability to do what?

anything...

"An aptitude is an innate, acquired or learned or developed component of a competency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competency) (being the others: knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge), understanding and attitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude)) to do a certain kind of work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_%28economics%29) at a certain level. Aptitudes may be physical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical) or mental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental)."

[Havet]

So much for the article of faith that grammar school made us memorize. But now, compare it to facts about a few of the families that own a sizable portion of the U.S.A.

I usually post the following data online about once a year. Something that I copied from an old magazine.

While scanning the following facts, people may remind themselves, "I am now checking to see whether these facts seem to be consistent with the claim that differences in wealth can be explained by personal characteristics (skill, diligence, etc.)."

G. P. Getty, $1.9 billion inheritance
J. P. Getty, Jr. $1 billion inheritance
C. M. Getty, $670 million inheritance
A. C. Getty Earhart, $670 million inheritance
C. E. Getty Perry, $670 million inheritance
W. C. Ford, $1.4 billion inheritance
J. Ford, $800 million inheritance
R. A. Hearst, $1.4 billion inheritance
W. R. Hearst III, $800 million inheritance
D. W. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
G. R. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
A. Hearst, $700 million inheritance
P. Hearst Cooke, $700 million inheritance
O. M. Dupont Bredin, $500 million inheritance
C. S. Du Pont Darden, $500 million inheritance
I. Du Pont, Jr., $500 million inheritance
I. S. Du Pont May, $500 million inheritance
A. F. Du Pont Mills, $515 million inheritance
J. C. Walton, $6.5 billion inheritance
H. R. Walton, $6.4 billion inheritance
A. L. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
S. R. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
J. T. Walton, $6.3 billion inheritance
A. K. Walton, $660 million inheritance
L. M. Walton, $660 million inheritance

-- Source: Forbes magazine, December 1997

except in cases where that inheritance derived from force, someone HAD TO PRODUCE THE WEALTH BY TRADE, and then passed it in forms of inheritance.

[trivas7]

Thanks for this.

Everybody who has read of the debate between individualist and communist anarchists knows Mackay's famous words:
"'Would you, in this system of society you call 'free Communism,' prevent individuals from exchanging their labour amongst themselves by means of their own medium of exchange? And further: Would you prevent them from occupying the land for personal use?'"
Auban's question was not to be escaped. If he answered 'Yes!' he admitted that society had the right of control over the individual and threw overboard the autonomy of the individual he had so zealously defended; if, on the other hand, he answered 'No!' he admitted the right of private property which he had just denied so emphatically." To MacKay this implies a number of things. One, that individuals have a right to sell their labour if they have a right to liberty. Two, that they have a right to private property. Note that he talks about occupying the land for personal use, and says that this is property.

[RGacky3]

okay, but i was not talking of democracy. i was talking of anarchism, and the specific anarchist case and examples in history.

Yeah but the principles applies, just because a small group call themselves something does'nt make their claim valid.


except in cases where that inheritance derived from force, someone HAD TO PRODUCE THE WEALTH BY TRADE, and then passed it in forms of inheritance.

So? His point stands, in the real world, the vast majority of wealth is not gained by individual work.


The market always responds to needs and wants. If i make a product and nobody wants it or needs it, i will lose money.


No one argued that, your ignoring my points. The point is the needs and wants OF WHOME???


And how do you get others to work for you? How do you get others to buy from you? you are leaving all these aside intentionally.

There are many ways to get others to work for you, but that does'nt justify the power it gives you, just as there are many ways to become king.


By signing a contract you are agreeing in staying in other people's property (the commune/community), with certain rights and obligations. Therefore, you are consenting to the power they will have on you inside the community while you stay there.

What makes it their property? If not force. Anyway, right here you've essencially justified a state just by adding a techincality, which shows your not an anarchist at all, and that private property and anarchism are incompatible.


The current system, even though inneficient and bad in many ways, has allowed for many people's needs to be supplied. (data above on link)

Keep your head in the sand. Peoples needs ARE NOT BEING SUPPLIED.


i failed intentionally, because it didn't fucking matter to the argument i was raising.

Well you were defending Capitlaism and markets, and those things are a huge part of capitalism and markets.


anything...

No, ability to manipulate markets, to control resources, and so on. Captialism favors certain abilities over others, (and none of them have anything to do with peoples needs or benefiting society).

[Havet]

By the way, Hayenmill, arguments in favour of the existing capitalist system, such as the ones you quoted, cannot be used to support radical changes to the existing system - such as anarcho-capitalism.

I was not using using arguments in favor of current system to support ancap. i was using those arguments against your biased opinions (with which you always fail to post FACTS) about the current system, which makes you believe you are justified in using force against it.



I would focus on your arguments if you actually made any - as opposed to quoting others.

i would focus about stopping to negate REALITY. What i stated are facts. There's nothing you can do about them except accept them or pretend they don't exist and carry living on in your fantasy world where everything is an opinion and you can never be wrong.



Cool. So if the existing state put such a contract in front of you at the age of 18, and said you could take it or leave the country, you would stop opposing the state?

But what's the point in making you sign the contract, if you can clearly indicate your decision by staying inside the country or leaving? The state just needs to show you the contract, and you can either accept (by staying) or refuse (by leaving).

And guess what? Such a contract already exists. Assuming you live in the United States, you can read it here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

By staying in the country, you agree to the terms and conditions stipulated in the constitution.

The problem with the state is that it claims ownership of property which other people don't view as the correct way to acquire property (labor, homesteading, etc).

but theoretically, in a commune which showed that contract, i wouldnt oppose it doing so, if the commune had acquired its property legitimately and didnt claim ownership of property unjustly. Of course, that doesnt mean id still want to join one, but i wouldnt care if other people did join it.


Define "forced" and "voluntary." So far the distinction you've offered between them is vague and contradictory.

I will make a bet with you: Whatever "force" you claim the state can use, I bet I can show you that certain private property owners, in certain conditions, can use the exact same "force."

Forced hierarchy: hierarchy imposed on others at the threat of violence and gunpoint. Examples: feudalism (obey your king or be killed), dictatorship (obey the fuhrer or be sent to concentration camps), etc

Voluntary hierarchy: hierarchy that is not imposed on others by force (threat of violence and gunpoint), and is accepted only by those who wish to interact with the hierarchy. Examples: a company (if you agree to work here then you will have to agree to obey the orders of your superior), a football team (if you agree to join this team you have to agree to obey the orders of the coach), etc

The only force i claim individuals can use is force in self-defense to previous agression against their lives, their freedom and their justly acquired property.



Actually, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that private property (specifically, private property over land) is equivalent to state power. Anarchic landowner = state. That is my argument. Whatever the state can do, a landowner in anarchy can also do.

Therefore, it makes no sense to oppose the state while supporting private ownership of land.

And this is the crucial difference between "anarcho"-capitalism and those older individualist anarchist movements. They did not support private ownership of land.

The state is perceived as legitimate when it taxes people on their homes because the state is claiming it owns the homes, while people claim they own their homes because the homes were a result of their labor. BIG DIFFERENCE.

If i go on the street and the police arrest me because i didnt pay my taxes, and i yell: "Help, Thief!", people think i am crazy

If i go on the street and some guy steals me and i yell: "help thief!", people will think i am right in complaining, even though they may do nothing to help me. In one case, theft is perceived to be legitimate, in the other it is generally accepted to be ilegitimate, although both actions are exaactly the same.



If there is no objective way to determine which abilities are better than others, then differences in wealth are based on nothing but public opinion.

Do you want public opinion to determine how much you should earn?

Yes, those are markets. The market (public opinion) is what determines how much people are willing to give me for my product/service. supply and demand.


You talk about the market as if it were a democracy, with consumers voting on which company is best. That's not how it works at all. Your number of "votes" in the market is equal to your number of dollars (or pounds, or euros, or whatever).

So no, the market does not reward companies that produce things wanted by "more people." The market rewards companies that produce things which can attract the most money. Since people do not all have equal amounts of money, it is very possible for a company to be successful on the market by producing things for a rich minority and ignoring the poor majority.

(Note: I said possible, not necessary. Some companies are successful by producing things for the rich minority. As long as even one such company exists, the market cannot be said to always reward those who produce things wanted by "more people.")

COntrast the relationship between two men, one having an income of 10,000$ a year and one of 5,000$

Bidding for necessities, the richer man outbids the poorer; if there were only enough food on the market for one man, it would be the poorer who would starve. But when the richer man is bidding for luxuries and the poorer man for necessities, the poorer man wins.

Suppose the richer man, having bought enough flower to make bread for himself, wishes to buy the rest of the flour on the market to make papier-mâché for his children's halloween masks. The poorer man still does not have anything to eat; he is willing to use as much of his income as necessary to bid for the flour. He gets the flour, and at much less than 5,000$. The richer man already used half of his income buying flour for bread (since there too, he was bidding against the poor). His remaining income is barely equal to that of the poorer man, and he is certainly not going to spend all of it, or even a substancial fraction, for halloween masks.

[Havet]

Yeah but the principles applies, just because a small group call themselves something does'nt make their claim valid.

So maybe anarcho-communists aren't anarchists either, because anarchists hadn't been up until then...


So? His point stands, in the real world, the vast majority of wealth is not gained by individual work.perhaps, but someone STILL HAD TO PRODUCE THE WEALTH. Just because, after produced, it is not given as inheritance doesn't change the fact that it had to be PRODUCED.


No one argued that, your ignoring my points. The point is the needs and wants OF WHOME???

Of ANYONE. It may be far more profitable for a company to supply for richer demands (demands of richer people), but if that were always the case, then we wouldnt have seen the tremendous advance in conditions for the poorer, with the data i have shown above.



There are many ways to get others to work for you, but that does'nt justify the power it gives you, just as there are many ways to become king.Of course i don't want workers to be slaves. How could they? if i were to treat my workers as slaves they would leave me and go work for another company. COMPETITION ensures workers rights. However, i also shouldnt be a slave to workers. The only power i have over them is the power anybody has over their property: my machines, my factory, and the things i bought with my money.



What makes it their property? If not force. Anyway, right here you've essencially justified a state just by adding a techincality, which shows your not an anarchist at all, and that private property and anarchism are incompatible.First, they didnt sign to be property of others. they signed to agree by some rules of the community. i havent justified a state. i have justified a community (which is what you guys want to create after all) without the need of a centralized power with the monopoly on force and coercion seen as legitimate.




Keep your head in the sand. Peoples needs ARE NOT BEING SUPPLIED.it is YOU who is KEEPING THE HEAD IN THE SAND. Read the godamn data or DON'T COMPLAIN. yeesh



Well you were defending Capitlaism and markets, and those things are a huge part of capitalism and markets. whatever..




No, ability to manipulate markets, to control resources, and so on. Captialism favors certain abilities over others, (and none of them have anything to do with peoples needs or benefiting society).free markets favor freedom, freedom to use your ability how you want it, and to trade your ability with others. again if they had nothing to do with people's needs or benefiting society, then WE WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN the great benefits of society in the last 100 years and the improvement of the supply of people's needs. Is it so really to accept the data?

[trivas7]

The main problem with anarcho-capitalists is that their definition of "capitalism" is totally wrong. They usually use capitalism as a term loosely meaning "the free exchange of goods and services", whereas the etymology of the word makes it clear it has more to do with commodity-accumulation.

No, the main problem you have w/ anarcho-capitalists is that they believe individuals have a right to do as they please.

[Agrippa]

No, the main problem you have w/ anarcho-capitalists is that they believe individuals have a right to do as they please.

As an ideology rooted in bourgeois liberalism, anarcho-capitalist individual "rights" are unmitigated by any concern for the needs of the greater eco-system humans are a part of, or any responsibility inherited as a coonsequence of participating in a healthy social relationship.

In order to experience true freedom you must abandon bourgeois, rationalist individualism in favor of authentic individualism, which is inherently spiritual and communal in nature.

[trivas7]

In order to experience true freedom you must abandon bourgeois, rationalist individualism in favor of authentic individualism, which is inherently spiritual and communal in nature.
Thanks, but I reverse the right not to be coerced by your "authentic individualism".

[anticap]

except in cases where that inheritance derived from force, someone HAD TO PRODUCE THE WEALTH BY TRADE, and then passed it in forms of inheritance.

Any defense of inheritance amounts to a defense of aristocracy. No surprise, as the goal of the bourgeoisie by making their revolutions was to set themselves up as two-bit versions of the monarchs they toppled. They didn't want a different system, they wanted the same one but for themselves. Just like "anarcho"-capitalists don't want to eliminate the state, they want to replace it.

Inheritance further reduces to a misunderstanding of basic biology. As though making sure that your genes have an upper hand at survival in the long term is somehow important in the grand scheme of life. As long as any humans live, your species will remain a success, and your "legacy" is intact. They don't have to descend directly from your loins. (For that matter, as long as life continues, it's a success. Homo sapiens is not necessary.)

When you die, the wealth you hold ought to revert to society, which actually created it.

[Plagueround]

Hayenmill is starting to crack. Congrats on holding out for over 200 posts.

[anticap]

Thanks for this.

Everybody who has read of the debate between individualist and communist anarchists knows Mackay's famous words:
"'Would you, in this system of society you call 'free Communism,' prevent individuals from exchanging their labour amongst themselves by means of their own medium of exchange? And further: Would you prevent them from occupying the land for personal use?'"
Auban's question was not to be escaped. If he answered 'Yes!' he admitted that society had the right of control over the individual and threw overboard the autonomy of the individual he had so zealously defended; if, on the other hand, he answered 'No!' he admitted the right of private property which he had just denied so emphatically." To MacKay this implies a number of things. One, that individuals have a right to sell their labour if they have a right to liberty. Two, that they have a right to private property. Note that he talks about occupying the land for personal use, and says that this is property.

"Free Communists" aren't going to go all "Operation Enduring Freedom" on you if you hire wage slaves for less than the value of what they produce, as long as they know what they're getting into, and you don't lock anyone else into your exploitative system. Of course, you can't set up your system by barring anyone from accessing the natural resources which are the common heritage of all (a euphemism for "planet Earth").

Since Homo sapiens is a species of land animal, I doubt very much that you will find many who will advocate denial of use-based land occupation. At an absolute minimum, we all need a spot to curl up and sleep on. Sane people extend this much further of course, but there's no logical necessity to extend it all the way to absolute private property rights (there are lots of reasons not to).

