anarcho-capitalism....totalitarian?

[Revy]

The more that I think about it, the more it seems this vision of society would simply allow the domination of corporate entities, and the privatization of the functions of the state (army, courts, etc).

what do you think?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

An anarcho-capitalist landowner would have the exact same powers on his land that a totalitarian government has on its territory.

[Havet]

The more that I think about it, the more it seems this vision of society would simply allow the domination of corporate entities, and the privatization of the functions of the state (army, courts, etc).

what do you think?

I think corporate entities have much more power right now because they use the apparatus of the state. The reason ancaps favor "privatization" is because they think the same services can be provided cheaply and better through competition.

If you'd like to read more about this consider the following:

"AnCap" FAQ (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html)

Brief Explanation (http://jim.com/anarchy/)

Explaining "Privatization" (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7C89E81CC2E193A4)

[trivas7]

An anarcho-capitalist landowner would have the exact same powers on his land that a totalitarian government has on its territory.
Why would anyone tolerate an individual w/ totalitarian powers? How does an individual come to possess such powers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLqe6K_ySy8

[danyboy27]

Why would anyone tolerate an individual w/ totalitarian powers? How does an individual come to possess such powers?

well, i dont know anarcho cappie much, but i assume that somebody could have his own army of mercenary and manage his land the way he see fit, applying his own rules of what happen on his property regardless of laws beccause there wouldnt really have collectives laws, since its anarchism and capitalism together.

my opinion it would look like those 2 video together

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckvDo2JHB7o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0Gpd0U9ECo&NR=1

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Since Hayenmill posted those pro-ancap links, I feel obligated to post a link to my anti-ancap essay:

Anarcho-capitalism: The Empty Ideal (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-empty-t84983/index.html)

[IcarusAngel]

well, i dont know anarcho cappie much, but i assume that somebody could have his own army of mercenary and manage his land the way he see fit, applying his own rules of what happen on his property regardless of laws beccause there wouldnt really have collectives laws, since its anarchism and capitalism together.

my opinion it would look like those 2 video together

ckvDo2JHB7o


U0Gpd0U9ECo


Haha. Robocop kicks ass. The local DJ here, Todd Nuke 'em, uses that Nuke 'em commercial for the intro to his show.

They're actually making a new robocop I heard, hopefully they keep most of the message.

I love the them in that movie too.

D7rjLQuW2nQ

[IcarusAngel]

btw... If you watch the third robocop someone has written on the wall "Oppressive Capitalist Pigs" for Omni Consumer Products, (OCP). :laugh:

[Misanthrope]

The more that I think about it, the more it seems this vision of society would simply allow the domination of corporate entities, and the privatization of the functions of the state (army, courts, etc).

what do you think?

Who would force you to contract with these armies and courts? It's voluntary.

[trivas7]

Since Hayenmill posted those pro-ancap links, I feel obligated to post a link to my anti-ancap essay:

Anarcho-capitalism: The Empty Ideal (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-empty-t84983/index.html)
Your essay conflates the free market and government. And you fail to mention that anarcho-capitalism retains all the benefits of capitalism w/out the evils of government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiUhPOK4PLg&feature=PlayList&p=0812AA4B51C3F5B8&index=13

[Trystan]

I think corporate entities have much more power right now because they use the apparatus of the state. The reason ancaps favor "privatization" is because they think the same services can be provided cheaply and better through competition.

If you'd like to read more about this consider the following:


An apparatus that they can purchase when the state "ceases to exist" (in reality, put on the open market for a bunch of corporate gangsters to buy for themselves).

[trivas7]

well, i dont know anarcho cappie much, but i assume that somebody could have his own army of mercenary and manage his land the way he see fit, applying his own rules of what happen on his property regardless of laws beccause there wouldnt really have collectives laws, since its anarchism and capitalism together.

This dodges the question. Collective property arrangements are perfectly fine under anarcho-capitalism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

btw... If you watch the third robocop someone has written on the wall "Oppressive Capitalist Pigs" for Omni Consumer Products, (OCP). :laugh:

Haha, that's great. Somebody sees our struggle! :lol:

[Havet]

An apparatus that they can purchase when the state "ceases to exist" (in reality, put on the open market for a bunch of corporate gangsters to buy for themselves).

argued on this thread: (http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-anarco-cappys-t109410/index.html)

"Another related argument against ancap is that the "strongest" protection agency will always win, the big fish will eat the little fish, and the justice you will get will depend on the military strength of the agency you patronize.

This is a fine description of governments, but protection agencies are not territorial sovereigns. An agency which settles its disputes on the battlefield has already lost, however many battles it wins. Battles are expensive - also dangerous for clients whose front yards get turned into free-fire zones. No clients mean no money to pay for the troops.

Perhaps the best way to see why ancap would be so much more peaceful than our present system is by analogy. Consider our world as it would be if the cost of moving from one country to another were zero. Everyone lives ina housetrailer and speaks the same language. One day, the president of France anounces that because of troubles with neighburing countries, new military taxes are being levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three generals and twenty-seven war correspondants.

We cannot all live in housetrailers. But, if we buy our protection from a private firm instead of a government, we can buy it from a different firm as soon as we think we can get a better deal. We can change protectors without changing countries.
The risk of private protection agencies throwing their weight - and lead - around is not great, provided there are lots of them. Which bring us to the second and far more serious argument against ancap.

The protection agencies will have a large fraction of the armed might of society. What can prevent them from getting toguether and using that might to set themselves up as government?
In some ultimate sense, nothing can prevent that save a populace possesing arms and willing, if necessary, to use them. That is one reason I am against gun-control legislation.
But there are safeguards less ultimate than armed resistance. After all, our present police departments, national guard, and armed forces already possses most of the armed might. Why have they not combined to run the country for their own benefit? Neither soldiers nor policement are especially well paid; surely they could impose a better settlement at gunpoint.

A brief answer is that people act according to what they perceive as right, proper, and practical. The restraints which prevent a military coup are essentially restraints interior to the men with guns.
We must ask not whether an ancap society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns, but whether it would be safer than our current society.
In our society, the men who must engineer a coup are politicians, military officers, and policement, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe they have the right to push other men around - that is their job. Under ancap the men in control of protection agencies are "selected" by their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled "non-power freaks need not apply"

anotherrelevant factor is the number of protection agencies. If there are only two or three agencies in the entire area now covered by the USA, a conspiracy among them may be practical. If there are 10,000, then when any group starts acting like government, their customers will hire someone else to protect them against their protectors.

Protection agencies have no rights which individuals do not have, and they therefore cannot engage in legitimized coercion. This does not mean that they will never coerce anyone. a protection agency, like a government, can make a mistake and arrest the wrong man. In exactly the same way, a private citizen can shoot at what he thinks is a prowler and bag the postman instead. In each case, coercion occurs, but by accident, and the coercer is liable for the consequences of his acts.
This is not true for government actions. In order to sue a policeman for false arrest, I must prove not merely that I was innocent but also that the policeman had no reason to suspect me. If i am locked up for 20 years and then proven innocent, i have no legal claim against the government for my lost time and mental anguish. It is recognized the government made a mistake, but the government is allowed to make mistakes and need not pay for them like the rest of us."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Another related argument against ancap is that the "strongest" protection agency will always win, the big fish will eat the little fish, and the justice you will get will depend on the military strength of the agency you patronize.

This is a fine description of governments, but protection agencies are not territorial sovereigns. An agency which settles its disputes on the battlefield has already lost, however many battles it wins. Battles are expensive - also dangerous for clients whose front yards get turned into free-fire zones. No clients mean no money to pay for the troops.

Perhaps the best way to see why ancap would be so much more peaceful than our present system is by analogy. Consider our world as it would be if the cost of moving from one country to another were zero. Everyone lives ina housetrailer and speaks the same language. One day, the president of France anounces that because of troubles with neighburing countries, new military taxes are being levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three generals and twenty-seven war correspondants.
That argument and analogy shows precisely how divorced from reality anarcho-capitalists really are.

Throughout human history, millions of people have volunteered to fight and die in wars, often for no payment at all. Do you think it would be so difficult to find millions of people willing to volunteer to pay for wars? Especially when you could recruit these people across the entire world, and not just within one country?

Anarcho-capitalists seem to suffer the delusion that no one ever supports war except a few state leaders. That is not just wrong, it is idiotic. Many wars have been immensely popular among the very people who got killed in them.

Anarcho-capitalists also suffer the delusion that war is not profitable. Again, this is criminally stupid. War is the most profitable activity known to man. Why? Because after you win, you can take all the property of the defeated enemy.

[trivas7]

Anarcho-capitalists seem to suffer the delusion that no one ever supports war except a few state leaders. That is not just wrong, it is idiotic. Many wars have been immensely popular among the very people who got killed in them.

This is b/c it is the state that sponsors war. It is in the interest of the state that war is perceived as attractive.


Anarcho-capitalists also suffer the delusion that war is not profitable. Again, this is criminally stupid. War is the most profitable activity known to man.
Only if profits are guaranteed by the state. If what you say is the case, it follows that in the pursuit of profit all businesses would be mercenary armies.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is b/c it is the state that sponsors war. It is in the interest of the state that war is perceived as attractive.
And how does the state achieve this? Through propaganda. And propaganda is something that everyone can do, not just the state.

Besides, there are some people who really, honestly like war.


Only if profits are guaranteed by the state.
Guaranteed in what way? Once you've won a war and are pointing a gun at your defeated enemy, you don't need anyone else's help to take that enemy's property.


If what you say is the case, it follows that in the pursuit of profit all businesses would be mercenary armies.
Yes, in the pursuit of profit all businesses would be mercenary armies... if the state did not prevent them from doing that.

[Dean]

Why would anyone tolerate an individual w/ totalitarian powers? How does an individual come to possess such powers?

They tolerate them because they have respect for their private property, as well as the notion that they have the right to decide in totality what goes on on their land. The same individualist perspective in the U.S. wherein a person can be killed for trespeassing exists as an extremist perspective under anarcho-capitalism. The latter, of course, sometimes incorporates the notion of "capability to defend property" (force) which further expands the right of an individual against multiple others.

They come to achieve these powers because the masses are taught that the enforced capitalism of the minority is beneficial or otherwise necessary for their own survival; be it by indiviualist principles or other mystic obstinances.

Whether or not others will "tolerate" individualist standards are another matter entirely. But that is why 'the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism', not some mechanism which allows capitalism to regulate its own contradictions. Rather, that intolerance is the achille's heel of individualist society.

[Havet]

That argument and analogy shows precisely how divorced from reality anarcho-capitalists really are.

Throughout human history, millions of people have volunteered to fight and die in wars, often for no payment at all. Do you think it would be so difficult to find millions of people willing to volunteer to pay for wars? Especially when you could recruit these people across the entire world, and not just within one country?

Anarcho-capitalists seem to suffer the delusion that no one ever supports war except a few state leaders. That is not just wrong, it is idiotic. Many wars have been immensely popular among the very people who got killed in them.

Anarcho-capitalists also suffer the delusion that war is not profitable. Again, this is criminally stupid. War is the most profitable activity known to man. Why? Because after you win, you can take all the property of the defeated enemy.

This following argument was to adress Ayn Rand's proposition that private defense companies would fight.


Probably the most popular argument against libertarian anarchy is: well, what happens if (and this is Ayn Rand’s famous argument) I think you’ve violated my rights and you think you haven’t, so I call up my protection agency, and you call up your protection agency – why won’t they just do battle? What guarantees that they won’t do battle? To which, of course, the answer is: well, nothing guarantees they won’t do battle. Human beings have free will. They can do all kinds of crazy things. They might go to battle. Likewise, George Bush might decide to push the nuclear button tomorrow. They might do all sorts of things.



The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, "I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence." Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can.


In response to the belief that organized crime might take over:


One objection is that under anarchy organized crime will take over. Well, it might. But is it likely? Organized crime gets its power because it specializes in things that are illegal – things like drugs and prostitution and so forth. During the years when alcohol was prohibited, organized crime specialized in the alcohol trade. Nowadays, they’re not so big in the alcohol trade. So the power of organized crime to a large extent depends on the power of government. It’s sort of a parasite on government’s activities. Governments by banning things create black markets. Black markets are dangerous things to be in because you have to worry both about the government and about other dodgy people who are going into the black market field. Organized crime specializes in that. So, organized crime I think would be weaker, not stronger, in a libertarian system.


In The Market for Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Liberty), Linda and Morris Tannehill note that a private defense agency would be unlikely to engage in aggression, as it would not only become a target of retaliatory force, but would become the subject of severe business ostracism. Honest and productive individuals would dissociate themselves from it, fearing that it might use its aggressive force against them in the event of a dispute; or that they might become accidental casualties when retaliatory force is used by one of its other victims; or that their own reputation would suffer due to their ties to it. Moreover, the private defense agency's reputation would suffer and it would be regarded as a poor credit and insurance risk, the latter due to the high risk of claims resulting from its involvement in aggression. The employees and leaders of such an agency as well could face personal civil liability for their involvement, and the agency would not be shielded by sovereign immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity). High-quality employees would presumably be less willing to be involved with such an organization.

[trivas7]

Yes, in the pursuit of profit all businesses would be mercenary armies... if the state did not prevent them from doing that.
Wow. The entire thrust of your remarks is the Hobbsean notion that man is a wolf towards man.

[trivas7]

Whether or not others will "tolerate" individualist standards are another matter entirely. But that is why 'the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism', not some mechanism which allows capitalism to regulate its own contradictions. Rather, that intolerance is the achille's heel of individualist society.
If you think that socialism is compatible w/ peace you're wrong. Just look at history. Authoritarian statism is incompatible w/ tolerance.

[Dean]

If you think that socialism is compatible w/ peace you're wrong. Just look at history. Authoritarian statism is incompatible w/ tolerance.

I don't know where you'rr getting 'authoritarian statism.' I think you know well enough that that is a strawman. However, your suggestion that people "would not tolerate" an individual with bloated liberties is undeniably an attack on the fundamental notion of capitalist philosophy wherein acquisition of power serves as its own justification.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Wow. The entire thrust of your remarks is the Hobbsean notion that man is a wolf towards man.
Which, in a society based on private property, is entirely true.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This following argument was to adress Ayn Rand's proposition that private defense companies would fight.


