Just to remind you why Right-�libertarianism� is intellectually bankrupt

[Havet]

“Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the ‘coercion’ is objectionable.”

Lame as always.

On a brighter side, here’s why you should check up on Voltairine De Cleyre (http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/women/voltairine.html). Feminist, Syndicalist, Anarchist without adjectives.

And yes, this whole thread is a rip-off from DivisionbyZero. Credit where it's due (http://dbzer0.com/blog/just-to-remind-you-why-right-libertarianism-is-intellectually-bankrupt) if you'll be so kind.

[Havet]

In before the storm

I'd like to add that i'm perfectly aware that one quote does not represent all of the "right-libertarians", but one gotta say, many (http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf) make (http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf) too (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=388512) many (http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW:500;L:http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewroc1a.gif;LH:93;AH:center;AWFID:65dad07a461e342 7;&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=immigration&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com) of (http://rightwatch.tblog.com/post/1969971088) these (http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/03/02/from-lew-rockwell-to-racist-collectivism/) quotes (http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/02/02/phony-radicalism-from-a-reactionary-confederate-revivalist-2/) ^^ (http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/)

thanks to socialist for the resources

[Havet]

So um..feel perfectly free to use this thread to bash right-libertarianism by showing stupid quotes by its proponents (and yes, you can even quote me when i was in a right-libertarian phase, although i never embraced slavery, racism, anti-immigration, anti-personal liberty beliefs)


It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilisation. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live eternally in history.” [Liberalism, p. 51]

From here (http://dbzer0.com/blog/quote-of-the-day-anarcho-capitalist-freedom)

[Skooma Addict]

So where is the part explaining why right-libertarianism is intellectually bankrupt? Also, by right-libertarianism you mean market anarchism, right?

[Demogorgon]

Par for course really. I've long given up being surprised by anything they say. It may be amusing to combine a list of some of the best they have come up with. But we would be here until judgement day doing that.

[IcarusAngel]

I remember Che Guevara didn't even want secretary/manager relationships between men and women because he felt that they were exploitative towards women.

Of course, this would probably create another whole hierarchical structure, but it's interesting how SOCIALISTS, NOT LIBERTARIANS, ARE THE ONES WHO'S WATCHING OUT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOM.

Notice how socialists and anarchists (real ones) are always pointing a sympathetic finger at the poor worker, who is being abused by his bosses in a situation he doesn't like. Saying "he should go find work elsewhere" is equivalent to telling a slave "if he doesn't like it, he can shoot himself." It is a lot of nonsense used to justify authoritarianism.

Right-wing American Libertarianism is authoritarianism pure and simple. Noam Chomsky says that the Laissez-Faire Libertarianism would be "so full of hate no one would want to live in it." I think he is right. Witness:

The fact that if women were allowed to be harrassed, and blacks around to be discriminated against, that their loved ones would start attacking the bosses and calling for numerous changes by force. Think of the Civil Rights movement which started getting violent on both sides.

The fact that oppressive working conditions makes workers miserable and makes them want a change in the laws, to the point where they start rioting and/or calling for changes in the law. Think back of the American labor rights and union rights.

The fact that capitalist "free-market reforms" that have devastated entire regions of third world countries have angered many of the local peoples who know that their resources are being exploited by the West that is only enriching a few statists and businessmen at the top of the system. The have numerous riots and rebellions as a result.

Libertarian thinking leads to oppressive conditions and chaotic behavior on the part of the workers.

It is anti-human pure and simple and should be destoryed outright.

[Havet]

So where is the part explaining why right-libertarianism is intellectually bankrupt? Also, by right-libertarianism you mean market anarchism, right?

right libertarianism is many times different than market anarchism. Even in their economic proposals they differ, especially when it comes to defend the current state of affairs and to nail down the exact problem. Market anarchists (most of them are usually more inclined towards the left) do not defend current economic institutions because of their visible harm in society, while right-libertarians spend much of their time saying "things as they are are okay, we could just use some more economic liberty as long as it doesnt imply personal liberty".

[Demogorgon]

IcarusAngel has reminded me that one of the strongest problems with Libertarianism actually is that when they refer to "individual rights" they actually usually mean the rights of businesses (who are not individuals) often against the interests of actual individuals.

[Havet]

IcarusAngel has reminded me that one of the strongest problems with Libertarianism actually is that when they refer to "individual rights" they actually usually mean the rights of businesses (who are not individuals) often against the interests of actual individuals.

Yes, and lets not forget their anti-personal liberty tendencies in regard to abortion, racism and immigration

[Skooma Addict]

right libertarianism is many times different than market anarchism. Even in their economic proposals they differ, especially when it comes to defend the current state of affairs and to nail down the exact problem. Market anarchists (most of them are usually more inclined towards the left) do not defend current economic institutions because of their visible harm in society, while right-libertarians spend much of their time saying "things as they are are okay, we could just use some more economic liberty as long as it doesnt imply personal liberty".

Well if a "right-libertarian" is one who claims things are okay the way they are, then I am definitely not a right-libertarian. I am a Market Anarchist. Although unlike most other Market Anarchists, I do not believe one can objectively "prove" the validity of the NAP.

But still, your definition of a right-libertarian can be applied to many people. Using your definition, it seems like I could say Sean Hannity is a right-libertarian. Although people like Block and Hoppe would not be right-libertarians according to your definition...Unless we are each defining "personal liberty" differently.

[Havet]

Well if a "right-libertarian" is one who claims things are okay the way they are, then I am definitely not a right-libertarian. I am a Market Anarchist. Although unlike most other Market Anarchists, I do not believe one can objectively "prove" the validity of the NAP.

But still, your definition of a right-libertarian can be applied to many people. Using your definition, it seems like I could say Sean Hannity is a right-libertarian. Although people like Block and Hoppe would not be right-libertarians according to your definition...Unless we are each defining "personal liberty" differently.

well, i haven't defined right-libertarians yet have I?

basically they are extreme free-market conservatives. They have an extremely shallow case for free markets (they support the status quo which creates inequality in opportunity, think only hierarchical institutions are justified and are generally identified by their annoying tendency of using ad hominem on everything that can remotely be traced to socialists, anarchists or communists). They are conservatives because they still hold anti-personal liberty views and are not aware of the contradiction of their conclusions with their (mostly wrong) initial premises. Such views are racist, anti-immigrants, anti-woman, you get the point.

EDIT: forgot to add i also don't think one can prove the validity of NAP. I just think its a cool concept and morally interesting, although its basic error is that other people might think different, and it isnt objectively proovable, therefore NAPers are stuck in the dilema of "NAP is good but i cant force it on other people because that would be agression which i oppose".

[Skooma Addict]

They have an extremely shallow case for free markets (they support the status quo which creates inequality in opportunity, think only hierarchical institutions are justified and are generally identified by their annoying tendency of using ad hominem on everything that can remotely be traced to socialists, anarchists or communists).

Well I would say I could make a pretty good case for free markets. I also don't see anything wrong with inequality of opportunity. I think there will always be inequality of opportunity. But I don't think whether or not something is hierarchical has anything to do with its legitimacy.


They are conservatives because they still hold anti-personal liberty views and are not aware of the contradiction of their conclusions with their (mostly wrong) initial premises. Such views are racist, anti-immigrants, anti-woman, you get the point.

I would say the racists and the anti-woman people are stupid, although not immoral. I think you should be able to choose who is allowed on your property. So if you want to open a restaurant that does not serve black/white/Asian people, I am fine with that.

[Skooma Addict]

EDIT: forgot to add i also don't think one can prove the validity of NAP. I just think its a cool concept and morally interesting, although its basic error is that other people might think different, and it isnt objectively proovable, therefore NAPers are stuck in the dilema of "NAP is good but i cant force it on other people because that would be agression which i oppose".

The NAP also runs into problems when it tries to derive an "ought" from an "is".

[Havet]

Well I would say I could make a pretty good case for free markets. I also don't see anything wrong with inequality of opportunity. I think there will always be inequality of opportunity. But I don't think whether or not something is hierarchical has anything to do with its legitimacy.

There is something wrong with inequality of opportunity.

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.

This is what i mean when i talk of inequality of opportunity. This is what socialists talk of when they question the sentence that "everyone can become rich". Think of barriers to entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry) on the white market, and contrast that to a free(d) market which you are in favor of.

Also, most factories would be non-hierarchical or worker-owned if the government did not grant tax reliefs to a certain type of organization - hierarchical organization.


I would say the racists and the anti-woman people are stupid, although not immoral. I think you should be able to choose who is allowed on your property. So if you want to open a restaurant that does not serve black/white/Asian people, I am fine with that.

First of all there's the subject of whether that property which you own is legitimate, and whether any property is legitimate. I would leave it to one's consideration. If the community around you only holds property as communal, then you should respect it. If other community likes the idea of private property, non-statist granted and protected, then fine as well.

And yes, privacy is important as well. I doubt communes would serve fascists and racists. Whoever, there is a difference between individually owning property and collectively owning it. But like I said, it's up to the intersubjective consensus of the people around you, which is why there is no objective concept of property which can be deduced by logic.

[Demogorgon]

Time for another flaw with Libertarians. (To be fair, this one is mostly confined to the American variety). Obsession with "States Rights". Ever notice when Libertarians whine about "states rights versus the federal Government" they actually mean, more often than not "states rights against the individual". They often talk about the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy, claiming it was about States Rights. Either ignoring or openly supporting the fact that that included the right to enforce slavery (mind you, slavery is something more extreme Libertarians support). You also see them complaining about Civil Rights, saying it was wrong to force States to grant a (near) Universal Franchise. Again and again when you see Federal Enforcement of rights that States have historically (and sometimes contemporarily) been poor at granting, you see Libertarians complain. Interestingly enough, they are often quieter when the Federal Government prevents certain States from granting rights. At the most basic level State Governments and the Federal Government are both Government and an honest Libertarian would make no distinction in preference, other than to favour whichever one was protecting freedom more effectively. Yet they frequently back the body oppressing individuals more.

Just in case anyone should claim that Libertarians simply want Government closer to the people, compare them to the variety commonly found in this country who fiercely opposed (and continue to oppose) power being handed down to the Scottish Parliament and wanting it centralised at Westminster. Indeed they often continue to call for power being moved back to the centre. The reason being of course that the political make up in the Scottish Parliament is inevitably going to be more left wing in the Scottish Parliament than the Westminster Parliament.