[Agrippa]

Thanks, but I reverse the right not to be coerced by your "authentic individualism".

Once you start classifying mild message board trolling as "coercion", you might as well start building the alluminum foil hat

More troll-bait for your consideration: Tucker and Spooner didn't know Nietzsche and Stirner from their own assholes.

[trivas7]

"Free Communists" aren't going to go all "Operation Enduring Freedom" on you if you hire wage slaves for less than the value of what they produce, as long as they know what they're getting into, and you don't lock anyone else into your exploitative system.
Indeed, Communists aren't going anywhere at all.

[anticap]

Indeed, Communists aren't going anywhere at all.

Naked snark generally signifies a concession, which is how I'll take it, unless you'd like to elaborate.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The modern state is the result of capitalism just as feudal organizations were based on the needs of the nobility. The nobility didn't need laws as we have them today because their status was what determined what was legal or not. Now we have book and books of laws about property rights, and trade agreements and so on because capitalism needs theses things in order to operate.

So any anarchist with a brain in their head is against the capitalist state BECAUSE it is what allows the capitalist staus quo to endure.

Anarcho-capitalism is just capitalist idealism as much as people like HG Wells were socialist ideaists. "But... but... if only capitalism was free of the distortions caused by the state, magically everything would be better". Yeah and if pigs could fly there'd be buckshot in my bacon.

[Havet]

Any defense of inheritance amounts to a defense of aristocracy. No surprise, as the goal of the bourgeoisie by making their revolutions was to set themselves up as two-bit versions of the monarchs they toppled. They didn't want a different system, they wanted the same one but for themselves. Just like "anarcho"-capitalists don't want to eliminate the state, they want to replace it.

Fine, tell me where you live, i'll keep in touch so when you die i can go over and collect my claim over your personal items, money and whatnot.


Inheritance further reduces to a misunderstanding of basic biology. As though making sure that your genes have an upper hand at survival in the long term is somehow important in the grand scheme of life. As long as any humans live, your species will remain a success, and your "legacy" is intact. They don't have to descend directly from your loins. (For that matter, as long as life continues, it's a success. Homo sapiens is not necessary.) if you don't want homo sapiens to live then fine. Go kill yourself. Not that i care.


When you die, the wealth you hold ought to revert to society, which actually created it.

proceed to prove how it was society, who did shit about it, that created wealth. how does a carpenter that creates a chair out of wood owe anything to society. You dont even define what SOCIETY is. Its a magical term that you can use over and over and keep redefining it so it fits your ideology.

[RGacky3]

So maybe anarcho-communists aren't anarchists either, because anarchists hadn't been up until then...

The vast majority of people who call themselves anarchists are anacho-communists.


perhaps, but someone STILL HAD TO PRODUCE THE WEALTH. Just because, after produced, it is not given as inheritance doesn't change the fact that it had to be PRODUCED.

Ok, So what your saying is that initial production justifies every type of coersion and tyranny later on by people who inherit it.


Of ANYONE. It may be far more profitable for a company to supply for richer demands (demands of richer people), but if that were always the case, then we wouldnt have seen the tremendous advance in conditions for the poorer, with the data i have shown above.

The conditions of the poorer, advance proportionaly a lot lower than the conditions of the rich. But overall still, many many millions if not billions of people don't have access to basic needs, and there still is'nt a market for them.

Its not of ANYONE, ask any capitalist, its of cash. Just because there are exceptions to the rule does'nt change the rule.


Of course i don't want workers to be slaves. How could they? if i were to treat my workers as slaves they would leave me and go work for another company. COMPETITION ensures workers rights. However, i also shouldnt be a slave to workers. The only power i have over them is the power anybody has over their property: my machines, my factory, and the things i bought with my money.

Comeptition has'nt ensured workers rights so far.

The power you haev over them is absolute authority over your "property" and thus absolute authority over the work place.

What your saying is akin to saying a kings only power is the power over his land and what happens in his land.


First, they didnt sign to be property of others. they signed to agree by some rules of the community. i havent justified a state. i have justified a community (which is what you guys want to create after all) without the need of a centralized power with the monopoly on force and coercion seen as legitimate.


You HAVE justified a state. an entity with ownership over a land/community, where one must sign a contract to follow certain rules OR leave the area. The only difference is signing the contract (which if they did'nt they'd have to leave). Also non monopolies does'nt mean no authority, anarchism does'nt mean no monopolies.


it is YOU who is KEEPING THE HEAD IN THE SAND. Read the godamn data or DON'T COMPLAIN. yeesh


I can also show you tons of data of starvation, lack of adequite housing, lack of any medical access, and so on and so forth. Of coarse things get slightly better in those areas sometimes just because of the amount of wealth being produced.

But then again life was getting better for slaves in the slave period, that does'nt justify slavery.


whatever..

Yup


free markets favor freedom, freedom to use your ability how you want it, and to trade your ability with others. again if they had nothing to do with people's needs or benefiting society, then WE WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN the great benefits of society in the last 100 years and the improvement of the supply of people's needs. Is it so really to accept the data?

Those freedoms only apply to those who can afford it.

Any supplying of peoples needs or benefiting society is incidental, the profit motive is the first one, and logic and history shows, the profit motive prefers those with money, WHICH IS WHY, many governments need to have welfare systems and subsidized food and housing (which can also account for the improvements, along with technology.)

[Havet]

The vast majority of people who call themselves anarchists are anacho-communists.

Actually, you are right

"The central tendency of anarchism as a social movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement) is represented by communist anarchism, with anarcho-individualism being primarily a philosophical/literary phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-12)"

But i think that tendency is now, and that historically the movement wasn't anarcho-communism (partly because communism hadnt even been thought of), which was the point i was making.



Ok, So what your saying is that initial production justifies every type of coersion and tyranny later on by people who inherit it.

What i'm saying is that if people mix their labor and acquire ownership of something, and then trade it or give it away, the later person that inherits still retains ownership over the land/object.

What you are actually saying, and I completely agree with you, is that people like feudal lord and kings claimed they had ownership over something they didn't own, or got it from someone who didnt own it either. They always took land from the peasants by force, given bullshit reasons like: "I am your king, I have divine intervention, so on so on".

Obviously if it was the peasent that farmed a portion of land and had the work, what could possibly be the logical reason for the king or a noble or anyone to say: "you either pay a tax, or give the land to me"? Like i said, bullshit middle-aged reasoning.


The conditions of the poorer, advance proportionaly a lot lower than the conditions of the rich. But overall still, many many millions if not billions of people don't have access to basic needs, and there still is'nt a market for them.

Its not of ANYONE, ask any capitalist, its of cash. Just because there are exceptions to the rule does'nt change the rule.

Actually business appearing in poorer areas have been able to lift people out of poverty better than any non-free market mechanism.

Examples: sweatshop. Yes they are horrible, according to OUR standard of living. But according to the poorer standard of living, sweatshops are better than resorting to theft or prostitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E&feature=channel_page

Live examples of progress: China

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif

Live data of how conditions of rich and poor have been advancing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL0ygI-5dco&feature=PlayList&p=823CD02829DEE102&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL0ygI-5dco&feature=PlayList&p=823CD02829DEE102&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=5

(yes rich have been advancing slightly faster than poor, but the poor have been advancing as well, and a lot, especially in Asia)



Comeptition has'nt ensured workers rights so far.

The power you haev over them is absolute authority over your "property" and thus absolute authority over the work place.

What your saying is akin to saying a kings only power is the power over his land and what happens in his land.

Dude, you are mistaking a capitalist (which had to PRODUCE money, starting as a worker or inherting some money that had to be produced as well) that actually acquired his tools legitimately with a KING that used FORCE and KILLED those peasants who did not pay the TAX he claimed he had a right to (by divine intervention he though or because he was "king"). In one case, ownership is legitimate. In the other, it is THEFT.

Funny video on the matter actually (showing an anarcho-syndicalist commune arguing against a king, Monty Python)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0



You HAVE justified a state. an entity with ownership over a land/community, where one must sign a contract to follow certain rules OR leave the area. The only difference is signing the contract (which if they did'nt they'd have to leave). Also non monopolies does'nt mean no authority, anarchism does'nt mean no monopolies.

Nope, that is not how I define state:

state in a non-anarchic society: agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force). By legitimized coercion i mean that the people think its ok for the state to engage in some actions of coercion. For example, theft is legitimate by a police officer arresting me for not having payed my taxes, theft is ilegitimate for someone else who wants to rob me.

state in an anarchic society: "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."

This video explains the second definition better than I could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eShZ76P3jWc&feature=channel_page


I can also show you tons of data of starvation, lack of adequite housing, lack of any medical access, and so on and so forth. Of coarse things get slightly better in those areas sometimes just because of the amount of wealth being produced.

But then again life was getting better for slaves in the slave period, that does'nt justify slavery.

and i have consistently shown how starvation, adequate housing and medical access have been greatly improved by a relatively free market. Its not "things get slightly better". Things have improved, ALOT, even though there are still many people who do not have access to those tihngs (which surprisingly are located in state planned economies or dicatorships, like africa)



Those freedoms only apply to those who can afford it.

Any supplying of peoples needs or benefiting society is incidental, the profit motive is the first one, and logic and history shows, the profit motive prefers those with money, WHICH IS WHY, many governments need to have welfare systems and subsidized food and housing (which can also account for the improvements, along with technology.)

and almost anyone can afford to make money, use your ability how you want it (a job or self-employment) and to trade ability with others (job). It has been people relatively free to trade and to pursue profit without using force that has benefited society the most. Not that i expect you to understand it. I bet you dont even realize that it was SUBSIDIZED HOUSING which CAUSED the CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS.

[RGacky3]

They always took land from the peasants by force, given bullshit reasons like: "I am your king, I have divine intervention, so on so on".


So if one of the kings ansestors farmed that land their claim is legitimate ... no matter how much the peasants have farmed it later on also?

The thing is what your doing is justifying, through a vague concept of mixing land and labor (First, no matter how much you do it), the exact same thing, the outcome is exactly the same no matter how you justify it. The ownership of mixing land and labor also ignores any later mixing of land and labor.

If I mix my fishing rod with a lake is it my lake? No matter what? Even if I only fish in it once?

Also you hav'nt shown how property laws would be enforced without a state? (property beyond ones house and direct possessions).


Actually business appearing in poorer areas have been able to lift people out of poverty better than any non-free market mechanism.

Examples: sweatshop. Yes they are horrible, according to OUR standard of living. But according to the poorer standard of living, sweatshops are better than resorting to theft or prostitution.

Before sweatshops came to the thirds world (or should I say Big western companies buying things up, many times from the state at rediculously unfair almost extortion prices), not everyone was a thief/prostitute, interestingly enough.


(yes rich have been advancing slightly faster than poor, but the poor have been advancing as well, and a lot, especially in Asia)


I'm afraid I'm not able to watch the videos at the moment, however I will say that you have to include many things, inflation, cost of living, buying power, availability, and so on and so forth, I'm not sure if those are included in the videos (maybe they are).

But that does'nt exclude the general rule about Markets, its not supply and demand, its demand by people with money, it does'nt matter how much starving people in africa demand food, unless they are demanding with money, they have to rely on charity.


Dude, you are mistaking a capitalist (which had to PRODUCE money, starting as a worker or inherting some money that had to be produced as well) that actually acquired his tools legitimately with a KING that used FORCE and KILLED those peasants who did not pay the TAX he claimed he had a right to (by divine intervention he though or because he was "king"). In one case, ownership is legitimate. In the other, it is THEFT.

Inhereting some monet is not producing money, it was produced by someone else, the same way historically, a kings ansestors conquered (devine right was'nt the real reason he was king, it was swords), the fact is most wealthy peoples wealth is NOT made by themselves, or inhereted, its made through exploitation, now how they got to that point of being Capitalist is really irrelivent, it does'nt justify the power they have now.

A king could justify his position many ways, he's the protector, he's a private security force, his ansters worked the land, and so on and so forth, it does'nt matter.

Also, if workers in a Capitalist company don't pay "taxes" (i.e. they keep all the apples they pick on their owners farm) they go to prison, force.


state in a non-anarchic society: agency of legitimized coercion (and with monopoly on the use of force). By legitimized coercion i mean that the people think its ok for the state to engage in some actions of coercion. For example, theft is legitimate by a police officer arresting me for not having payed my taxes, theft is ilegitimate for someone else who wants to rob me.

state in an anarchic society: "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."

it does'nt matter hwo you define it, the outcome and resulting circumstanecs are exactly the same.


Things have improved, ALOT, even though there are still many people who do not have access to those tihngs (which surprisingly are located in state planned economies or dicatorships, like africa)

Most of africa is far from planned economics, if by planned you mean planned by foreign corporations then yeah.


and almost anyone can afford to make money, use your ability how you want it (a job or self-employment) and to trade ability with others (job). It has been people relatively free to trade and to pursue profit without using force that has benefited society the most. Not that i expect you to understand it. I bet you dont even realize that it was SUBSIDIZED HOUSING which CAUSED the CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS.

It was'nt subsidized housing it was the housing market, inflated beyond belief based on market assumptions.

Most employers arn't going to pay their employees more than absolutely nessesary, which for most people is the rent, food, and maybe some recreation, if they are lucky.

[Havet]

So if one of the kings ansestors farmed that land their claim is legitimate ... no matter how much the peasants have farmed it later on also?

Lets suppose the prevalent criteria for ownership in a society is producing something to own it. One gets to a land that is unowned, farms it (therefore producing) and now owns it. If he hires someone to help him on the land, and the workers agree to be paid in either a portion of the result or money, how is this COERCION, SLAVERY OR EXPLOITATION?


The thing is what your doing is justifying, through a vague concept of mixing land and labor (First, no matter how much you do it), the exact same thing, the outcome is exactly the same no matter how you justify it. The ownership of mixing land and labor also ignores any later mixing of land and labor. if the owner wants other people to help him in the land, and the other people agree on a specific term, then they are agreeing their effort on the land will not be rewarded by receiving a part of the land, but by receiving something in return like a portion of the production or wages.