Probably the most popular argument against libertarian anarchy is: well, what happens if (and this is Ayn Rand’s famous argument) I think you’ve violated my rights and you think you haven’t, so I call up my protection agency, and you call up your protection agency – why won’t they just do battle? What guarantees that they won’t do battle? To which, of course, the answer is: well, nothing guarantees they won’t do battle. Human beings have free will. They can do all kinds of crazy things. They might go to battle. Likewise, George Bush might decide to push the nuclear button tomorrow. They might do all sorts of things.



The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, "I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence." Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can.


This entire argument is based on the notion that private defense agencies will remain private defense agencies and not try to become governments.

That is ridiculous. Being a government (or, to be more exact, being an aristocratic government) is far more profitable than being a private defense agency. In the pursuit of profit, private defense agencies will attempt to turn themselves into aristocratic governments. How can a private defense agency do this? By selecting an area of land, and using force to drive out all other agencies from that area.

Also, you're assuming that customers will only ever pay for defense. Again, that's idiotic. Customers may also want to pay for offense - for plunder and conquest.

A private "defense" agency with a "Viking mentality" may well charge premiums, but in exchange it may also promise its customers a share in the spoils of war. And as long as the spoils are greater than the premiums, this agency will be successful.

[Havet]

This entire argument is based on the notion that private defense agencies will remain private defense agencies and not try to become governments.

That is ridiculous. Being a government (or, to be more exact, being an aristocratic government) is far more profitable than being a private defense agency. In the pursuit of profit, private defense agencies will attempt to turn themselves into aristocratic governments. How can a private defense agency do this? By selecting an area of land, and using force to drive out all other agencies from that area.

Also, you're assuming that customers will only ever pay for defense. Again, that's idiotic. Customers may also want to pay for offense - for plunder and conquest.

A private "defense" agency with a "Viking mentality" may well charge premiums, but in exchange it may also promise its customers a share in the spoils of war. And as long as the spoils are greater than the premiums, this agency will be successful.



again that argument has also been adressed in "libertarian anarchism response to 10 objections"


(10) Robert Nozick and Tyler Cowen: Private Protection Agencies Will Become a de facto Government


Okay, one last consideration I want to talk about. This is a question that originally was raised by Robert Nozick and has since been pushed farther by Tyler Cowen. Nozick said: Suppose you have anarchy. One of three things will happen. Either the agencies will fight – and he gives two different scenarios of what will happen if they fight. But I’ve already talked about what happens if they fight, so I’ll talk about the third option. What if they don’t fight? Then he says, if instead they agree to these mutual arbitration contracts and so forth, then basically this whole thing just turns into a government. And then Tyler Cowen has pushed this argument farther. He said what happens is that basically this forms into a cartel, and it’s going to be in the interest of this cartel to sort of turn itself into a government. And any new agency that comes along, they can just boycott it.



Just as it’s in your interest if you come along with a new ATM card that it be compatible with everyone else’s machines, so if you come along with a brand new protection agency, it is in your interest that you get to be part of this system of contracts and arbitration and so forth that the existing ones have. Consumers aren’t going to come to you if they find out that you don’t have any agreements as to what happens if you’re in a conflict with these other agencies. And so, this cartel will be able to freeze everyone out.



Well, could that happen? Sure. All kinds of things could happen. Half the country could commit suicide tomorrow. But, is it likely? Is this cartel likely to be able to abuse its power in this way? The problem is cartels are unstable for all the usual reasons. That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible that a cartel succeed. After all, people have free will. But it’s unlikely because the very incentives that lead you to form the cartel also lead you to cheat on it – because it’s always in the interest of anyone to make agreements outside the cartel once they are in it.



Bryan Caplan makes a distinction between self-enforcing boycotts and non-self-enforcing boycotts. Self-enforcing boycotts are ones where the boycott is pretty stable because it’s a boycott against, for example, doing business with people who cheat their business partners. Now, you don’t have to have some iron resolve of moral commitment in order to avoid doing business with people who cheat their business partners. You have a perfectly self-interested reason not to do business with those people.



But think instead of a commitment not to do business with someone because you don’t like their religion or something like that, or they’re a member of the wrong protection agency, one that your fellow protection agencies told you not to deal with – well, the boycott might work. Maybe enough people (and maybe everyone) in the cartel are so committed to upholding the cartel that they just won’t deal with the person. Is that possible? Yes. But, if we assume that they formed the cartel out of their own economic self-interest, then the economic self-interest is precisely what leads to the undermining because it’s in their interest to deal with the person, just as it’s always in your interest to engage in mutually beneficial trade.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Anarcho-capitalism is not real. Any attempt to create an anarcho-capitalist society will likely result in one of two scenarios:

1) Private property is quickly accumulated by the few, who then become a de-facto State, employing private defense agencies to keep the rest of the people in line. Obviously, this is not anarchistic in the slightest. :(

or

2) Private property owners attempt to continue as they did before the State was smashed. However, workers quickly realize that they are being exploited, form massive unions, and refuse to work unless property owners sell them the capital they need to produce. Worker-owned cooperatives soon outcompete capitalist enterprises, leading to a form of mutualism. Obviously, this is not capitalistic in the slightest. :thumbup1:

As for myself, I would rather not risk the first scenario even if the second scenario is also possible. Therefore, I will continue advocating possession rather than private property, because frankly, that course is a hell of a lot less risky.

[trivas7]

As for myself, I would rather not risk the first scenario even if the second scenario is also possible. Therefore, I will continue advocating possession rather than private property, because frankly, that course is a hell of a lot less risky.
Given that the first senario is what currently exists, what would you be risking?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Given that the first senario is what currently exists, what would you be risking?

Wasting an opportunity to accomplish actual social change by channeling popular resentment of the current system into a pointless anarcho-capitalist revolution rather than an genuinely anarchist revolution.

Also, the first scenario is actually somewhat worse than what already exist, since the power elite wouldn't be called a State (despite being one) and the meager democratic controls and social welfare measures that exist today would be removed.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

again that argument has also been adressed in "libertarian anarchism response to 10 objections"
Hayenmill, the argument you posted completely missed the point (or, to be more exact, it was not originally intended to refute the point I made). It was an argument about what might happen if private defense agencies get together and agree to form a cartel.

But that's not what I was talking about at all. I was talking about private defense agencies turning into private offense agencies. I was talking about rich people deciding to hire men with guns to make themselves a new government.

In an anarchist society with an egalitarian distribution of wealth, it would be difficult for a small minority to gather enough firepower to re-establish a government. If no individual has much more wealth than any other individual, then no individual can buy enough firepower to defeat large numbers of others and make himself king. On the other hand, in an anarchist society with inequality of wealth, a very small number of rich people could very easily have more military strength than millions of poorer people put together. Guess what happens then.

[trivas7]

Which, in a society based on private property, is entirely true.
And you think different political arrangements will automagically transform human nature, is that it?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

And you think different political arrangements will automagically transform human nature, is that it?
No, I think that different political arrangements will achieve a balance of power between individuals. People wish to benefit themselves at the expense of others, but they also wish to stop others from doing the same. That second part is key to achieving the good society. We must have political arrangements that will ensure each person's desire to dominate is kept in check by the others' desires to be free from domination.

[CommunityBeliever]

Who exactly would go about breaking apart capitalist monopolies like Standard Oil?

Who exactly is going to go about breaking apart the Microsoft monopoly? The only things which have came to combat the Microsoft monopoly have been the result of the state (European Union, Linux) so obviously the free market cannot break apart monopolies. More monopolies like Microsoft will come about simply because they destroy all their competitors like Apple. Now Apple has decided to look to markets untapped by Microsoft because that is more profitable so Apple allows Microsoft to maintain its monopoly because fighting that is not profitable.

If there is no government in a capitalist society then who is going to attend to the safety and well-being of the workers? Who is going to make things like safety-belt laws in cars? Obviously the corporations do not care about people if you know anything about history so they will not create any standards to benefit the workers like minimum wage.

I would also like to say if you privatize the armies that is not going to change a damn thing because they already are running by a group of private interests who see profit in places like Iraq. If you privatize the armies there will still be people volunteering to go to join the army and there still will be corporations looking for profit in places like Iraq.

Also I would like to say that I agree with you anarcho-capitalists in that the state does greatly strengthen corporations and that is why you are never going to convince capitalists or any corporations to get rid of the state and that is why your ideology is only professed by a group of loons and your plans will never happen in reality.

You will never convince capitalists to get rid of the state because they love the state and you will never convince the average people to get rid of the state because the government is one of the few ways in which average people can present themselves in the current society. This is why your plans will never happen.

[trivas7]

No, I think that different political arrangements will achieve a balance of power between individuals. People wish to benefit themselves at the expense of others, but they also wish to stop others from doing the same. That second part is key to achieving the good society. We must have political arrangements that will ensure each person's desire to dominate is kept in check by the others' desires to be free from domination.
This only sets up a race to the bottom based on repressing what cannot be repressed.

[Misanthrope]

If you think that socialism is compatible w/ peace you're wrong. Just look at history. Authoritarian statism is incompatible w/ tolerance.

Agreed, but free market anti-statism is not the only alternative. Just look at history, markets do not satisfy the needs of society.

[trivas7]

Agreed, but free market anti-statism is not the only alternative. Just look at history, markets do not satisfy the needs of society.
Of course they do; how else do people meet their need? Governments prevent them.

[Misanthrope]

Of course they do; how else do people meet their need? Governments prevent them.

What interest do the governments have in preventing their citizens from having sufficient shelter and food. Why are there state run shelters? Why are there welfare programs and the like? It doesn't make sense for the government to go so far out of their way to prevent the all holy free market from fulfilling society's needs but then go and send them capital every month.

Some people benefit from markets highly, the majority don't benefit at all but get by, by selling their labor and even some cannot sell their labor, are homeless, starve to death ect.

[Octobox]

This entire argument is based on the notion that private defense agencies will remain private defense agencies and not try to become governments.

Kwisatz: I disagree. You have to understand how wealth is generated in a free-market before you can make the monopolist argument -- certainly what you say could happen but not in the long run.

Profit-Bursts happen around innovation and entre- / intra-prenuerialism in market-anarchy. There's no gov't to force any other wealth transfer -- ZERO manipulation of currency (open competition) -- ZERO regulatory authority -- ZERO tax authority. Therefore all profits are based in consumer-will.

Without territorial boundries people will migrate to escape a bully and all other businesses will begin to fail. The private defense firms are not weaponologists, they are not steel manufacturers, they are not farmers (etc etc). Therefore bullying can be controlled by non-violent means.

Personally I think security will be a part-time thing -- members of a housing association might take turns (neighborhood watch). In a free-society everyone is heavily armed and people would take it upon themselves to protect their homes and their neighbors.

As I meditate on ROI for a private security firm (in market-anarchy) I can't see why this would be a profitable business in the long-run -- this is a slow innovation industry.

In a community (in market-anarchy) I'd suggest that the youth be put through some form of warrior training as part of their mentorship (there are no gov't schools in market-anarchy) -- this way our "protectors" would be our communities children. Serve for two or three years part-time otherwise. This way every civilian knows how to protect themselves and to cooperate in times of piracy.




That is ridiculous. Being a government (or, to be more exact, being an aristocratic government) is far more profitable than being a private defense agency. In the pursuit of profit, private defense agencies will attempt to turn themselves into aristocratic governments. How can a private defense agency do this? By selecting an area of land, and using force to drive out all other agencies from that area.


Your first sentence is true. This is why I don't think private defense would be a profitable business.

Your second point needs more meditation.

The owner/investor in a free-market must seek the best profit-bursts -- those are going to be in business start-ups regarding innovation OR in established businesses where inner-preneurialism (R&D) gave them a comoparative advantage (better products/services lower costs).

However, without gov't there's no way to force profit-bursts. So, in the medium to long-run the owner/investor must not tie up their assets; they need to find the next innovation. I can't imagine this type of innovation in weaponology in a free-society and even if there was the investment dollars would be moving on quickly.

No patent rights - No barriers to entry - 100% Copy-Cat (reverse engineering). Thus profits dry up fast.

I see defense as a side business or shared by the community. People would realize that the more decentralized the defense the better the protection and less likelihood for gangsterism (gov't).


Also, you're assuming that customers will only ever pay for defense. Again, that's idiotic. Customers may also want to pay for offense - for plunder and conquest.

This is true -- there's nothing imediate stopping it. However, if they were discovered they'd lose their reputation and as I stated above regardless their base profit industry they do not have monopoly over the entire community so people will migrate away from a bully or he might find his supply-chain drying up.




A private "defense" agency with a "Viking mentality" may well charge premiums, but in exchange it may also promise its customers a share in the spoils of war. And as long as the spoils are greater than the premiums, this agency will be successful.

You've defined the growth of gov't that's for sure.

All my assumptions are based on a transition through Minarchy -- without that people will have time to heal from dependence on economic-fascism rather than dependence on innovation, consumer-authority, and voluntary exchange. The latter requires a mature outlook and non-violent nature. This will take time to in-culturate. Without such a transition people will do as you have said -- resort back to bullying (gov't).

[Havet]

Who exactly would go about breaking apart capitalist monopolies like Standard Oil?
Who exactly is going to go about breaking apart the Microsoft monopoly? The only things which have came to combat the Microsoft monopoly have been the result of the state (European Union, Linux) so obviously the free market cannot break apart monopolies. More monopolies like Microsoft will come about simply because they destroy all their competitors like Apple. Now Apple has decided to look to markets untapped by Microsoft because that is more profitable so Apple allows Microsoft to maintain its monopoly because fighting that is not profitable.

If there is no government in a capitalist society then who is going to attend to the safety and well-being of the workers? Who is going to make things like safety-belt laws in cars? Obviously the corporations do not care about people if you know anything about history so they will not create any standards to benefit the workers like minimum wage.

I would also like to say if you privatize the armies that is not going to change a damn thing because they already are running by a group of private interests who see profit in places like Iraq. If you privatize the armies there will still be people volunteering to go to join the army and there still will be corporations looking for profit in places like Iraq.

Also I would like to say that I agree with you anarcho-capitalists in that the state does greatly strengthen corporations and that is why you are never going to convince capitalists or any corporations to get rid of the state and that is why your ideology is only professed by a group of loons and your plans will never happen in reality.