Let's move past that particular topic for a while and simply look at various Libertarian groups around the world to see their own peculiarities. In Canada they have been loud opposing proportional representation whenever there is a referendum in one of the provinces. The reason being, they claim, that majority rule is incompatible with personal freedom. Of course the reality is that proportional representation by its nature virtually always forces coalition and therefore compromise and minority representation. It seems they simply dislike any increase in democracy.

In New Zealand, we have the ACT Liberal Party. A party that first of all contains more than its fair share of neocons, but more importantly focuses on various law and order issues in a very illiberal manner and interestingly wants to restore the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (in other words giving a British Court control over the NZ legal system, a pretty extreme form of not favouring local control over Government, I think). A fair few of them also opposed Civil Unions and so forth.

In South Africa, well I don't even know where to begin. First of all many Libertarians heavily supported apartheid and some, particularly in the UK, continue to campaign for it to be restored! In South Africa itself, effort seems to be focused on the compromise creation of a Volkstaat, that is a state for Afrikaners, either as an independent state succeeding from the Republic of South Africa or as a self governing territory. In this state a form of apartheid would be restored, this time only benefitting Afrikaners, not English speaking whites (funnily enough these proposals often exclude Cape Coloureds, the "Brown Afrikaners"). Mises is frequently cited in justification for this. Libertarian groups there also tend to favour the restoration, to some degree at least, of Bantustans.

I could go on, but is a good beginning for now, I think.

[Skooma Addict]

You make good points.


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.

Your right, Licensing and regulation do make it far more difficult to be entrepreneurial. However, the minimum wage and involuntary labor unions make it more difficult to enter the labor force. Basically, it is the poor who are hurt the most. They cannot find a job due to minimum wage laws. They cannot become entrepreneurs due to governemnt regulations, and they often cannot afford college since the government artificially increases its price.


First of all there's the subject of whether that property which you own is legitimate, and whether any property is legitimate. I would leave it to one's consideration. If the community around you only holds property as communal, then you should respect it. If other community likes the idea of private property, non-statist granted and protected, then fine as well.

Agreed.


And yes, privacy is important as well. I doubt communes would serve fascists and racists. Whoever, there is a difference between individually owning property and collectively owning it.

Being a racist will cause one to lose money on the market. Most racists would keep their beliefs to themselves unless they want to lose business.

[Havet]

Being a racist will cause one to lose money on the market. Most racists would keep their beliefs to themselves unless they want to lose business.

I'm most unsure about whether we can just hope "the market" to solve this. It could happen that old racist sentiments start appearing again, in which case it would become profitable to show racism ideas when doing business.

hopefully racism will disappear by direct action (defending minorities from their aggression) and on open-discussions. Although i'm not sure if keep mentioning racism like government and other groups do in big events (like soccer games) is actually helpful or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO214IFRW1M

[Havet]

Time for another flaw with Libertarians. (To be fair, this one is mostly confined to the American variety). Obsession with "States Rights". Ever notice when Libertarians whine about "states rights versus the federal Government" they actually mean, more often than not "states rights against the individual". They often talk about the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy, claiming it was about States Rights. Either ignoring or openly supporting the fact that that included the right to enforce slavery (mind you, slavery is something more extreme Libertarians support). You also see them complaining about Civil Rights, saying it was wrong to force States to grant a (near) Universal Franchise. Again and again when you see Federal Enforcement of rights that States have historically (and sometimes contemporarily) been poor at granting, you see Libertarians complain. Interestingly enough, they are often quieter when the Federal Government prevents certain States from granting rights. At the most basic level State Governments and the Federal Government are both Government and an honest Libertarian would make no distinction in preference, other than to favour whichever one was protecting freedom more effectively. Yet they frequently back the body oppressing individuals more.

Just in case anyone should claim that Libertarians simply want Government closer to the people, compare them to the variety commonly found in this country who fiercely opposed (and continue to oppose) power being handed down to the Scottish Parliament and wanting it centralised at Westminster. Indeed they often continue to call for power being moved back to the centre. The reason being of course that the political make up in the Scottish Parliament is inevitably going to be more left wing in the Scottish Parliament than the Westminster Parliament.

Let's move past that particular topic for a while and simply look at various Libertarian groups around the world to see their own peculiarities. In Canada they have been loud opposing proportional representation whenever there is a referendum in one of the provinces. The reason being, they claim, that majority rule is incompatible with personal freedom. Of course the reality is that proportional representation by its nature virtually always forces coalition and therefore compromise and minority representation. It seems they simply dislike any increase in democracy.

In New Zealand, we have the ACT Liberal Party. A party that first of all contains more than its fair share of neocons, but more importantly focuses on various law and order issues in a very illiberal manner and interestingly wants to restore the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (in other words giving a British Court control over the NZ legal system, a pretty extreme form of not favouring local control over Government, I think). A fair few of them also opposed Civil Unions and so forth.

In South Africa, well I don't even know where to begin. First of all many Libertarians heavily supported apartheid and some, particularly in the UK, continue to campaign for it to be restored! In South Africa itself, effort seems to be focused on the compromise creation of a Volkstaat, that is a state for Afrikaners, either as an independent state succeeding from the Republic of South Africa or as a self governing territory. In this state a form of apartheid would be restored, this time only benefitting Afrikaners, not English speaking whites (funnily enough these proposals often exclude Cape Coloureds, the "Brown Afrikaners"). Mises is frequently cited in justification for this. Libertarian groups there also tend to favour the restoration, to some degree at least, of Bantustans.

I could go on, but is a good beginning for now, I think.

Good post. Political libertarians are somehow so idiotic they sometimes look can be confused with fascists or nazis, especially in regard to some of their apartheid opinions which you talked of.

[Skooma Addict]

They often talk about the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy, claiming it was about States Rights. Either ignoring or openly supporting the fact that that included the right to enforce slavery (mind you, slavery is something more extreme Libertarians support).

The civil war was about states rights. Remember, it wasn't "The South" who held slaves, it was the slave owners. Many of the citizens living in the south opposed slavery, and many even advocated Guerilla warfare on the slave owners.


The reason being, they claim, that majority rule is incompatible with personal freedom. Of course the reality is that proportional representation by its nature virtually always forces coalition and therefore compromise and minority representation.

The minority is rarely represented under a democracy. But anyways, involuntary democracy has far larger flaws.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm most unsure about whether we can just hope "the market" to solve this. It could happen that old racist sentiments start appearing again, in which case it would become profitable to show racism ideas when doing business.


Very Unlikely. If I don't serve black people, I will be the one to lose money. Especially since society in general is more intolerant of racists than ever. But still, there may be the occasional shop that refuses to serve black/asian/hispanic people. Such an occurance would be very rare.


Although i'm not sure if keep mentioning racism like government and other groups do in big events (like soccer games) is actually helpful or not.


That gets very annoying. I want to watch soccer, not hear a lecture on the evils of racism.

[Havet]

Par for course really. I've long given up being surprised by anything they say. It may be amusing to combine a list of some of the best they have come up with. But we would be here until judgement day doing that.

“There’s a good reason the poor are poor, they’re less intelligent than the wealthy.”

“As such, it follows that legitimacy is derived from the claim that the government can help the poor. The poor buy into this as a result of moral and intellectual weakness.”

“Nonetheless we do favour individuals with authority, in the form of a natural elite.”

“If the parents wish to use force, then so be it. The child consents by continuing to live off his parents.”

“Libertarianism doesn’t support equal negative rights, a child does not have the same rights as an adult.”

“This doesn’t imply equal negative rights for adults. Some adults, such as primitives, are not capable of rational argumentation and cannot be brought peacefully into the division of labour. Moreover, they have no conception of property rights nor any enforcable claim.”

“These people (tribal or less developed cultures) simply aren’t capable of rational argumentation, and therefore have no rights, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences.”

“The fact is they often cannot be brought within the division of labour and without any concept of property rights it’s impossible that they own anything. Moreover they have no legitimate claim to any of this territory and as such it’s free to be homesteaded.”

“People incapable of moral choice must either abide by the decisions of those who are or they must be removed from free society.”

“Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified.”

“It was not wrong for the spanish to overthrow an empire that literally fed on its slaves in religious rituals and replace it with its much milder form of serfdom.”

“Childish rejection of a natural order and authority isn’t the opposite to subservience. It’s a bad trait that needs to be kept down until the youth have matured sufficiently.”

“A private ruler must respect property rights simply because his wealth depends on clearly defined laws explaining what is, and isn’t legitimate property and how people should act in regards to this.”

“Anarcho capitalism and anarchism are synonomous. Anything that can’t be subsumed under anarcho capitalism, is internally inconsistant, and needs to be thrown out.”

“So long as government commands a monopoly over all land, the closed border position is defensible.”

“It is only reasonable to expect the state to fulfill its duties as a land owner.”

“The only system that would have no borders would be a world government.”

“Seeing as towns would be owned by single entrepreneurs…”

“Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner.”

“There’s nothing new about left-libertarians. They are still the same anti-capitalist who hated big business when Lenin promised to keep control of the commanding heights of the economy.”

“Anybody can benefit from the state and anybody can become a part of it.”

“It’s necessary to remove bad elements from a movement. Which is exactly what the libertarian movement should be doing to non Austrians and the likes of Molyneux. Lenin was exactly right in this regard.”

“Opposition to the family and church sounds somewhat Marxist to me, any libertarian society will be founded upon those two institutions so in a sense yes, one does need to be a cultural conservative to be a libertarian.”

“The state by it’s very nature is egalitarian in the widest sense of the word.”

“The only unifying principle of a secular, multicultural society is the democratic state.”

“Feudalism is actually an entirely appropriate model for anarchist society, and my prediction is it’s coming whether the anarchists like it or not.”

“A system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minority.”

Thanks to Polycentric Order (http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-i-dislike-hoppeans-and-libertarian.html) for assembling the collection. All the quotes were taken from the Mises.org forum.

[Plagueround]

“Feudalism is actually an entirely appropriate model for anarchist society, and my prediction is it’s coming whether the anarchists like it or not.”

At least they're being honest now. :laugh:

[Havet]

“Feudalism is actually an entirely appropriate model for anarchist society, and my prediction is it’s coming whether the anarchists like it or not.”

