Anarchists and money

[whore]

so what exactly is unanarchistic about workers issuing their own money?

indeed, i would have to agree with cyu, this would be a perfectly legitimate method of attacking capitalism (in particular state produced moeny).

as i aruged recently in oi, markets aren't inherently anti-anarchistic.

[bcbm]

one can be an anarchist while still upholding capitalism, at least as most anarchists would use the word 'anarchism'.

how so?

[whore]

to be fair, one can be an anarchist while still upholding capitalism, at least as most anarchists would use the word 'anarchism'.
not so. you can be an anarchist while still upholding certain market-type systems, that are compatible with anarchism. but you can't be an anarchist and uphold capitalism. because, you know, capitalism has these features, such as hierarchy, massive resource accumulation (capital) by individuals, "earning" money without work (rent, interest, stock-markets, as well as investing capital in other manners), etc.

no true scotsman, err, i mean anarchist, will support capitalism. at all.

[Across The Street]

I for one don't dream of printing my own money and somehow undermining the value of world currencies but maybe I'm naive.

[Devrim]

so what exactly is unanarchistic about workers issuing their own money?

indeed, i would have to agree with cyu, this would be a perfectly legitimate method of attacking capitalism (in particular state produced moeny).

as i aruged recently in oi, markets aren't inherently anti-anarchistic.

This is an example of what I refer to above.

Devrim

[whore]

This is an example of what I refer to above.

Devrim
so, err, you didn't answer the question.

do you object to labor credits or similar?

what transitional economy would you envisage on the way to true communism?

anarchism has a traditional area called "collectivist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism)".

Once collectivization took place, workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker) salaries would be determined in democratic organizations based on the amount of time they contributed to production. These salaries would be used to purchase goods in a communal market.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism#cite_note-1)

Collectivist Anarchists are not necessarily opposed to the use of currency, but some while opposing currency propose a different type of payment (such as Participatory Economists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_Economics)). Originally many collectivist anarchists saw their philosophy as a carryover to communist anarchism,...

so, there you go, "money" is perfectly acceptable according to "strict" anarchist theory going back to bakunin! (and that's ignoring the individualist and mutualist traditions).

(money simply is a method of representing an idea, generally an amount of resources. it's a fuck load easier to carry than a goat and a cow when you want to barter. it also allows representation of "labor" instead of resources. whatever.)

[Havet]

so what exactly is unanarchistic about workers issuing their own money?

Nothing, but as I understand it, Anarcho-communists want to organize society "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", therefore the concept of money would be rendered useless.

[robbo203]

so, err, you didn't answer the question.

do you object to labor credits or similar?

what transitional economy would you envisage on the way to true communism?

anarchism has a traditional area called "collectivist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism)".



so, there you go, "money" is perfectly acceptable according to "strict" anarchist theory going back to bakunin! (and that's ignoring the individualist and mutualist traditions).

(money simply is a method of representing an idea, generally an amount of resources. it's a fuck load easier to carry than a goat and a cow when you want to barter. it also allows representation of "labor" instead of resources. whatever.)

It would still be capitalism however becuase you are still talking about generalised commodity production. Money implies exchange relationships which in turn implies sectional ownership not common ownership of the means of production.

It is not money per se that is the problem but the system that requires money in the first place. However, if money still exists then obviously so does that self same system and that is why one should insist the money has no place in a future communist/socialist/anarchist society.

Apart from that the money system is incredibly inefficient and becoming ever more so. Vast chunks of economic activity today - from banking to pay deprtments and a thousand and other one socially useless jobs - have as their sole purpose keeping the capitalist money system ticking over. They have no relevance whatsoever to enhancing human welfare. The amount of labour and resoruces that will be released for socially useful production once we get rid of the capitalist money system will be, quite simply, staggering. Conservatively it will at least double the amount of productive resources available for socially useful production.

Another dammed good reason for getting rid of the stuff completely

[whore]

"generalised commodity production" is not the definition of capitalism. the ability to accumulate capital (and then invest and use that capital) is what defines capitalism. and that's been the definition since marx wrote it. (even among non-marxists, both socialists and right-wing economists).


Money implies exchange relationships which in turn implies sectional ownership not common ownership of the means of production.
sure, duh. doesn't make it capitalism. remember, capitalism only came about when people were able to accumulate capital (less than 400 years). and yet, money has been around for thousands of years!


anyway, i don't disagree with you that it would be great to haev a truly anarchist communist system. however, as a transitional tool, i see something like anarchist collectivism (which uses markets, and could use something like money), as a good step.

[Devrim]

so, err, you didn't answer the question.

do you object to labor credits or similar?

what transitional economy would you envisage on the way to true communism?

The question of the transitional period is an interesting one. It is of course impossible to implement full communism the day after the revolution in the first country.