You will never convince capitalists to get rid of the state because they love the state and you will never convince the average people to get rid of the state because the government is one of the few ways in which average people can present themselves in the current society. This is why your plans will never happen.

On monopolies:

The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price

... the high price for the crude oil resulted, as it had always done before and will always do so as oil comes out of the ground, in increasing the production, and they got too much oil. We could not find a market for it.
... of course, any who were not in this association were undertaking to produce all they possibly could; as as to those who were in the association, many of them men of honor and high standing, the temptation was very great to get a little more oil than they had promised their associates or us would come. It seemed very difficult to prevent the oil coming at that price.

Rockefeller's prediction was overly pessimistic. Today, although oil still comes out of the ground, federal and state governments have succeeded where the oil produceers of 1872 have failed. Through federal oil import quotas and state restrictions on production they keep the price of oil high and the production low. Progress.

It is also widely believed that railroads wielded unlimited monopoly power. Actually, as shown in Kolko's book, long distance transportation was highly competitive, freight rates were declining, and the number of railroads was increasing until after the turn of the century. One line might have a monopoly for short distances along its route, but a shipper operating between two major cities had a choice of many alternative routes - twenty existed between St.Louis and Atlanta, for instance.

Railroad rebates, cited as evidence of monopoly, were actually the opposite; they were discounts that major shippers were able to get from one railroad by threatening to ship via competitior.
Railroad executives often got toguether to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months, for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the agreeement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in.

J.p Morgan (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan) commited his enourmous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met almost unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for eg, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D03E3DE143AEF33A2575BC0A9619C94689FD7CF) to control rates among western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where it had been before he intervened.

By this time a new factor was entering the situation. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Comission (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) was created by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with (contrary to most history books) the support of much of the railroad industry. The ICC's original powers were limited; Morgan attempted to use it tp help enforce the 1889 agreement, but without success.

During its the next 31 years its powers were steadily increased, first inthe direction of allowing it to prohibit rebates (which Kolko (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko) estimates were costing the railroads 10% of their gross income) and finally by giving it the power to set rates.

The people with the greatest interest in the ICC were the people in the rail industry. The result was that they dominated it, and it rapidly became an instrument for achieving the monopoly prices they had been unable to get on the free market. The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walker (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldace_F._Walker), one of the original appointees to the ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the board of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe. The ICC has served the railroads to the present day, in addition it has expanded its power and authority to cover other forms of transportation and to prevent them, whenever possible, from undercutting the railroads.

If you still can't understand why natural monopolies are so rare, consider the following example:

Suppose a onopoly is formed, as was U.S.Steel, by financers who succeed in buying up many of the existing firms. Assume further that there is no question of a natural monopoly; a firm much smaller than the new monster can produce as efficiently perhaps even more efficiently. It is commonly argued that the large firm will nonetheless be able to achieve and maintain complete control of the industry. This argument, like many others, depends on the false analogy of market competition to a battle in which the strongest must win.
Suppose the monopoly starts with 99% of the market and that the remaining 1% is held by a single competitor. To make things more dramatic, let me play the role of the competitor. It is argued, that the monopoly being bigger and more powerful, can easily drive me out.
In order to do so, the monopoly must cut its price to a level at which I am losing money. But since the monopoly is no more efficient than I am, it is losing just as much money per unit sold. Its resources may be 99 times as great as mine, but it is also losing money 99 times as fast as I am.
It is doing worse than that. In order to force me to keep my prices down, the monopoly must be willing to sell to everyone who wants to buy; otherwise unsupplied customers will buy from me at the old price. Since at the new old price customers will want to buy more than before, the monopolist must expand production, this losing even more money. If the good we produce ca be easily stored, the anticipation of future prices rises, once our battle is over, will increase present demand still further.

Meanwhile, i have more attractive options. I can, if I wish, continue to produce at full capacity and sell at a loss, loing one dollar for every hundrer or more lost by the monopoly. Or I may save money by laying off some of my workers, closing down part of my plant, an decreasing production until the monopoly gets tired of wasting money.

What about the situation where the monopoly engages in regional price cutting, taking a loss in the area i am operating and making it up in other parts of the country? If i am seriously worried about that prospect, I can take the precaution of opening outlets in all his major markets. Even if i do not, the high prices he charges in other areas to make up for his losses against me will make those areas very attractive to other new firms. Once they are estabished, he no longer has a market in which to make up his losses.
This the artificial monopoly which he tries to use its size to maintain its monopoly is in a sad position, as U.S.Steel, whcih was formed with 60% of total steel production, but which now has about 25%, found out to its sorrow. It has often been claimed that Rockefeller used such tactics to build Standard Oil, but there seems to be little or no evidence for the charge. Standard Oil officials occasionally tried to use the threat of cutitng prices and starting price was in an attempt to persuade competitors to keep their production down and their prices up. But the competitors understood the logic of the situation better than later historians, as shown by the response, quoted by McGee, of the manager of the Cornplanter Refining Company to such a threat:

"Well, I says, 'Mr.Moffet, I am very glad you put it that way, because if it is up to you the only way you can get it [the business] is to cut the market [reduce prices], and if you cut the market I will cut you for 200 miles around, and I will make you sell the stuff,' and I says, 'I don't want a bigger picnic than that; sell it if you want to,' and I bid him good day and left."


The threat never materialized. Indeed it appears, from McGee's evidence, that price cutting more often was started by the small independent firms in an attempt to cut into Standard's market and that many of them were quite successful. Cornplanter's capital grew, in 20 years, from $10,000 to $450,000. As McGee says, commenting on the evidence presented against Standard in the 1911 antitrust case: "It is interesting that most of the ex-Standard employees who destitifed about Standard's deadly predatory tactics entered the oil business when they left Standard. They also prospered."

Another strategy which Rockefeller probably did employ, is to buy out competitors. This is usually cheaper than spending a fortune trying to drive them out - at least, it is cheaper in the short run. The trouble is that people soon realize they can build a new refinery, threaten to drive down prices, and sell out to Rockefeller at a whopping profit. David.P.Reighard apparently made a sizable fortune by selling three consecutie refineries to Rockefeller. There was a limit to how many refineries Rockefeller could use. Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitation in his later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.

----------------

Face it, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You are even claiming Linux is a product of the state...

The GNU Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project), started in 1984 by Richard Stallman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman), had the goal of creating a "complete Unix-compatible software system"[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-gnu_announce-10) composed entirely of free software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software). The next year Stallman created the Free Software Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation) and wrote the GNU General Public License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) (GNU GPL) in 1989. By the early 1990s, many of the programs required in an operating system (such as libraries, compilers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler), text editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_editor), a Unix shell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_shell), and a windowing system) were completed, although low-level elements such as device drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver), daemons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_%28computer_software%29), and the kernel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29) were stalled and incomplete.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-gnu_history-11) Linus Torvalds has said that if the GNU kernel had been available at the time (1991), he would not have decided to write his own.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-12)

Who is going to make things like SAFETY BELTS? Dude, safety belts appeared and became standard long before any government FORCED car companies into including seat belts...

Saab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab) was the first car manufacturer to introduce seat belts as standard in 1958.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-15) After the Saab GT 750 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_GT750) was introduced at the New York motor show in 1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became commonplace.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-16)
Nils Bohlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bohlin) of Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) invented a particular kind of three point seat belt for Volvo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo), who introduced it in 1959 as standard equipment. Bohlin was granted U.S. Patent 3,043,625 (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=3043625) for the device.
In 1955 Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford) offered for the first time lap belts as an option.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-17) In 1956, largely at the insistence of executive Robert McNamara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara), seat belts were offered for consumer automobiles within the "Lifeguard" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeguard_%28Automobile_safety%29) safety package.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-Johnson-18) The safety device was met with ridicule by others in the industry, but it caught on with the public.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-Johnson-18) By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.
In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers.

[trivas7]

What interest do the governments have in preventing their citizens from having sufficient shelter and food. Why are there state run shelters? Why are there welfare programs and the like? It doesn't make sense for the government to go so far out of their way to prevent the all holy free market from fulfilling society's needs but then go and send them capital every month.

What is the government? It is a person or persons all w/ a vested interest to increase their power and authority; all working at cross-purposes and like any one else for their own self-interest. Surely you're not so naive as so believe that the bulk of people who work for the government do so to benefit anyone, are you?


Some people benefit from markets highly, the majority don't benefit at all but get by, by selling their labor and even some cannot sell their labor, are homeless, starve to death ect.Of course the majority benefit. The mean life expectancy under late feudalism was twenty-one years of age. All levels of society reap huge benefits from the social surplus generated by the free market.

[trivas7]

No, I think that different political arrangements will achieve a balance of power between individuals. People wish to benefit themselves at the expense of others, but they also wish to stop others from doing the same. That second part is key to achieving the good society. We must have political arrangements that will ensure each person's desire to dominate is kept in check by the others' desires to be free from domination.
You will seek in vein to achieve a balance of power bt individuals by political means. It's never been done, would require vast amounts of human energy and material resources -- a police state in effect -- to effect a vast human impoverishment as it would oppose normal human interaction. History shows that when the free market is tampered w/ by government only chaos and social degradation ensues.

[Misanthrope]

What is the government? It is a person or persons all w/ a vested interest to increase their power and authority; all working at cross-purposes and like any one else for their own self-interest. Surely you're not so naive as so believe that the bulk of people who work for the government do so to benefit anyone, are you?

Of course the majority benefit. The mean life expectancy under late feudalism was twenty-one years of age. All levels of society reap huge benefits from the social surplus generated by the free market.

Self-interest doesn't equate to free market:rolleyes: Don't evade the question, if the government prevents the free market from fulfilling society's needs so efficiently, why are there welfare programs and such?

The market is designed to benefit a minority of people greatly while relying on the labor of the majority of society to function. A shift from one highly exploitative system to another while accounting for the general advancement of humankind in medicine, healthcare ect is not a justification for the economic system. What it really shows is once the majority of society is less tied down and is given more freedom and control of society, the majority benefits.

[trivas7]

I don't know where you'rr getting 'authoritarian statism.' I think you know well enough that that is a strawman.
Surely you know that the history of socialism in practice is a history of authoritarian statism in all instances.


However, your suggestion that people "would not tolerate" an individual with bloated liberties is undeniably an attack on the fundamental notion of capitalist philosophy wherein acquisition of power serves as its own justification.

I'm for free markets w/out the state, not capitalism as it is currenly practiced.

[trivas7]

Self-interest doesn't equate to free market:rolleyes: Don't evade the question, if the government prevents the free market from fulfilling society's needs so efficiently, why are there welfare programs and such?

There are welfare programs b/c there is a constituency that supports such programs. It doesn't follow that government is in the business of helping people.


The market is designed to benefit a minority of people greatly while relying on the labor of the majority of society to function.
No, this is pap the lefties have fed you.

A shift from one highly exploitative system to another while accounting for the general advancement of humankind in medicine, healthcare ect is not a justification for the economic system.
Free markets aren't exploitative.


What it really shows is once the majority of society is less tied down and is given more freedom and control of society, the majority benefits.Socialism is statism and the opposite of freedom. Society can't be controlled; neither is there a need for this.

[n0thing]

Who would force you to contract with these armies and courts? It's voluntary.
So if you kill someone, your arrest is voluntary?
Here lies the problem: There will have to be some way of applying and enforcing the democratic consensus on things like murder, stealing, rape etc. I suppose ancaps would suggest that if you're raped, you go hire some independent investigators to identify the rapist, you then hire a group of armed thugs to arrest the rapist, a lawyer to prosecute him, and a court to convict him.

Only in an anarcho-capitalist society, do you have the problem of not having enough money to be raped.

[Misanthrope]

There are welfare programs b/c there is a constituency that supports such programs. It doesn't follow that government is in the business of helping people.
No, this is pap the lefties have fed you.
Freed markets aren't exploitative.
Socialism is statism and the opposite of freedom. Society can't be controlled; neither is there a need for this.

Since when does the government listen to the people? To be such an "anti-statist" and then imply that the government listens to the people but then turn around and say that the government doesn't want to help people.. doesn't follow.

No, it isn't. Markets benefit the owners of the means of production highly, while fiscally exploiting the workers. A market cannot function without labor.

Any capitalist business is exploitative. The workers, whose labor leads to the accumulation of the owner's profit and whose labor keeps the market functioning, produces more wealth than they are rewarded for. While there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, the market enslaves them.

Socialism is not statism, socialism is anti-statism, socialism is anti-hierarchical oppression. Socialism puts the power in the hands of the majority of society, unlike any form of capitalism that puts the power in the hands of the minority of society. States are created by the very same people that benefit from the market.

[trivas7]

Since when does the government listen to the people? To be such an "anti-statist" and then imply that the government listens to the people but then turn around and say that the government doesn't want to help people.. doesn't follow.

No, it isn't. Markets benefit the owners of the means of production highly, while fiscally exploiting the workers. A market cannot function without labor.

Any capitalist business is exploitative. The workers, whose labor leads to the accumulation of the owner's profit and whose labor keeps the market functioning, produces more wealth than they are rewarded for. While there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, the market enslaves them.

Socialism is not statism, socialism is anti-statism, socialism is anti-hierarchical oppression. Socialism puts the power in the hands of the majority of society, unlike any form of capitalism that puts the power in the hands of the minority of society. States are created by the very same people that benefit from the market.
You drank the kool-aid. :D

[Havet]

Since when does the government listen to the people? To be such an "anti-statist" and then imply that the government listens to the people but then turn around and say that the government doesn't want to help people.. doesn't follow.

No, it isn't. Markets benefit the owners of the means of production highly, while fiscally exploiting the workers. A market cannot function without labor.

Any capitalist business is exploitative. The workers, whose labor leads to the accumulation of the owner's profit and whose labor keeps the market functioning, produces more wealth than they are rewarded for. While there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, the market enslaves them.

Socialism is not statism, socialism is anti-statism, socialism is anti-hierarchical oppression. Socialism puts the power in the hands of the majority of society, unlike any form of capitalism that puts the power in the hands of the minority of society. States are created by the very same people that benefit from the market.

capitalism business is currently exploitative because of the state. I've written about this in my thread "get rid of the term capitalism":

It must be conceded to the socialist that under actually existing capitalism, exploitation is taking place. For under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist. Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed. This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.