If I mix my fishing rod with a lake is it my lake? No matter what? Even if I only fish in it once?obviously not. how can you "mix" a rod with a lake? I'm talking of producing something new. How can you produce anything with a lake? either you build something in a lake, or something around it and enclosing the lake, or it is most likely that it ends up being owned collectively by the people who regularly use it.

the point is if you mix your labor with something and produce something new, if that new thing is not temporary (like a building), then you own it. if its something temporary (like pesticides in land), the you would only own it until the effect of the pesticides dissapeared.


Also you hav'nt shown how property laws would be enforced without a state? (property beyond ones house and direct possessions).they cannot be enforced without a state. a state would be "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."


in order for someone to acquire property he would have to gain it by the prevalent criteria of ownership in that society. Nobody would enforce property claims, you would defend your property and you could even have absentee property if it was believed it was a legitimate criteria for ownership in that society. If it wasn't, the mob could try and remove that from you and you wouldnt own it, because it wouldnt be legitimate criteria for ownership .If you claim property through a way that it is not agreed to be a legitimate criteria for ownership in a society, then you ARE a state. If you defend property acquired through the prevalent criteria for ownership in that society, you are NOT a state.




Before sweatshops came to the thirds world (or should I say Big western companies buying things up, many times from the state at rediculously unfair almost extortion prices), not everyone was a thief/prostitute, interestingly enough.evidence/facts/proof/data?



But that does'nt exclude the general rule about Markets, its not supply and demand, its demand by people with money, it does'nt matter how much starving people in africa demand food, unless they are demanding with money, they have to rely on charity.and the reason why markets havent been applying in africa as much and helping lifting those people out of poverty is because:
- historical colonialism (which was ended with the revolutions)
-dictatorship brought by the revolutions.
- war between dictatorships

This is why the currently have to rely on charity in order to survive.



Inhereting some monet is not producing money, it was produced by someone else, the same way historically, a kings ansestors conquered (devine right was'nt the real reason he was king, it was swords), the fact is most wealthy peoples wealth is NOT made by themselves, or inhereted, its made through exploitation, now how they got to that point of being Capitalist is really irrelivent, it does'nt justify the power they have now.are you doing this on purpose? blinding yourself to the truth? If every action a capitalist does, since he is employed as a worker to becoming a businessmen and investing his money is all done by voluntary mutual consent of both parties, and he now has property which is generally perceived that was acquired through a legitimate way by the rest of society, HOW HAS HE EXPLOITED? Why should he provide the jobs, but not negotiate the terms of the jobs? He has provided the jobs, if people dont like the jobs they can go somewhere else. He is providing oportunities, and you just say EXPLOITATION EXPLOITATION EXPLOITATION. Is it his moral obligation to provide a good life to everyone? NO.

Why has he have to be a slave of the workers? Why do workers have to be a slave of him? Why do you think they worked unless they were BOTH BETTER OFF?


A king could justify his position many ways, he's the protector, he's a private security force, his ansters worked the land, and so on and so forth, it does'nt matter.A KING cannot justifity his ownership over property UNLESS he acquried it through the prevalent criteria of ownership accepted by the rest of society. But by doing that, he is no longer a king, because since A KING IS A STATE, this means he is "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."


Also, if workers in a Capitalist company don't pay "taxes" (i.e. they keep all the apples they pick on their owners farm) they go to prison, force.what the fuck are you talking about?

EXAMPLE 101

Person A farmed the land (1) and planted apple trees -> ownership of land

Person B farmed another land (2), planted another fruit tree ->ownership of land

Person B sells his land with his trees to person C who wants to buy it -> person C ownership of land (2)

Person B buys person A's land (1) with money from land (2)-> person B ownership land (1)

Person B - > Capitalist

Person B -> pays workers to take care of land

worker steals apples

Since he acquired this property legitimately, person B can use force to defend himself from the agression of worker. This force is force in self-defense (defense of his legitimate property)

How is this DIFFICULT to understand??



it does'nt matter hwo you define it, the outcome and resulting circumstanecs are exactly the same.No dumbass

In a state society, a state who steals (acquires property not respecting the prevalent criteria of ownership) is actually seen as legitimate (people think its necessary)

In a stateless society, a state, which by definition is someone who "acquires property not respecting the prevalent criteria of ownership" is NOT SEEN AS LEGITIMATE.



Most of africa is far from planned economics, if by planned you mean planned by foreign corporations then yeah.i was using the term planned economics equal to the term dictatorship. There are barely any foreign corporations in the poorest places in africa, and those that exist, are not FREE MARKET CORPORATIONS, because dictatorial government RESTRICTS THE AMOUNT THAT APPEAR BY FORCE.



It was'nt subsidized housing it was the housing market, inflated beyond belief based on market assumptions.I already answered to this before:


FACTS
-2000+: housing prices rose enormously
-Second quarter 2006: steep decline in prices
-Third quarter 2006: mortgage defaults shoot up
-mid 2007: financial system, which had heavily invested in securitized mortgages, began to collapse.
-Foreign economic systems, which had also bought many of these products began to experience unprecedented losses
-government bailouts, nationalizations, etc

can't post links yet, so look up graphs on the price evolution since 1980s to current days to see how it progressed

Mortgage Failures: Occurred in a strong economy and before housing prices have fallen signifficantly

foreclosures occured at same time and at the same pace in both prime and subprime markets.

Anyway, to what really matters:

Market Failure?

4 central causes of financial crisis (which have nothing to do with free market):
-Fiat money
-Low interest rates
-forced loans to high risk borrowers
-government loan guarantees

Fiat money: in 1971 us dollar was taken off the gold standard, which means the dollars isn't backed up by nothing except government saying so. you cannot redeem it by gold or silver like it was once, and is essentially a piece of paper.

Low interest rates:
high housing prices+ artificially low interest rates (by the Fed) = rampant speculation (25% of house purchases were for "flipping")

Forced loans: if you're a banker you are conservative to whom you lend money, because if that person doesn't pay back, your business WILL collapse. So why have these high risk lendings occured?

In 1934, after the great depression, government created the Federal Housing Administration, which guaranteed mortgages and thus eliminated the bank's risk for high risk lendings.

in 1938 Fannie Mae was created to purchase these mortgages

the in the 70s, you have the Community reinvestment act, which "is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining." This means they had to do business without taking into consideration of the geography, whether it was downtown, suburbs, etc

then you have the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, where they had to reveal private information to whom they were lending this, and then the government would score that information on CRA compliance.

and in 1991 you have government requiring banks to submit racial statistics and then accusing banks of prejudice in case (and im in no way trying to collectivize people here) they were discriminating against blacks whom they thought might not be able to pay back the lending.

Anyway, how did the government force the banks to go by these new regulations?
"Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10 000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500 000 or 1% of the creditors network in class actions"

So banks are no longer allowed to use credit history, ratios of income to mortgage payments, and have to accept "credit counseling" as proof of financial ability, as well as unverified income statements. They also have to accept gifts, welfare and unemployment benefits, and other one-time for short term "incomes" as collateral.

Speculation

As prices kept low, defaults stay low, because no one defaults when he can sell the house at a profit.
But as i've already explained, as soon as prices decline, defaults rise, and interest rates begin to increase, as well as variable mortgage payments.

When demand is artificially stimulated, resource allocators get the wrong price signals, and then labor and capital are invested in those sectors of housing and building.
Most employers arn't going to pay their employees more than absolutely nessesary, which for most people is the rent, food, and maybe some recreation, if they are lucky.and most employees, when faced with competition, are not going to accept jobs that only pay the the absolute necessary.

[RGacky3]

Lets suppose the prevalent criteria for ownership in a society is producing something to own it. One gets to a land that is unowned, farms it (therefore producing) and now owns it. If he hires someone to help him on the land, and the workers agree to be paid in either a portion of the result or money, how is this COERCION, SLAVERY OR EXPLOITATION?


Because the only reason the worker agrees to be paid is because if he works the land with out the "owners" concent violence occours against him. Also in the vast majority of worker/boss relationships, the boss has'nt been producing something.


either you build something in a lake, or something around it and enclosing the lake,

ahh so the criteria is building a fense around your lake.


obviously not. how can you "mix" a rod with a lake?

The same way you "mix" your hand with a tree


the point is if you mix your labor with something and produce something new, if that new thing is not temporary (like a building), then you own it. if its something temporary (like pesticides in land), the you would only own it until the effect of the pesticides dissapeared.

I'd just like to point out that your mixing labor with land argument really only stands on, "because I say so".


in order for someone to acquire property he would have to gain it by the prevalent criteria of ownership in that society.

So really its just the consent of the rest of society, right?


If you claim property through a way that it is not agreed to be a legitimate criteria for ownership in a society, then you ARE a state. If you defend property acquired through the prevalent criteria for ownership in that society, you are NOT a state.

Ok so its pretty much up to the society to choose to accept your right to ownership of whatever.


evidence/facts/proof/data?

Before I do the research, I want you to say, that you believe, in your heart of hearts, that before capitalism came to third world countries, most of the people were either thieves or prostitutes.


historical colonialism (which was ended with the revolutions)

This history of the world


-dictatorship brought by the revolutions.
- war between dictatorships

These dictators were for the most part market dictators, meaning foreign investment was a huge part.

Also how many African countries are actually dictatorships?


If every action a capitalist does, since he is employed as a worker to becoming a businessmen and investing his money is all done by voluntary mutual consent of both parties, and he now has property which is generally perceived that was acquired through a legitimate way by the rest of society, HOW HAS HE EXPLOITED? Why should he provide the jobs, but not negotiate the terms of the jobs? He has provided the jobs, if people dont like the jobs they can go somewhere else. He is providing oportunities, and you just say EXPLOITATION EXPLOITATION EXPLOITATION. Is it his moral obligation to provide a good life to everyone? NO.


No its not his moral obligatio, the same way its not a kings moral obligation to provide for his serfs.

Heres the thing, the only difference between a king and a Capitalist in this instance is how they got that authority. After that its ultimatley the same.

The exploitation is the same. Of coarse they consent to work because the other option is no work, and guess who controls the work? The Capitalst.

If I was a peasent in feaudal times, I'd probably consent to work the kings land too.

The only difference is how they got there.


Why has he have to be a slave of the workers? Why do workers have to be a slave of him? Why do you think they worked unless they were BOTH BETTER OFF?

h'es not the "slave" of his workers anymore than a president of a country is a slave to the people of that country.


A KING cannot justifity his ownership over property UNLESS he acquried it through the prevalent criteria of ownership accepted by the rest of society. But by doing that, he is no longer a king, because since A KING IS A STATE, this means he is "a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership."


Ok so pretty much your version of anarchism is the same as mine, except you think that somehow people will respect property rights of Capitalists. Well good luck.


Since he acquired this property legitimately, person B can use force to defend himself from the agression of worker. This force is force in self-defense (defense of his legitimate property)

How is this DIFFICULT to understand??


I understand it, but its bullshit. Because the ownership of land is not only an oxymoron (mixing work with labor is a rediculous argument for property), but also calling defence of "legitimate" (which means everyone else thinks its legitimate) property, is not self-defence, because your not defending yourself.


No dumbass

In a state society, a state who steals (acquires property not respecting the prevalent criteria of ownership) is actually seen as legitimate (people think its necessary)

In a stateless society, a state, which by definition is someone who "acquires property not respecting the prevalent criteria of ownership" is NOT SEEN AS LEGITIMATE.

Ok you've added a very importent point here in your last post THE PEOPLE THINK IT IS LEGITIMATE.

So what your assuming, is essencially, people will recognise inheretense rights, land ownership rights, and the such. Which means (hyperbole to make my point) that buckingham palace can fire its guards because people respect property rights naturally.


and most employees, when faced with competition, are not going to accept jobs that only pay the the absolute necessary.

Well then the vast majority of employees in the world are just dumb I suppose.

[Dimentio]

I was thinking of writing a long-winded, serious reply about the flaws of anarcho-capitalism.

But... consider this to be an allegorical comment about anarcho-capitalism.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/225447/?tab=featured

[anticap]

It's always amusing when procaps ascribe the positive things in capitalist society to capitalism, while ascribing the negative things to a lack of capitalism.

[Havet]

I was thinking of writing a long-winded, serious reply about the flaws of anarcho-capitalism.

But... consider this to be an allegorical comment about anarcho-capitalism.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/225447/?tab=featured

Between the warlords, the islamic courts and incursions by ethopia, its far from stateless.

rGacky, ill comment your post tomorrow

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Between the warlords, the islamic courts and incursions by ethopia, its far from stateless.
So you're willing to support your arguments by using the economic growth of capitalist societies with extremely strong governments, like China, but as soon as Somalia is brought up, you say it shouldn't count because it's not stateless enough?

[Havet]

So you're willing to support your arguments by using the economic growth of capitalist societies with extremely strong governments, like China, but as soon as Somalia is brought up, you say it shouldn't count because it's not stateless enough?

China was big government, and when they reduced the strength of their government by market reforms, their economic growth increased a lot.

If you want to compare somalia in terms of economic performance and the well being of the people, fine:

Health:

"Somalia has one of the lowest HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV) infection rates in all of Africa. This is attributed to the Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) nature of Somali society and adherence of Somalis to Islamic morals."

Education:
"
With the collapse of the central government in 1991, the education system is now private. Primary schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_school) have risen from 600 before the civil war to 1,172 schools today, with an increase of 28% in primary school enrollment over the last 3 years.[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-92) In 2006, the autonomous Puntland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland) region in the northeast was the second territory in Somalia after the Somaliland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland) region to introduce free primary schools, with teachers now receiving their salaries from the Puntland administration.[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-93) In Mogadishu, Benadir University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benadir_University), the Somalia National University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_National_University), Mogadishu University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu_University), Kismayo University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kismayo_University), and University of Gedo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Gedo) are five of the eight functioning universities in southern Somalia that offer higher education. The Somali National University and all of its campuses in Lafole (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lafole&action=edit&redlink=1), SNU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNU) or Jaamacada Ummada, Medicine, and Gaheyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaheyr&action=edit&redlink=1) are presently too unsafe for holding classes in. In Puntland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland), higher education is provided by the Puntland State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puntland_State_University) and East Africa University. In Somaliland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland), it is provided by Amoud University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoud_University), University of Hargeisa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Hargeisa), Somaliland University of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland_University_of_Technology) and Burao University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burao_University). Three Somali universities are currently ranked in the top 100 of Africa.
Qur'anic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) schools (also known as duqsi) are the basic system of religious instruction in Somalia. The Qur'anic system, which teaches the greatest number of students relative to the other education sub-sectors, is the only system accessible to nomadic Somalis compared to the urban Somalis who have easier access to education. In 1993, a survey by the United Nations Children's Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Children%27s_Fund) (UNICEF) was conducted in which it found, among other things, that about 40% of pupils in Qur'anic schools were girls."