Personally I think that the way to move forward would be to push for measures towards the the communisation of the economy as early as possible. I think that there is a difference between what you are advocating, labour credits in a transitional period, and what was being advocated on the other thread, workers issuing their own money in the current period.


anarchism has a traditional area called "collectivist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism)".

This seems a bit dodgy to me. I don't think this phrase has any real meaning nor do I think is it a current that really exists. Which anarchist organisations style themselves as 'collectivist anarchists' today?


so, there you go, "money" is perfectly acceptable according to "strict" anarchist theory going back to bakunin! (and that's ignoring the individualist and mutualist traditions).

I don't think that individualism or mutualism have anything to do with modern anarchism either.


(money simply is a method of representing an idea, generally an amount of resources. it's a fuck load easier to carry than a goat and a cow when you want to barter. it also allows representation of "labor" instead of resources. whatever.)

The point about communism is that it abolishes the law of value, and therefore exchange. It is not just about abolishing its representation, money. Anarchist communists do not support barter.

Devrim

[Skooma Addict]

I don't see how an anarchist could oppose exchange.

[Left-Reasoning]

I don't think that individualism or mutualism have anything to do with modern anarchism either.

Comrade, as an Individualist Anarcho-Mutualist, try saying that ten times fast, I disagree.

[ls]

Good thread so far, some things need just a slight clearing up imo.


This seems a bit dodgy to me. I don't think this phrase has any real meaning nor do I think is it a current that really exists. Which anarchist organisations style themselves as 'collectivist anarchists' today?

Yep, correct. Collectivist anarchism is very different and not something to be advocated today. Today, most anarchists favour complete collectivisation of the economy asap just like you do, hence you could say they are 'collectivist' - like Bakunin, Kropotkin or Malatesta, although they may argue some steps are needed beforehand in order to correctly effect 'social' revolution.


The point about communism is that it abolishes the law of value, and therefore exchange. It is not just about abolishing its representation, money. Anarchist communists do not support barter.

True basically, though most anarchist-communists would support collectivisation/labour vouchers and some form of 'socialism' before full communism is implemented, but you are still correct that money shouldn't exist, markets even more-so, some level of "fair exchange" as has been put forth by Kropotkin before, may exist under mutual aid.

Malatesta "Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." ..and.. "To achieve communism before anarchy, that is before having conquered complete political and economic liberty, would mean stabilising the most hateful tyranny, to the point where people long for the bourgeois regime, and to return later to a capitalist system."

The idea that a free market is a tool socialists should use is quite silly, I think mutualism (not mutual aid) is quite Proudhonite, you could probably use quotes and text by Kropotkin, Malatesta and co out of context, but you would be distorting their very real visions of absolute mutual aid.


Comrade, as an Individualist Anarcho-Mutualist, try saying that ten times fast, I disagree.

Kropotkin "They prove that even under the system of reckless individualism which now prevails the agricultural masses piously maintain their mutual-support inheritance; and as soon as the States relax the iron laws by means of which they have broken all bonds between men, these bonds are at once reconstituted, notwithstanding the difficulties, political, economical, and social, which are many, and in such forms as best answer to the modern requirements of production."

He rightly identified 'unbridled individualism' as basically being Capitalism.


I don't see how an anarchist could oppose exchange.

"Fair exchange" under mutual aid doesn't entail any kind of market.


sure, duh. doesn't make it capitalism. remember, capitalism only came about when people were able to accumulate capital (less than 400 years). and yet, money has been around for thousands of years!

anyway, i don't disagree with you that it would be great to haev a truly anarchist communist system. however, as a transitional tool, i see something like anarchist collectivism (which uses markets, and could use something like money), as a good step.


Kropotkin "The opening of new markets, the forcing of products, good and bad, upon the foreigner, is the principle underlying all the politics of the present day throughout our continent, and the real cause of the wars of the nineteenth century"

Malatesta "If by mistake or by competition among capitalists an overproduction occurs, a crisis comes and drives the marketplace back to that condition of relative scarcity which is most advantageous for manufacturers and dealers. Hence it is clear how dangerous it is to spread the belief that goods abound and that there is no urge to set to work."

Malatesta never indicated he was fond of Proudhon's ideas of 'mutualism', although if I remember correctly he did think money might exist.

Malatesta and Kropotkin (for much of his life) were anarchist-communists, Bakunin was a collectivist-anarchist (although he contributed to collectivism and anarchist-communism altogether as well) and Proudhon was a "mutualist", again though he has some worthwhile stuff, although it's scattered around.

[Skooma Addict]

"Fair exchange" under mutual aid doesn't entail any kind of market.

Huh? I am saying I don't see how any anarchist could oppose exchange. If you don't oppose barter, then I don't see how you could oppose money, since money arises naturally from barter. I don't see how an anarchist could oppose me giving good X for good Y, and then trading good Y for good Z.