In a free market, where more gain-oriented thought was present, where more entrepreneurs were around seeking to take from the reduced supply of voluntary wage labor workers, the capitalists would no longer have this unfair advantage. The workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, the libertarian's view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.

[Misanthrope]

capitalism business is currently exploitative because of the state. I've written about this in my thread "get rid of the term capitalism":

It must be conceded to the socialist that under actually existing capitalism, exploitation is taking place. For under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist. Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed. This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.

In a free market, where more gain-oriented thought was present, where more entrepreneurs were around seeking to take from the reduced supply of voluntary wage labor workers, the capitalists would no longer have this unfair advantage. The workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, the libertarian's view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.

So more owners, which means more jobs, which means more workers, which means more fiscal exploitation via the wage system. Doesn't that logically follow?

Not all capitalists are in bed with the state and not everyone wants to be an owner or can be an owner. New businesses usually fail when going up against established firms and without any regulation or license i.e. the new owners won't have very much knowledge in running firms, their firm will most likely fail. Just because there is a chance that more firms can be established doesn't mean they will all prevail.

[Dean]

Surely you know that the history of socialism in practice is a history of authoritarian statism in all instances.
Free markets are historically disastrous, too. But I don't pull bullshit here; why not respond to my criticisms instead?


I'm for free markets w/out the state, not capitalism as it is currenly practiced.
We're for socialism without the state.

I'm really disappointed, trivas. You just pulled one of the worst double standards in this post. In addition, you refuse to even acknowledge my criticisms, let alone address them.

You used to be a lot more analytical, if I recall correctly. It'd be nice if you at least attempted critical analysis.

[Havet]

So more owners, which means more jobs, which means more workers, which means more fiscal exploitation via the wage system. Doesn't that logically follow?

Not all capitalists are in bed with the state and not everyone wants to be an owner or can be an owner. New businesses usually fail when going up against established firms and without any regulation or license i.e. the new owners won't have very much knowledge in running firms, their firm will most likely fail. Just because there is a chance that more firms can be established doesn't mean they will all prevail.

new businesses usually dont appear at all because of regulations, which constitute a barrier to entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_to_entry). Whether they have knowledge or not, people who wish to start a business tend to know about what they are actually doing about, because if they fail its lost money they invested initially. People are more careful than what you would think ;)

[trivas7]

Free markets are historically disastrous, too.

Compared to what? Feudalism? Again, it is state intervention in free markets that proves disastrous.


We're for socialism without the state.
Not if you're against private property. Private property doesn't go away on its own.

[CommunityBeliever]

a firm much smaller than the new monster can produce as efficiently perhaps even more efficiently

It will cost billions of dollars sometimes to get enough production to compete with an established corporation such as Microsoft and as such only a very small minority even has the option for competition in such a market and besides that it is not very profitable to try and go through the hard process of competing with an established monopoly so people will often look to other more profitable markets to pursue.


let me play the role of the competitor

I never thought of dealing with monopolies in that way before but the real issue is how are you going to get your hands on the means of production without already being in possession of billions of dollars? It is likely that you will have to go through the larger corporation and you will not have any chance for profit in that sort of relation. Also I think you forget a question I was trying to ask earlier.

Please explain how you are going to deal with Microsoft as a special case?


Having built his monopoly by introducing efficient business organization into the petroleum industry, Rockefeller was unable to withstand the competition of able imitation in his later years and failed to maintain his monopoly.Last I checked the state split up Standard Oil not some free marketeers. It was broken up in 1911 by the supreme court I think it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States


You are even claiming Linux is a product of the state...

Linux was made possible because Linus Torvalds was able to work in a Finland university where the state would pay for him. If the "free market" is in charge of colleges as you people propose then many people end up being seriously abused by the system and they are not allowed to go to college and get an education simply because of money.

If it was not for the state Linus Torvalds would probably have had to work for Microsoft or some other corporation to pay for going to college. That would have done nothing to stop the Microsoft monopoly and nothing in the free market has been able to stop the free markets expansion.


The next year Stallman created the Free Software Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation) and wrote the GNU General Public License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) (GNU GPL) in 1989.

This is a good example, Richard Stallmans entire life work is essentially fighting against a single form of private property - source code. He believes that source code should not be private property, the difference between us here is you support private property.

The deprivatization of source code is a small example of how deprivatizing things can do good for all people because when the source code is public then viruses, bugs, malware, and the like can be eliminated easily furthermore everyone can work to a common good. Abolition of private property in that sector makes everyone live better because everyone is working together for a common good and you do not have to constantly reinvent the wheel.

I guess you could also argue here that private corporations like Google, Oracle, IBM, and Sun Microsystems have really built up free software and I guess that is pretty much true.


Dude, safety belts appeared and became standard long before any government FORCED car companies into including seat belts...

I guess you are sort of right about the seat belts but I am still interested in who is going to protect the people??

Observational studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_studies) of car crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_crash) morbidity and mortality,[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-nakahara-25)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-26)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-27) experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) using both crash test dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_test_dummy) and human cadavers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver) indicate that wearing seat belts greatly reduces the risk of death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death) and injury in the majority of car crashes.
This has led many countries to adopt mandatory seat belt wearing laws.

How can you honestly say that in this case the state is doing something wrong - the state is instituting a law to protect people. You apparently think that supply and demand is going to protect people!?!?!

It costed them extra money to create seat belts so many corporations decided to leave them off or make them optional as they also stated in that article. There was a struggle going on there that the article does not describe, all it says is "The safety device was met with ridicule by others in the industry"the article is really leaving out that it was a struggle to get it instituted. More quotes:

In Victoria, Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_%28Australia%29) the use of seat belts became compulsory in 1970.By 1974 decreases of 37% in deaths and 41% in injuries, including a decrease of 27% in spinal injuries, were observed,compared with extrapolations based on pre-law trends.

Other authorities claim that seat belt legislation has reduced the number of casualties in road accidents. For example, this statistical analysis (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000500.pdf) by the NHTSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHTSA) claimed that seat belts save over 10,000 lives every year in the US.
Face it, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Whatever. I do want to know how you plan on actually instituting your policies because how are you going to convince capitalists to give up the state when you admit that it benefits them? How are you going to deal with one without dealing with the other?

Honestly, I used to believe in similar things to you and I respect what you believe but the thing that really did it for me is how are you going to deal with one without dealing with the other. How are you going to deal with the state and not the capitalists too?

[Misanthrope]

new businesses usually dont appear at all because of regulations, which constitute a barrier to entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_to_entry). Whether they have knowledge or not, people who wish to start a business tend to know about what they are actually doing about, because if they fail its lost money they invested initially. People are more careful than what you would think ;)

The barrier to entry is what? Licenses, for one, which require qualification to get. What you are advocating is that anyone can and will become a firm owner. This all looks good on paper but the reality of the situation is most new businesses would fail when competing against established firms and even firms that have qualified for the licenses under the state. Consumers like familiarity and professionalism.

You capitalists.. A market is not apples for oranges and peas for carrots.


Surely you know that the history of socialism in practice is a history of authoritarian statism in all instances.

I'm for free markets w/out the state, not capitalism as it is currenly practiced.

Surely you know all capitalist systems have not been an entirely free market.

I'm for socialism w/out a state.

[trivas7]

I'm for socialism w/out a state.
Surely you know that w/out a state private property will prevail, not socialism.

[Havet]

It will cost billions of dollars sometimes to get enough production to compete with an established corporation such as Microsoft and as such only a very small minority even has the option for competition in such a market and besides that it is not very profitable to try and go through the hard process of competing with an established monopoly so people will often look to other more profitable markets to pursue.

And even so, with such great monopoly, 2 new competitors appeared: Apple and Linux.

and now a third competitor: Google (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/09/content_11677686.htm)
Here you have even more examples. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system#Examples_of_operating_systems)
Of course this business is very expensive. That might mean not as much people as we would like will enter it, but it doesnt mean there won't be any good competition to ensure better products.

Also i must say state-enforced intellecual property rights, which i believe would not exist or be exclusively reserved to some products in a free market, is largely responsible for such a big market share Microsoft currently has.



I never thought of dealing with monopolies in that way before but the real issue is how are you going to get your hands on the means of production without already being in possession of billions of dollars? It is likely that you will have to go through the larger corporation and you will not have any chance for profit in that sort of relation. Also I think you forget a question I was trying to ask earlier.

Please explain how you are going to deal with Microsoft as a special case?The greater the money needed to start a certain business, the greatest profit one will be able to get it from that business. In a way, no one can have the means of production unless being in possession of some billion dollars, but that doesn't mean those who already have billions of dollars won't try to get a share of the market as well. That doesn't mean people who currently have ZERo cannot work and rise up until they have enough money to start their own billion dollar business. There are many cases of this.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/homemade-...unk-313408.php (http://www.anonym.to/?http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/homemade-helicopter/nigerian-man-builds-working-helicopters-from-junk-313408.php)
there are more examples:

"Hong Kong self-made billionaire Li Ka-Shing, worth $18.8 billion or so, is Asia’s richest man. He is also the
richest Chinese in the world, and according to Forbes, the 10th richest man in the world. When he was just 12
years old, Li and his family fled to Hong Kong when Japan invaded China. When he was 15, Li’s father died and he
was forced to drop out of high school to support his family. Li got his start as a salesman selling watches at
his uncle’s store, and soon proved to be a diligent worker: he worked 16 hour days, visited customers during the
day and worked at the factory at night. Determined to better himself, Li even found a tutor to teach him English
every night!

When he was 21, Li opened a plastic manufacturing company and grew his business by selling high quality plastic
flowers at bargain prices. When Li was 30, he accidentally got into real estate because he couldn’t renew the
lease for his factory and was forced to purchase and develop a site himself. From there, Li diversified into
electronics, telecommunications, retails, ports, and even power and electricity. Li is also noted for his
philantrophy: he gave millions to various universities and disaster-relief."


Last I checked the state split up Standard Oil not some free marketeers. It was broken up in 1911 by the supreme court I think it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
Well sure. The points i want to make is that it would've split up even without intervention, and that the parts that were splitted into pprobably joined the more prosperous state monopoly.
Also many of these apparent natural monopolies came to existance by government regulation of the time.
There are historical examples, especially on railroads:

Elkin's Act (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elkins_Act) (1903) - "strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) of 1887 by imposing heavy fines on railroads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport) offering rebates and on the shippers accepting them. The railroad companies were not permitted to deviate from published rates."

Hepburn Act (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepburn_Act) (1906) - " gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Commission) (ICC) the power to set maximum railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad) rates and led to the discontinuation of free passes to loyal shippers. In addition, the ICC could view the railroads' financial records, a task simplified by standardized bookkeeping systems. For any railroad that resisted, the ICC's conditions would remain in effect until the outcome of litigation said otherwise. By the Hepburn Act, the ICC's authority was extended to cover bridges, terminals, ferries, sleeping cars, express companies and oil pipelines."

Further Sources for these acts (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h921.html)

Linux was made possible because Linus Torvalds was able to work in a Finland university where the state would pay for him. If the "free market" is in charge of colleges as you people propose then many people end up being seriously abused by the system and they are not allowed to go to college and get an education simply because of money.

If it was not for the state Linus Torvalds would probably have had to work for Microsoft or some other corporation to pay for going to college. That would have done nothing to stop the Microsoft monopoly and nothing in the free market has been able to stop the free markets expansion. By the logic of your arguments, then almost everything than was ever created is a result of government. This argument is the classical one drop argument.
during 1930s in america, with black segregation, basically if anyone had "1 drop" of black blood they were classed as black, so basically if they had any black heritage they were classed as black.

In this case, if theres any government involvement, government takes all the credit, but funnily when something bad happens, its the capitalists fault and the government needs more power...

The thing is, there are 4 types of innovation:

-Free market discovered principles used to sponsor free market products/services

-Free market discovered principles used in government/state products/services

- Government/state discovered principles used in free market products/services

-Government/state dsicovered principles used in government/state products/services

The case of linux was "Government/state discovered principles used in free market products/services". The thing is this could've been done and would have likely occured without the need for government-run universities.
Like i argued in another thread:

"I think the critical point to make here is, like you said, freer educational systems, being free to do what you want and invent what you want, with or without profit motive, looks like a better alternative than to rely on hierarchical judgement that decides when you get to invent. Now you may have a preference than innovation should be done without a profit motive, but I don't see the problem of both coexisting. There are other ways to fund projects without having to convince investors that they can make a lot of money in that product."

Perhaps your argument was the argument to promote forcing everyone to pay for everyone's else schooling. I dont think its legitimate to use force. He couldve still developed his project if state-run universities didn't exist. Likely if state-run universities didnt exist, as well as state regulations on teaching, private univerisities would be a lot more cheaper and affordable, because there would be more competition.



This is a good example, Richard Stallmans entire life work is essentially fighting against a single form of private property - source code. He believes that source code should not be private property, the difference between us here is you support private property.

The deprivatization of source code is a small example of how deprivatizing things can do good for all people because when the source code is public then viruses, bugs, malware, and the like can be eliminated easily furthermore everyone can work to a common good. Abolition of private property in that sector makes everyone live better because everyone is working together for a common good and you do not have to constantly reinvent the wheel.

I guess you could also argue here that private corporations like Google, Oracle, IBM, and Sun Microsystems have really built up free software and I guess that is pretty much true.Besides, source code was never a monopoly. Anyone who wanted to make an open source code was free to do so, like Linus has done.

Likely in a free market, "privatization" of source code (which reads, state-enforced intellectual property) would never have happened in the first place. And with open source code sometimes you can make a lot more money than with regular copyright, as a certain band has discovered. (http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/10/15/radiohead-publishers-reveal-in-rainbows-numbers/)


I guess you are sort of right about the seat belts but I am still interested in who is going to protect the people??

Observational studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_studies) of car crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_crash) morbidity and mortality,[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-nakahara-25)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-26)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatbelts#cite_note-27) experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) using both crash test dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_test_dummy) and human cadavers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver) indicate that wearing seat belts greatly reduces the risk of death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death) and injury in the majority of car crashes.
This has led many countries to adopt mandatory seat belt wearing laws.

How can you honestly say that in this case the state is doing something wrong - the state is instituting a law to protect people. You apparently think that supply and demand is going to protect people!?!?!