Economy:
Agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) is the most important sector, with livestock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock) accounting for about 40% of GDP and about 65% of export earnings. Nomads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad) and semi-nomads, who are dependent upon livestock for their livelihood, make up a large portion of the population.
After livestock, bananas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana) are the principal export; sugar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar), sorghum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum), maize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize), and fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish) are products for the domestic market.
The small industrial sector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_sector), based on the processing of agricultural products, accounts for 10% of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product).


Telecommunications:


Somalia's public telecommunications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunication) system has been almost completely destroyed or dismantled. However, private wireless companies thrive in most major cities and actually provide better services than in neighbouring countries. Wireless service and Internet cafés (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_caf%C3%A9) are available. Somalia was the last country in Africa to access the Internet in August 2000, with only 57 web sites known as of 2003.[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-99) Internet usage in Somalia increased 44,900% from 2000 to 2007, registering the highest growth rate in Africa.[101] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-100) Somalia has the cheapest cellular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network) calling rates on the continent, with some companies charging less than a cent per minute.[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#cite_note-BBCNewsAfrica-101) Competing phone companies have agreed on interconnection standards, which were brokered by the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) funded Somali Telecom Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_Telecom_Association&action=edit&redlink=1).


However, somalia still does not represent a stateless society for the examples i said earlier (warlords, islamic courts, incursions by states).


You can have economic growth inside a state


you can have economic growth in a stateless society


you cannot have a stateless society in a society which still has states (contradiction).

[Manifesto]

Wow. You guys sure have wrote some long ass answers (did not read most of them). Anyways, would not Anarcho-Capitalism let businesses do what ever the hell they wanted?

[CommunityBeliever]

You are right about Somalia not being Anarcho-Capitalist because Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't exist, it never has happened and it never will happen. We socialists have actually accomplished something we have liberated Cuba and Venezuala, you guys have nothing. Somalia is a highly muslim state and they enforce their religious beliefs on people and they oppress women, homosexuals, and countless other groups. You won't be able to grow up as anything other then muslim in Somalia.

The closest you have ever got to anarcho-capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism and that failed very miserably. Laissez-faire was the basis of complete slavery of millions of people in the factories where they worked 12 or even 16 hours a day. Children were sent off to work and they were enslaved. The government had to come along to eliminate laissez-faire conditions and that is why we have things like minimum wage today instead of complete slavery. Slavery itself is calling somebody your own private property and private property is oppression and the government has already came along to protect people from this form of private property.

Now yes, Anarcho-Capitalism has never existed and the closest it ever got to existing was a failure, but it never will exist either because it is a complete contradiction of words because Capitalists want a state because it is a great form of oppression.

* Capitalists like slavery in all forms because it is essentially calling somebody your own private property, the people object to this and thus they need some sort of government to protect them with minimum wage, minimum age, etc.
* Capitalists like states because they like wars because war is one of the most profitable industries (after slavery of course) for example the Iraq War which is a venture to get the profits of oil. America's wars have all been planned by a group of capitalists to protect their own natural resources in one way or another. The reason all the other countries of the world, even when they have natural resources, are so poor well America is rich is that the American state will kill you if you disagree...
* The capitalists need a state to prevent people like socialists from ever coming to power which is why people like Ron Paul will never be able to say good bye to the FBI or the CIA or the DOD. If the socialists come to power in any state in the world they lose profits. If they convince people of the evils of capitalism they lose profits.
* The capitalists need a police force to protect themselves from people who want to rob banks in order to get a share of the spoils of capitalist oppression. They also now have special divisions of government just to protect the private property that is now on servers such as peoples financial data.

I can go over tons of things but the bottom line is you will not be able to shrinken the united states government much more then a republican has. Ron Paul will never get elected because most of the ways he wants to shrinken the size of government will never happen well capitalists are around, why do you think he never got elected? I supported that nutcase once before I realized how much of a nutcase he is not supporting things like net neutrality. He would leave the corporations to decide your internet experience based on who has the most money rather then letting people be free and preventing people like me from having a chance at an independent website.

Maybe one thing you guys will be able to do someday is make drugs legal again because the capitalists might accept that now a days although good luck getting support for that because most people that agree with it are high. I do not support the drug war either, it wasn't something the people faught for like the minimum wage it was something that was forced upon the people. The drug war was another form of oppression by white capitalists that was against poor mexicans who would use marajuana after work. Now a days many men come home from work to drink alcohol instead of use marajuana. I have heard marajuana can be very helpful in putting somebody to sleep after a hard day at work.

China was big government, and when they reduced the strength of their government by market reforms, their economic growth increased a lot.

First of all what you have to understand is what this term "economic growth" means in this sentence. Yes there is technically more goods and services in the economy but what is really going on in China is there is more people who are rich and that are now millionaires and there is also more people then ever before one of the effects this has had is the rich people are looking for more processed foods such as meat. In China there is a massive increase in meat packing that goes primarily to the rich which means that a large amount of food and water is spent on Cattle, Pigs, and Chickens that are just going to be slaughtered and torture anyways and that same food could have been used to save some starving people in China, instead it is for the comfort of some rich Chinese capitalist. There is more people now starving in China then ever before, ever heard of the food crisis? This is because of the "economic growth."

and most employees, when faced with competition, are not going to accept jobs that only pay the the absolute necessary.

If we are faced with competition then they will have somebody else take our job instead if we do not accept it. What would you have use do starve?

There are barely any foreign corporations in the poorest places in africa

ROFL LMAO LOL have you ever been there? The computer monitor you are using probably was forged in Senegal West Africa at some point in time. Some of the oil you are using probably came from Nigerian people who are enslaved. Most of the oil in these countries goes to Exxon-Mobil which happens to be foreign corporation.

Some of the metal used in forging the car or hard drive that you have was probably dug from slave labor somewhere in the Congo at some point, in that country tons of people are enslaved to the mining industry. Seriously man most of these countries are poor because foreign corporations take all there natural resources and they are used in most products you have right now. Africa is not the only country though Iraq, Colombia, and other countries are too...

Man this is so ridiculous about Africa do you know anything? Go there some day. From there own website in fact: ExxonMobil has operations in almost 200 countries and territories. You can work almost anywhere, if not now, in the future.

and i have consistently shown how starvation, adequate housing and medical access have been greatly improved by a relatively free market.

Not for people who don't have less then a hundred thousand dollars it hasn't improved much no. There isn't better housing for poor people there is just more houses because there is more people to be enslaved by capitalists. I have already talked about how the free market is responsible for starvation but I can go over it again.

You do realize medical access is still barely functional in this country in that you have to go through a horrendous process of insurance screw overs. In Cuba they don't have a military and foreign corporations stealing from all over the world but still they have a better health care system where anybody can go there without paying. In the movie Sicko people from America who were rejected of care went to Cuba and they got it for free. Go see the movie it is eye-opening.

[Dimentio]

Between the warlords, the islamic courts and incursions by ethopia, its far from stateless.

rGacky, ill comment your post tomorrow


http://mises.org/story/2066

[Havet]

i don't care any more to discuss with you, because people here consistently engage in illusions, fallacies, wrong beliefs and never care to admit data that goes against their ideology.

You also give government credit for all the good things free enterprise achieved and whenever something that you don't like happens you blame it on the private companies...

I'm not going to argue with someone who is not willing to accept reason and logic in the debate and only cares to defend his opinions whether they are true or not. All i have to say has been said and my arguments still stand.

You can keep on fantasizing and picking up arguments you like to justify points you enjoy. I would suggest you started looking at your own logic and to look at my arguments with logic and critical eye.

Also, start looking at FACTS. Many people believe, like many do outside this forum, that everything is an opinion so that they can never be wrong. This is of course ridiculous. But i'm not that worried. Those that try to wipe out reality will end up being wiped out by it.

---

if you were hoping to post a mises reply simply because you thought it would contradict my ideology, you are wrong. Even mises has some stupid articles that more or less compete with some communist comments around here.

In other related news, here are the 2 most common circular logic fallacies you guys commit here:

Private property-> Leads to exploitation as a result of people being free to trade and free to condense wealth -> I come and try to show this is not true -> You claim the argument starts at private property, not markets.

Workers are exploited -> How -> They don't receive the fruits of their labor -> If they don't like it they can leave -> They have no choice, it's work for capitalist or starve -> No, they can get another job, become self-employed, or set up a cooperative/community/commune -> No they can't, capitalist holds all means of production -> If that were the case Bill Gates, Richard Branson and many others could have never become rich -> oh some people get lucky ->Wealth is not a matter of luck -> Then why are so many people poor? -> They are unaware of how to make wealth -> anyway, the chance of becoming a capitalist doesn't justify its power -> whats wrong with a capitalist? -> they exploit the workers -> how? -> workers don't receive fruits of labor...

have fun dreaming of your fantasies, i'm done wasting my time.

[RGacky3]

You also give government credit for all the good things free enterprise achieved and whenever something that you don't like happens you blame it on the private companies...

Private companies could not exist without the government.


I'm not going to argue with someone who is not willing to accept reason and logic in the debate and only cares to defend his opinions whether they are true or not. All i have to say has been said and my arguments still stand.

No they don't. Your mixing land with labor is just something that is justified because you say so.

Also considering your an anarchist your whole basis is on the assumption that society will accept property "rights" no matter what the consequences are and pretty much willingly become slaves.

You argue the State is wrong, but then allow for something that is pretty much exactly the same as a state in practice, only with a technicality that makes it justified.

Your whole ethical basis is on technicalities no matter what the outcome that are only justified because you say so (and really I doubt would be respected in an anarchist community)

You ignore that private property, in the past, has always needed private states to protect it.

Your data, is vague, ignoring many variables and can be attributed to many many things.


Also, start looking at FACTS. Many people believe, like many do outside this forum, that everything is an opinion so that they can never be wrong. This is of course ridiculous. But i'm not that worried. Those that try to wipe out reality will end up being wiped out by it.


The FACT is that property rights require property laws, thats a fact.


Private property-> Leads to exploitation as a result of people being free to trade and free to condense wealth -> I come and try to show this is not true -> You claim the argument starts at private property, not markets.


No one argued that its people being able to freely trade that results in exploitation, what results in exploitation is the concentration of wealth, and thus power (backed up by state laws) into the hands of the few, a class system, which can be seen today.

You say "no monopolies in free market" what about a class monopoly.

Also your argument about no monopolies is guess work at best nad nit picking history.


If that were the case Bill Gates, Richard Branson and many others could have never become rich -> oh some people get lucky

Actually the argument against that is that ability to gain power does'nt justify power.


Wealth is not a matter of luck

Its a matter of many things but so what?


They are unaware of how to make wealth

Really? Thats your argument?


whats wrong with a capitalist?

Nothings "wrong" with being a capitalist, the institution of capitalism and the power it gives capitalists is wrong.


have fun dreaming of your fantasies, i'm done wasting my time.

If anarchism comes and government stops good luck tyring to convince people that rich people actually desearve everything they have and poor people don't.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Market anarchists are anarchists. Individualist anarchists are anarchists.

"Anarcho-"capitalists are statists. Perhaps if you went further and explored the categorical application of individual anarchism, you would realize not one identified himself/herself as a "capitalist." Citing Proudhon is particularly amusing, given that he often came out in favor of the state when it was a dichotomy of less government or less capitalism. Bastiat actually became furious when Proudhon started proposing alternative forms of taxation.

[eyedrop]

Wealth is not a matter of luck -> Then why are so many people poor? -> They are unaware of how to make wealth -> anyway, the chance of becoming a capitalist doesn't justify its power There are only so much capital and resources to go around in the world, besides capitalists need workers to create wealth either directly or indirectly.

Not everyone can become capitalists, that is a complete impossibility.


Why don't all the anarcho-capitalists just go into the ship trade? There you already have your fantasy tax-free world (0.6% tax for the whole of Europe).

[CommunityBeliever]

I am glad this hayenmill person is done because he clearly does not understand the world very much. If you seriously believe that there aren't foreign corporations in Africa such as Exxon-Mobil then go there someday and see how wrong you are. Go to China and see what the economic growth is really about, basically more money in the hands of the rich which leads to less food and water in the hands of most of the poor people in China and the entire world.


You also give government credit for all the good things free enterprise achieved and whenever something that you don't like happens you blame it on the private companies...

Well I don't give the government credit. I give the common people credit. These people, the proletariat, are the ones who had to fight for all these benefits.


It is unreasonable though to blame things on private corporations?

Let me talk from a personal prespective a little here. A while ago I was interested in nutrition so I went to the library to get books on nutrition and from studying I realized what they are saying is avoid processed foods which is basically another way of saying foods that are highly processed by corporations are not good for your health. I started realizing how McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bell, Subway, and Pizza Hut are responsible for so much suffering in the form of heart disease, obesity, and cancer.

That is just the start. After reading more books I started realizing how these corporations like Hormel, McDonalds, etc actually waste massive amounts of water and food to produce their posionous junk which causes suffering to poor people in the form of dehydration and starvation. I later realized after studying things like the Iraq War how Exxon-Mobil and all these oil companies are responsible for so many wars and murdering millions of innocent civlizans...

Then when I started studying programming I realized the beauty of free software, you don't have to worry about viruses, spyware, or malware because you know the source code and you have control over your own computer. Free software is such a great learning tool for a new developer because you can study work from the great programmers and it is a great way for common people to have power over their computers and to help one another improve the world. Free software is more productive then any corporation like Microsoft ever will be. In my pursuit of free software I realized again that corporations such as Microsoft and Google are oppressive of this great thing.

When I started to become a web developer I study into things. Ever wonder why websites have pretty much been the same for the past ten years? Well Microsoft doesn't want the web to progress because it threatens Windows so they use Internet Explorer to crush any advancements in web technology. I started to realize that corporations like Microsoft should not be aloud to hold back humanity like this. Microsoft should not be aloud to exist.