At least they're being honest now. :laugh:

Yeah, the misean types at least.

[Demogorgon]

Mises.org is largely a cesspool of fascism anyway. It would not surprise me in the least if there was a fair amount of membership crossover with Stormfront.

[Skooma Addict]

Mises.org is largely a cesspool of fascism anyway. It would not surprise me in the least if there was a fair amount of membership crossover with Stormfront.

It's too bad the Mises community is anti-fascist. You can't just call anyone who disagrees with you a fascist and get away with it.

[Havet]

It's too bad the Mises community is anti-fascist. You can't just call anyone who disagrees with you a fascist and get away with it.
How are they anti-fascist? Have you even looked at some of the quotes i've posted? They are ALL from the Mises forum. Now I'll accept not every misean or mises forum member says the same things as I've posted, but you cannot deny that some do.

[Skooma Addict]

How are they anti-fascist? Have you even looked at some of the quotes i've posted? They are ALL from the Mises forum. Now I'll accept not every misean or mises forum member says the same things as I've posted, but you cannot deny that some do.

Mises himself was a radical minarchist. He fled to the U.S. in an attempt to escape fascism. The selectively handpicked quotes you posted have nothing to do with fascism. They are for the most a bunch of cultural preferances. But again, the quotes you posted are not necessarily beliefs held by the majority of miseseans. For example, some believe the state is egalitarian by its very nature, and some don't.

[Havet]

http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

"The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

Thanks for posting that socialist. You really come in handy when it comes to mises' resources :)

[Demogorgon]

Mises himself was a radical minarchist. He fled to the U.S. in an attempt to escape fascism.
Rubbish, he was a senior member of a fascist Government who left out of fear of the Nazis, not because of objection to fascism in general. After the war he renewed many of his ties with the European extreme right.

Incidentally, the fascist Government that Mises was part of (as chief economic advisor to the Cabinet) implemented his suggested policies to deal with the Great Depression and they were an utter disaster. Something conveniently ignored by his followers.

At any rate, given the man's history it is little wonder that you get this sort of behaviour amongst his followers.

[Skooma Addict]

http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

Thank you for linking a section of a book in which Mises critiques fascism. The quote your referring to is Mises praising the Fascist movement for preventing the Socialists from becoming the single dominating ideology in Europe. Also, here is the Entire paragraph...


It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

You see, you left out an important part.

Here is another quote from that exact same article....


Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall.

Anyone who read the entire atricle would know Mises was not a Fascist. He may have preffered fascism over socialism, but hat doesn't mean he was a fascist. Also, notice how the book is titled Liberalism.

[Skooma Addict]

Rubbish, he was a senior member of a fascist Government who left out of fear of the Nazis, not because of objection to fascism in general. After the war he renewed many of his ties with the European extreme right.


He worked in the Chamber of Commerce. Big Deal. That doesn't make him a fascist.


Incidentally, the fascist Government that Mises was part of (as chief economic advisor to the Cabinet) implemented his suggested policies to deal with the Great Depression and they were an utter disaster. Something conveniently ignored by his followers.

Again, just because Mises worked for his government doesn't mean he agreed with all of its policies. Which of the policies Mises suggested ended in utter disaster? Or are you just going to make an unbacked assertion?

Refering to Mises as a fascist is crazy. He was a classical liberal. Even though I do not agree with classical liberalism, I am not going to conflate it with fascism.

[Skooma Addict]

Of course he would do all this. Bourgeois idiots always use fascism to prop up their rotten capitalist system whenever it is threatened by the working class.

Even though fascism is a threat to free market capitalism.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Even though fascism is a threat to free market capitalism.The Ruling Class does not want a 'free market'. Never has, never will. They want state intervention on behalf of the rich against the poor. This is why a free market is impossible, as the enormous concentrations of wealth which would develop under one would always use the inflence said wealth gets them to get state intervention on their behalf.

Fascism has served the neoliberal agenda admirably. The classic examples are Pinochet and Suharto.

[Skooma Addict]

The Ruling Class does not want a 'free market'. Never has, never will.

That's because they are the ruling class. They would have nobody to rule over in a free market.


They want state intervention on behalf of the rich against the poor. This is why a free market is impossible, as the enormous concentrations of wealth which would develop under one would always use the inflence said wealth gets them to get state intervention on their behalf.

The gap between the rich and poor would lessen under a free market society. It wouldn't be like The U.S.S.R. where there was An absolutely gigantic difference between the rich and the poor. So if you are concerned for the poor, you should be supporting a free market.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

That's because they are the ruling class. They would have nobody to rule over in a free market.Their employees? Market ideology shows now concern for class dynamics in existing society and offers no explanation of how they would be prevented in the society they desire. You'd have feudalism in under 5 minutes.


The gap between the rich and poor would lessen under a free market society.Guessing from your profile pic, this has been deduced 'a priori', and you distain the idea of supplying evidence?

[Skooma Addict]

Their employees?


By rulers I thought you meant "people who rule over their subjects". For example, the president and members of the senate would be rulers under my definition....not capitalists.


Market ideology shows now concern for class dynamics in existing society and offers no explanation of how they would be prevented in the society they desire. You'd have feudalism in under 5 minutes.

I don't know how feudalism would exist under market anarchy. Can you explain this to me? Why would we have feudalism?


Guessing from your profile pic, this has been deduced 'a priori', and you distain the idea of supplying evidence?


Would you like me to supply evidence? Because evidence is on my side.

For example, the gap between the rich and the poor in the USSR was gigantic. However, in ancient Ireland, and medieval Iceland, the gap was small. But correlation does not imply causation, so I don't like using historic examples. But I still know the gap would be smaller in under market anarchy because the richest of the rich often get extensive support from the government. I can list more reasons why the gap between rich and poor would decrease if you still are not convinced.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

By rulers I thought you meant "people who rule over their subjects". For example, the president and members of the senate would be rulers under my definition....not capitalists.The concept of a ruling class is central to the political ideas of pretty much everyone here. You'd do well to learn the basics of what we believe. Start here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB7.html


I don't know how feudalism would exist under market anarchy. Can you explain this to me? Why would we have feudalism?As I understand it, you would have violent power concentrated in the hands of (many competing) private 'defense associations'. The rich can pay their defense associations much more than the poor. So the rich could quite easily get their defense associations to make serfs (or slaves!) of the poor (the rich defense assocaitions would beat the poorer ones because they are better funded). Of course, we could never get from where we are now to anything approcahing the society you desire before similar processes started and prevented us reaching your goal. So this is rather academic.


For example, the gap between the rich and the poor in the USSR was gigantic. However, in ancient Ireland, and medieval Iceland, the gap was small.Yep, because the USSR was (state)capitalist and in the middle ages most singificant MOP (ie land) was generally held in common by village communities. The vastly different modes of production make for a poor comparison to the modern world, however.

For a detailed refutation of 'anarcho' capitalism , this is excellent:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secFcon.html

[Skooma Addict]

Free market capitalism can be run under a bourgeois democracy. When workers challenge the class-based exploitation inherent in that system, the bourgeois democracy transforms to a bourgeois dictatorship (fascism). So what exactly are you defending here? The bourgeoisie's right to make their rotten exploitative system survive at any cost? If not, why are you defending Mises' words that fascism is something to be preferred over socialism?

When I say fascism I mean market anarchism. Involuntary Democracy and market anarchism are incompatible. So I do not support democracy. I do not believe in free market capitalist exploitation. But I do believe the corporate-government hybrid businesses that dominate the fascist economy do exploit the citizens.

I was basically defending Mises and the Mises community against claims that they are fascists. As for whether Fascism if preferable to socialism...depends. Although neither have a pretty history.

[Skooma Addict]

The concept of a ruling class is central to the political ideas of pretty much everyone here. You'd do well to learn the basics of what we believe. Start here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secB7.html


Thanks for the link. I read the definition of a "ruling class". But I don't really like it. I will stick to my own definition. But now at least I more adequately understand your definition.


As I understand it, you would have violent power concentrated in the hands of (many competing) private 'defense associations'. The rich can pay their defense associations much more than the poor. So the rich could quite easily get their defense associations to make serfs (or slaves!) of the poor (the rich defense assocaitions would beat the poorer ones because they are better funded). Of course, we could never get from where we are now to anything approcahing the society you desire before similar processes started and prevented us reaching your goal. So this is rather academic.

That is not what happened historically. The defense insurance companies have nothing to gain and much to lose from waging war. Unlike governments, they actually have to worry about profits and losses.


Yep, because the USSR was (state)capitalist and in the middle ages most singificant MOP (ie land) was generally held in common by village communities. The vastly different modes of production make for a poor comparison to the modern world, however.

Yea, I don't like using historical examples. But they they do have some use.


For a detailed refutation of 'anarcho' capitalism , this is excellent:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secFcon.html


I will read that when I get the time. It is quite long, so I will skip a few parts that I feel I already have covered.

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

That is not what happened historically.Historically, there has never been anything approaching an ancap society


The defense insurance companies have nothing to gain and much to lose from waging war.They have slaves to gain. And where their victims are poor and so unable to afford a (good) defense association, they risk very little. What of those who cant afford (or choose not to purchase the services of) any defense insurance? Open Season?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I remember reading somewhere that private defense firms and courts in anarcho-capitalism would tend towards creating local monopolies, so similarities with feudalism don't seem unlikely. I can imagine private defense firms paying people to damage the property of people who are uninsured so that the end up paying for their protection, so you'd pretty much end up with communities being forced to pay large portions of their income to a single local body for defense. Sounds pretty feudalistic to me.

[Skooma Addict]

Historically, there has never been anything approaching an ancap society

Celtic Ireland, Medieval Iceland, "The Wild West", and other small tribes in Aisa came pretty close.


They have slaves to gain. And where their victims are poor and so unable to afford a (good) defense association, they risk very little. What of those who cant afford (or choose not to purchase the services of) any defense insurance? Open Season?

I had these same worries when I was looking into market anarchism. The fact is all but the very poor could afford defense insurance. But regardless, waging war is expensive, and who will be the ones to pay for the war? The Private Defense Agencies customers of coarse. Since it costs more money to wage war than it does to simply protect your clients from harm, the PDA's customers will need to pay higher premiums. They will then switch to a cheaper PDA that is not waging war on its fellow citizens. So, the PDA that wages war will lose customers. The longer a PDA fights, the more expensive it will be to remain a client, and the more customers will switch providers. The aggressive PDA will go bankrupt.