[ls]

Huh? I am saying I don't see how any anarchist could oppose exchange. If you don't oppose barter, then I don't see how you could oppose money, since money arises naturally from barter. I don't see how an anarchist could oppose me giving good X for good Y, and then trading good Y for good Z.

Oh dear, dear me.

Bartering is just a redundant idea for how socialism should work, do you understand why no one would take this seriously? Do you understand why barely any serious socialists propose this as a good idea?

Giving all workers a collective say into how the central economy should be run, coupled with collectivising things centrally and democratically setting a complete and universal set of standards for labour and the issuing of labour vouchers, coupled with mutual aid where required (no bartering involved whatsoever, pure giving on all sides), is obviously nothing like what you and others propose, what you propose is not at all anarchistic.

[Skooma Addict]

Oh dear, dear me.

Bartering is just a redundant idea for how socialism should work, do you understand why no one would take this seriously? Do you understand why barely any serious socialists propose this as a good idea?

Giving all workers a collective say into how the central economy should be run, coupled with collectivising things centrally and democratically setting a complete and universal set of standards for labour and the issuing of labour vouchers, coupled with mutual aid where required (no bartering involved whatsoever, pure giving on all sides), is obviously nothing like what you and others propose, what you propose is not at all anarchistic.

I am not saying that people would barter. Just that there is nothing wrong with it. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with money. I don't think a central economy and universal standards for labour sounds anarchistic to me. In fact, it sounds like it requires a state.

[ls]

I am not saying that people would barter. Just that there is nothing wrong with it. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with money. I don't think a central economy and universal standards for labour sounds anarchistic to me. In fact, it sounds like it requires a state.

:rolleyes:

Bakunin "The perfect society has no government but only an administration, no laws but only obligations, no punishments but means of correction."

But sure, feel free to believe that anarchy is being used in the context of "economic anarchy", no one takes you seriously though.

[Skooma Addict]

Money arises 100% naturally and is in no way coercive. Preventing money from arising requires a state as far as I am concerned. Since that is the case, I don't see how an anarchist could oppose money.

[ls]

Do you want to explain to us how money arises 100% naturally.

I suppose it is made from paper, therefore it comes from trees and is natural thus.

[Skooma Addict]

Do you want to explain to us how money arises 100% naturally.

I suppose it is made from paper, therefore it comes from trees and is natural thus.

Certainly. According to the Regression Theorem of Money, money naturally arises from very very marketable goods. If I have some fish that I want to trade for some apples, I need to find someone who wants to trade his apples for some fish. This can get very difficult. However, if I know I could trade some of my fish for some silver, and then trade that silver for the apples, then I can take advantage of indirect exchange. Historically, marketable goods such as gold and silver were very marketable so they eventually became a generally accepted medium of exchange. There are countless other examples of money which were used at different times by different peoples.

I do not see how you could stop this process from occurring without a state.

[IcarusAngel]

Anarchists naturally oppose money and certain trade. For example, anarchists oppose the slave trade because to create the conditions of slavery requires a state. Likewise, to create the conditions of capital and property requires a state, and money requires a universal currency otherwise it is unstable.

[Left-Reasoning]

Anarchists naturally oppose money and certain trade.

Comrade, one of the goals of anarcho-mutualism is the establishment of a mutualist bank which issues paper money.


For example, anarchists oppose the slave trade because to create the conditions of slavery requires a state.Though slavery is more inefficient without a state, it isn't impossible. And furthermore the reason that the anarchist rejects slavery is not because it requires the state but because it deprives man of his liberty, slavery being its opposite.


Likewise, to create the conditions of capital and property requires a state, and money requires a universal currency otherwise it is unstable.There is certainly no reason to believe that there much exist a universal currency for there to be interest, rent and wages.

[IcarusAngel]

In order for slavery to exist there must exist a society that recognizes that someone could contract themselves out to slavery, and that they are not able to void that contract. Self-ownership for example allows slavery because if you are in debt your creditor could come after your final piece of property, your body.

Anarchists do indeed oppose wages, rent, and capital. See the link in my signature. Even most of the individual anarchists opposed it, and the ones who supported it opposed certain aspects of it. They have historically noted that wages, rent, and capital are the basis for a statist scenario in and of themselves.

I'm not sure anarcho-mutualism is anarchism. For example, many of them openly support capital.

[Left-Reasoning]

In order for slavery to exist there must exist a society that recognizes that someone could contract themselves out to slavery, and that they are not able to void that contract. Self-ownership for example allows slavery because if you are in debt your creditor could come after your final piece of property, your body.

Comrade, this does not necessarily mean that a state needs to exist. "Anarcho"-Capitalists support the abolition of the state and some believe that one could sell himself into slavery.