It is when you realize that, regardless of what field you study, corporations are destructive to humanity that you become a communist.

[Bud Struggle]

Wealth is not a matter of luck -> Then why are so many people poor? -> They are unaware of how to make wealth
Where they taught it in school? Yes. Did they pay attention? No.

Kind of their own fault. (In America at least.)

[eyedrop]

Wealth is not a matter of luck -> Then why are so many people poor? -> They are unaware of how to make wealth
Where they taught it in school? Yes. Did they pay attention? No.

Kind of their own fault. (In America at least.)

Do you honestly believe that if everyone in America knew how to create wealth everyone would be rich?

Or how do you think America would be if everyone there knew how to create wealth?

[Nwoye]

Let me talk from a personal prespective a little here. A while ago I was interested in nutrition so I went to the library to get books on nutrition and from studying I realized what they are saying is avoid processed foods which is basically another way of saying foods that are highly processed by corporations are not good for your health. I started realizing how McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bell, Subway, and Pizza Hut are responsible for so much suffering in the form of heart disease, obesity, and cancer.

That is just the start. After reading more books I started realizing how these corporations like Hormel, McDonalds, etc actually waste massive amounts of water and food to produce their posionous junk which causes suffering to poor people in the form of dehydration and starvation. I later realized after studying things like the Iraq War how Exxon-Mobil and all these oil companies are responsible for so many wars and murdering millions of innocent civlizans...

Then when I started studying programming I realized the beauty of free software, you don't have to worry about viruses, spyware, or malware because you know the source code and you have control over your own computer. Free software is such a great learning tool for a new developer because you can study work from the great programmers and it is a great way for common people to have power over their computers and to help one another improve the world. Free software is more productive then any corporation like Microsoft ever will be. In my pursuit of free software I realized again that corporations such as Microsoft and Google are oppressive of this great thing.

When I started to become a web developer I study into things. Ever wonder why websites have pretty much been the same for the past ten years? Well Microsoft doesn't want the web to progress because it threatens Windows so they use Internet Explorer to crush any advancements in web technology. I started to realize that corporations like Microsoft should not be aloud to hold back humanity like this. Microsoft should not be aloud to exist.

It is when you realize that, regardless of what field you study, corporations are destructive to humanity that you become a communist.
so you are against capitalism as a socio-economic system, not capital in itself right?

[CommunityBeliever]

so you are against capitalism as a socio-economic system, not capital in itself right?

Yes I am against capitalism as a system but I don't really know what it means to be against capital sorry :confused: I just do not know what capital exactly means. When I looked up capital I got like 50 definitions and nobody seems to know what it means. Sometimes English is not the best language.

[Bud Struggle]

Do you honestly believe that if everyone in America knew how to create wealth everyone would be rich? No I don't believe everyone could be rich--but I do believe just about anyone could be rich if that is something they aspired to. I also believe everyone could be financially comfortable (have the basics of life and a bit more) if they so desired. (In America, that is.)


Or how do you think America would be if everyone there knew how to create wealth? Most people aren't interested in creating wealth--they want to have satisfying job and a comfortable life from the fruits of their labors. The problem with Capitalism is that a comfortable life is not something that is 100% assured. Money has to be saved, jobs have to be changed, education has to be worked at. People have to work not only hard but smart to get what they want. Unfortunately not everyone wants to do those things.

For example in America the BEST way for a person to fail is to drop out of high school. Every kid is told that a million times by all sorts of people by the time he/she's a teenager--yet lots of kids drop out. they are not looking after their own best interest--and that's breaking the cardinal rule of Capitalism. In America it's all relatively easy to take care of one's self and do well but it HAS TO BE DONE by yourself. You can't expect someone else to look out for you.

[Nwoye]

Yes I am against capitalism as a system but I don't really know what it means to be against capital sorry :confused: I just do not know what capital exactly means. When I looked up capital I got like 50 definitions and nobody seems to know what it means. Sometimes English is not the best language.
to be perfectly simple, capital means wealth devoted to creating more wealth, usually with another persons labor.

for example, a farmer renting his tools out to someone is capital, provided he receives part of the output of the person using the tools.

[eyedrop]

Bud struggle

But still, if everyone stayed and did well in high school would that change the societal inequality? Wouldn't there still be just as many loosers in society, it only change who they are?

[MikeSC]

Anarchist Capitalism. Property = insituted and enforced by the state. Private property is necessary for capitalism. Private property is impossible under anarchism. If you're going to abolish the state, you have to abolish it's institutions, rather than just the insitutions you find displeasing. Abolishing labour laws and the dole is not anarchist, or small-state or any way you try to spin it.

But call yourselves anarcho-capitalists all you want, it doesn't matter.


Private property-> Leads to exploitation as a result of people being free to trade and free to condense wealth -> I come and try to show this is not true -> You claim the argument starts at private property, not markets.

Workers are exploited -> How -> They don't receive the fruits of their labor -> If they don't like it they can leave -> They have no choice, it's work for capitalist or starve -> No, they can get another job, become self-employed, or set up a cooperative/community/commune -> No they can't, capitalist holds all means of production -> If that were the case Bill Gates, Richard Branson and many others could have never become rich -> oh some people get lucky ->Wealth is not a matter of luck -> Then why are so many people poor? -> They are unaware of how to make wealth -> anyway, the chance of becoming a capitalist doesn't justify its power -> whats wrong with a capitalist? -> they exploit the workers -> how? -> workers don't receive fruits of labor...Private property is merely natural resources that were carved up and distributed by states claiming their religion gave them the right to do this. For reference: See all private property. Do you think we should all live by a law made up by Locke? Doesn't matter anyway, because the guess of history that Locke gave is completely wrong. His idea that there was a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate property is wrong if you apply his law to history as we know it. We live in an age where it is common knowledge that the earliest of societies all held land and resources in common. Being in common, no individuals can take it for themselves and no individuals can renounce it on behalf of everybody. Violence and religion get involved. Hey presto- private property.

No one believes that any state had divine right anymore, but if you do then surely State Socialism would be as legitimate as any state, and anything goes so long as no one works on the Sabbath.

Equally, if you think that violence is a legitimate way to form institutions, anything goes and a violent socialist movement is just as good as any.

I think it's quite obvious that I hold neither of those views. But if you believe that private property is at all legitimate, those are the internally coherant views open to you. Even then legitimate is too strong a term, it's more "if everything is legitimate then private property is just as legitimate as everything else."

The "workers are exploited" passage is also stupid, and I'm sick of having people who don't know what socialism or communism is trying to argue about it. I'm staggered that you've wasted enough time to post 200 times on this forum, when you plainly don't have a clue what you think you're arguing against.

I can see why a lot of people stay away from Opposing Ideologies- these arguments are either the same thing we've heard a million times or straw man arguments from people who, having read Hayek, think that they know what socialism is better than socialists and if we say something "what we really mean is...."

[Bud Struggle]

Bud struggle

But still, if everyone stayed and did well in high school would that change the societal inequality? Wouldn't there still be just as many loosers in society, it only change who they are?

More education=higher standard of living for everyone.

Dropouts hurt my bottom line.

[trivas7]

More education=higher standard of living for everyone.

I used to believe this. No more. In my experience the world is littered w/ the well-educated poor.

[MikeSC]

More education=higher standard of living for everyone.

Dropouts hurt my bottom line.

If the kids who make our clothes were given the opportunity to get an education, how would that help you? The costs of the education, the loss of millions of productive workers (the loss of the countless working hours), and when they finish their education wouldn't they then have higher expectations for themselves? All that would harm you, and if the lifestyles of people like yourself stop rising at the expense of these people, if middle classes everywhere have to cut back for a prolonged period of time, if not indefinately, to accomodate a widely educated developing world- would there be wide support among the middle-class for capitalism then?

Your best bet as a capitalist is to keep people in ignorance. I think the biblical god was a capitalist, rather than a socialist as some people say- it's easier to keep the uneducated in a position of inferiority. It's when a kindly devil provides the fruit of knowledge that you have to worry.

[Bud Struggle]

I used to believe this. No more. In my experience the world is littered w/ the well-educated poor.

I agree there's lots of worthless English majors out there (Classic major myself!) But last week I hired a guy for $9 an hour to do some spackling. 22yo, in prison for a drug charge.

He didn't have a clue--tried filling the holes in the wall with paint--I had t teach him--things his father should have taught him--me the president of the company teaching a $9 an hour guy how to spackle.

A ill spent day by all accounts.

But there are talents we all could benefit from--some plumbing, some electrical. Some painting and spackling.

[CommunityBeliever]

to be perfectly simple, capital means wealth devoted to creating more wealth, usually with another persons labor.

Ya that is sort of like you have 1,000,000$ and then you put that into some mutual funds account and you get 50,000$ per year and just live on that. That seems like it would be unfair to the workers who actually did the work.

I do not like capitalism as a system or this idea of capital that you are talking about because they both seem abusive. Capital in itself sounds a like a bourgeoisie person abusing the work of the proletariat, so how could I be for that?

Another thing that is very common now a days is that there is machines doing all the work and then somebody gains capital off of that. I would have that wealth distributed evenly amongst everybody. For example machines in America produce enough food to feed two billion people, which is like enough to feed every American six times over so I would give everybody a food stamps sort of thing to feed everybody.


for example, a farmer renting his tools out to someone is capital, provided he receives part of the output of the person using the tools.

That does seem unfair.

[Nwoye]

That does seem unfair.
in what way? (i don't disagree with you just expand on why you think that)

[CommunityBeliever]

in what way? (i don't disagree with you just expand on why you think that)

Well let me talk about the library then. At the library you can check out books free of charge and everything is good as long as you return the books when you are done. The books are not used as capital, they do not make you pay them for using them and I like how that works, in fact I learned to be a leftist at the library.

In the library if you do not return the books though then you can pretty easily get away with that. What I think they should do very soon is use technology to make it so fingerprints are used instead of library cards. People lose library cards which can be horrible if someone picks it up and also people often leave them at home, however, people do not lose their fingers that often so I think those would be much better.

In a fingerprint based system, if you try to steal something then you have to pay for it and people will be very discouraged to steal if everything they checked out is recorded...

I think the system should be extended so that you can use your fingerprints to check out other tools like bicycles too and you won't have to pay for it as long as you return it. After reading a book you often times won't want to read it again so returning it makes sense, someone else can read it. On a similar note children often grow out of their bikes so they will want to return them so that someone else can use it.

People will say yeah you can buy a bicycle now and then return it but what basically happens is you buy it for 100$ and then you return it for 25$ and 75$ goes to some bourgeoisie person each time and you also have to worry so much about other people stealing in the society we have now.

Simply put the person should not have to pay someone else for using their farming tools because he should be able to borrow them I mean the person with the tools is not doing any work anyways. I am not saying everything should be borrowed I am just saying for many products a system like the library will be better then what we have now. Anyways this is the best I can explain it I think... Did I pass?

[Nwoye]

Simply put the person should not have to pay someone else for using their farming tools because he should be able to borrow them I mean the person with the tools is not doing any work anyways. I am not saying everything should be borrowed I am just saying for many products a system like the library will be better then what we have now. Anyways this is the best I can explain it I think... Did I pass?
haha no ones testing you here. i just wanted you to explain why you felt that way. interesting post.

[Patchd]

1. if it results in hierarchies, but one can leave those hierarchies at any time, then they are voluntary hierarchies, and i see nothing wrong with them.Saying this is to imply that socio-economic relations between a worker and an owner of private property is voluntary in the first place. It's about as voluntary as the choice between starvation, or, exploitation.

I don't regard that as a free choice, it is still oppressive and something which Anarchists should ultimately seek to destroy. As private property seeks to be hegemonic over every aspect of our lives in order to remove competition or free living (thus maximise profits), you are literally given the option of work or die, there is no lack of authority here, in fact, simply, the authority that the state once held, has been entirely passed to the owners of private property.

[Octobox]

Private companies could not exist without the government. No they don't.

Monopolies can't exist without gov't -- private enterprise is improved without gov't.


Your mixing land with labor is just something that is justified because you say so.

And the opposite is true as well.


Also considering your an anarchist your whole basis is on the assumption that society will accept property "rights" no matter what the consequences are and pretty much willingly become slaves.

You had me right up to the typical (stereotypical) leftist rant "property rights make slaves." This is absurd because slaves never owned property. Maybe there's another way you coul articulate this -- put it in your own words.



You ignore that private property, in the past, has always needed private states to protect it.


I think this is a language thing.

Define "private state"

What does gov't do for a business that a private organization couldn't do.



The FACT is that property rights require property laws, thats a fact.

I'm not arguing land-tide property rights, because I'm not an A-Cap.

No they don't require property laws -- in a free-society they only require mediation; each voluntary contract would be agreed upon by both participants -- therefore they right their own voluntary rules (in the moment).




You say "no monopolies in free market" what about a class monopoly.


Class Monopoly -- A monopoly on wealth? Is that what you are saying.







Nothings "wrong" with being a capitalist, the institution of capitalism and the power it gives capitalists is wrong.

Corporatism (Economic-Fascism) is evil -- because it breaks the back of free-will; which is an in-alienable right.


If anarchism comes and government stops good luck tyring to convince people that rich people actually desearve everything they have and poor people don't.

I don't believe at all that we can go from Corporatism (Economic-Fascism) to A-Cap (or any other anarchist model) without first transitioning through some form of Min-Archy (minimum authority).

Octobox

[RGacky3]

And the opposite is true as well.

No I am not assuming anything with my principles. Your assuming that just because you mix land and labor, anything else that comes after that is justified.


You had me right up to the typical (stereotypical) leftist rant "property rights make slaves." This is absurd because slaves never owned property. Maybe there's another way you coul articulate this -- put it in your own words.

What I mean is that some people will have to work for a wage much less than what their work is worth for someone else, willingly, all because they respect the claims of one mans ownership to property all because his great great grandfather worked the land for a year.


Class Monopoly -- A monopoly on wealth? Is that what you are saying.

One class owns all the means of production, people can move in and out of that class but so what? Don't think Capitalists never act as a class, history can show you that.


What does gov't do for a business that a private organization couldn't do.