The very poor (and I am talking dirt poor here) could either form communes, rely on private charity, or do what many others have done and simply go without defense insurance and protect themselves. I am not saying society will be perfect, and we will be free of crime under market anarchy....becasue we won't. But I can also say a private defence company never would have developed the atomic bomb.

Now, I will ask you, How would we stop a socialist country from waging war?

[Skooma Addict]

I remember reading somewhere that private defense firms and courts in anarcho-capitalism would tend towards creating local monopolies, so similarities with feudalism don't seem unlikely.

That has not been the case with any other form of insurance. But I think there would be local companies, but also far larger ones. Some people would prefer a local company, and others would prefer national/international firm. All we can know for certain is that it would be more efficient than government run protection.


I can imagine private defense firms paying people to damage the property of people who are uninsured so that the end up paying for their protection, so you'd pretty much end up with communities being forced to pay large portions of their income to a single local body for defense. Sounds pretty feudalistic to me.

The individual that did that crime could be taken to court. That would also give the insurance company a bad reputation in a business where reputation is everything. Anyways, historically, that is not what happened. I also don't see fire insurance companies paying people to burn down the uninsured houses.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

That has not been the case with any other form of insurance. But I think there would be local companies, but also far larger ones. Some people would prefer a local company, and others would prefer national/international firm. All we can know for certain is that it would be more efficient than government run protection.

It has also not been the case that we currently have market anarchy. In Somalia we saw single businessmen/warlords ending up in control of "city states" however, and that seems like a more relevant example. The costs of organizing nationally and internationally would seem to make this unlikely.


The individual that did that crime could be taken to court. That would also give the insurance company a bad reputation in a business where reputation is everything.The individual would have to be caught, first. You also assume that reputation "is everything" which, in the case of local monopolies, wouldn't really be the case.


Anyways, historically, that is not what happened.Actually, yes it is:

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


In the post-Soviet Russia, law enforcement was too underfunded and poorly trained to protect businesses and enforce contracts. Most businesses had to join a protection racket (known as a krysha, the Russian word for "roof") run by local gangsters.

I'm not really sure how you can reconcile individualism with a type of society that seems to have so few positive guarantees of being able to protect individual liberty...it's just a mass of assumptions.

[Skooma Addict]

It has also not been the case that we currently have market anarchy. In Somalia we saw single businessmen/warlords ending up in control of "city states" however, and that seems like a more relevant example. The costs of organizing nationally and internationally would seem to make this unlikely.

Somalia is not a good example. First of all, the Somali economy has grown substantially, and the living conditions have improved greatly since Somalia overthrew its brutal government. There are far worse countries to live in than Somalia. The entire warlord situation in Somalia is completely the United States and Ethiopians fault. Has nothing to do with market anarchy.

The costs of organizing internationally are not too expensive. There are plenty of international businesses.


The individual would have to be caught, first. You also assume that reputation "is everything" which, in the case of local monopolies, wouldn't really be the case.

I don't see why there would be a local monopoly.



Actually, yes it is:

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

Protection rackets are a result of government intervention. They almost always get their funds through the black market. There would be no black market in a market anarchist society....not to mention the examples are pretty weak.



I'm not really sure how you can reconcile individualism with a type of society that seems to have so few positive guarantees of being able to protect individual liberty...it's just a mass of assumptions.

It is far more likely to protect individual liberty than any kind of government ever could. Take a look at this....

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

Celtic Ireland, Medieval Iceland, "The Wild West", and other small tribes in Aisa came pretty close.In the 'Wild West', you had slavery and genocide and ended up with a corporatist state. Your other examples are not well known, is there (non ancap) online info on them. Regardless, the lack of technology back then prevented the concentration of power through capital accumulation.


market anarchism.Arround here (and in most of the world), market anarchism means this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)


But regardless, waging war is expensive, and who will be the ones to pay for the war? The Private Defense Agencies customers of coarse. Since it costs more money to wage war than it does to simply protect your clients from harm, the PDA's customers will need to pay higher premiums. They will then switch to a cheaper PDA that is not waging war on its fellow citizens. So, the PDA that wages war will lose customers. The longer a PDA fights, the more expensive it will be to remain a client, and the more customers will switch providers. The aggressive PDA will go bankrupt.You forget that it would also make significant money from its slaving ventures. A powerful PDA could raise the necessary capital for its slaving venture by selling shares in said venture - leaving its customers with competitive premiums. If it picked its targets cleverly it wouldn't need to wage war. Where the balance of power between it and the weaker defense agency clearly favoured the slaving one, the weaker one would see resistance as unprofitable and let its customers be taken. If the slaving PDA only targeted a small ethnic minority, it could, by threatening posturing, drive their defense insurance premiums through the roof, ensuring that many went without and then simply take them. etc.

Ancap is a joke.


But I can also say a private defence company never would have developed the atomic bomb.Once it became a state it most definitely could.


Now, I will ask you, How would we stop a socialist country from waging war?Not all socialists support countries:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secIcon.html
Regardless, the aim of socialism is to have all economic institutions under meaningful democratic control. This is the best defense against unnecessary war.


http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTMThe death toll for USSR style regimes doesn't hold a candle to that for market capitalist ones.

[Skooma Addict]

In the 'Wild West', you had slavery and genocide and ended up with a corporatist state. Your other examples are not well known, is there (non ancap) online info on them. Regardless, the lack of technology back then prevented the concentration of power through capital accumulation.

The "wild west" was far far safer than the eastern part of the U.S. There were less murders, robberies, and less crime in general. The "wild west" was not "wild" at all. But anyways, it still wasn't market anarchism.

I am not aware of any online information on celtic Ireland or medieval iceland that does not contian a market anarchist perspective. I am sure there are some sources, but I haven't read any. But anyways, Celtic Ireland and Medieval Iceland were not market anarchist societies...although they both partly privatised the police force.


Arround here (and in most of the world), market anarchism means this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory))

Mutualism is different from market anarchism. I don't know much about mutualism. But from what I have read, Mutualism doesn't really cut it for me.


You forget that it would also make significant money from its slaving ventures. A powerful PDA could raise the necessary capital for its slaving venture by selling shares in said venture - leaving its customers with competitive premiums.

Sorry, but the customers would have to pay higher premiums. Not only that, but custmers who opposed slavery would switch providers. There is simply no incentive to wage war if you are a protection agency. You also run the risk of confrontation with the courts and other PDAs.


If it picked its targets cleverly it wouldn't need to wage war. Where the balance of power between it and the weaker defense agency clearly favoured the slaving one, the weaker one would see resistance as unprofitable and let its customers be taken.


A stong agency has much to lose if it attackes a weaker one without a good reason. Other legitimate PDAs could band together in an attempt to stop the stong and aggressive PDA from spreading (how it got stong in the first place is beyond me). A weak defense agency would not let its customers be taken, becuase then it would go bankrupt.

But anyways, the little capital you could raise from attempting to enslave the very few people who couldn't adequately defend themselves pales in comparison to the huge raise in the cost of premiums your customers would have to pay.


If the slaving PDA only targeted a small ethnic minority, it could, by threatening posturing, drive their defense insurance premiums through the roof, ensuring that many went without and then simply take them. etc.


Why would an ethnic minority all share the same defense insurance provider? People pay for defense insurance to protect themselves from harm. I don't know why a company would attempt to dominate random innocent people. There have been private defence companies in the past, and they never tried to aquire slaves (at a time when slavery was far more socially acceptable). But the main point is aggressive behavior will result in higher premiums. So aggressive behavior is avoided at all costs.


Ancap is a joke.


Why? Nobody claims there will never be crime or war in a market anarchist society.


Once it became a state it most definitely could.

How would it become a state? Are you against having a state?


Not all socialists support countries:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secIcon.html
Regardless, the aim of socialism is to have all economic institutions under meaningful democratic control. This is the best defense against unnecessary war.

No it's not. The best way to prevent war is to have economic incentives for peace. How does democratic control over economic institutions prevent war?


The death toll for USSR style regimes doesn't hold a candle to that for market capitalist ones.

I don't know what you consider a capitalist regime. But I am sure they had governemnt run defense. Governemnt doesn't have the best record when it comes to preventing war. Why is that?

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

I am not aware of any online information on celtic Ireland or medieval iceland that does not contain a market anarchist perspective. I am sure there are some sources, but I haven't read any.And you don’t think what you have read could be biased?


Mutualism is different from market anarchism.No, mutualism has been called ‘market anarchism’ for over 150 years. The liberal bollocks you spout for only about 40. Say ‘market anarchism’ to anyone outside of North America and off the internet and they will think ‘mutualism’. AnCap has nothing to do with real anarchism, mutualism does and as such is much more entitled to the label 'market anarchism'.

Sorry, but the customers would have to pay higher premiums.Why. The extra money needed could come from selling shares in the slaving venture.

There is simply no incentive to wage war if you are a protection agency … I don't know why a company would attempt to dominate random innocent people.Because slaves = $$$. Companies diversify all the time.

how it got strong in the first place is beyond meAnd here is one of the fatal contradictions of ancap. It requires an approximation of material equality to work, yet decries egalitarianism as a ‘revolt against nature’.

A weak defense agency would not let its customers be taken, becuase then it would go bankrupt … Why would an ethnic minority all share the same defense insurance provider?There would be no need for a minority to have one provider. This is how it would work: A strong agency goes to a weaker one and says ‘stop protecting all customers of x race’, if not we will attack and destroy you. If the weaker agency agrees, it looses some customers, but survives, if not it is destroyed. So it agrees as this is more profitable and the larger agency takes those no longer protected as slaves. From this the stronger agency grows even stronger and expands this sort of behaviour until it & those who join it are a state.

Other legitimate PDAs could band together in an attempt to stop the stong and aggressive PDA from spreadingOr more likely they could side with it, get a slice of the action, cooperate in plunder and together form a state. More profitable & les risky.

There have been private defence companies in the past, and they never tried to aquire slavesMost of the feudal lords of the dark ages started out as ‘private defence companies’.