It costed them extra money to create seat belts so many corporations decided to leave them off or make them optional as they also stated in that article. There was a struggle going on there that the article does not describe, all it says is "The safety device was met with ridicule by others in the industry"the article is really leaving out that it was a struggle to get it instituted. More quotes:

In Victoria, Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_%28Australia%29) the use of seat belts became compulsory in 1970.By 1974 decreases of 37% in deaths and 41% in injuries, including a decrease of 27% in spinal injuries, were observed,compared with extrapolations based on pre-law trends.

Other authorities claim that seat belt legislation has reduced the number of casualties in road accidents. For example, this statistical analysis (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000500.pdf) by the NHTSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHTSA) claimed that seat belts save over 10,000 lives every year in the US."The safety device was met with ridicule by others in the industry, but it caught on with the public" which means there was now a demand for seatbelts and those companies who would offer them would make more money than those who didn't, which means other companies had to follow behind the innovation in order to retain some customers.
Remmember that " By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968." This standard is standard of the industry, not standard by government force.

As for who'll protect the consumer, Thats right, supply and demand. It's sounds a bit stupid if you don't take into account many things, which is why i'll let Milton Friedman tell you on this, since he has done it better:

WHO PROTECTS THE CONSUMER?
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3535456672331412636&ei=DfZVSqWaOY-i-Aa5kuHhCw&q=pbs+free+to+choose+consumer)


Whatever. I do want to know how you plan on actually instituting your policies because how are you going to convince capitalists to give up the state when you admit that it benefits them? How are you going to deal with one without dealing with the other?

Honestly, I used to believe in similar things to you and I respect what you believe but the thing that really did it for me is how are you going to deal with one without dealing with the other. How are you going to deal with the state and not the capitalists too?I apologize for the rude choice of words. it seemed i was arguing with someone less respectable than what you actually are.
OF COURSE i know capitalists won't give up the state, it favors them a lot more than a free market, because by using the state they can get the same and better results for less effort. This is why i think that by removing a state we will remove almost all problems currently pointed to capitalists. Notice i don't like capitalists as people here employ the term. I want to see true businessmen and entrepeneurs succeeding by the merit of their work and not by using the state.

After the state is gone (which in my opinion can be achieved through voting towards a minarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy) and then rendering the state useless through counter-economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics)) is it possible capitalists or former friends of the state might try to establish a new one? sure, but these same forces that dismantled the previous state will also be strong enough to prevent a new one from forming, or destroying it as soon as it is formed.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

which in my opinion can be achieved through voting...
:laugh:

Yeah, good luck with that. Maybe you can get a few tips from the Labour Party on how to smash the system, too.

[Havet]

:laugh:

Yeah, good luck with that. Maybe you can get a few tips from the Labour Party on how to smash the system, too.

bite me.

OF COURSE voting is the least efficient way of getting anything done. The only purpose i'd have for voting was to vote towards a MINARCHY, but since people don't care or don't believe in that anymore, i think counter-economics is the best way to get there, even if it'll take a little more time.

[Havet]

The barrier to entry is what? Licenses, for one, which require qualification to get. What you are advocating is that anyone can and will become a firm owner. This all looks good on paper but the reality of the situation is most new businesses would fail when competing against established firms and even firms that have qualified for the licenses under the state. Consumers like familiarity and professionalism.

You are making the classical argument that since Capitalists already have all the means of production, it is very difficult to enter their business or compete.

This of course excludes all the people that started from nothing and, WITHOUT LUCK, managed to achieve such great quantities of wealth.

Take Bill Gates (i'm pretty sure he would have still become rich without copyright-state-enforcement), take Richard branson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_branson), take the founders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page) of google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin), take Henry Ford, take Li Ka-shing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-Shing) (the guy i argued in the post above), take Steve Jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs)

and so on and so on. And there are many more examples of people that from NOTHING achieved a lot, even though not as much as to be known in the media.

[trivas7]

2) Private property owners attempt to continue as they did before the State was smashed. However, workers quickly realize that they are being exploited, form massive unions, and refuse to work unless property owners sell them the capital they need to produce. Worker-owned cooperatives soon outcompete capitalist enterprises, leading to a form of mutualism. Obviously, this is not capitalistic in the slightest. :thumbup1:

Terrific; mutualism (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/) is entirely consistent w/ anarcho-capitalism (thought IMO not likely).

[Misanthrope]

Surely you know that w/out a state private property will prevail, not socialism.

I advocate the abolition of exploitative property. Workplaces would be democratically managed. Not all private property.


You are making the classical argument that since Capitalists already have all the means of production, it is very difficult to enter their business or compete.

This of course excludes all the people that started from nothing and, WITHOUT LUCK, managed to achieve such great quantities of wealth.

Take Bill Gates (i'm pretty sure he would have still become rich without copyright-state-enforcement), take Richard branson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_branson), take the founders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page) of google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin), take Henry Ford, take Li Ka-shing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-Shing) (the guy i argued in the post above), take Steve Jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs)

and so on and so on. And there are many more examples of people that from NOTHING achieved a lot, even though not as much as to be known in the media.

You really are a cappie. Your argument is immaterial here. You are advocating state capitalism now.

If I was for chattel slavery, I could say that slaves could either escape or buy their freedom in some instances, just because some were lucky enough to escape slavery doesn't mean slavery is just. Just because some former workers were lucky enough to stop selling their labor to live doesn't make the system just, at all.

[Havet]

You really are a cappie. Your argument is immaterial here. You are advocating state capitalism now.

I am defending the part of state capitalism which would also appear in a free market. I by no means defending the state. Obviously you misread my argument.

Like i said before:

For under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist. Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed. This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.

In a free market, where more gain-oriented thought was present, where more entrepreneurs were around seeking to take from the reduced supply of voluntary wage labor workers, the capitalists would no longer have this unfair advantage. The workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, the libertarian's view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.


If I was for chattel slavery, I could say that slaves could either escape or buy their freedom in some instances, just because some were lucky enough to escape slavery doesn't mean slavery is just. Just because some former workers were lucky enough to stop selling their labor to live doesn't make the system just, at all.

You argue that we are subject to a slavery of necessity. Basically you argue that since i need food to survive, and i need to work to get food, then i am *forced* to get food, where in reality i could just lie down and die.

You're turning the physical nature of reality into an oppressor, so then you can blame it for your own failings. "don't like working? not good at making money? don't have any talents? its not your fault"

Do notice that I dont mean YOU, but I just use the "you-passive" in order to demonstrate.

life would be fine if you werent forced to work. if you enter the world of work, and you're a failure, you're going to be disatisfied, because you're going to have a shit job and you don't have the ability to get a better one.

but its easier to blame "the system" than to blame yourself

then again, you don't actively blame the universe, instead you project that onto capitalists. since rich capitalists are the ones who have alll the jobs to give, then "its their fault for making you work for food".

This is why for you nature itself is coercion, because you are the victim of the universe, because you have to supply for yourself, follow a specific path, to get food to survive.

ENTREPENEURS DON'T GET LUCKY. They were SMART.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/homemade-...unk-313408.php (http://www.anonym.to/?http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/homemade-helicopter/nigerian-man-builds-working-helicopters-from-junk-313408.php)

was that luck?

Was that the product of accidentally putting some pieces together with no logical connections? And if he proceed to sell them, is it all accidental and senseless?

Was is a matter of FATE? or of a magical man in the sky which people call GOD? or maybe it was the divine intervention of the individuals genetic make-up?

Of course not.

[AnthArmo]

This of course excludes all the people that started from nothing and, WITHOUT LUCK, managed to achieve such great quantities of wealth.

Take Bill Gates (i'm pretty sure he would have still become rich without copyright-state-enforcement), take Richard branson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_branson), take the founders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page) of google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin), take Henry Ford, take Li Ka-shing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-Shing) (the guy i argued in the post above), take Steve Jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs)

About Bill Gates:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16989_6-inspiring-rags-riches-stories-that-are-bullshit.html


In fact, Gates's parents have a lot to do with his success, and even why he was able to drop out of school. At a very young age, Bill was staying up all night experimenting with computer programming. Keep in mind, this was the late 60s and early 70s, so having access to a computer was like having access to a helicopter. He gained incredible amounts of experience because his upper class parents were able to enroll him in an exclusive prep school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_gates#Early_life) that had a computer available. This was only possible because Bill's father was a prominent attorney, and his mother's side of the family wasn't exactly poor either.

Luck plays an enormous role in whether your successful in Capitalism. I highly doubt any of the individuals you mentioned would have been successful had they been born in a poor working class family.

[Havet]

About Bill Gates:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16989_6-inspiring-rags-riches-stories-that-are-bullshit.html



Luck plays an enormous role in whether your successful in Capitalism. I highly doubt any of the individuals you mentioned would have been successful had they been born in a poor working class family.

Well they examples they pointed didnt provide any sources, but lets assume the Bill Gates one was right. Or all were. Because 6 people who were supposedly rags to riches example aren't it after all IMPLIES everyone else who went from rags to riches also had some help?

Had they been born ina poor working class family?

Actually read any of my links?

RICHARD BRANSON

Branson was born at Stonefield Nursing Home in Blackheath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackheath,_London), South London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_London), the son of barrister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister) Edward James Branson and Eve Branson (née (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_and_maiden_names) Huntley Flindt).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_branson#cite_note-2) His grandfather, the Right Honourable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Honourable) Sir George Arthur Harwin Branson, was a judge of the High Court of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice) and a Privy Councillor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Councillor).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_branson#cite_note-3) Branson was educated at Scaitcliffe School (now Bishopsgate School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishopsgate_School))[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_branson#cite_note-4) until the age of thirteen. He then attended Stowe School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stowe_School) until he was seventeen. Branson has dyslexia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia) and had poor academic performance as a student, but discovered his ability to connect with others.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_branson#cite_note-5)


Branson started his first record business after he traveled across the English Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel) and purchased crates of "cut-out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-out_%28recording_industry%29)" records from a record discounter.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] He sold the records out of the boot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_%28automobile%29) of his car to retail outlets in London. He continued selling cut-outs through a record mail order business in 1970. Trading under the name "Virgin" he sold records for considerably less than the "High Street" outlets, especially the chain W. H. Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._Smith). The name "Virgin" was a selling point because records were sold in a new condition (unlike in other shops where records were being handled when listened to in record booths).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] At the time many products were sold under restrictive marketing agreements which limited discounting, despite efforts in the 1950s and 1960s to limit so-called resale price maintenance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_branson#cite_note-6) In effect Branson began the series of changes that led to large-scale discounting of recorded music. Branson and some colleagues were discussing a new name for his business when one suggested that it should be called "Virgin" since they were all virgins to business.

LI KA SHING

"Hong Kong self-made billionaire Li Ka-Shing, worth $18.8 billion or so, is Asia’s richest man. He is also the
richest Chinese in the world, and according to Forbes, the 10th richest man in the world. When he was just 12
years old, Li and his family fled to Hong Kong when Japan invaded China. When he was 15, Li’s father died and he
was forced to drop out of high school to support his family. Li got his start as a salesman selling watches at
his uncle’s store, and soon proved to be a diligent worker: he worked 16 hour days, visited customers during the
day and worked at the factory at night. Determined to better himself, Li even found a tutor to teach him English
every night!

When he was 21, Li opened a plastic manufacturing company and grew his business by selling high quality plastic
flowers at bargain prices. When Li was 30, he accidentally got into real estate because he couldn’t renew the
lease for his factory and was forced to purchase and develop a site himself. From there, Li diversified into
electronics, telecommunications, retails, ports, and even power and electricity. Li is also noted for his
philantrophy: he gave millions to various universities and disaster-relief."

-----------------------------------------

I'll concede that my other examples aren't a true example of rags to riches. But there are many more people who became wealthy that started with nothing (without necessarily being millionaires or billionaires)

[n0thing]

It's funny because the internet, computers, lasers and all this shit, all came from the public sector. Universities like MIT created the technology for these things. It had nothing to do with your mythical entrepreneurial supermen. Just some intelligent university students with lots of public money and the freedom to explore their mediums in a way that a corporation probably wouldnt have deemed cost-effective.

People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs just sold already existing public goods and privatized the profits.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1408

[CommunityBeliever]

It's funny because the internet, computers, lasers and all this shit, all came from the public sector. Universities like MIT created the technology for these things.Internet:
The origins of the Internet reach back to the 1960s when the United States funded research projects of its military agencies to build robust, fault-tolerant and distributed computer networks. This research and a period of civilian funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation spawned worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies and led to the commercialization of an international network in the mid 1990

Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, OM, KBE, FRS, FREng, FRSA (London, 8 June 1955), is an English computer scientist and MIT professor credited with inventing the World Wide Web, making the first proposal for it in March 1989. On 25 December 1990, with the help of Robert Cailliau and a young student staff at CERN, he implemented the first successful communication between an HTTP client and server via the Internet.

The convention establishing CERN was signed on 29 September 1954 by 11 countries in Western Europe which was a provisional council forsetting up the laboratory, established by 11 European governments in 1952.

Computers:
Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute invented the first mouse prototype in 1963.

He is best known for inventing the computer mouse,[1] as a pioneer of human-computer interaction whose team developed hypertext, networked computers, and precursors to GUIs; and as a committed and vocal proponent of the development and use of computers and networks to help cope with the world’s increasingly urgent and complex problems.

Linus Torvalds, the original author of the LINUX operating system studied and worked at the Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki 1988-1997 to create Linux.

Lasers:
The first working laser was demonstrated on 16 May 1960 by Theodore Maiman at Hughes Research Laboratories.[10] Since then, lasers have become a multi-billion dollar industry. By far the largest single application of lasers is in optical storage devices such as compact disc and DVD players,[citation needed] in which a semiconductor laser less than a millimeter wide scans the surface of the disc. The second-largest application is fiber-optic communication. Other common applications of lasers are bar code readers, laser printers and laser pointers.


I do not know about all the other shit but hopefully this is somewhat convincing.

[IcarusAngel]

It's funny because the internet, computers, lasers and all this shit, all came from the public sector. Universities like MIT created the technology for these things. It had nothing to do with your mythical entrepreneurial supermen. Just some intelligent university students with lots of public money and the freedom to explore their mediums in a way that a corporation probably wouldnt have deemed cost-effective.


Yes. It's sad and pathetic that in our "capitalist system" the only people who have intellectual and true freedom are people that are employed by the state.

Noam Chomsky can sit around and theorize about linguistics, do what he's good at, which benefits us all.