Defend property laws, open markets, I supopse a private organizationg that works the same way as a government could do this too. The Benefit of the government is its somehow also accountable to the people.


No they don't require property laws -- in a free-society they only require mediation; each voluntary contract would be agreed upon by both participants -- therefore they right their own voluntary rules (in the moment).

So your essencailly saying that people would just "accept" their place in life because of your justification of private property?

[MikeSC]

Monopolies can't exist without gov't -- private enterprise is improved without gov't.Monopolies can't exist without government, but not for the reason you think. Property cannot exist without a sovereign- it takes a government to seize and distribute and maintain in the first place. You can remove the "government", the politicians, the semblance of democracy, but you can't remove the state without removing all of it's institutions- and there's exactly as much state in private property as there is in welfare cheques.


And the opposite is true as well.Do you honestly believe that because Locke made a command and called it a law, that we should all stick to it? Either way, I don't mind, because you draw the wrong conclusions either way. The reason capitalists like to hark back to classical economists is because of how completely wrong they were about the history of society's development, their Pure Reason is, looking back, a laughable idea now that we have the empirical evidence. And this wrong version of history is a version of history capitalists would have liked, because it would have given a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate forms of property if Locke's law is applied.

So tell me whether you think Locke's law should be applied, and I'll tell you exactly what this means either way (SPOILER: It means private property is unjustified either way).


You had me right up to the typical (stereotypical) leftist rant "property rights make slaves." This is absurd because slaves never owned property. Maybe there's another way you coul articulate this -- put it in your own words. Wage-workers don't own capital either- is it then true that capital and wage-work are unrelated? "People as property" is justified by laws thought up by philosophers with exactly as much authority as Locke. That is, exactly as much authority as people choose to give them. There's nothing divine about any law that people make up to justify acts of aggression that they want to justify- if you accept Locke's law but deny the laws thought up to justify slavery, you don't do it out of reason.

And there have been slaves with slaves. What about Ancient Egypt? It was apparently not uncommon for a Pharoah's slave to be rich in property (both non-human property and human-property). It's exactly the same the kind of system we have today- the legitimacy of private property stemmed from the gods granting the material world to their representative on earth, the sovereign who in turn put it into the hands of individuals as he saw fit. All property rights stem from sovereigns- secular states that have continued to uphold religious notions, like the idea that a god can entrust nature into the hands of individuals, with a philosopher or just tradition taking the place of gods.


I think this is a language thing.

Define "private state"

What does gov't do for a business that a private organization couldn't do.

Creates property in the first place. A state is generally accepted as something that has the monopoly of force. We tend to use "government" as the non-static part of the state, the ones who decide what's to be done. By "private organisation" that isn't a state, I assume you mean something that doesn't have a legitimised monopoly of aggression? How could such an organisation seize and distribute natural resources held in common in the first place, unless it had a veneer of legitimacy granted by a state?



No they don't require property laws -- in a free-society they only require mediation; each voluntary contract would be agreed upon by both participants -- therefore they right their own voluntary rules (in the moment).What do you mean by a "free society"? Is a society restrained wholly and completely by a law invented by a philosopher any more free than a society restrained by a law invented by a different philosopher? Why Locke but not Rousseau, for example? Both invent laws that act only to justify aggression, Rousseau's Social Contract is far more of a heavy-weight theory than Locke's "finders-keepers" law- it doesn't try to invent a natural law to be instituted and enforced for all time (an especially stupid thing to do when we know that private property is a relatively recent development in the history of our species.)


Corporatism (Economic-Fascism) is evil -- because it breaks the back of free-will; which is an in-alienable right.What? Surely if someone didn't want to work for a Fascist-Corporation, they wouldn't have to? They could choose to starve couldn't they? If you accept that a person with property can lend it to someone based on conditions decided in a contract, then surely the state can set whatever conditions it likes for the use of natural resources that it seized? Assuming property rights are legitimate, why does a property owner have any obligation to anyone else concerning that property? And why is property seized by the state and put in the custody of corporations on a contract less legitimate than property seized by the state and gifted to individuals?

[trivas7]

Property cannot exist without a sovereign- it takes a government to seize and distribute and maintain in the first place.
I disagree w/ this instrumentalist view of property. 95% of the time you go about your life w/ no policeman looking over your shoulder to insure your property rights. Most people count on simple civility to negotiate what belongs to whom. You ask questions, i.e., "Does this belong to you?", etc. If property is what you use undisturbed by others, 95% of the time no sovereign needs to interfere in the normal course of interaction bt individuals.

[MikeSC]

I disagree w/ this instrumentalist view of property. 95% of the time you go about your life w/ no policeman looking over your shoulder to insure your property rights. Most people count on simple civility to negotiate what belongs to whom. You ask questions, i.e., "Does this belong to you?", etc. If property is what you use undisturbed by others, 95% of the time no sovereign needs to interfere in the normal course of interaction bt individuals.

Not at all. It's not even about police ensuring "property rights"- it's that property fundamentally and necessarily stems from a sovereign.

[trivas7]

it's that property fundamentally and necessarily stems from a sovereign.
Why? Even in a stateless society human beings will still require property.

[JimmyJazz]

someone HAD TO PRODUCE THE WEALTH BY TRADE

The Trade Theory of Value :lol:

Instead of doing all that sweaty labor to produce himself a shelter, Robinson Crusoe should have just traded it into existence. That would have so much more balla.

[MikeSC]

Why? Even in a stateless society human beings will still require property.

If it has property, it will not be stateless, property is just another state institution... You do know the whole socialism thing is about abolishing private property? And that for most of humanity's history there has been no private property?

[trivas7]

[...]You do know the whole socialism thing is about abolishing private property? And that for most of humanity's history there has been no private property?
When (and if) you ever manage to abolish private property you will have destroyed everything that makes modern technological society possible.

[ls]

Prove it trivas7.

[Nwoye]

I disagree w/ this instrumentalist view of property. 95% of the time you go about your life w/ no policeman looking over your shoulder to insure your property rights. Most people count on simple civility to negotiate what belongs to whom. You ask questions, i.e., "Does this belong to you?", etc. If property is what you use undisturbed by others, 95% of the time no sovereign needs to interfere in the normal course of interaction bt individuals.
under anarchism property would most likely be handled by just basic implicit agreements among communities. customs and cultural circumstances would dictate at whatever time what kind of universal rule determined what constituted rightful property. for example, in a given community could possibly be understood that possessing something made it legitimate property for the possessor. if they ceased the constant use of that object, then then it would be essentially become unowned, and free for anyone else to occupy and therefore own.

this video explains it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eShZ76P3jWc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F

[trivas7]

under anarchism property would most likely be handled by just basic implicit agreements among communities. customs and cultural circumstances would dictate at whatever time what kind of universal rule determined what constituted rightful property. for example, in a given community could possibly be understood that possessing something made it legitimate property for the possessor. if they ceased the constant use of that object, then then it would be essentially become unowned, and free for anyone else to occupy and therefore own.

I totally agree w/ you. It follows that property (including money) can exist w/out the state.

[Patchd]

I totally agree w/ you. It follows that property (including money) can exist w/out the state.

What will happen if the workers wish to expropriate a private property? What will the owner do then?

I'd imagine, they'd hire individuals or a group to stop the workers in order to retain their property no? If so, then they have employed an oppressive force which is not of the population, but is separate from it and has greater authority over it. That my friend, is a state, however small it may be.

[MikeSC]

When (and if) you ever manage to abolish private property you will have destroyed everything that makes modern technological society possible.

You wouldn't, without possession, or the ability to make use of natural resources, then human life would be impossible. But not without property, a specific form of possession, an extension of simple possession into a semi-religious idea that relies on a sovereign who can grant sole rights of natural resources to individuals.

[trivas7]

What will happen if the workers wish to expropriate a private property? .
Expropriation in any decent society is called theft.

[RGacky3]

Expropriation in any decent society is called theft.

So your saying that workers should just accept property no matter what? Without state law?

[MikeSC]

Expropriation in any decent society is called theft.

Imagine if a state expropriated land and resources from the public, if a state expropriated commonly held resources. It then put it in private hands, creating private property.

Would that be theft? And do the people have a right to demand it back?

[Octobox]

Monopolies can't exist without government, but not for the reason you think. Property cannot exist without a sovereign- it takes a government to seize and distribute and maintain in the first place. You can remove the "government", the politicians, the semblance of democracy, but you can't remove the state without removing all of it's institutions- and there's exactly as much state in private property as there is in welfare cheques.

I'm not trying to save Capitalism or trying to "hijack" Marx's coined-term and definition (like some on RevLeft are doing).

I'm trying to do two things: 1) To acknowledge and get past the absolute truth that Economic-Individualism (Free-Markets - Zero Gov't) is not Economic-Fuedalism (Marx's "Capitalist" Industrialist-Imperialism Critique) -- later growing into what we have now Economic-Fascism (or Corporatism, as Marx's logical extension of capitalism) -AND- 2) Showing the logical fallacies in modern Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism as "possible" societies to live in (at least from a transitional stand-point).

If you can allow that no country ever instituted Marx's Communism then you can allow me to have an open-source let's hash it out as we go kind of conversation -- arguing from meditation rather than from position (you vs. me).



Do you honestly believe that because Locke made a command and called it a law, that we should all stick to it? Either way, I don't mind, because you draw the wrong conclusions either way. The reason capitalists like to hark back to classical economists is because of how completely wrong they were about the history of society's development, their Pure Reason is, looking back, a laughable idea now that we have the empirical evidence. And this wrong version of history is a version of history capitalists would have liked, because it would have given a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate forms of property if Locke's law is applied.


#1 I never think about Locke.

#2 Communists hark back just as much



So tell me whether you think Locke's law should be applied, and I'll tell you exactly what this means either way (SPOILER: It means private property is unjustified either way).

Maybe you read one or more of my posts and thus you know that I'm not in favor of land-based private property law. In fact I don't think there should be "law" for anything that occupies land - oil - mineral - or water rights. My thoughts on all other property is that it is transferable, it doesn't hurt anyone, and it can all be handled by agreed-upon voluntary private courts. I wont take up a string of Rothbardian prose; I can meditate and see how it would work. Under voluntary mediation we could solve property disputes (as long as the courts were open-sourced and viewable on the internet) -- why not?



Wage-workers don't own capital either- is it then true that capital and wage-work are unrelated? "People as property" is justified by laws thought up by philosophers with exactly as much authority as Locke. That is, exactly as much authority as people choose to give them. There's nothing divine about any law that people make up to justify acts of aggression that they want to justify- if you accept Locke's law but deny the laws thought up to justify slavery, you don't do it out of reason.


You are arguing axiomatically. The old wage-workers take.

Let's meditate on it and then argue from our own innovation.

Wage-workers (are not individuals -- its an identity tied to service and position in society). I don't identify as a position; I indentify with my principal occupation which is the consumption of ideal, knowledge, food, water, air, and resources (in a continuous; waste, use, and re-use cycle).

Workers are consumers
Owners are consumers
Bums are consumers
Investors are consumers

Now your "worry" is over ownership -- You want the worker to "own" all means of production.

I'm arguing they will in the medium to long run as long as the society has ZERO Gov't Intervention, ZERO Control over Currency, ZERO Tax Authority, and ZERO Regulatory Authority.

In such a society the ONLY WAY a wealthy person (owner or investor) can grow wealth is to invest in entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism -- there is NO WEALTH in a "truly" free-market to be made by holding currency, assets, land, property or other means of production. All of the latter is based in currency (how it's traded) and in a non-interventionist society the currency remains relatively stable (comparitively) -- whereas in a corporatist society (Economic-Fascism), what we have now, occilations (profit-bursts) are created artifically by manipulation of Fiat Credit.

Therefore, in a "truly" free-market the "workers" (as you identify) will own the means of production -- they will buy them up if they are being used wisely -- the poor or middle class worker holds assets, currency, and means of production as long-term wealth driver (which moves slow). The poor to middle income folks are where 98% of all entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism come from -- so the cycle of wealth transferrence dips in and out of all communities very rapidly -- which, is the antithesis to how it happens now.





And there have been slaves with slaves. What about Ancient Egypt?


Okay -- you win. Doesn't prove your point in modern times.


Creates property in the first place. A state is generally accepted as something that has the monopoly of force.



We tend to use "government" as the non-static part of the state, the ones who decide what's to be done.

There are three things on the corporatist revenue stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Intervention (subsidies, bailouts, fiat credit manipulation, regulatory advantages, and tax authority).

Meditate on what society would look like without #3.



By "private organisation" that isn't a state, I assume you mean something that doesn't have a legitimised monopoly of aggression?

Yes




How could such an organisation seize and distribute natural resources held in common in the first place, unless it had a veneer of legitimacy granted by a state?


The "Commons" are where all waste is dumped -- all enviromental laws (written by those who control the commons) are done on private lands (by gov't decree/authrorization) or on public lands -- mostly the latter.


What do you mean by a "free society"? Is a society restrained wholly and completely by a law invented by a philosopher any more free than a society restrained by a law invented by a different philosopher?

A 'free-society' is one wherein no one rules over you. The "law" is self-defense and voluntary unions. Yes it would get a little wild wild west, but there were far fewer deaths caused by such societies back then then there are now.


Why Locke but not Rousseau

I'm not a Lockean.



What? Surely if someone didn't want to work for a Fascist-Corporation, they wouldn't have to?

This is absurd. I used to work in the finance community and then I bought the means of production (1 computer and server farm rental). Now I have 12 sources of income and making more than ever. I employ no one and work for myself and the consumer -- who is also me.

Stop arguing Marx's "industrial economic-fuedalist" position -- It's over. We are in the information age -- with a small loan you could easily start your own business. The "problem" now is that the consumer has 100's of hidden taxes put on him. The wealthy have subsidized profit-bursts (autho'd by gov't) and move slow AND the poor/middle class who pay for all intervention (as consumers and from wages) must hustle. The latter is opposite of a free-society; wherein the wealthy must hustle to capture consumer-driven profit-bursts as the gov't is gone. Thus, in the latter, the wealthy must hustle because consumers are fickle.


Assuming property rights are legitimate, why does a property owner have any obligation to anyone else concerning that property?

I do not agree with land-based or land-tied property rights. I agree with all other property rights as long as they are voluntary.