No it's not. The best way to prevent war is to have economic incentives for peace. How does democratic control over economic institutions prevent war?But that is economic incentives to prevent war. Any plunder acquired in a manner most deem unjust would be redistributed. So no incentive to plunder.

Government doesn't have the best record when it comes to preventing war. Why is that?Because government is the product and tool of concentrations of wealth in society and serves to expand them by plunder.

[Havet]

For a detailed refutation of 'anarcho' capitalism , this is excellent:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secFcon.html

It should be worth noting that anarcho-capitalism and market anarchism are different things.

the right-libertarian or cookie-cutter anarcho-capitalist, while they are likely fully aware and informed of the fact that we don't currently live in a free market or free society, functions as a "vulgar libertarian". What this means is that they function as apologists for big buisiness, corporations and currently existing conditions or property titles. They use free market theories or analysis to legitimize conditions and organizations that came about in a non-free market. They tend to cling to a worldview in which "big buisiness is America's most persecuted minority", as Ayn Rand once stated. They still tend to think of state intervention as somehow being inherently anti-buisiness, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The right-libertarian is essentially pro-buisiness more or less across the board without proper consideration for context. The market anarchism calls them out on this.

Cookie-cutter anarcho-capitalists essentially envision a society more or less identifical to currently existing society but without the state. But the market anarchist sees much more broad implications that would seem to radically alter the organizational structure of a society. The market anarchist does not think that the results of a free market would mirror current economic conditions by any stretch of the imagination. Market anarchists may tend to think that free competition would function as a check on the general size of economic organizations, and therefore draconian large buisinesses simply couldn't survive or exist. They may also be tolerant of or more open to possible "socialistic" experiments within a free market, or advocate a signficant increase in self-employment over standard wage-employment.

From the very own ANARCHIST FAQ:



This because such claims show an amazing ignorance of socialist ideas and history. The socialist movement has had a many schools, many of which, but not all, opposed the market and private property. Given that the right "libertarians" who make such claims are usually not well informed of the ideas they oppose (i.e. of socialism, particularly libertarian socialism) it is unsurprising they claim that the Individualist Anarchists are not socialists (of course the fact that many Individualist Anarchists argued they were socialists is ignored). Coming from a different tradition, it is unsurprising they are not aware of the fact that socialism is not monolithic. Hence we discover right-"libertarian" guru von Mises claiming that the "essence of socialism is the entire elimination of the market." [Human Action, p. 702] This would have come as something of a surprise to, say, Proudhon, who argued that "[t]o suppress competition is to suppress liberty itself." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 50] Similarly, it would have surprised Tucker, who called himself a socialist while supporting a freer market than von Mises ever dreamt of. As Tucker put it:
"Liberty has always insisted that Individualism and Socialism are not antithetical terms; that, on the contrary, the most perfect Socialism is possible only on condition of the most perfect Individualism; and that Socialism includes, not only Collectivism and Communism, but also that school of Individualist Anarchism which conceives liberty as a means of destroying usury and the exploitation of labour." [Liberty, no. 129, p. 2]
Hence we find Tucker calling his ideas both "Anarchistic Socialism" and "Individualist Socialism" while other individualist anarchists have used the terms "free market anti-capitalism" and "free market socialism" to describe the ideas.

The central fallacy of the argument that support for markets equals support for capitalism is that many self-proclaimed socialists are not opposed to the market. Indeed, some of the earliest socialists were market socialists (people like Thomas Hodgskin and William Thompson, although the former ended up rejecting socialism and the latter became a communal-socialist). Proudhon, as noted, was a well known supporter of market exchange. German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer expounded a similar vision to Proudhon and called himself a "liberal socialist" as he favoured a free market but recognised that capitalism was a system of exploitation. ["Introduction", The State, p. vii] Today, market socialists like David Schweickart (see his Against Capitalism and After Capitalism) and David Miller (see his Market, State, and community: theoretical foundations of market socialism) are expounding a similar vision to Proudhon's, namely of a market economy based on co-operatives (albeit one which retains a state). Unfortunately, they rarely, if ever, acknowledge their debt to Proudhon (needless to say, their Leninist opponents do as, from their perspective, it damns the market socialists as not being real socialists).
It could, possibly, be argued that these self-proclaimed socialists did not, in fact, understand what socialism "really meant." For this to be the case, other, more obviously socialist, writers and thinkers would dismiss them as not being socialists. This, however, is not the case. Thus we find Karl Marx, for example, writing of "the socialism of Proudhon." [Capital, vol. 1, p. 161f] Engels talked about Proudhon being "the Socialist of the small peasant and master-craftsman" and of "the Proudhon school of Socialism." [Marx and Engels, Selected Works, p. 254 and p. 255] Bakunin talked about Proudhon's "socialism, based on individual and collective liberty and upon the spontaneous action of free associations." He considered his own ideas as "Proudhonism widely developed and pushed right to these, its final consequences" [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 100 and p. 198]

For Kropotkin, while Godwin was "first theoriser of Socialism without government -- that is to say, of Anarchism" Proudhon was the second as he, "without knowing Godwin's work, laid anew the foundations of Anarchism." He lamented that "many modern Socialists" supported "centralisation and the cult of authority" and so "have not yet reached the level of their two predecessors, Godwin and Proudhon." [Evolution and Environment, pp. 26-7] These renown socialists did not consider Proudhon's position to be in any way anti-socialist (although, of course, being critical of whether it would work and its desirability if it did). Tucker, it should be noted, called Proudhon "the father of the Anarchistic school of Socialism." Little wonder, then, that the likes of Tucker considered themselves socialists and stated numerous times that they were.

Looking at Tucker and the Individualist anarchists we discover that other socialists considered them socialists. Rudolf Rocker stated that "it is not difficult to discover certain fundamental principles which are common to all of them and which divide them from all other varieties of socialism. They all agree on the point that man be given the full reward of his labour and recognise in this right the economic basis of all personal liberty. They all regard the free competition of individual and social forces as something inherent in human nature . . . They answered the socialists of other schools who saw in free competition one of the destructive elements of capitalist society that the evil lies in the fact we have too little rather than too much competition, since the power of monopoly has made competition impossible." [Pioneers of American Freedom, p. 160] Malatesta, likewise, saw many schools of socialism, including "anarchist or authoritarian, mutualist or individualist." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 95]

Adolph Fischer, one of the Haymarket Martyrs and contemporary of Tucker, argued that "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist. The anarchists are divided into two factions: the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists." The former "advocate the communistic or co-operative method of production" while the latter "do not advocate the co-operative system of production, and the common ownership of the means of production, the products and the land." [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 81]

However, while not being communists (i.e. aiming to eliminate the market), he obviously recognised the Individualists Anarchists as fellow socialists (we should point out that Proudhon did support co-operatives, but they did not carry this to communism as do most social anarchists -- as is clear, Fischer means communism by the term "co-operative system of production" rather than co-operatives as they exist today and Proudhon supported -- see section G.4.2 (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG4.html#secg42)).

Thus claims that the Individualist Anarchists were not "really" socialists because they supported a market system cannot be supported. The simple fact is that those who make this claim are, at best, ignorant of the socialist movement, its ideas and its history or, at worse, desire, like many Marxists, to write out of history competing socialist theories. For example, Leninist David McNally talks of the "anarcho-socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon" and how Marx combated "Proudhonian socialism" before concluding that it was "non-socialism" because it has "wage-labour and exploitation." [Against the Market, p. 139 and p. 169] Of course, that this is not true (even in a Marxist sense) did not stop him asserting it. As one reviewer correctly points out, "McNally is right that even in market socialism, market forces rule workers' lives" and this is "a serious objection. But it is not tantamount to capitalism or to wage labour" and it "does not have exploitation in Marx's sense (i.e., wrongful expropriation of surplus by non-producers)" [Justin Schwartz, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 4, p. 982] For Marx, as we noted in section C.2 (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secC2.html), commodity production only becomes capitalism when there is the exploitation of wage labour. This is the case with Proudhon as well, who differentiated between possession and private property and argued that co-operatives should replace capitalist firms. While their specific solutions may have differed (with Proudhon aiming for a market economy consisting of artisans, peasants and co-operatives while Marx aimed for communism, i.e. the abolition of money via state ownership of capital) their analysis of capitalism and private property were identical -- which Tucker consistently noted (as regards the theory of surplus value, for example, he argued that "Proudhon propounded and proved [it] long before Marx advanced it." [Liberty, no. 92, p. 1])

As Tucker argued, "the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea." [Instead of a Book, pp. 363-4] It is no surprise that the authoritarian left and "libertarian" right have united to define socialism in such a way as to eliminate anarchism from its ranks -- they both have an interest in removing a theory which exposes the inadequacies of their dogmas, which explains how we can have both liberty and equality and have a decent, free and just society.

There is another fallacy at the heart of the claim that markets and socialism do not go together, namely that all markets are capitalist markets. So another part of the problem is that the same word often means different things to different people. Both Kropotkin and Lenin said they were "communists" and aimed for "communism." However, it does not mean that the society Kropotkin aimed for was the same as that desired by Lenin. Kropotkin's communism was decentralised, created and run from the bottom-up while Lenin's was fundamentally centralised and top-down. Similarly, both Tucker and the Social-Democrat (and leading Marxist) Karl Kautsky called themselves a "socialist" yet their ideas on what a socialist society would be like were extremely different. As J.W. Baker notes, "Tucker considered himself a socialist . . . as the result of his struggle against 'usury and capitalism,' but anything that smelled of 'state socialism' was thoroughly rejected." ["Native American Anarchism," pp. 43-62, The Raven, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 60] This, of course, does not stop many "anarcho"-capitalists talking about "socialist" goals as if all socialists were Stalinists (or, at best, social democrats). In fact, "socialist anarchism" has included (and continues to include) advocates of truly free markets as well as advocates of a non-market socialism which has absolutely nothing in common with the state capitalist tyranny of Stalinism. Similarly, they accept a completely ahistorical definition of "capitalism," so ignoring the massive state violence and support by which that system was created and is maintained.