Anarchists do indeed oppose wages, rent, and capital. See the link in my signature. Even most of the individual anarchists opposed it, and the ones who supported it opposed certain aspects of it. They have historically noted that wages, rent, and capital are the basis for a statist scenario in and of themselves."I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." - Proudhon

Is Proudhon then not an Anarchist?

Regardless, there does not need to exist a state for there to exist wages, rents and interest.


I'm not sure anarcho-mutualism is anarchism. For example, many of them openly support capital.Proudhon was the first to call himself an anarchist. To say that he is not an anarchist is to say that Rand is not an Objectivist.

[IcarusAngel]

Comrade, this does not necessarily mean that a state needs to exist. "Anarcho"-Capitalists support the abolition of the state and some believe that one could sell himself into slavery.

It certainly does mean that a state must exist; the state must exist to enforce the contracts. The "society of contracts" anarcho-capitalists favor is thus statism because a government must be in place to recognize these contracts. In an anarchist society, people would be free to violate contracts at whim, and I don't know anybody who would even prefer to live in a society of contracts. It would make more sense to have individuals voluntarily working together and on that basis decide their obligations. If someone is unreliable, there is no need to get the state involved to resolve a contract dispute - you simply wouldn't work with that person.


"I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose." - Proudhon

Is Proudhon then not an Anarchist?

He is talking about using the government (sovereign decree) to suppress capital. In what is property? he also calls "capital" a "government" so if he supported unrestricting it he would be contradicting himself.

You're quoting him out of context; after workers organized credit and labor and replaced property by possession, such forms of exploitation disappear.

In fact in the very wiki in article in which you took that quote it states that he did indeed oppose wages, rent, etc. so now you're just being dishonest and lying on the forum like hayenmill does.

Also, he opposed the Lockean concept that whatever work you put into land gives you some kind of ownership to land. So how else could you ever come to monopolize capital or land or resources his in society since you had no rightful claim to it? You're distoring his views.

Regardless, there does not need to exist a state for there to exist wages, rents and interest.


While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA3.html) for more details), there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words of the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists "on the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited by Eunice Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 140] All anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State.




Proudhon was the first to call himself an anarchist. To say that he is not an anarchist is to say that Rand is not an Objectivist.

That doesn't make any sense. The first Western intellectual who said there could exist a society without government was Rousseau who lived before Proudhon. Proudhon could indeed be mistaken about the role of government. As we come to learn more about government and what role it plays in say interest and wages we could determine if such things could exist without government.

I do not think capitalism could exist without government which is a common anarchist belief.

[IcarusAngel]

"Proudhon opposed the charging of interest and rent, but did not seek to abolish them by law" (The sentence before that quote....) Explain why you distorted the article.

Proudhon was also a racist idiot and an anti-semetic, whereas someone like Rousseau condemned the imperialism Western states engage in towards the third world (setting up the foundation for the anti-imperialist movements which have doubtlessly saved millions of lives).

It's best to take the good things people taught, and disregard the bad. However, you have not even shown that he supported capitalism.

[Skooma Addict]

A state is not required for slavery to exist. We could be living in a stateless society, and I could go kidnap a person and make them my slave. Also, if the vast majority of a given population overwhelmingly supports slavery, then I doubt that even the abolition of the state would be enough to end slavery.

Anarcho-capitalism obviously does not require a state. A government does not need to be in place to recognize private contracts in an AnCap society.

[RGacky3]

A government does not need to be in place to recognize private contracts in an AnCap society.

Nope, just private organizations with their own property, being able to make whatever desicions with their property and being protected by private security ... Which sounds like a dictatorship to me (aka government).

Either that or a population which is perfectly ok living under an ologarchy., which is silly.

[Skooma Addict]

Nope, just private organizations with their own property, being able to make whatever desicions with their property and being protected by private security ... Which sounds like a dictatorship to me (aka government).

Either that or a population which is perfectly ok living under an ologarchy., which is silly.

Well, there needs to be a dictator in a dictatorship. The dictator is also the head of a government, but there is no government in an ancap society. There are competitive providers for all goods and services. I don't understand how this is so difficult to grasp.

[IcarusAngel]

If slavery and property exist there is a state. A state is a hierarchical and/or rule that is applied universally over the land. If you go and kidnap somebody they are not your slave. A group of people could just as easily go and get him back. Only the government would enforce a slave contract, and only the government can enforce property rights.

Hence, anarcho-capitalism and other pro-slavery, pro-property theories are unanarchistic, and unrealistic.

In the doubtful case that everybody supported slavery, then you merely have a slave state. The majority should be in charge, but there is nothing preventing them from establishing a state. That is the reason we have states in the first place.

Also, keep in mind that Proudhon supported compulsory military service and government reforms. He supported many things that were unanarchistic and was not a complete anarchist himself.