And why is property seized by the state and put in the custody of corporations on a contract less legitimate than property seized by the state and gifted to individuals?


Because people have abdicated there right to self-rule -- We do not understand consumer-authority -- Nor do we understand individualism.

Also, because Corporations "lobby" and Gov't (authorizes).

[MikeSC]

I'm not trying to save Capitalism or trying to "hijack" Marx's coined-term and definition (like some on RevLeft are doing).

I'm trying to do two things: 1) To acknowledge and get past the absolute truth that Economic-Individualism (Free-Markets - Zero Gov't) is not Economic-Fuedalism (Marx's "Capitalist" Industrialist-Imperialism Critique) -- later growing into what we have now Economic-Fascism (or Corporatism, as Marx's logical extension of capitalism) -AND- 2) Showing the logical fallacies in modern Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism as "possible" societies to live in (at least from a transitional stand-point).

If you can allow that no country ever instituted Marx's Communism then you can allow me to have an open-source let's hash it out as we go kind of conversation -- arguing from meditation rather than from position (you vs. me).Even arguing from the position of a blank slate, private property is something that would have to be instituted over and above the "natural" equilibrium- which, if not done by a god, means granting a person or people the authority to invent rules surrounding and granting it's existence. No one has the right to grant such authority, and it would just be statism by another name.

Communism doesn't trust in people to create their own "natural" laws to apply to the world, it takes the material world at face value and seeks the way to use those resources for benefit of all who contribute, based on the input of all people equally.


#1 I never think about Locke.

#2 Communists hark back just as much
@1- Oh, okay then! Locke's always been the go-to excuser of private property for capitalists.

@2- Maybe, but not in the way I meant with capitalists and Locke- that they hark back to a time where we didn't have a decent knowledge of the development of society, so they could imagine their own that justifies property in their minds, like Locke. The conclusions Locke came to couldn't be arrived at knowing the actual development of society.


Maybe you read one or more of my posts and thus you know that I'm not in favor of land-based private property law. In fact I don't think there should be "law" for anything that occupies land - oil - mineral - or water rights. My thoughts on all other property is that it is transferable, it doesn't hurt anyone, and it can all be handled by agreed-upon voluntary private courts. I wont take up a string of Rothbardian prose; I can meditate and see how it would work. Under voluntary mediation we could solve property disputes (as long as the courts were open-sourced and viewable on the internet) -- why not?But you need natural resources in order to produce these other commodities, how would capitalist production be carried out with no property laws? How is it capitalism if it isn't capitalists investing capital into means of production? Would the most efficiently-aggressive organisation have as much land as they want as long as they can defend it? Will capitalism boil down to investing in enough guns to set up a Mad Max 2 style oil-pumping garrison?

How would these courts be induced to stream on the internet? It's morally arbitrary, it's building institutions for the sake of it, and it doesn't solve any of the practical problems of capitalism. How would this society deal with financial crises without the option of Keynesian stimuli? How would it deal with global warming, or poverty or sweatshopping, or any of the other problems of capitalism?


You are arguing axiomatically. The old wage-workers take.

Let's meditate on it and then argue from our own innovation.

Wage-workers (are not individuals -- its an identity tied to service and position in society). I don't identify as a position; I indentify with my principal occupation which is the consumption of ideal, knowledge, food, water, air, and resources (in a continuous; waste, use, and re-use cycle).
What's the relevance of this? I brought up wage-workers as a reply to you saying that slavery and property aren't related because "slaves never owned property"- when slavery is a form of property justified by philosophers with exactly as much authority as those who justify material property. I don't see how this engages with what my problem was.


Workers are consumers
Owners are consumers
Bums are consumers
Investors are consumersAt vastly different levels- was it Friedman who talked about consuming goods as being the democracy of the market? Well it's a "democracy" where 5% of the people have 95% of the votes. If you judge people only by their being consumers, is someone who consumes less then less of a person or what? I don't get how this relates to my point.



Now your "worry" is over ownership -- You want the worker to "own" all means of production.Not "own", property "ownership" is not a legitimate concept. Possess it for use as they use it, yes.



I'm arguing they will in the medium to long run as long as the society has ZERO Gov't Intervention, ZERO Control over Currency, ZERO Tax Authority, and ZERO Regulatory Authority.

In such a society the ONLY WAY a wealthy person (owner or investor) can grow wealth is to invest in entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism -- there is NO WEALTH in a "truly" free-market to be made by holding currency, assets, land, property or other means of production. All of the latter is based in currency (how it's traded) and in a non-interventionist society the currency remains relatively stable (comparitively) -- whereas in a corporatist society (Economic-Fascism), what we have now, occilations (profit-bursts) are created artifically by manipulation of Fiat Credit.

Therefore, in a "truly" free-market the "workers" (as you identify) will own the means of production -- they will buy them up if they are being used wisely -- the poor or middle class worker holds assets, currency, and means of production as long-term wealth driver (which moves slow). The poor to middle income folks are where 98% of all entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism come from -- so the cycle of wealth transferrence dips in and out of all communities very rapidly -- which, is the antithesis to how it happens now.

None of this follows logically- how is this any different from a capitalist putting un-used cash in a bank, which then lends it out? How would workers come to own the means of production if there are no laws governing the use of land and so on?

None of this makes any sense from a practical point of view, and it's completely arbitrary from a moral point of view. You might want a society like this, but there's no reason for it and instituted there's no reason it would unfold as you think.


Okay -- you win. Doesn't prove your point in modern times.It's not a winning/losing thing. Slavery is just another form of property, with rules invented by people with exactly as much authority as those who make up the rules governing material property- and it does prove my point, right now there'll be some little cocoa slave having a bowl of rice provided by his or her capitalist boss. It is the slave's bowl of rice through the capitalist's supposedly "legitimate" ownership.

The current distribution of wealth is based in feudalism, there has been no clean-slate or anything like that. Vassals holding land and resources through the supposed religious legitimacy of the king is no different from the slave holding bowl of rice through the supposed legitimacy of the capitalist, who owns it through the supposed legitimacy of property laws drawn up by mere mortals.


There are three things on the corporatist revenue stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Intervention (subsidies, bailouts, fiat credit manipulation, regulatory advantages, and tax authority).

Meditate on what society would look like without #3.Propertyless, if you're honest. It takes a sovereign to legitimise private property- if this is in the real world, you'd carry over state institutions of property, if in a blank-slate world you'd have to intervene to create property.

I know what you mean, though- keep the state institution but remove any democratic control that people have governing the use of that institution.


The "Commons" are where all waste is dumped -- all enviromental laws (written by those who control the commons) are done on private lands (by gov't decree/authrorization) or on public lands -- mostly the latter.This doesn't address my point. How would there be private lands without seizure in the first place? Hell, this is assuming we could just reboot the world, which we can't anyway- but if you could, how would land become private property without any form of authority to grant it? Who would make an enforce these environmental laws? Who would control the commons?

This makes no sense.


A 'free-society' is one wherein no one rules over you. The "law" is self-defense and voluntary unions. Yes it would get a little wild wild west, but there were far fewer deaths caused by such societies back then then there are now.So no one would be making rules governing property? If I want I can grab whatever someone else isn't using and he can't get it back without my consent or what? "Far fewer deaths...", be serious.


I'm not a Lockean.Well, why whatever your rule-maker of choice but not Rousseau?


This is absurd. I used to work in the finance community and then I bought the means of production (1 computer and server farm rental). Now I have 12 sources of income and making more than ever. I employ no one and work for myself and the consumer -- who is also me.

Stop arguing Marx's "industrial economic-fuedalist" position -- It's over. We are in the information age -- with a small loan you could easily start your own business. The "problem" now is that the consumer has 100's of hidden taxes put on him. The wealthy have subsidized profit-bursts (autho'd by gov't) and move slow AND the poor/middle class who pay for all intervention (as consumers and from wages) must hustle. The latter is opposite of a free-society; wherein the wealthy must hustle to capture consumer-driven profit-bursts as the gov't is gone. Thus, in the latter, the wealthy must hustle because consumers are fickle.The information age... do you think that the clothes you're wearing, the food you eat and so on comes out of a computer, rather than the millions of child-workers, bond slaves, harshly exploited workers world-wide?

And you missed the point, which was that your problem with fascism is one that communists have with capitalism, but capitalists tend to reply that workers are free to choose between work or starvation- so they're morally free. If you can apply that to capitalism, you can apply it equally to fascism.


I do not agree with land-based or land-tied property rights. I agree with all other property rights as long as they are voluntary.
I was being again facetious there, I disagree with any property- that capitalist excuses for the worst excesses of capitalism can be used equally well for fascism. "Voluntary property rights"? For real?


Because people have abdicated there right to self-rule -- We do not understand consumer-authority -- Nor do we understand individualism.

Also, because Corporations "lobby" and Gov't (authorizes). None of this answers the question, though. Or makes sense.

I have to say I still don't get how production would work in your dream system. No laws governing land and resources- so what would happen? Am I right that it's all very Mad Max? It's all arbitrary and doesn't solve any problems anyway, while still relying on a state to institute.

[Octobox]

Even arguing from the position of a blank slate, private property is something that would have to be instituted over and above the "natural" equilibrium- which, if not done by a god, means granting a person or people the authority to invent rules surrounding and granting it's existence. No one has the right to grant such authority, and it would just be statism by another name.

Yes -- If I was arguing for "law" and "precedence" -- these are part of Economic-Fuedalism and it's prodigy Economic-Fascism (what Ron Paul calls Corporatism).

The "authority" is given to the agreed upon privatized court to settle contractual disputes. That courts decision would have no bearing on other court decisions and there would be no authority given to precedence, nor would any ruling extend over future contracts.

Again I'm not talking about land-tied or land-based (water, mineral, oil, underground-water) rights or laws.

Making it "open-sourced" will allow all to see how that particular court/judge/mediator ruled -- to decide if he was fair or partial. Individualism and contract rulings are pretty un-complicated.f


Communism doesn't trust in people to create their own "natural" laws to apply to the world, it takes the material world at face value and seeks the way to use those resources for benefit of all who contribute, based on the input of all people equally.

A free-market (by definition Economic-Individualism) cannot create any binding laws over the non-mediated voluntary contractual contestants -- privatized court ruling is settled case by case. You enter a voluntary contract (to transfer "possessions") and if there is a dispute that you cannot work out on your own then you go before a mediator to resolve it.



@1- Oh, okay then! Locke's always been the go-to excuser of private property for capitalists.

I'm not a "capitalist" in the Marx sense of it (as Economic-Fuedalism)

I'm arguing for economic-individualism -- The individual is the only minority to be protected and all his exchanges are voluntary and non-coerced.

The individual is the consumer (in waste, use, and re-use of knowledge and resources).


@2- Maybe, but not in the way I meant with capitalists and Locke- that they hark back to a time where we didn't have a decent knowledge of the development of society, so they could imagine their own that justifies property in their minds, like Locke. The conclusions Locke came to couldn't be arrived at knowing the actual development of society.

I'm not a Lockean, nor a Rothbardian, nor a Hayekian. I'm an individual consumer and as a group we control 2/3 of everything in a corporatist society (yet we are asleep to it) and we control 100% of everything in a "truly" free-market (or economic-individualist society).



But you need natural resources in order to produce these other commodities, how would capitalist production be carried out with no property laws? How is it capitalism if it isn't capitalists investing capital into means of production? Would the most efficiently-aggressive organisation have as much land as they want as long as they can defend it? Will capitalism boil down to investing in enough guns to set up a Mad Max 2 style oil-pumping garrison?


I'm not arguing for long-run or long-term "laws" -- Just and Voluntary mediation when contracts are disputed beyond a certian tipping point. These rulings are case-by-case and hold no precedential decree.

You are still thinking interms of Corporatism -- as far as how "capitalism" goes.

Even though I don't agree with Rothbard as far as land-tied and land-based property rights/laws are concerned -- I do agree with him that the "truly" free-market (economic-individualism) can handle the rest.

The real question is how to transition from Economic-Fascism (Corporatism) to Economic-Individualism (free-markets) -- The only answer I've come up with is some form of Minarchy (min-archos -- minimum-authority) and a small sales tax. We'd go from 80-90% taxed (direct and indirect) to only 7-12% taxed (directly) to handle all Military Arsenal and to patiently wait 'till the rest of the world joins us.

Then from there it would be easy to step into some form of anarchy. Probably 20 to 50 years.



How would these courts be induced to stream on the internet? It's morally arbitrary, it's building institutions for the sake of it, and it doesn't solve any of the practical problems of capitalism.

People are asking now that all court cases be televised -- the desire is there for the purpose of voyuerism and checks-and-balance.

No single privatized court would be "forced" to do it -- But, if there were rumors that a court was not giving out fair decisions people would not use it.

In a "truly" free-market courts would be a business based on consumer demand. There would not be a single monopoly on justice -- courts would "compete" and competition brings purity of excellence as long as there is no coersion, cheating, or intervention.


How would this society deal with financial crises without the option of Keynesian stimuli?

In an Economic-Individualist Society only "acts of God" (natural catastrophy) can cause chaos. In a corporatist society (as we have now) Gov't bought Laws - Subsidies - Regulatory Advantages - Tax Authority - and Fiat Credit can create false profit-bursts or potential.

They do it all the time so the market stays in flux and it's not Keynesian (by-the-by) that rescues (as the keyesian model is to interfere; in one of the many ways just mentioned), rather it's consumer-will-overide. The latter is un-predictable, distablizing, cannabalistic, and drives risk which drives profits.

If the "owners" revenue stream is driven 100% by consumer demand (and the consumer has un-limited options -- full competition) and the consumer is always fickle; thus, investors and owners must do the jumping (seeking entrepreneurialism and intrapreneurialism). They can't have assets tied up too long in the means of production -- they must re-invest to capture the next profit burst.

Entre- and Intra-preneurialism is 98% found in poor to middle class communities -- thus in a free-market society the wealthy are always investing in the poor; thus the redistribution (voluntarily) of wealth.


How would it deal with global warming, or poverty or sweatshopping, or any of the other problems of capitalism?


The factors that liberals say caused global warming (coal burning - combustion automobiles - large agri-farming), being the cheif causitive factors, are proped up in a Corporatist Society.