We, however, most likely have to sell our services to the corporation, and do what the corporation tells us, even if it isn't necessarily the best way to use our talents, and it may not be good for society as a whole, either, and the public has virtually no input on that.

Chomsky explains the intellectual freedom he has here (http://home.comcast.net/~kidicarus23/enlightenmentprinciples.mp3).

Bottom line. Capitalism is slavery.

[EvigLidelse]

The only problem with anarcho-capitalism as I see it, is the one monopoly it actually supports - the land monopoly. Corporations can only grow through monopolies (today they mostly grow out of patents, copyrights and the such - all granted by the state), and I certainly believe they would grow on the land monopoly in an anarcho-capitalistic society. Anarcho-capitalists generally support the homestead principle, compared to us mutualists who support the occupancy and use principle. Mutualists simply don't believe in (land) property, Proudhon even called it theft. This is where the discussion usually lies between me and anarcho-capitalists.

You say that it would become totalitarian, why would it? A bit corporatistic perhaps, at least leading to the forming of a new state - but totalitarian? Why?

[Havet]

It's funny because the internet, computers, lasers and all this shit, all came from the public sector. Universities like MIT created the technology for these things. It had nothing to do with your mythical entrepreneurial supermen. Just some intelligent university students with lots of public money and the freedom to explore their mediums in a way that a corporation probably wouldnt have deemed cost-effective.

People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs just sold already existing public goods and privatized the profits.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1408

Computers were proven in another thread to come by state research. Same as the internet. This means state-discovered principles where then used in non-state products/services. What about other inventions?

Ever heard of Du Pont? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont)

They are a chemichal company which invented:
-nylon
-teflon
-mylar
-kevlar
-neopren
-lycra

Safety belts?

By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.

and that ONLY In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers.


Indian property developers cater to the masses with low-cost housing (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13837400)



Light Bulbs (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb#History_of_the_light_bulb)

Automobiles (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#History)

Airplanes (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplanes#History)

Television (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television#History)

Mobile phone (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#History)

and countless many others. I never said government NEVER invented anything. of course they have. I was only responding to the claim that all inventions of individuals were the consequence of a government (this means, paid by taxpayers money)

DO recognize that these men and NOT goverment created these inventions, but didnt go under market principles. Well sure, i never said ALL inventions were motivated by profit, and i can understand that at the time even if they wanted they couldnt've made a big profit out of it. Sometimes if profit is your motive, quickly putting your invention on sale might not even be the best way. Anyway, i hope we can agree on this: market principles do not always drive innovation, but market principles CAN drive innovation. And individuals acting on their own instead of governments.

of course science can be developed in free market and non free market systems. There has been evidence of both. And there has also been evidence of free market science being developed by nonfreemarket developed ideas and of nonfreemarket science being developed by freemarket ideas.

you dont need scientists trained under free market principles in order to make science.

scientists dont need to be free marketeers themselves (they dont need to sell their product to live). They can live off something else and use science as a hobby. Who knows? As long as they are free to do what they want, i don't see how this could be in impediment.

[Havet]

The only problem with anarcho-capitalism as I see it, is the one monopoly it actually supports - the land monopoly. Corporations can only grow through monopolies (today they mostly grow out of patents, copyrights and the such - all granted by the state), and I certainly believe they would grow on the land monopoly in an anarcho-capitalistic society. Anarcho-capitalists generally support the homestead principle, compared to us mutualists who support the occupancy and use principle. Mutualists simply don't believe in (land) property, Proudhon even called it theft. This is where the discussion usually lies between me and anarcho-capitalists.

You say that it would become totalitarian, why would it? A bit corporatistic perhaps, at least leading to the forming of a new state - but totalitarian? Why?

I actually support occupancy and use principle instead of homestead (aka finders-keepers) principle.

However, i don't remmember proudhon saying any of that.

In my first memorandum, in a frontal assault upon the established order, I said things like, Property is theft! The intention was to lodge a protest, to highlight, so to speak, the inanity of our institutions. At the time, that was my sole concern. Also, in the memorandum in which I demonstrated that startling proposition using simple arithmetic, I took care to speak out against any communist conclusion. In the System of Economic Contradictions, having recalled and confirmed my initial formula, I added another quite contrary one rooted in considerations of quite another order – a formula that could neither destroy the first proposition nor be demolished by it: Property is freedom. [...] In respect of property, as of all economic factors, harm and abuse cannot be dissevered from the good, any more than debit can from asset in double-entry book-keeping. The one necessarily spawns the other. To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself; just as the striking of a debit from an account is tantamount to striking it from the credit record.

[EvigLidelse]

However, i don't remmember proudhon saying any of that.

I'm just gonna be lame and quote wikipedia for laziness sake:


Property is theft "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and [is] only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army". Property is freedom for "the peasant or artisan family [who have] a natural right to a home, land [they may] cultivate, [...] to tools of a trade", and the fruits of that cultivation - but not to ownership or control of the lands and lives of others. The former is considered illegitimate property, the latter legitimate property.

[Havet]

I'm just gonna be lame and quote wikipedia for laziness sake:

no worries, i also used wikipedia. didnt you read it? i'll paste it once more.

property is theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft)

In my first memorandum, in a frontal assault upon the established order, I said things like, Property is theft! The intention was to lodge a protest, to highlight, so to speak, the inanity of our institutions. At the time, that was my sole concern. Also, in the memorandum in which I demonstrated that startling proposition using simple arithmetic, I took care to speak out against any communist conclusion. In the System of Economic Contradictions, having recalled and confirmed my initial formula, I added another quite contrary one rooted in considerations of quite another order – a formula that could neither destroy the first proposition nor be demolished by it: Property is freedom. [...] In respect of property, as of all economic factors, harm and abuse cannot be dissevered from the good, any more than debit can from asset in double-entry book-keeping. The one necessarily spawns the other. To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself; just as the striking of a debit from an account is tantamount to striking it from the credit record.

Anyway, how did a mutualist like you become restricted? I thought mutualists were not "right-wingers"?

[EvigLidelse]

Anyway, how did a mutualist like you become restricted? I thought mutualists were not "right-wingers"?

I became restricted when I was a right-wing libertarian seeing Milton Friedman as some kind of demi-god (about a year and a half ago). I'm currently working on an unrestriction though.

[n0thing]

Computers were proven in another thread to come by state research. Same as the internet. This means state-discovered principles where then used in non-state products/services. What about other inventions?

Ever heard of Du Pont? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont)

They are a chemichal company which invented:
-nylon
-teflon
-mylar
-kevlar
-neopren
-lycra

Safety belts?

By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.

and that ONLY In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers.


Indian property developers cater to the masses with low-cost housing (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13837400)



Light Bulbs (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb#History_of_the_light_bulb)

Automobiles (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#History)

Airplanes (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplanes#History)

Television (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television#History)

Mobile phone (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#History)

and countless many others. I never said government NEVER invented anything. of course they have. I was only responding to the claim that all inventions of individuals were the consequence of a government (this means, paid by taxpayers money)

DO recognize that these men and NOT goverment created these inventions, but didnt go under market principles. Well sure, i never said ALL inventions were motivated by profit, and i can understand that at the time even if they wanted they couldnt've made a big profit out of it. Sometimes if profit is your motive, quickly putting your invention on sale might not even be the best way. Anyway, i hope we can agree on this: market principles do not always drive innovation, but market principles CAN drive innovation. And individuals acting on their own instead of governments.

of course science can be developed in free market and non free market systems. There has been evidence of both. And there has also been evidence of free market science being developed by nonfreemarket developed ideas and of nonfreemarket science being developed by freemarket ideas.

you dont need scientists trained under free market principles in order to make science.

scientists dont need to be free marketeers themselves (they dont need to sell their product to live). They can live off something else and use science as a hobby. Who knows? As long as they are free to do what they want, i don't see how this could be in impediment.

The market rarely makes the important innovations. Technology, healthcare, nanotechnology are all pioneered and maintained in the public sector. The market takes from the public sector and privatizes the profit.

Let's look at the television then. John Logie Baird was not employed by the state, and worked largely on his own devices, but he did receive his education from the state. Which was no doubt necessary for his work. If someone makes a large contribution to the private sector, chances are he got his education on the subject from the public sector.

Now let's look at what can happen when a company does innovate in some respect: Microsoft are developing a new video editing tool which is by all standards, pretty incredible. They've basically found a way to edit moving images on film. There is however, a very big problem in that the technology will be closed source. Microsoft will keep their trade secrets to themselves, so they and only they will profit from them. When something like this is developed in the public sector, such as in a university or just with a GNU license; everyone will be able to see how it works and will be able to expand on the technology. Capitalist companies build on public technology, then privatize the final product and profit. They innovate only for themselves.

[Havet]

The market rarely makes the important innovations. Technology, healthcare, nanotechnology are all pioneered and maintained in the public sector. The market takes from the public sector and privatizes the profit.

Let's look at the television then. John Logie Baird was not employed by the state, and worked largely on his own devices, but he did receive his education from the state. Which was no doubt necessary for his work. If someone makes a large contribution to the private sector, chances are he got his education on the subject from the public sector.

classic one drop argument

during 1930s in america, with black segregation, basically if anyone had "1 drop" of black blood they were classed as black, so basically if they had any black heritage they were classed as black.

In this case, if theres any government involvement, government takes all the credit, but funnily when something bad happens, its the capitalists fault and the government needs more power...

The thing is, there are 4 types of innovation:

-Free market discovered principles used to sponsor free market products/services

-Free market discovered principles used in government/state products/services

- Government/state discovered principles used in free market products/services

-Government/state dsicovered principles used in government/state products/services

The places where you see less advancement of science are precisely the places where there is little freedom to innovate and most property is publicly or state-controlled.

So when the free market was actually responsible for something, why don't you class the whole of its benefits as coming from the free market, like you do with state/government examples?


Now let's look at what can happen when a company does innovate in some respect: Microsoft are developing a new video editing tool which is by all standards, pretty incredible. They've basically found a way to edit moving images on film. There is however, a very big problem in that the technology will be closed source. Microsoft will keep their trade secrets to themselves, so they and only they will profit from them. When something like this is developed in the public sector, such as in a university or just with a GNU license; everyone will be able to see how it works and will be able to expand on the technology. Capitalist companies build on public technology, then privatize the final product and profit. They innovate only for themselves.Microsoft's new inventions and technology greatly derive from state-enforced intellectual property rights which would very likely not exist in a free market.

"Rothbard argues that patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patents) are coercive monopolistic privileges granted by the state, and says they would not exist in a free society, because they prohibit individuals from independently coming up with the same invention."

[trivas7]

"Rothbard argues that patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patents) are coercive monopolistic privileges granted by the state, and says they would not exist in a free society, because they prohibit individuals from independently coming up with the same invention."
Indeed; as your signature demonstrates ("This is a leftist BB (a private place), so please hold on with pathetic speeches about freedom of speech now.2 - Edelweiss) even lefties intuitively understand the benefits of private property.

[n0thing]

classic one drop argument

during 1930s in america, with black segregation, basically if anyone had "1 drop" of black blood they were classed as black, so basically if they had any black heritage they were classed as black.

In this case, if theres any government involvement, government takes all the credit, but funnily when something bad happens, its the capitalists fault and the government needs more power...

The thing is, there are 4 types of innovation:

-Free market discovered principles used to sponsor free market products/services

-Free market discovered principles used in government/state products/services

- Government/state discovered principles used in free market products/services

-Government/state dsicovered principles used in government/state products/services

The places where you see less advancement of science are precisely the places where there is little freedom to innovate and most property is publicly or state-controlled.

So when the free market was actually responsible for something, why don't you class the whole of its benefits as coming from the free market, like you do with state/government examples?

Microsoft's new inventions and technology greatly derive from state-enforced intellectual property rights which would very likely not exist in a free market.

"Rothbard argues that patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patents) are coercive monopolistic privileges granted by the state, and says they would not exist in a free society, because they prohibit individuals from independently coming up with the same invention."
I lol'd at the implication that near every successful capitalist innovator being educated by the public sector is just a small drop of influence. When the market manages to create something revolutionary without leeching off the public sector, I'll give it it's due props. PM me when it happens.

Microsoft's behaviour has little to do with intellectual property rights. They just don't disclose the source code to any of their programs. Which makes them impossible to build on or examine.

I see unharnessed human creativity and co-operation as the key to innovation, rather than the state. I see capitalism as a parasite that exploits these traits for the well-being of a few wealthy men.

[Havet]

I lol'd at the implication that near every successful capitalist innovator being educated by the public sector is just a small drop of influence. When the market manages to create something revolutionary without leeching off the public sector, I'll give it it's due props. PM me when it happens.

Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire#Human_control)

Electric motor by michael faraday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor#History_and_development)

Incandescent Light Bulb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb#History_of_the_light_bulb)

Windbelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windbelt)

Sterling Engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_engine)

Gunpowder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder#History)

Einstein's many contributions to physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein)

etc

The point is, no matter what i argue, you'll always complain there is a bit of government/state help. Whether its from education (without never mentioning if the education received in public schools actually influenced the person), whether the fact that the person had to move and used publicly funded roads, or the fact that the person had to eat and the food was regulated to prevent dangerous chemichals, etc Youll always be able to find something you can complain about.

The thing is, IT DOESNT MATTER. These individuals who invented many things would have very likely invented them anyway with or without state intervention.


Microsoft's behaviour has little to do with intellectual property rights. They just don't disclose the source code to any of their programs. Which makes them impossible to build on or examine.

Well why should they? Whats wrong with keeping secrets to themselves? Its not like there aren't other alternatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_systems#Examples_of_operating_systems). And if there werent patents or copyrights or intellectual property then likely much more detailed information would have been displayed already (imagine someone examines it independently and figures out how it works, but decides not to share info because hes afraid Microsoft will use the state to sue him).


I see unharnessed human creativity and co-operation as the key to innovation, rather than the state. I see capitalism as a parasite that exploits these traits for the well-being of a few wealthy men.

Yes, capitalists are terrible..Especially when they are the ones who made money on their own inventions...Seriously, what's wrong with them making money of the inventions? Nobody is forced to buy from them. In the absense of intellectual property laws, one could buy one, examine it, redesign it and improve it and sell it as a new product.