[Skooma Addict]

If slavery and property exist there is a state. A state is a hierarchical and/or rule that is applied universally over the land. If you go and kidnap somebody they are not your slave. A group of people could just as easily go and get him back. Only the government would enforce a slave contract, and only the government can enforce property rights.

For starters, I assume you believe in some form of property? Should I be allowed to burn down everything I see? You can't just say anarchism must adopt the form of property that you desire, or else it isn't anarchism. If I kidnap someone and force then to work for me, they are a slave. A government is not needed to enforce property rights. Property rights could be enforced by private agencies.



Also, keep in mind that Proudhon supported compulsory military service and government reforms. He supported many things that were unanarchistic and was not a complete anarchist himself.

I hate Proudhon.

[ls]

Certainly. According to the Regression Theorem of Money, money naturally arises from very very marketable goods. If I have some fish that I want to trade for some apples, I need to find someone who wants to trade his apples for some fish. This can get very difficult. However, if I know I could trade some of my fish for some silver, and then trade that silver for the apples, then I can take advantage of indirect exchange. Historically, marketable goods such as gold and silver were very marketable so they eventually became a generally accepted medium of exchange. There are countless other examples of money which were used at different times by different peoples.

I've not seen any evidence that the native american indians did this.


I do not see how you could stop this process from occurring without a state.

By intervention from the workers' councils?

[Left-Reasoning]

Do you want to explain to us how money arises 100% naturally.

Sure thing, comrade. Man exists in a system of barter. Man decides to trade his less marketable products for more marketable ones. Over time these more marketable products become universally acceptable for exchange because others in the community will accept them because still others will accept them. This phenomena of a universally acceptable commodity is known as money.

[IcarusAngel]

Shouldn't left-reasoning be restricted? He sounds like another hayenmill.

[Left-Reasoning]

"Proudhon opposed the charging of interest and rent, but did not seek to abolish them by law" (The sentence before that quote....) Explain why you distorted the article.

Comrade, I never sought to claim that Proudhon was in favor of interest and rent, merely that he did not want them abolished by decree, and that he thought that in a free market capitalism would crumble under its own weight.


Proudhon was also a racist idiot and an anti-semetic, whereas someone like Rousseau condemned the imperialism Western states engage in towards the third world (setting up the foundation for the anti-imperialist movements which have doubtlessly saved millions of lives).

I do not mean to defend Proudhon and perhaps I have been misled but I have read a few quotes from Marx that were also anti-semetic.


It's best to take the good things people taught, and disregard the bad. However, you have not even shown that he supported capitalism.

I never meant to claim that he supported capitalism. Far from it, he was a bitter foe of capitalism. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[IcarusAngel]

Ok at least you're more respectful than hayenmill. And yes, Marx also made some vulgar statements. That was my point about trying to take the good ideas of philosophers and discard the bad ones.

I think I've made my point but I agree with ls about the general trend of anarchism.

[Havet]

Ok at least you're more respectful than hayenmill.

i'm only disrespecful because you showed no respect when arguing with me. Don' do to others what you don't want being done to you.

[whore]

so err, in society today:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1653828&postcount=31



At the end of a season, a farmer may find that he has harvested 500 bushels of grain (or maybe a group of oil workers find that they have 500 barrels of oil). Then the farmer issues one paper note for each bushel (or the oil workers issue one paper note for each barrel), and then takes that note to spend in the local economy.

As long as the other members of the community know they can redeem the paper note for a bushel of wheat or barrel of oil at any time, then the paper note has value, and can be used as currency. When someone finally redeems the paper note for the grain / oil, then the note is destroyed.

If you feel paper backed only by barrels of oil or bushels of grain is not stable enough, then it's not hard to back it with a more diversified basket of goods. It would be similar to investing in various index funds - some baskets of goods may try to mimic the consumer price index - other baskets may be more focused on the energy sector or the construction materials sector.

[RGacky3]

Well, there needs to be a dictator in a dictatorship. The dictator is also the head of a government, but there is no government in an ancap society. There are competitive providers for all goods and services. I don't understand how this is so difficult to grasp.

first of all, if you live in an area, where one person or a few people have the say on what goes on in that area, compleatly, and has at force to back it up, I don't care what you call it, president, king, landlord, boss, ITS A DICTATOR.

I just discribed the result of an anarcho-capitalist society, you did'nt refute it at all.

In a monarchy, there are different kings competing sometimes too, it does'nt change it for hte peasants does it.

Private property is not government your right, its worse, because at least government is accountable to the people it has control over, Private property has control over people without having to be accountable to them in the least. Even a KING, is nominally suppose to look out for the welfare of his people, a landlord, or a boss, only cares about profits.

Explain to me the different between landownership and government, in practical terms (i.e. not just in name).