The same with terms like "property" and the "free market," by which the "anarcho"-capitalist assumes the individualist anarchist means the same thing as they do. We can take land as an example. The individualist anarchists argued for an "occupancy and use" system of "property" (see next section (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html#secg12) for details). Thus in their "free market," land would not be a commodity as it is under capitalism and so under individualist anarchism absentee landlords would be considered as aggressors (for under capitalism they use state coercion to back up their collection of rent against the actual occupiers of property). Tucker argued that local defence associations should treat the occupier and user as the rightful owner, and defend them against the aggression of an absentee landlord who attempted to collect rent. An "anarcho"-capitalist would consider this as aggression against the landlord and a violation of "free market" principles. Such a system of "occupancy and use" would involve massive violations of what is considered normal in a capitalist "free market." Equally, a market system which was based on capitalist property rights in land would not be considered as genuinely free by the likes of Tucker.

This can be seen from Tucker's debates with supporters of laissez-faire capitalism such as Auberon Herbert (who, as discussed in section F.7.2 (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF7.html#secf72), was an English minimal statist and sometimes called a forerunner of "anarcho"-capitalism). Tucker quoted an English critic of Herbert, who noted that "When we come to the question of the ethical basis of property, Mr. Herbert refers us to 'the open market'. But this is an evasion. The question is not whether we should be able to sell or acquire 'in the open market' anything which we rightfully possess, but how we come into rightful possession." [Liberty, no. 172, p. 7] Tucker rejected the idea [I]"that a man should be allowed a title to as much of the earth as he, in the course of his life, with the aid of all the workmen that he can employ, may succeed in covering with buildings. It is occupancy and use that Anarchism regards as the basis of land ownership, . . . A man cannot be allowed, merely by putting labour, to the limit of his capacity and beyond the limit of his person use, into material of which there is a limited supply and the use of which is essential to the existence of other men, to withhold that material from other men's use; and any contract based upon or involving such withholding is as lacking in sanctity or legitimacy as a contract to deliver stolen goods." [Op. Cit., no. 331, p. 4]
In other words, an individualist anarchist would consider an "anarcho"-capitalist "free market" as nothing of the kind and vice versa. For the former, the individualist anarchist position on "property" would be considered as forms of regulation and restrictions on private property and so the "free market." The individualist anarchist would consider the "anarcho"-capitalist "free market" as another system of legally maintained privilege, with the free market distorted in favour of the wealthy. That capitalist property rights were being maintained by private police would not stop that regime being unfree. This can be seen when "anarcho"-capitalist Wendy McElroy states that "radical individualism hindered itself . . . Perhaps most destructively, individualism clung to the labour theory of value and refused to incorporate the economic theories arising within other branches of individualist thought, theories such as marginal utility. Unable to embrace statism, the stagnant movement failed to adequately comprehend the logical alternative to the state -- a free market." ["Benjamin Tucker, Liberty, and Individualist Anarchism", pp. 421-434, The Independent Review, vol. II, No. 3, p. 433] Therefore, rather than being a source of commonality, individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism actually differ quite considerably on what counts as a genuinely free market.

So it should be remembered that "anarcho"-capitalists at best agree with Tucker, Spooner, et al on fairly vague notions like the "free market." They do not bother to find out what the individualist anarchists meant by that term. Indeed, the "anarcho"-capitalist embrace of different economic theories means that they actually reject the reasoning that leads up to these nominal "agreements." It is the "anarcho"-capitalists who, by rejecting the underlying economics of the mutualists, are forced to take any "agreements" out of context. It also means that when faced with obviously anti-capitalist arguments and conclusions of the individualist anarchists, the "anarcho"-capitalist cannot explain them and are reduced to arguing that the anti-capitalist concepts and opinions expressed by the likes of Tucker are somehow "out of context." In contrast, the anarchist can explain these so-called "out of context" concepts by placing them into the context of the ideas of the individualist anarchists and the society which shaped them.

The "anarcho"-capitalist usually admits that they totally disagree with many of the essential premises and conclusions of the individualist anarchist analyses (see next section (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG3.html)). The most basic difference is that the individualist anarchists rooted their ideas in the labour theory of value while the "anarcho"-capitalists favour mainstream marginalist theory. It does not take much thought to realise that advocates of socialist theories and those of capitalist ones will naturally develop differing notions of what is and what should be happening within a given economic system. One difference that has in fact arisen is that the notion of what constitutes a "free market" has differed according to the theory of value applied. Many things can be attributed to the workings of a "free" market under a capitalist analysis that would be considered symptoms of economic unfreedom under most socialist driven analyses.

This can be seen if you look closely at the case of Tucker's comments that anarchism was simply "consistent Manchesterianism." If this is done then a simple example of this potential confusion can be found. Tucker argued that anarchists "accused" the Manchester men "of being inconsistent," that while being in favour of laissez faire for "the labourer in order to reduce his wages" they did not believe "in liberty to compete with the capitalist in order to reduce his usury." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 83] To be consistent in this case is to be something other -- and more demanding in terms of what is accepted as "freedom" -- than the average Manchesterian (i.e. a supporter of "free market" capitalism). By "consistent Manchesterism", Tucker meant a laissez-faire system in which class monopolies did not exist, where capitalist private property in land and intellectual property did not exist. In other words, a free market purged of its capitalist aspects. Partisans of the capitalist theory see things differently, of course, feeling justified in calling many things "free" that anarchists would not accept, and seeing "constraint" in what the anarchists simply thought of as "consistency." This explains both his criticism of capitalism and state socialism:
"The complaint of the Archist Socialists that the Anarchists are bourgeois is true to this extent and no further -- that, great as is their detestation for a bourgeois society, they prefer its partial liberty to the complete slavery of State Socialism." ["Why I am an Anarchist", pp. 132-6, Man!, M. Graham (ed.), p. 136] It should be clear that a "free market" will look somewhat different depending on your economic presuppositions. Ironically, this is something "anarcho"-capitalists implicitly acknowledge when they admit they do not agree with the likes of Spooner and Tucker on many of their key premises and conclusions (but that does not stop them claiming -- despite all that -- that their ideas are a modern version of individualist anarchism!). Moreover, the "anarcho"-capitalist simply dismisses all the reasoning that got Tucker there -- that is like trying to justify a law citing Leviticus but then saying "but of course all that God stuff is just absurd." You cannot have it both ways. And, of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist support for non-labour based economics allow them to side-step (and so ignore) much of what anarchists -- communists, collectivists, individualists, mutualists and syndicalists alike -- consider authoritarian and coercive about "actually existing" capitalism.

But the difference in economic analysis is critical. No matter what they are called, it is pretty clear that individualist anarchist standards for the freedom of markets are far more demanding than those associated with even the freest capitalist market system.

This is best seen from the development of individualist anarchism in the 20th century. As historian Charles A. Madison noted, it "began to dwindle rapidly after 1900. Some of its former adherents joined the more aggressive communistic faction . . . many others began to favour the rising socialist movement as the only effective weapon against billion-dollar corporations." ["Benjamin R. Tucker: Individualist and Anarchist," pp. 444-67, The New England Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. p. 464] Other historians have noted the same. "By 1908," argued Eunice Minette Schuster "the industrial system had fastened its claws into American soil" and while the "Individualist Anarchists had attempted to destroy monopoly, privilege, and inequality, originating in the lack of opportunity" the "superior force of the system which they opposed . . . overwhelmed" them. Tucker left America in 1908 and those who remained "embraced either Anarchist-Communism as the result of governmental violence against the labourers and their cause, or abandoned the cause entirely." [Native American Anarchism, p. 158, pp. 159-60 and p. 156] While individualist anarchism did not entirely disappear with the ending of Liberty, social anarchism became the dominant trend in America as it had elsewhere in the world.
As we note in section G.4 (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG4.html), the apparent impossibility of mutual banking to eliminate corporations by economic competition was one of the reasons Voltairine de Cleyre pointed to for rejecting individualist anarchism in favour of communist-anarchism. This problem was recognised by Tucker himself thirty years after Liberty had been founded. In the postscript to a 1911 edition of his famous essay "State Socialism and Anarchism", he argued that when he wrote it 25 years earlier "the denial of competition had not effected the enormous concentration of wealth that now so gravely threatens social order" and so while a policy of mutual banking might have stopped and reversed the process of accumulation in the past, the way now was "not so clear." This was because the tremendous capitalisation of industry now made the money monopoly a convenience, but no longer a necessity. Admitted Tucker, the "trust is now a monster which . . . even the freest competition, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy" as "concentrated capital" could set aside a sacrifice fund to bankrupt smaller competitors and continue the process of expansion of reserves.
Thus the growth of economic power, producing as it does natural barriers to entry from the process of capitalist production and accumulation, had resulted in a situation where individualist anarchist solutions could no longer reform capitalism away. The centralisation of capital had "passed for the moment beyond their reach." The problem of the trusts, he argued, "must be grappled with for a time solely by forces political or revolutionary," i.e., through confiscation either through the machinery of government "or in denial of it." Until this "great levelling" occurred, all individualist anarchists could do was to spread their ideas as those trying to "hasten it by joining in the propaganda of State Socialism or revolution make a sad mistake indeed." [quoted by James J. Martin, Op. Cit., pp. 273-4]

In other words, the economic power of "concentrated capital" and "enormous concentration of wealth" placed an insurmountable obstacle to the realisation of anarchy. Which means that the abolition of usury and relative equality were considered ends rather than side effects for Tucker and if free competition could not achieve these then such a society would not be anarchist. If economic inequality was large enough, it meant anarchism was impossible as the rule of capital could be maintained by economic power alone without the need for extensive state intervention (this was, of course, the position of revolutionary anarchists like Bakunin, Most and Kropotkin in the 1870s and onwards whom Tucker dismissed as not being anarchists).