[Dean]

Einstein's many contributions to physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein)

Einstein was a socialist. As for the others, most of those weren't even discovered within the Capitalist framework - often a totally different era.

[Havet]

Einstein was a socialist. As for the others, most of those weren't even discovered within the Capitalist framework - often a totally different era.

what does it matter? it was still a "free market" discovery as far as i'm concerned. His motives might have been different, but i don't see any evidence that the state openly funded him.

as for the others, they were also "free market" discoveries (no publicly funded money for them) , even though we didn't have a capitalist framework (just imagine someone FUNDING FIRE RESEARCH haha).

[n0thing]

what does it matter? it was still a "free market" discovery as far as i'm concerned. His motives might have been different, but i don't see any evidence that the state openly funded him.

as for the others, they were also "free market" discoveries (no publicly funded money for them) , even though we didn't have a capitalist framework (just imagine someone FUNDING FIRE RESEARCH haha).
I think you're missing the point of what we're arguing about. No one here is explicitly arguing against markets. We're arguing against capitalism. Learn to differentiate between the two.

[Havet]

I think you're missing the point of what we're arguing about. No one here is explicitly arguing against markets. We're arguing against capitalism. Learn to differentiate between the two.

oh sorry then. Its just that i have been having a very similar discussion with Icarus, but he was arguing against markets and being free to trade. I apologize.

I'll also say that i agree with you that this current system is limiting creativity in many direct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property) ways.

[robbo203]

I think you're missing the point of what we're arguing about. No one here is explicitly arguing against markets. We're arguing against capitalism. Learn to differentiate between the two.

It is quite true that production for a market and capitalism are not quite the same thing. The latter is a subset of the former - a system based on generalised commodity production. It is not true "No one here is explicitly arguing against markets". I am. So too would anyone else here who calls themself a communist/socialist and a subscribes to a non market and anti-statist alternative to capitalism

[Havet]

It is quite true that production for a market and capitalism are not quite the same thing. The latter is a subset of the former - a system based on generalised commodity production. It is not true "No one here is explicitly arguing against markets". I am. So too would anyone else here who calls themself a communist/socialist and a subscribes to a non market and anti-statist alternative to capitalism

by the way, you got me rather curious now. How would a non-market and anti-statist alternative work exactly?

[robbo203]

by the way, you got me rather curious now. How would a non-market and anti-statist alternative work exactly?


Maybe this might help http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

[Havet]

Maybe this might help http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

Interesting, so unlike what most people have been hearing all life, there could actually be a socialist economy without having central state planning. Interesting. I like that.

Im not particularly attracted to the idea of "Goods and services would be provided directly for self determinedneed and not for sale on a market", because it seems like there's something wrong with trading with money. Even so, a "market" can also include supply and demand of goods and services without the need for sale, or the need of the use of money. But money generally helps trading.

The thing that generally breaks my mind with some more "radical" socialists (non-statists) was adressed by David Friedman:

Your property is that which you control the use of. If most things are controller by individuals, individually or in voluntary association, a society is capitalist. If such control is spread fairly evenly among a large number of people, the society approximates competitive free enterprise - better than ours does. If its members call it socialist, why should I object?

Socialism is dead. Long live socialism.

[trivas7]

I think you're missing the point of what we're arguing about. No one here is explicitly arguing against markets. We're arguing against capitalism. Learn to differentiate between the two.
No, you're wrong. All RevLefters are de facto statists and oppose the free market. You haven't been paying attention.

[Plagueround]

No, you're wrong. All RevLefters are de facto statists and oppose the free market. You haven't been paying attention.

Please excuse Trivas. He babbles like people suffering from the last stages of Captain Trips.

[GPDP]

No, you're wrong. All RevLefters are de facto statists and oppose the free market. You haven't been paying attention.

Would you like some cheese with that statist whine?

To think you used to be in the CC. You argue with the intellectual rigor of a five year old.

[robbo203]

Interesting, so unlike what most people have been hearing all life, there could actually be a socialist economy without having central state planning. Interesting. I like that.

Im not particularly attracted to the idea of "Goods and services would be provided directly for self determinedneed and not for sale on a market", because it seems like there's something wrong with trading with money. Even so, a "market" can also include supply and demand of goods and services without the need for sale, or the need of the use of money. But money generally helps trading.

The thing that generally breaks my mind with some more "radical" socialists (non-statists) was adressed by David Friedman:

Your property is that which you control the use of. If most things are controller by individuals, individually or in voluntary association, a society is capitalist. If such control is spread fairly evenly among a large number of people, the society approximates competitive free enterprise - better than ours does. If its members call it socialist, why should I object?

Socialism is dead. Long live socialism.


The problem is not so much the existence of money and the market but the underlying economic relationships that necessitate these things. This is what you need to focus on. A relatively decentralised socialist economy gets rid of the need to trade becuase trading presupposes private ownership of the means of production which is incompatible with common ownership of the same

David Friedman's comment is I am afraid, incredibly naive. It is simply not possible to retain a capitalist economic basis of private ownership of the means of production (whether or not you call this "socialism") without massive inequality. This is amply demonstrable on both theoretical and empirical grounds

[Havet]

The problem is not so much the existence of money and the market but the underlying economic relationships that necessitate these things. This is what you need to focus on. A relatively decentralised socialist economy gets rid of the need to trade becuase trading presupposes private ownership of the means of production which is incompatible with common ownership of the same

But why can't someone legitimately own private property or personal possessions or whatever and then trade it with someone?


David Friedman's comment is I am afraid, incredibly naive. It is simply not possible to retain a capitalist economic basis of private ownership of the means of production (whether or not you call this "socialism") without massive inequality. This is amply demonstrable on both theoretical and empirical grounds

Well could you please prove how private property leads to inequality? Ive spent posts and posts trying to disprove just that, but seems some people just forget everything i say once in a while. I'll start by saying that ever since we started having more private property and more freedom to trade in the twentieth century that poverty declined and so did inequality. And that I can demonstrate on facts.

[robbo203]

No, you're wrong. All RevLefters are de facto statists and oppose the free market. You haven't been paying attention.

Sorry but you havent been paying attention. Some Revlefters oppose both the so called free market AND the state

[robbo203]

But why can't someone legitimately own private property or personal possessions or whatever and then trade it with someone? .

Im talking about common ownership, I was referring to means of production not personal possessions. I have no wish to have common ownership of your toothbrush. You have still not grasped the point about what flows from this. If there is common ownership of the means of production that means what is produced must be freely available to all totake according to their self determined needs. What is the point of "trading " when you can freely obtain what you need at the point of distribution?




Well could you please prove how private property leads to inequality? Ive spent posts and posts trying to disprove just that, but seems some people just forget everything i say once in a while. I'll start by saying that ever since we started having more private property and more freedom to trade in the twentieth century that poverty declined and so did inequality. And that I can demonstrate on facts.

With respect you are wrong. Absolutely poverty has declined certainly although the World Bank recently revised its criterion of $1 per day (which it had applied since 1990) upwards to $1.46 to take into account inflation etc and this has effectively pushed the number of absolute poor way up above the 1 billion mark. Relative poverty on the other hand has not declined. As an indication of economic inequality this has actually got worse in the last few decades. You are possibly confusing inter-country data which has been greatly influenced by the recent strong performance of China and India but in terms of the actual distribution of household income regardless of country there is more inequality now rather than less

[Havet]

Im talking about common ownership, I was referring to means of production not personal possessions. I have no wish to have common ownership of your toothbrush. You have still not grasped the point about what flows from this. If there is common ownership of the means of production that means what is produced must be freely available to all totake according to their self determined needs. What is the point of "trading " when you can freely obtain what you need at the point of distribution?

What if there is common ownership of a means of production and private ownership of a means of production simultaneously? would you oppose that? You might thing common ownership might be better, but someone might disagree. In a truly free society couldn't they both coexist?

I mean, if common ownership is so much better for the workers, then once state restrictions (that grant more benefits to hierarchical organization than cooperative and communal organization) are eliminated, then people will be more free and easy to organize themselves like they want.



With respect you are wrong. Absolutely poverty has declined certainly although the World Bank recently revised its criterion of $1 per day (which it had applied since 1990) upwards to $1.46 to take into account inflation etc and this has effectively pushed the number of absolute poor way up above the 1 billion mark. Relative poverty on the other hand has not declined. As an indication of economic inequality this has actually got worse in the last few decades. You are possibly confusing inter-country data which has been greatly influenced by the recent strong performance of China and India but in terms of the actual distribution of household income regardless of country there is more inequality now rather than lessCould you please show info supporting this?

here's where i based myself from btw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL0yg...DEE102&index=0 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL0ygI-5dco&feature=PlayList&p=823CD02829DEE102&index=0)

[robbo203]

What if there is common ownership of a means of production and private ownership of a means of production simultaneously? would you oppose that? You might thing common ownership might be better, but someone might disagree. In a truly free society couldn't they both coexist?

I mean, if common ownership is so much better for the workers, then once state restrictions (that grant more benefits to hierarchical organization than cooperative and communal organization) are eliminated, then people will be more free and easy to organize themselves like they want.

The point is that private ownership of the MOP is socially excluding by defintion. Common ownership of the MOP is not -again, by defintion. No individual is being discrimminated against in a system of common ownership whereas manifestly this is the case with private ownership. The latter gives power to those who privately own the means of production. So of course I do not favour the coexistence of two incompatible systems - one free and socially inclusive, the other unfree and socially excluding. It is academic anyway. Common ownership of the means of proiduction precludes private ownership of the MOP because production today is a socialised process in which every part of the economy is dependent on every other via a proicess of input-output flows. Is it conceiveble that privately owned MOPs having obtained their inputs gratis from the common ownership parts of the economy could then turn around and start charging citizens of a communist society?. No chance. Besides, as I say when everyone has free access to the goods and services they need, trade cannot exist; it will simply die off. Free access will always beat trade hands down in any show off. People will always prefer to get their goods for free than have to pay for them. Ergo. Privately owned MOP cannot coexist with commonly owned MOP


Could you please show info supporting this?

here's where i based myself from btw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL0yg...DEE102&index=0

As I thought, your information is based on a false premiss. I looked at the youtube presentation and it is quite clear that what it is talking about is absolute not relative poverty. Moreover it uses the old criterion of $1 a day which as I pointed out to you before has been abandoned by the World Bank last year in favour of a more realistic figure of $1.46

When we are talking about relative powerty we are alluding to socio-economic inequality

Here are a few websites chosen at random which show the extent of relative poverty/inequality

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185458.stm
http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/clement190808.html

[trivas7]

The point is that private ownership of the MOP is socially excluding by defintion.
Indeed; all private ownership is "socially excluding" by definition.

[revolution inaction]

no worries, i also used wikipedia. didnt you read it? i'll paste it once more.

property is theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft)

In my first memorandum, in a frontal assault upon the established order, I said things like, Property is theft! The intention was to lodge a protest, to highlight, so to speak, the inanity of our institutions. At the time, that was my sole concern. Also, in the memorandum in which I demonstrated that startling proposition using simple arithmetic, I took care to speak out against any communist conclusion. In the System of Economic Contradictions, having recalled and confirmed my initial formula, I added another quite contrary one rooted in considerations of quite another order – a formula that could neither destroy the first proposition nor be demolished by it: Property is freedom. [...] In respect of property, as of all economic factors, harm and abuse cannot be dissevered from the good, any more than debit can from asset in double-entry book-keeping. The one necessarily spawns the other. To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself; just as the striking of a debit from an account is tantamount to striking it from the credit record.

Anyway, how did a mutualist like you become restricted? I thought mutualists were not "right-wingers"?


The Roman law defined property as the right to use and abuse one's own within the limits of the law -- jus utendi et abutendi re suâ, guatenus juris ratio patitur. A justification of the word abuse has been attempted, on the ground that it signifies, not senseless and immoral abuse, but only absolute domain. Vain distinction! invented as an excuse for property, and powerless against the frenzy of possession, which it neither prevents nor represses. The proprietor may, if he chooses, allow his crops to rot under foot; sow his field with salt; milk his cows on the sand; change his vineyard into a desert, and use his vegetable-garden as a park: do these things constitute abuse, or not? In the matter of property, use and abuse are necessarily indistinguishable.

According to the Declaration of Rights, published as a preface to the Constitution of '93, property is "the right to enjoy and dispose at will of one's goods, one's income, and the fruit of one's labor and industry."

Code Napoléon, article 544: "Property is the right to enjoy and dispose of things in the most absolute manner, provided we do not overstep the limits prescribed by the laws and regulations."



-43-


These two definitions do not differ from that of the Roman law: all give the proprietor an absolute right over a thing; and as for the restriction imposed by the code, -- provided we do not overstep the limits prescribed by the laws and regulations, -- its object is not to limit property, but to prevent the domain of one proprietor from interfering with that of another. That is a confirmation of the principle, not a limitation of it.

There are different kinds of property: 1. Property pure and simple, the dominant and seigniorial power over a thing; or, as they term it, naked property. 2. Possession. "Possession," says Duranton, "is a matter of fact, not of right." Toullier: "Property is a right, a legal power; possession is a fact." The tenant, the farmer, the commandité, the usufructuary, are possessors; the owner who lets and lends for use, the heir who is to come into possession on the death of a usufructuary, are proprietors. If I may venture the comparison: a lover is a possessor, a husband is a proprietor.

This double definition of property -- domain and possession -- is of the highest importance; and it must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend what is to follow.


What is Property - Chapter 2 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=ProProp.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div2)

he clearly distinguishes between different kinds of property, so he is most likely talking about different kinds of property when he says "property is theft" and "property is freedom"

[Havet]

What is Property - Chapter 2 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=ProProp.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div2)

he clearly distinguishes between different kinds of property, so he is most likely talking about different kinds of property when he says "property is theft" and "property is freedom"

thats correct, he distinguishes between both:

When he says property is theft

By "property," Proudhon referred to the Roman law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law) concept of the sovereign right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty) of property – the right of the proprietor to do with his property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed right of property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_right) with the rights (which he considered valid) of liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty), equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality), and security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security).

When he says property is freedom

"In respect of property, as of all economic factors, harm and abuse cannot be dissevered from the good, any more than debit can from asset in double-entry book-keeping. The one necessarily spawns the other. To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself; just as the striking of a debit from an account is tantamount to striking it from the credit record."