[Skooma Addict]

first of all, if you live in an area, where one person or a few people have the say on what goes on in that area, compleatly, and has at force to back it up, I don't care what you call it, president, king, landlord, boss, ITS A DICTATOR.

A dictator can steal funds from his citizens against their will whenever he wants. He has a monopolized army and police force to support him. A private company cannot do this. A private company also does not rule its property completely. There are so many other differences. Power is dispersed, and there is not a monolithic legal order.



Private property is not government your right, its worse, because at least government is accountable to the people it has control over, Private property has control over people without having to be accountable to them in the least. Even a KING, is nominally suppose to look out for the welfare of his people, a landlord, or a boss, only cares about profits.

Explain to me the different between landownership and government, in practical terms (i.e. not just in name).

I think your overestimating the extent which government is accountable to the population. For starters, government is an organization with the ability to tax which has a monopolized army and arbitration over a given territorial area. Land ownership is just a legally recognized claim to land. Anarcho-capitalists, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists and Mutualists all believe in some form of land ownership. Anyone who doesn't must let me burn down whatever I wish.

[RGacky3]

A dictator can steal funds from his citizens against their will whenever he wants. He has a monopolized army and police force to support him. A private company cannot do this. A private company also does not rule its property completely. There are so many other differences. Power is dispersed, and there is not a monolithic legal order.

A private company can charge whatever he wants for access to his land no mattet what everyone else thinks about the matter (i.e. taxes), and a private company can have a private army to back him up whenever he wants too, for the people subject to hte power ITS THE SAME THING.

THere is not a monolithic legal order with states now, if you don't like one countries rules ... move. Just change the name country with company.


I think your overestimating the extent which government is accountable to the population. For starters, government is an organization with the ability to tax which has a monopolized army and arbitration over a given territorial area. Land ownership is just a legally recognized claim to land. Anarcho-capitalists, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists and Mutualists all believe in some form of land ownership. Anyone who doesn't must let me burn down whatever I wish.

I'm not overestimating the accountability, I'm saying its more accountable that private buisinesses. A company can tax (charge) as well over a given territory (ownership), and can hire a private army for that area (an army), its the same thing, as far as the people below are concerned. All your doing is chaning the words, instead of tax its charge, instead of country its privately owned land and industry, instead of laws, its company/property rules, instead of other countries its buisiness competition.

[Skooma Addict]

A private company can charge whatever he wants for access to his land no mattet what everyone else thinks about the matter (i.e. taxes), and a private company can have a private army to back him up whenever he wants too, for the people subject to hte power ITS THE SAME THING.

THere is not a monolithic legal order with states now, if you don't like one countries rules ... move. Just change the name country with company.


Sure, the company can charge 10,000 dollars to use its road. However, then the company will go out of business, and someone else who knows what they are doing will take over the road. The fee that the company charges are not taxes. It is an optional fee that you do not need to pay.

If I don't like the services my current PDA is providing, I do not need to move. I can contract with another PDA, or if I wanted I could just go without professional protection. Maybe there is a community town guard or I could just purchase my own weapon. The point is that private companies do not have territorial monopolies in the way states do. They are fundamentally different.


I'm not overestimating the accountability, I'm saying its more accountable that private buisinesses. A company can tax (charge) as well over a given territory (ownership), and can hire a private army for that area (an army), its the same thing, as far as the people below are concerned. All your doing is chaning the words, instead of tax its charge, instead of country its privately owned land and industry, instead of laws, its company/property rules, instead of other countries its buisiness competition.

Private businesses are more accountable to the consumers than governments are to their citizens.

I have to leave for the moment however. I have to stop at the Republic of McDonalds for some lunch, after which I am going to the United Provinces of Best Buy to purchase a video game. Ill continue this conversation when I get back.

[IcarusAngel]

Claiming a company will "go out of business" is like saying that the government can also go out of business if people don't like what they're getting. Companies maintain a monopoly of the land that maintain that monopoly by brute force. The very fact that market failures, price gouging, etc. exists proves that they operate based on their own greed, not on what the consumer needs.

Furthermore, they have no legitmate claim to the property that they hold, other than that they somehow acquired it through the market or through government grants.

A landowner or a business is thus a government, charging rent and fees to be able to use their resources.

Every social scientist and economist except for Miseans acknowledge that capitalism is essentially a government program.

[Left-Reasoning]

[T]hey operate based on their own greed, not on what the consumer needs.

Comrade, I don't think that this was ever denied.

[RGacky3]

Sure, the company can charge 10,000 dollars to use its road. However, then the company will go out of business, and someone else who knows what they are doing will take over the road. The fee that the company charges are not taxes. It is an optional fee that you do not need to pay.