Corporatist Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase #1, 2) Consumers-who-Invest #2, and 3) Gov't Intervention (Subsidies, Regulatory Advantages, Taxing Authority, Enviromental Rullings, Bailouts, and Fiat Currency).

Economic-Individualist Revenue Stream: Only #1 and #2



What's the relevance of this? I brought up wage-workers as a reply to you saying that slavery and property aren't related because "slaves never owned property"- when slavery is a form of property justified by philosophers with exactly as much authority as those who justify material property. I don't see how this engages with what my problem was.

You confused me and I confused you -- either re-state your position differently or let's let this one go, smile.


At vastly different levels- was it Friedman who talked about consuming goods as being the democracy of the market? Well it's a "democracy" where 5% of the people have 95% of the votes. to my point.

First I do not agree with Friedman on many issues -- I'm closer to a Rothbardian than Friedmanian and I'm closer to Misesean than Rothbardian; mostly I think for myself and there's some overlap. I'm very open to being proven wrong, as long as the arguments are not axiomatic.

You are talking about Corporatism -- which is what I'm railing against.

Consumer-Individualism cannot exist if there is Gov't Interventionism or Theft occuring over every transaction.


If you judge people only by their being consumers, is someone who consumes less then less of a person or what? I don't get how this relates

Consumerism in a Corporatist Society puts a third "power" or "driver" on the revenue stream. It allows the economic-fascist (by definition) seek gov't remedy to create "fairness" or to over-ride consumer decision (authority).

Consumerism in Economic-Individualism gives all authority to the consumer-who-purchases and the consumer-who-invests. Without gov't remedy. Thus making the owner and investor a slave to consumer-will -- We are all consumers, so consumers are the only individual. As it stands the owner does not stand in fear of consumer-will -- only in part.

You are thinking of "consumption" purely from a shopping stand-point.

Consumption is to transfer, transfigure, waste, use, and re-use all knowledge and resources.

Stars are consumers -- The Planet is a Consumer -- All living things are consumers and thus all people are consumers.

We consume 100% of the day -- it's the only activity we engage in (all of us universally) all day long. Therefore it's the first "root" of individualism.


Not "own", property "ownership" is not a legitimate concept. Possess it for use as they use it, yes.

I talked about law above in this post.


None of this follows logically- how is this any different from a capitalist putting un-used cash in a bank, which then lends it out? How would workers come to own the means of production if there are no laws governing the use of land and so on?

You are arguing about the "evils" of Corporatism (1st Marx coined Capitalism which he referred to as Economic-Fuedalism -- 2nd this lead to Crony-Capitalism which is truly Economic-Fascism) and so am I.

In a free-market "owners" and "investors" follow entre- and intra-preneurialists -- when they see a good innovation they collaborate to build it. Then they spend all their time following consumer-demand, in regard to the innovation. The entre- and intra-preneurials are the poor to middle class and the consumer is "everyone" (mostly the poor and middle class) and thus the "capitalist" cannot put their money in a bank. Their money is in constant movement; they take no long-run positions - because ideas (innovation) and consumers are always changing / evolving.

The owner and investor collarborate with the innovator. They build the project and people trade assets/commodities/gold/currency for the service or product. With no gov't there is no barrier (no patent law) to entry -- if it is a huge profit-burst idea/start up people will copy it. At some tipping point (when inner-innovation is no longer keeping up with market share) the original owner and investor will pull (sell it) so they can get into another expensive, risky, yet profit-bursting venture. If the sub-contractors (there are no "employees" in free-market) decide they can keep up with competing firms they will innovate the process (buy the business collectively) and thus own the means of production.

In some incidences the business would just die out and the sub-contractors (workers) would find work elsewhere.

They pay no taxes and no gov't can foreclose their homes -- there are no predatory lending so they are natural "savers." They could go without work for quite sometime. In a free-society (economic-individualist society). If wise they would work on innovation and entrepreneurialism.

Meditate on the difference between means of production in the information age vs means of production in the industrial age.


None of this makes any sense from a practical point of view, and it's completely arbitrary from a moral point of view. You might want a society like this, but there's no reason for it and instituted there's no reason it would unfold as you think.

Morality and Corporatism is a futile battle; Morality is free-choice, including the wrong one. If there is a "God" he/she/it does not force us to love or obey him/her/it. But Gov't, Big Bankers, Big Unionists, and Big Corporatist all do.


It's not a winning/losing thing. Slavery is just another form of property, with rules invented by people with exactly as much authority as those who make up the rules governing material property- and it does prove my point, right now there'll be some little cocoa slave having a bowl of rice provided by his or her capitalist boss. It is the slave's bowl of rice through the capitalist's supposedly "legitimate" ownership.

Again go back to my "law" vs "mediated" courts argument above.

We are "slaves" now -- A slave pays 100% Tax on Income. We pay somewhere between 60-80% of it. The slave does not have the right to consumer -- like all other beings.

Rice is a highly subsidized food stuff -- no one is paying the true cost.

In a free-market the wealthy do not tie up assets in land or currency. Everything is about predicting consumer trends, following consumer demand, and capturing innovation (advancement).




The current distribution of wealth is based in feudalism, there has been no clean-slate or anything like that. Vassals holding land and resources through the supposed religious legitimacy of the king is no different from the slave holding bowl of rice through the supposed legitimacy of the capitalist, who owns it through the supposed legitimacy of property laws drawn up by mere mortals.

No it's based in Fascism. You can go down and buy the means of production to 12 streams of income for $1000 plus $60 per month of server farm rental. I do -- so, can you. No loans and no debt. Because we are 20-40% Free. When we lived in Fuedalist times (industrial age) we could not afford the means of production. With gov't gold theft, the artificial deflations/depressions people were only 5-10% free. Taxes were actually higher; in some counts -- opportunity costs were very low and thus wealth outside of the reach. That's not the case now or not as much of a one. And I'm not arguing we stay in the present debacle either.


Propertyless, if you're honest. It takes a sovereign to legitimise private property- if this is in the real world, you'd carry over state institutions of property, if in a blank-slate world you'd have to intervene to create property.

There is no sovereign in economic-individualism -- there would need to be one in Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism (to force land-tied or land-based property laws and to force zero currency use and workers owning the means of production).

I'm not arguing in favor of either philosophy -- I hope that's clear now.

I'm arguing for economic-individualism (read above).



I know what you mean, though- keep the state institution but remove any democratic control that people have governing the use of that institution

The democratic control would be in the daily-dollar-vote and by consumers analysing the firm -- in open-source (non-gov't protected) vetting websites.



This doesn't address my point. How would there be private lands without seizure in the first place? Hell, this is assuming we could just reboot the world, which we can't anyway- but if you could, how would land become private property without any form of authority to grant it? Who would make an enforce these environmental laws? Who would control the commons?

I told you the land question is tricky -- I've been meditating on this for 2 years and I can't resolve it. If you give it to gov't -- then they will grow in size and power -- demaning more and more to regulate it. If you put it into Rothbardian enviroment gangsterism will likely grow.

This is why people need to come out of "Max-Archy" (Economic-Fascism) and into "Min-Archy" (near Economic-Individualism) where they can be educated and prepared to live in total liberty (some form of anarchy).

I can tell you (I'm going to argue from authority here) when I was in my 2nd major I was an enviromentalist. It is a fact that all most all enviromental abuses happen in two ways: One in the Commons and Two on private property with Gov't authority -- Like Factory Pig Farms; the commons would be the air and underground water they destroy and the "private" would be the farms gov't authorizes individuals to factory farm on.

I can handle the problem in a minarchist society -- it's being mishandled right now in a corporatist society.

This makes no sense.


So no one would be making rules governing property? If I want I can grab whatever someone else isn't using and he can't get it back without my consent or what? "Far fewer deaths...", be serious.

First there needs to be a transition -- People need to feel the peace that comes from a "nearly" free-society (some form of minarchism -- "minimal authority," rather than the maxarchy we live in now).

People need time to heal. We need to return to a "healthy" self-defense society -- rather than giving monoply control to gov't.

Un-fortunately there's no way to show you this because you need to meditate on the peace that would come from the middle-class and poor people being debt free, holding no debt currency, and paying little or no taxes. I'm talking about the transitionary period.

It might take one or two generations (20 to 40 years). Prior to transitioning into the "vision" we are trying to build of a free-society (what I'm calling economic-individualism).



The information age... do you think that the clothes you're wearing, the food you eat and so on comes out of a computer, rather than the millions of child-workers, bond slaves, harshly exploited workers world-wide?


You are arguing against the current system (Economic-Fascism) I'm arguing for a Free-Society (Economic-Individualism) -- there are no "workers" as you know them now in such a society.

The employee and the citizen are both based on the gov't owning our original birth certificates, making declare ourselves as citizens, owning our social security cards, and getting us to submit to IRS (income tax et al).

There is no I.D of any kind in a free-society (less voluntary). There is no gov't to keep track of anything you do.

The clothes I'm wearing and food come out of corporatism (economic-fascism) and are fully subsidized (forced) on me and the poor workers you describe. Owing to our own abdication. Revolution always proves how controlled we are. The "revolution" we need now is one of counter-economics and zero participation. As individuals (enmasse) and as Consumers.



And you missed the point, which was that your problem with fascism is one that communists have with capitalism, but capitalists tend to reply that workers are free to choose between work or starvation- so they're morally free. If you can apply that to capitalism, you can apply it equally to fascism.


"Workers" (are carded and branded by gov't -- Soc Security I.D, Drivers License, and Birth Certificates) -- none of these exist in a free-society.

I'm not arguing in favor of corporatism (economic-fascism) nor for capitalism (economic-fuedalism). So, let that go; I'm trying to build and grow "new knowledge."



I was being again facetious there, I disagree with any property- that capitalist excuses for the worst excesses of capitalism can be used equally well for fascism. "Voluntary property rights"? For real?

Let's say voluntary property possession. The point is it can be transfered or sold in a free-society as it has been throughout all time. The "evil" is when some bully comes in and makes you pay tax on it (as a gift or purchase). What protection did the bully offer me? If I need protection over a larger possession transfer then I'd get a mediator -- where we both agree to terms.



None of this answers the question, though. Or makes sense.


In response to what I wrote: "Because people have abdicated there right to self-rule -- We do not understand consumer-authority -- Nor do we understand individualism. Also, because Corporations "lobby" and Gov't (authorizes)."

How is this not clear?

People abdicated their self-rule -- as individuals and in various communities. There is a time to fight and a time to negotiate. If the people are cowards or lack the skill necessary to combat then they are enslaved.

The whole world must be armed with knowledge and training -- they must know combat, innovation, self-reliance, and be highly skilled.

There is a tipping point wherein the bulk of the people have these skills and the role of gov't will end. Until then there will always be corporatism or something else.

Industrial Age -- Economic-Fuedalism -- Marx names it Capitalism
Information Age -- Economic-Fascism -- It's named Corporatism
Liberty Age -- Economic-Individualism -- It might be called Consumer-Authority


I have to say I still don't get how production would work in your dream system. No laws governing land and resources- so what would happen? Am I right that it's all very Mad Max? It's all arbitrary and doesn't solve any problems anyway, while still relying on a state to institute.

I just went out (two years ago) and bought $1000 computer. I plugged it in. Then I went out and rented a server $60. I now how 12 streams of income. I own the means of production and if someone stole them they are easily replaced.

I used to be an under-ground welder. I paid for my mentorship (in work trade and dollars). After I apprenticed I was hired at $25 per hour, then $40, and lastly $65 per hour. I owned all my own equipment: truck, tools, and rig -- $50,000 (I payed off all my debt in 5 years -- no problem).

Now maybe you are worried about "electricity farms" or "factory farms" or "steel foundrys" or "silicon plants" or "tech corporations" or "mineral mining?"

Meditate on the revenue stream in corporatism vs. economic-individualism (as outlined above).

There are no profit-burst in monopolization in the medium to long-run and no advantages artifically given -- therefore the wealthy don't want to tie up assets here (big industry) for too long.

I think the people will own it (in large numbers) or the monopolies would be broken apart and competition would free-up assets to be re-invested in the "clever" class (where entre- and intra-preneurs come from).

Octobox

[MikeSC]

Most of that isn't relating to what I wrote or the questions I had, and I don't have the clear picture of what your system is supposed to be that you have- so let's start again with a couple of fundamentals-

How would your system handle production and distribution?

How would your system be instituted?

EDIT: I appreciate you taking the time to write such long replies by the way :)

[Octobox]

Most of that isn't relating to what I wrote or the questions I had, and I don't have the clear picture of what your system is supposed to be that you have- so let's start again with a couple of fundamentals-

MikeSC: Yeah, that was getting a bit long; I almost dreaded your retort. Nice to hit the re-set button once in awhile.


How would your system handle production and distribution?

I'm trying to avoid contrarian triggers.

If by "handle" you mean "control" or "ownership" then that is simple; if that's not what you mean then please ellucidate.

First - We must transition into whatever form of anarchy we idealize; probably through some sort of Minarchism.

#1 Control -- The consumer controls 100% in the short to medium run -- in the long-run all businesses die (without gov't intervention or without R&D Innovation that gives comparative advantage).

Why?

Free-Market Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest.

#2 Ownership -- The means of production in the short-run are owned by the owner/investor. In the medium run they are owned by the "workers" -- if the workers can innovate faster than the market. In the long-run (in a free-market) most businesses die. I'm talking about a free-market.

To understand that you must understand how owners/investors gain profit and how long they'll tie up assets in a free-market.

Workers - In a free-market there are no employees or permanent wage earners -- Everyone in a free-market is a sub-contractor. If an owner-investor was wise (in a free-market) they be looking to get out of any new business -- only in business start-up can big profit bursts be made. With no intervention or advantages or copyrights given by gov't there would be no barriers to entry and copy-cats would soak up the big profits. Even if some innovation could be created to stay ahead the biggest "profit-bursts" are had in the short-run (depending on the innovation or industy) and at the very least the investors would demand an exit strategy. The owner may want to stay in for a while longer but if he was wise he'd work in an exit strategy wherein the sub-contractors take over. People from a lower income bracket can stand to earn lower profits and would be happy to earn them (if they felt they could stay ahead of the open market).



How would your system be instituted?


There must be a transition through some form of Minarchism (minimal-authority).


EDIT: I appreciate you taking the time to write such long replies by the way :)

You too ;)