Victor Yarros is another example, an individualist anarchist and associate of Tucker, who by the 1920s had abandoned anarchism for social democracy, in part because he had become convinced that economic privilege could not be fought by economic means. As he put it, the most "potent" of the "factors and forces [which] tended to undermine and discredit that movement" was "the amazing growth of trusts and syndicates, of holding companies and huge corporations, of chain banks and chain stores." This "gradually and insidiously shook the faith of many in the efficacy of mutual banks, co-operative associations of producers and consumers, and the competition of little fellows. Proudhon's plan for a bank of the people to make industrial loans without interest to workers' co-operatives, or other members, seemed remote and inapplicable to an age of mass production, mechanisation, continental and international markets." ["Philosophical Anarchism: Its Rise, Decline, and Eclipse", pp. 470-483, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 41, no. 4, p. 481]

If the indiividualist anarchists shared the "anarcho"-capitalist position or even shared a common definition of "free markets" then the "power of the trusts" would simply not be an issue. This is because "anarcho"-capitalism does not acknowledge the existence of such power, as, by definition, it does not exist in capitalism (although as noted in section F.1 (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html) Rothbard himself proved critics of this assertion right). Tucker's comments, therefore, indicate well how far individualist anarchism actually is from "anarcho"-capitalism. The "anarcho"-capitalist desires free markets no matter their result or the concentration of wealth existing at their introduction. As can be seen, Tucker saw the existence of concentrations of wealth as a problem and a hindrance towards anarchy. Thus Tucker was well aware of the dangers to individual liberty of inequalities of wealth and the economic power they produce. Equally, if Tucker supported the "free market" above all else then he would not have argued this point. Clearly, then, Tucker's support for the "free market" cannot be abstracted from his fundamental principles nor can it be equated with a "free market" based on capitalist property rights and massive inequalities in wealth (and so economic power). Thus individualist anarchist support for the free market does not mean support for a capitalist "free market."

In summary, the "free market" as sought by (say) Tucker would not be classed as a "free market" by right-wing "libertarians." So the term "free market" (and, of course, "socialism") can mean different things to different people. As such, it would be correct to state that all anarchists oppose the "free market" by definition as all anarchists oppose the capitalist "free market." And, just as correctly, "anarcho"-capitalists would oppose the individualist anarchist "free market," arguing that it would be no such thing as it would be restrictive of property rights (capitalist property rights of course). For example, the question of resource use in an individualist society is totally different than in a capitalist "free market" as landlordism would not exist. This is a restriction on capitalist property rights and a violation of a capitalist "free market." So an individualist "free market" would not be considered so by right-wing "libertarians" due to the substantial differences in the rights on which it would be based (with no right to capitalist private property being the most important).

All this means that to go on and on about individualist anarchism and it support for a free market simply misses the point. No one denies that individualist anarchists were (and are) in favour of a "free market" but this did not mean they were not socialists nor that they wanted the same kind of "free market" desired by "anarcho"-capitalism or that has existed under capitalism.

[Skooma Addict]

And you don’t think what you have read could be biased?

What I read was merely a description of how the societies worked. It didn't attempt to make a claim as to whether the societies were good or bad.


No, mutualism has been called ‘market anarchism’ for over 150 years. The liberal bollocks you spout for only about 40. Say ‘market anarchism’ to anyone outside of North America and off the internet and they will think ‘mutualism’. AnCap has nothing to do with real anarchism, mutualism does and as such is much more entitled to the label 'market anarchism'.

You can be a Market Anarchist, and still not be a Mutualist. Also, my beliefs have been around for far more than 40 years. Gustave de Molinari is the first person I am aware of to advocate privatizing security. He was born in 1819, and he was no mutualist.


Why. The extra money needed could come from selling shares in the slaving venture.

The company in that case wouldn't even be a PDA. It would be a group of people attempting to profit from a slaving venture. The companies customers would not be people looking to defend themselves from aggression, but people looking to make a profit. But selling shares would not cover the cost of capturing people, enslaving them, and then guarding the slaves from atack by

1. All people opposed to slavery
2. PDAs who need to rid society of a such a company in order to keep premiums down in the long run.
3. Private courts who represent commnities where a man has been kidnapped, or communities worried about slavery.
4. Profit seekers who can free slaves, and ask for return afterwards.


Because slaves = $$$. Companies diversify all the time.


Only with governemnt protection does slaves=$$$.


There would be no need for a minority to have one provider. This is how it would work: A strong agency goes to a weaker one and says ‘stop protecting all customers of x race’, if not we will attack and destroy you. If the weaker agency agrees, it looses some customers, but survives, if not it is destroyed. So it agrees as this is more profitable and the larger agency takes those no longer protected as slaves. From this the stronger agency grows even stronger and expands this sort of behaviour until it & those who join it are a state.

That is not how it would work. It never worked like that before. The weaker company would simply gain support from other PDAs. Not to mention the entire ethnic minority, all who oppose slavery, and the courts.


Or more likely they could side with it, get a slice of the action, cooperate in plunder and together form a state. More profitable & les risky.

Except its less profitable and more risky. I think we are just repeating ourselves now.


Most of the feudal lords of the dark ages started out as ‘private defence companies’.


No they didn't.


But that is economic incentives to prevent war. Any plunder acquired in a manner most deem unjust would be redistributed. So no incentive to plunder.


Wait, if the majority thought slavery was unjust, that alone would stop companies from attempting to aquire slaves. Premeums would skyrocket if the majority thought slavery was unjust. But what if the majority thought slavery was just? Under market anarchy, that would not be enough to get a company to start capturing people for slaves. But under your system, what would happen? What if most people in your system thought majority rule was unjust? What then? Also, why does the majority get to decide what is just and unjust?


Because government is the product and tool of concentrations of wealth in society and serves to expand them by plunder.


Glad to see you don't advocate a governemnt. Yet you seem to be a supporter of majority rule. What if the majority wants a governemnt?

[leninwasarightwingnutcase]

It should be worth noting that anarcho-capitalism and market anarchism are different things.As I recognised. AnCaps are not anarchists.

Arround here (and in most of the world), market anarchism means this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory))

[Havet]

As I recognised. AnCaps are not anarchists.

Yes, it was more directed at Olaf than you. Glad to see your contribution to the discussion as well :)

Advice: I think both could cut down the size of posts a lot if you and Olaf get along with semantics first. It seems its the only thing youre discussing so far. One claims mutualism isnt market anarchism, the other the opposite.

Olaf, check this video if you will please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U-iwhE4-fc

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, it was more directed at Olaf than you. Glad to see your contribution to the discussion as well :)

Advice: I think both could cut down the size of posts a lot if you and Olaf get along with semantics first. It seems its the only thing youre discussing so far. One claims mutualism isnt market anarchism, the other the opposite.

Olaf, check this video if you will please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U-iwhE4-fc

Yea, that was my going to be my last post on the topic. But if mutualism= market anarchism....what am I? Im not a Mutualist. According to your definition, I am not an anarcho-capitailist.

[Havet]

Yea, that was my going to be my last post on the topic. But if mutualism= market anarchism....what am I? Im not a Mutualist. According to your definition, I am not an anarcho-capitailist.

Read this (http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2008/05/26/left-libertarianism.aspx) comparison between left and right libertarianism and tell me what you think of it.

If you are culturally conservative then you're probably right-libertarian.

[Skooma Addict]

Read this (http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2008/05/26/left-libertarianism.aspx) comparison between left and right libertarianism and tell me what you think of it.

If you are culturally conservative then you're probably right-libertarian.

I am not really a cultural conservative. I am not religious and I am pro-choice. But I am not really a leftist. I don't value egalitarianism, and many other "leftist" values. I will read the blog you linked. I see it is by Brainpolice. I recognize his name becasue he is a contributer to the mises forums.

[Havet]

I am not really a cultural conservative. I am not religious and I am pro-choice. But I am not really a leftist. I don't value egalitarianism, and many other "leftist" values. I will read the blog you linked. I see it is by Brainpolice. I recognize his name becasue he is a contributer to the mises forums.
He doesn't really hang out at mises more now (at least, i only see him at ALL)

You can be a leftist and believe in egalitarianism without supporting state ownership of MOP and rationalization in undemocratic ways (like USSR). For me egalitarianism is getting rid of Inequality of Opportunity and letting natural abilities and not social fictions determine a person's life.

[Skooma Addict]

He doesn't really hang out at mises more now (at least, i only see him at ALL)

You can be a leftist and believe in egalitarianism without supporting state ownership of MOP and rationalization in undemocratic ways (like USSR). For me egalitarianism is getting rid of Inequality of Opportunity and letting natural abilities and not social fictions determine a person's life.

What is ALL?

Also, I doubt true equality of opportunity is even possible. For example, a company is looking for a model to promote their new clothing line. How would the less attractive girl ever have the same chance at getting the job as an attractive girl would?

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

The company in that case wouldn't even be a PDA. It would be a group of people attempting to profit from a slaving venture. The companies customers would not be people looking to defend themselves from aggression, but people looking to make a profit. But selling shares would not cover the cost of capturing people, enslaving them, and then guarding the slaves from atack by

1. All people opposed to slavery
2. PDAs who need to rid society of a such a company in order to keep premiums down in the long run.
3. Private courts who represent commnities where a man has been kidnapped, or communities worried about slavery.
4. Profit seekers who can free slaves, and ask for return afterwards.

1. You say that people opposed to slavery would simply attack this slaving company, rendering it costly to maintain slave labor. Considering this is merely speculation, I'd imagine that some concerned people would attempt to perhaps attack the company but, I don't believe that this opposition would last.

I base this belief on the simple fact that a vast amount of people in the U.S. today find the employment of child labor or having children employed in intolerable working conditions detestable, however, that isn't enough to deter multinational corporations from practicing this type of behavior abroad through outsourcing. Another example would be that though the majority of people in the U.S. oppose racism, that mere aversion to racism doesn't preclude certain businesses from engaging in discrimanatory behavior.

Boycotting or, much less, attacking a company that engages in loathsome behavior costs time, money, foregone oppurtunities and in the case of an assault, the risk of life. Sure, there would be some courageous people who would be willing to fight or more likely boycott, but the large majority won't if the costs are substantial.

2. PDAs could attack, but there is no guarantees that the outcome would be palatable. I imagine that the length of the assault and the scale would hinge upon how large and how well equipped the slaving company is, so if the slaving company was indeed quite well prepared for combat then this would lengthen the battle and thus making it more likely that the clientele of the attacking PDAs will switch over to another PDA who doesn't engage in battle because premiums would increase for those that do. So there is in effect, a disincentive for engaging in combat for any PDA as you pointed out yourself earlier.

3. I'm not entirely sure how this option would work, so I'm not going to criticize it. If you would be so kind, could you please elucidate on how these private courts would operate?

4. So profit seekers would attempt to free slaves in order to get a future payoff? I find that incredibly hard to fathom. Do you really believe that profit seekers would risk their lives for slaves who may or may not be able to pay them amount they desire? How would the rates be determined?


Wait, if the majority thought slavery was unjust, that alone would stop companies from attempting to aquire slaves.