If I don't like the services my current PDA is providing, I do not need to move. I can contract with another PDA, or if I wanted I could just go without professional protection. Maybe there is a community town guard or I could just purchase my own weapon. The point is that private companies do not have territorial monopolies in the way states do. They are fundamentally different.


If people NEED to use that road, no he probably wont, and you don't NEED to pay taxes, you can move.

How are they fundementally different? a persona owns land, can make the rules. THey do have a monopoly on the land THEY own, its land. I was'nt talking about PDAs, I was talking about land ownership.

And your "solution" of buying your own weapon and fighting against landlowners has been though of before, its called revolution.


Private businesses are more accountable to the consumers than governments are to their citizens.

I have to leave for the moment however. I have to stop at the Republic of McDonalds for some lunch, after which I am going to the United Provinces of Best Buy to purchase a video game. Ill continue this conversation when I get back.

Really, for example ... AMerican insurance companies, as compared to EUropean state ones? Private buisinesses are accountable to PROFITS, and they get profits from consumers, people iwth money, nad the more money you have, the bigger say you have. In a democracy, its one man, one vote.

Nower days corporations cannot do whatever you want, because even those in government are not as insane as you.

[Skooma Addict]

If people NEED to use that road, no he probably wont, and you don't NEED to pay taxes, you can move.
You don't NEED to eat, you can die. The point is that I am not required by law to pay for the private companies services like I am to pay my taxes.



How are they fundementally different? a persona owns land, can make the rules. THey do have a monopoly on the land THEY own, its land. I was'nt talking about PDAs, I was talking about land ownership.

And your "solution" of buying your own weapon and fighting against landowners has been though of before, its called revolution.People have a monopoly on the land they own like they have a monopoly on the candy bars they bought at the grocery store. Or how I have a monopoly on my television. None of these companies claim the right to tax you.



Really, for example ... AMerican insurance companies, as compared to EUropean state ones? Private buisinesses are accountable to PROFITS, and they get profits from consumers, people iwth money, nad the more money you have, the bigger say you have. In a democracy, its one man, one vote.

Nower days corporations cannot do whatever you want, because even those in government are not as insane as you. By fighting for the regulation of corporations, you are helping big business far more than me.

[IcarusAngel]

You don't NEED to eat, you can die. The point is that I am not required by law to pay for the private companies services like I am to pay my taxes.

Yes you are. You are forced to pay for their services because the government will not allow you to use their services in any other way. They are protected by the state or some other statist entity, rather than being in the hands of the people.

And most people would rather go to jail than die idiot.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

You don't NEED to eat, you can die.

And a slave doesn't NEED to obey his master, he can recieve a stern beating or possibly death, instead. His choice.



By fighting for the regulation of corporations, you are helping big business far more than me.

I hear this one a lot from the "free market" crowd and even from several Marxists. I'm still trying to figure out why big businesses tend to lobby against regulation, sometimes fund think tanks that attempt to undermine the validity of the need for regulation, and frequently move operations from countries with more regulation to ones with less. Perhaps the relationship between big business and government isn't so black and white?

[Skooma Addict]

Yes you are. You are forced to pay for their services because the government will not allow you to use their services in any other way. They are protected by the state or some other statist entity, rather than being in the hands of the people.

And most people would rather go to jail than die idiot.

You are not forced to purchase a video game from best buy or a meal from McDonalds. If you have a problem with the state, just take the state out of the equation, and take private businesses operating on a completely free market.


I hear this one a lot from the "free market" crowd and even from several Marxists. I'm still trying to figure out why big businesses tend to lobby against regulation, sometimes fund think tanks that attempt to undermine the validity of the need for regulation, and frequently move operations from countries with more regulation to ones with less. Perhaps the relationship between big business and government isn't so black and white?Businesses lobby against regulation if that regulation is going to hurt them. Many businesses lobbied for cap and trade, and Walmart lobbied for an increase in the minimum wage. Overall, regulations help big business.

Also, you and Icarus both misunderstood the context of this quote.


You don't NEED to eat, you can die.

I was explaining why it is pointless to say that I don't NEED to pay my taxes. This is because you don't NEED to do anything, including eat. So the argument that some policy is OK because nobody NEEDS to follow it in the strict sense of the term is a bad argument.

[IcarusAngel]

You are forced to accept Mcdonald's illegitimate property, as you are forced to accept the illegitimate property of the video game manufacturer. Since the corporations and private businesses are stealing the resources, it is impossible to compete with them. And since they are protected by property rights (which requires a state) it is, at least in theory, impossible to prevent their monopolistic practices.

This is why the state, who gives the rights to the capitalists, is the best tool to use to take away rights from capitalists, outside of complete revolution.

Whoever shall giveth, may taketh away.

Basically, I reject your fascistic property rights and privatized tyranny, and Libertarian social order. You can only use the state to make me accept it - which I refuse.