[Havet]

People will always prefer to get their goods for free than have to pay for them. Ergo. Privately owned MOP cannot coexist with commonly owned MOP

Isn't that a problem of the people who own private means of production? If people prefer getting something free, then the privates have to somehow compete and offer a better product/service

Anyways, nothing is "free". There is always a cost. The thing is, in a commune/collective, such cost would be lessened and shared by all, which i have nothing against, unless that "tax" isn't imposed on others who are born there, and basically newcomers can only take advantage of those services if they contribute.

A very interesting example i like comes from my country. We have a national health system, that sucks, and there is a "privately" COOPERATIVE funded health service by banker's union. Bankers payed a small fee which they agreed to for some years and now they and their families can enjoy a lot cheaper and better health service. Other people can also get treated there, but they have pay more than bankers and their families.The solution to health is, then, a mixture of these and private clinics.

Just imagine having these kind of schools and health institutions funded like that in almost every field of business: pilot's health service, driver's health service, hotel's health service, and so on and occasional clinics and private hospitals here and there, instead of the current national health system payed by all through force and instead of corporatist health insurance in america.

Here's the first video of 6 on a good analysis over the health problems in america and how to solve them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I


As I thought, your information is based on a false premiss. I looked at the youtube presentation and it is quite clear that what it is talking about is absolute not relative poverty. Moreover it uses the old criterion of $1 a day which as I pointed out to you before has been abandoned by the World Bank last year in favour of a more realistic figure of $1.46

When we are talking about relative powerty we are alluding to socio-economic inequality

Here are a few websites chosen at random which show the extent of relative poverty/inequality

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185458.stm
http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/clement190808.htmlbut surely you can't deny that most people, through the development of Asia particularly, have increased their health and economic inequality declined? What about since the early 20th century? Has poverty gotten worse? It sounds too ridiculous to state that, if thats what you're actually doing.

[Nwoye]

What if there is common ownership of a means of production and private ownership of a means of production simultaneously? would you oppose that? You might thing common ownership might be better, but someone might disagree. In a truly free society couldn't they both coexist?
In an anarchic (communist) society there isn't really any active force stopping someone from privately controlling the means of production or being and individual entrepreneur (in fact Proudhon envisioned this happening). The thing is, it will be extremely difficult for a private firm to survive and operate efficiently. A single man is going to have a hard time getting a loan or generating the capital to physically start the business, and if you think one man can out produce a collective of 30 or so people, you're crazy.


I mean, if common ownership is so much better for the workers, then once state restrictions (that grant more benefits to hierarchical organization than cooperative and communal organization) are eliminated, then people will be more free and easy to organize themselves like they want.
Exactly. And it seems silly to think that people will want to be employed by capitalists.

[trivas7]

In an anarchic (communist) society there isn't really any active force stopping someone from privately controlling the means of production or being and individual entrepreneur (in fact Proudhon envisioned this happening). The thing is, it will be extremely difficult for a private firm to survive and operate efficiently. A single man is going to have a hard time getting a loan or generating the capital to physically start the business, and if you think one man can out produce a collective of 30 or so people, you're crazy.

Nothing you say here is inconsistent w/ libertarian anarcho-capitalism. If people choose communal property arrangements over private ones, fine. All the libertarian would object to is if these arrangements were imposed by force.

[Misanthrope]

I am defending the part of state capitalism which would also appear in a free market. I by no means defending the state. Obviously you misread my argument.

Like i said before:

For under this statist system, where licensing and regulation make it unduly difficult to actually be entrepreneurial, a disproportionate number of those who would otherwise be entrepreneurs become wage labor. This creates an oversupply of wage labor as opposed to entrepreneurial activity.

This gives the capitalist class an unfair advantage in two ways. First, it reduces the amount of competition on the market, increasing the capitalist's market share and prices with little effort on the part of the capitalist. Second, it reduces the amount of bargaining power the wage labor has. Because there is an oversupply of wage labor, wage labor is more easily replaced than it would be on a real free market, and wages are depressed. This amounts to an effective expropriation of value by the capitalists (who are in a state-created position of power) from the consumers on the one hand (through reduced competition and higher prices) and from the workers on the other (who are underpaid and have less than their fair amount of inflence) and even doubly due to the fact that the workers ARE consumers when they are not on the job.

In a free market, where more gain-oriented thought was present, where more entrepreneurs were around seeking to take from the reduced supply of voluntary wage labor workers, the capitalists would no longer have this unfair advantage. The workers, being scarcer, will thus command higher wages and more influence upon the employer, making it a much more fair system, the libertarian's view of it as an interaction between peers would be true.



You argue that we are subject to a slavery of necessity. Basically you argue that since i need food to survive, and i need to work to get food, then i am *forced* to get food, where in reality i could just lie down and die.

You're turning the physical nature of reality into an oppressor, so then you can blame it for your own failings. "don't like working? not good at making money? don't have any talents? its not your fault"

Do notice that I dont mean YOU, but I just use the "you-passive" in order to demonstrate.

life would be fine if you werent forced to work. if you enter the world of work, and you're a failure, you're going to be disatisfied, because you're going to have a shit job and you don't have the ability to get a better one.

but its easier to blame "the system" than to blame yourself

then again, you don't actively blame the universe, instead you project that onto capitalists. since rich capitalists are the ones who have alll the jobs to give, then "its their fault for making you work for food".

This is why for you nature itself is coercion, because you are the victim of the universe, because you have to supply for yourself, follow a specific path, to get food to survive.

ENTREPENEURS DON'T GET LUCKY. They were SMART.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/homemade-...unk-313408.php (http://www.anonym.to/?http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/homemade-helicopter/nigerian-man-builds-working-helicopters-from-junk-313408.php)

was that luck?

Was that the product of accidentally putting some pieces together with no logical connections? And if he proceed to sell them, is it all accidental and senseless?

Was is a matter of FATE? or of a magical man in the sky which people call GOD? or maybe it was the divine intervention of the individuals genetic make-up?

Of course not.

Since you repeated your first post basically..




So more owners, which means more jobs, which means more workers, which means more fiscal exploitation via the wage system. Doesn't that logically follow?

Not all capitalists are in bed with the state and not everyone wants to be an owner or can be an owner. New businesses usually fail when going up against established firms and without any regulation or license i.e. the new owners won't have very much knowledge in running firms, their firm will most likely fail. Just because there is a chance that more firms can be established doesn't mean they will all prevail.

I'm not turning the physical nature of reality into an oppressor, I am showing that the economic system that is practiced in society is oppressive. You are completely taking my argument out of context and proposing a straw man that presents nothing to the argument. I think nature is coercion? Where are you getting this?

In any society you are forced to work by the threat of starvation. In capitalism you are forced to work by the threat of starvation while working in bad working conditions and for fiscally exploitative wages while there are no non-exploitative, practical alternatives.

Stop posting "rags to riches" stories, they mean nothing. Social mobility in a system is no justification for the oppression it entails.

[trivas7]

In any society you are forced to work by the threat of starvation. In capitalism you are forced to work by the threat of starvation while working in bad working conditions and for fiscally exploitative wages while there are no non-exploitative, practical alternatives.

Yes, unfortunately the oppressive nature of reality is such that every individual must do something under the threat of starvation.

[Misanthrope]

Yes, unfortunately the oppressive nature of reality is such that every individual must do something under the threat of starvation.

I know, that is why I said that. :)

[trivas7]

I know, that is why I said that. :)
Except I was being facetious.

[Havet]

I'm not turning the physical nature of reality into an oppressor, I am showing that the economic system that is practiced in society is oppressive. You are completely taking my argument out of context and proposing a straw man that presents nothing to the argument. I think nature is coercion? Where are you getting this?

In any society you are forced to work by the threat of starvation. In capitalism you are forced to work by the threat of starvation while working in bad working conditions and for fiscally exploitative wages while there are no non-exploitative, practical alternatives.

Stop posting "rags to riches" stories, they mean nothing. Social mobility in a system is no justification for the oppression it entails.The economic system currently practiced is oppresive (see my thread on getting rid of the term capitalism).

In any society, in any planet, everywhere you are only FORCED to work under the threat of starvation if life is your purpose. Your argument relies that capitalists owns all the means of production, which they won't, and therefore the only way to supply to oneself is by working to them, which is wrong.

In a free society, not actually existing capitalism, you would be free to set up your own community and abolish owners, if that was your purpose.

You would be far more able to self-employ yourself and if you were a wage labor, the bargaining power you would have against an owner would be far more tremendous, unlike now where there is an artificial oversupply of wage labour, which pulls their bargaining power down.

In essense, there would be more alternatives to supply for oneself than the current system. The current system is, in fact, regulated so that there is an oversupply of wage labor. This is done by physical and ideological means.

The physical means are government regulations, barriers to entry, barriers to exit, fees, taxes and tariffs.

The ideological means are the ones that being mentioned less are believed to exist less, which is not true. Most kids today are trained to think that the only purpose schools serves is to "learn" something to trade to an employer. Very rarely it is even mentioned that anyone can become an employer, or self-sustain himself without hiring or being hired by anyone. The whole concept of an employer is somewhat mystical to most people, partially because they don't question their power (which currently is artificially increased), but mostly because they can't conceptualize that one does not need to become employed by someone else in order to survive or to have a good life. The thought of self-employment, entrepeneurship and innovation is often repressed (both by public schools and by private schools which follow government regulations), and many people live somewhat at the mercy of the guillotine of unemployment coming down onto them.

The idea of creating communities and gathering similar people to "trade" without money or according to need, like many communists propose is even less mentioned.

My point is, in actually existing capitalism, there still are alternatives, but they are much harder to common people, or sound too difficult to most people, and because of the ideological beliefs, many never consider them at all.

My stories about rags to riches are mostly a counter-argument that both in actually existing capitalism and in a truly free society, wealth is a zero sum game and since capitalists own or will tend to own all means of production, then a person that starts with nothing will remain with nothing. Rags to riches are therefore proof that this is not true, although i agree with you that the current system is truly exploitive and ridiculously unfair.

[Misanthrope]

The economic system currently practiced is oppresive (see my thread on getting rid of the term capitalism).

In any society, in any planet, everywhere you are only FORCED to work under the threat of starvation if life is your purpose. Your argument relies that capitalists owns all the means of production, which they won't, and therefore the only way to supply to oneself is by working to them, which is wrong.

In a free society, not actually existing capitalism, you would be free to set up your own community and abolish owners, if that was your purpose.

You would be far more able to self-employ yourself and if you were a wage labor, the bargaining power you would have against an owner would be far more tremendous, unlike now where there is an artificial oversupply of wage labour, which pulls their bargaining power down.

In essense, there would be more alternatives to supply for oneself than the current system. The current system is, in fact, regulated so that there is an oversupply of wage labor. This is done by physical and ideological means.

The physical means are government regulations, barriers to entry, barriers to exit, fees, taxes and tariffs.

The ideological means are the ones that being mentioned less are believed to exist less, which is not true. Most kids today are trained to think that the only purpose schools serves is to "learn" something to trade to an employer. Very rarely it is even mentioned that anyone can become an employer, or self-sustain himself without hiring or being hired by anyone. The whole concept of an employer is somewhat mystical to most people, partially because they don't question their power (which currently is artificially increased), but mostly because they can't conceptualize that one does not need to become employed by someone else in order to survive or to have a good life. The thought of self-employment, entrepeneurship and innovation is often repressed (both by public schools and by private schools which follow government regulations), and many people live somewhat at the mercy of the guillotine of unemployment coming down onto them.

The idea of creating communities and gathering similar people to "trade" without money or according to need, like many communists propose is even less mentioned.

My point is, in actually existing capitalism, there still are alternatives, but they are much harder to common people, or sound too difficult to most people, and because of the ideological beliefs, many never consider them at all.

My stories about rags to riches are mostly a counter-argument that both in actually existing capitalism and in a truly free society, wealth is a zero sum game and since capitalists own or will tend to own all means of production, then a person that starts with nothing will remain with nothing. Rags to riches are therefore proof that this is not true, although i agree with you that the current system is truly exploitive and ridiculously unfair.

Why do you continue to state what I have stated before? There is a social class that doesn't have to work on the threat of starvation, the class that isn't the working class, the capitalists. You missed the point I made where I said one of my main problems with capitalism is that you have to work on the threat of starvation when there are no non-exploitative, practical alternatives.

Why do you keep repeating yourself? You have repeated the same thing in all three posts directed at me. I responded, address that.

[Havet]

Why do you continue to state what I have stated before? There is a social class that doesn't have to work on the threat of starvation, the class that isn't the working class, the capitalists. You missed the point I made where I said one of my main problems with capitalism is that you have to work on the threat of starvation when there are no non-exploitative, practical alternatives.

Why do you keep repeating yourself? You have repeated the same thing in all three posts directed at me. I responded, address that.

isn't creating a community a non-exploitive practical alternative?

isn't self-employing yourself a non-exploitive practical alternative?

What do you define as "practical"?

In any place there is the threat of starvation. Besides the usual methods of survival: farming, hunting, etc, you can enjoy the benefits of an industrialized society: you can self-employ yourself or create a business and hire others. If you don't like it you can go away and create a community with other same-minded people

[Misanthrope]

isn't creating a community a non-exploitive practical alternative?

isn't self-employing yourself a non-exploitive practical alternative?

What do you define as "practical"?

In any place there is the threat of starvation. Besides the usual methods of survival: farming, hunting, etc, you can enjoy the benefits of an industrialized society: you can self-employ yourself or create a business and hire others. If you don't like it you can go away and create a community with other same-minded people

@bold: I know, that is why I have said that in basically every post directed at you?

Yes, but then it isn't capitalism.

No it is not a practical alternative, not everyone can be self-employed.

[Havet]

@bold: I know, that is why I have said that in basically every post directed at you?

Yes, but then it isn't capitalism.

No it is not a practical alternative, not everyone can be self-employed.

of course i'm not talking about actually existing capitalism. The chance of becoming self-employed is very low.

And even if it werent, there still needs to be people to be hired right? Except in a free society, they would have higher wages because of their scarcity.

Let me restate this: I am NOT arguing for currently existing capitalism. I am arguing for a free society. And in this free society, people would be free to:

-set up communities/collectives
-self-employ themselves
-hunt/farm (basically supply directly to themselves)
-hire others or be hired by others

so what were we arguing again?