I find this questionable for reasons I pointed out above.

[Havet]

What is ALL?

Also, I doubt true equality of opportunity is even possible. For example, a company is looking for a model to promote their new clothing line. How would the less attractive girl ever have the same chance at getting the job as an attractive girl would?

ALL: Alliance of the Libertarian Left. Check your Private Messages, I just sent some info.

Ah! But that inequality you are speaking is natural inequality, not fictional social inequality created by the state and the capitalists. (keep in mind, hiring someone just because he/she is pretty is stupid)

From my other thread:


COM.: "Is that what you call right? Will that produce mutual fellowship among human beings? When I see that you are enjoying things which I cannot hope to get, what think you will be my feelings toward you? Shall I not envy and hate you, as the poor do the rich today."

INDV.: "Why, will you hate a man because he has finer eyes or better health than you? Do you want to demolish a person's manuscript because he excels you in penmanship? Would you cut the extra length from Samson's hair, and divide it around equally among al short-haired people? Will you share a slice from the poet's genius and put it in the common storehouse so everybody can go and take some? If there happened to be a handsome woman in your neighborhood who devotes her smiles to your brother, shall you get angry and insist that they be 'distributed according to the needs' of the Commune? The differences in natural ability are not, in freedom, great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others; and even granting that much you can see that it would never create the chasm which lies between Vanderbilt and the switchman on his tracks."

COM.: "But in establishing equal justice, Communism would prevent even the possibility of injustice."

INDV,: "Is it justice to take from talent to reward incompetency? Is it justice to virtually say that the tool is not to the toiler, nor the product to the producer, but to others? Is it justice to rob toil of incentive? The justice you seek lies not in such injustice, where material equality could only be attained at the dead level of mediocrity. As freedom of contract enlarges, the nobler sentiments and sympathies invariably widen. With freedom of access to land and to capital, no glaring inequality in distribution could result. No workman rises far above or sinks much below the average day's labor. Nothing but the power to enslave through controlling opportunity to utilize labor force could ever create such wide differences as we now witness."

Com means Communist, Indv means Individualist anarchist. This is a debate created by Rosa and Voltairine de Cleyre.

[Skooma Addict]

1. You say that people opposed to slavery would simply attack this slaving company, rendering it costly to maintain slave labor. Considering this is merely speculation, I'd imagine that some concerned people would attempt to perhaps attack the company but, I don't believe that this opposition would last.

I think there would be revolts. Only this time there would be no governemnt to supress them.


I base this belief on the simple fact that a vast amount of people in the U.S. today find the employment of child labor or having children employed in intolerable working conditions detestable, however, that isn't enough to deter multinational corporations from practicing this type of behavior abroad through outsourcing. Another example would be that though the majority of people in the U.S. oppose racism, that mere aversion to racism doesn't preclude certain businesses from engaging in discriminatory behavior.

Lots of people (like me) are not opposed to child labor. But anyways, there is a BIG difference between racism and slavery.


Boycotting or, much less, attacking a company that engages in loathsome behavior costs time, money, foregone oppurtunities and in the case of an assault, the risk of life. Sure, there would be some courageous people who would be willing to fight or more likely boycott, but the large majority won't if the costs are substantial.

Except it will make a big difference since it isn't just a majority....it it a huge majority.


2. PDAs could attack, but there is no guarantees that the outcome would be palatable. I imagine that the length of the assault and the scale would hinge upon how large and how well equipped the slaving company is, so if the slaving company was indeed quite well prepared for combat then this would lengthen the battle and thus making it more likely that the clientele of the attacking PDAs will switch over to another PDA who doesn't engage in battle because premiums would increase for those that do. So there is in effect, a disincentive for engaging in combat for any PDA as you pointed out yourself earlier.

Right. But the company will have to raise premiums before it could even begin gathering slaves, since it would then require more capital.


3. I'm not entirely sure how this option would work, so I'm not going to criticize it. If you would be so kind, could you please elucidate on how these private courts would operate?

If the kidnapped person was a member of a private court, or a member of a community which was represented by a private court, then the court would hire soldiers to rescue the slave. As long as the courts customers were willing to pay the fee that is, or if the court agreed to prefeorm rescue missions in a prior contract. BAsically, A private court would operate a lot like A PDA in this regard. The only difference is that a court would only attempt to rescue a customer after a kidnapping has occured, and wouldn't be involved in preventative services.


4. So profit seekers would attempt to free slaves in order to get a future payoff? I find that incredibly hard to fathom. Do you really believe that profit seekers would risk their lives for slaves who may or may not be able to pay them amount they desire? How would the rates be determined?

The slaves family would most likely hire the profit seeker.

But I can link you to more sources if you want. I have been debating this for a while now, and I think I won't serve the idea of private defense firms proper justice if I try to debate without linking some of the most convincing essays regarding PDAs.

[Skooma Addict]

ALL: Alliance of the Libertarian Left. Check your Private Messages, I just sent some info.

Ah! But that inequality you are speaking is natural inequality, not fictional social inequality created by the state and the capitalists. (keep in mind, hiring someone just because he/she is pretty is stupid)

Thanks for the message. Ill check out he site. But I think inequality created by the state is bad, since it is coercive. I do not think inequality created capitalists is necessarily bad. Because I think Capitalists do play a productive role in the economy.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

I think there would be revolts. Only this time there would be no governemnt to supress them.

Well, there's one thing that a government monopoly can do more effieciently than a private agency.

Anyway, I'm sure their would be revolts, as well. However since this is mostly guesswork, I'm not sure if this would be enough to deter certain companies, especially if they're well financed.




Lots of people (like me) are not opposed to child labor. But anyways, there is a BIG difference between racism and slavery.

Of course there is. I'm just attempting to draw parallels. If the costs are significant, this would probably discourage most people from taking action.



Right. But the company will have to raise premiums before it could even begin gathering slaves, since it would then require more capital.

This is true if we were talking about PDAs who decided to enslave people. I was, however, under the impression that we were discussing merely companies who weren't PDAs who engaged in slaving activities, perhaps a large company that has amassed a substantive amount of capital, therefore benefiting from economies of scale, adequate for rounding up slaves and is able to bear the costs, at least for a period of time.


If the kidnapped person was a member of a private court, or a member of a community which was represented by a private court, then the court would hire soldiers to rescue the slave. As long as the courts customers were willing to pay the fee that is, or if the court agreed to prefeorm rescue missions in a prior contract. BAsically, A private court would operate a lot like A PDA in this regard. The only difference is that a court would only attempt to rescue a customer after a kidnapping has occured, and wouldn't be involved in preventative services.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. This notwithstanding, I was also under the impression that those who would be targetted for slavery would be those who lacked insurance or the wherewithal to purchase it. Basically, I'm concerned for those who can't afford such services (private courts or insurance). What of them? I'd imagine that court agreements would be quite expensive, especially since rescuing slaves from a company would probably be an incredibly risky undertaking, not to mention costly.


The slaves family would most likely hire the profit seeker.

Alright, that clarifies things. The problem here would be for slaves who were not close to their family or even none with the ability to pay for hired liberators.


But I can link you to more sources if you want.

Don't burden yourself. I'll look myself, when I have time, since the idea piques my interest, but I still have some misgivings.

[Skooma Addict]

Anyway, I'm sure their would be revolts, as well. However since this is mostly guesswork, I'm not sure if this would be enough to deter certain companies, especially if they're well financed.

Your right. It is mostly guesswork. But I think we can pretty safely assume that most people would boycott the company. But your right, boycott alone would not be enough to deter the company.


Of course there is. I'm just attempting to draw parallels. If the costs are significant, this would probably discourage most people from taking action.

Correct. But I don't believe the costs are significant. Now, it would be costly to go in ant attempt to rescue slaves. But it would not cost a lot to give donations to the operatives who do the rescuing. (This is all assuming there would be slavery in a market anarchist society, even though I don't believe there would be any)


This is true if we were talking about PDAs who decided to enslave people. I was, however, under the impression that we were discussing merely companies who weren't PDAs who engaged in slaving activities, perhaps a large company that has amassed a substantive amount of capital, therefore benefiting from economies of scale, adequate for rounding up slaves and is able to bear the costs, at least for a period of time.

Your absolutely right. A PDA would never get into the slaving business. If slavery were to occur (and I don't think it would), it would be thanks to a corporation of some kind. However, this corporation would need to first acquire the necessary capital. So it most likely be unable to start out as a slaving business. But still, this has never occured where protection agencies were privatized (for good reason). Are you yourself a believer in governemnt provided defense? If so, I would like to ask you, why is a monopoly on violent force necessary/preferable?



Ok. Thanks for the explanation. This notwithstanding, I was also under the impression that those who would be targetted for slavery would be those who lacked insurance or the wherewithal to purchase it. Basically, I'm concerned for those who can't afford such services (private courts or insurance). What of them? I'd imagine that court agreements would be quite expensive, especially since rescuing slaves from a company would probably be an incredibly risky undertaking, not to mention costly.

You were under the correct impression. But I think the uninsured still would be safe from slavery. While a PDA could potentially be expensive (depending on your coverage), becoming a client of a court would not be. If you are not a criminal, and you are an honest person, subscribing to a court would be very cheap. But it would be naive of me to think every person in an anarchist society would subscribe to a private court. Some people would ban together and form a malitia in their community. Some would simply aquitre a firearm. Thats what is great about the market, people can choose whats best for them.


Alright, that clarifies things. The problem here would be for slaves who were not close to their family or even none with the ability to pay for hired liberators.


All other things being equal, the person with no family would be the preferable slave. So who exactly is it your worried about? A very poor person with no family, no insurance, is not a member of a militia or any kind of community protection? Becasue I am sure people like this would exist under market anarchism. However, there are still reasons why I know there would not be slavery.


Don't burden yourself. I'll look myself, when I have time, since the idea piques my interest, but I still have some misgivings.

Well, if you're REALLY (and I mean really) interested, the two best books on the subject are The Enterprise of Law, and Anarchy and the Law. Those two books are what finally convinced me to believe in the privatization of defense.

But again, I can't give the idea justice. If I fail to convince you, you shuld still look into the idea. My arguments are very weak compared to what others have written. Everything I said has been explained far better, more clearly, and more in depth in the two books I recommended.