[Skooma Addict]

You are forced to accept Mcdonald's illegitimate property, as you are forced to accept the illegitimate property of the video game manufacturer. Since the corporations and private businesses are stealing the resources, it is impossible to compete with them. And since they are protected by property rights (which requires a state) it is, at least in theory, impossible to prevent their monopolistic practices.

The problem is, I do not think they are stealing anything. Man is not born into the world owning an equal share of the resources with everyone else. I propose 1 form of property, and you propose another, and neither is inherently morally superior to the other. So the best action to take is to view the economic consequences which would result if either form of property were adopted. Private Property wins in this regard. If there is a society which supports private property (America for example), then it i reasonable to assume that the people would not suddenly stop supporting private property in the absence of a government.

[IcarusAngel]

Men do hold the earth in common. Every time someone monopolizes land, it affects everybody, not just a local community. This is why a dynamic system of property is the most fair.

And McDonald's does force me to buy their food and accept their negative consequences. The graze forests in the third world, which causes global warming, to build more land for raising cattle. They waste resources, which prevents healthier foods from coming through. They contribute to global warming, which affects people in the third world who are now dying due to environmental degredation (which kills more pople than terrorism).

Now only is capitalism tyrannical, but it is not efficient. Capitalism has held back nearly every single industry by at least one-century of progress (this is why the state has to come in just for progress to continue).

Basically you want taxes without representation; only representation for the capitalist class to sort their differences at the state level.

You promote the worst form of statism; slavery.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Businesses lobby against regulation if that regulation is going to hurt them.

So regulations can, in fact, hurt businesses then? We can agree on this?


Many businesses lobbied for cap and trade, and Walmart lobbied for an increase in the minimum wage. Overall, regulations help big business.

You admitted that regulations can be inimical to businees interests, but then go on to cite two examples of businesses supporting certain regulations and arrive at the conclusion that regulation overall benefits businesses. I just don't see how your conclusion is warranted by the evidence you provide.

Again, I mentioned in my previous post that big businesses have a penchant for moving operations from wealthy countries with more regulations to poorer countries with generally less. How can you reconcile this with your claim that regulations help big businesses "overall"?



Also, you and Icarus both misunderstood the context of this quote.


Point taken. I skimmed your post over before. My apologies.

[Skooma Addict]

Men do hold the earth in common. Every time someone monopolizes land, it affects everybody, not just a local community. This is why a dynamic system of property is the most fair.

What is fair and unfair is just a matter of opinion. I think it would be unfair if some 6 year old in China has an equal claim to land that I homesteaded.


And McDonald's does force me to buy their food and accept their negative consequences. The graze forests in the third world, which causes global warming, to build more land for raising cattle. They waste resources, which prevents healthier foods from coming through. They contribute to global warming, which affects people in the third world who are now dying due to environmental degredation (which kills more pople than terrorism).

No, you are not forced to purchase McDonalds food. I am sure there are some people who have never even eaten McDonalds in their life. It is absurd to say that you are actually being coerced into eating at McDonalds.


Now only is capitalism tyrannical, but it is not efficient. Capitalism has held back nearly every single industry by at least one-century of progress (this is why the state has to come in just for progress to continue).

Basically you want taxes without representation; only representation for the capitalist class to sort their differences at the state level.

You promote the worst form of statism; slavery.

You don't really have arguments here. What you have are talking points.


So regulations can, in fact, hurt businesses then? We can agree on this?

Yes. Regulations always help some businesses at the expense of others. More often than not, it is big corporations being helped at the expense of others.



You admitted that regulations can be inimical to businees interests, but then go on to cite two examples of businesses supporting certain regulations and arrive at the conclusion that regulation overall benefits businesses. I just don't see how your conclusion is warranted by the evidence you provide.

Again, I mentioned in my previous post that big businesses have a penchant for moving operations from wealthy countries with more regulations to poorer countries with generally less. How can you reconcile this with your claim that regulations help big businesses "overall"?

I think that overall, regulations tend to help big business. This is partly because big businesses are able to exert so much more influence over the government than small businesses. Some people also end up helping big business without knowing it. For example, the laws regulating advertisement on smoking helps big tobacco.

Some businesses do move, and you are right, there are some regulations that harm big business or just business overall. I think a lot of labor laws for example help some businesses and harm others. But there are many many reasons for moving oversees. China for example could have a highly regulated environment and it would still be wise to invest there. A lot of companies also don't completely move. They may use cheap labor oversees, and then fight for benefits back home (Walmart). Overall, with all the licensing and entry regulations (which are also present in many third world countries), I think certain big businesses are helped as a result.

[RGacky3]

What is fair and unfair is just a matter of opinion. I think it would be unfair if some 6 year old in China has an equal claim to land that I homesteaded.

First of all, some 6 year old in China has no interest in the land you happened to be on. Second of all, if he did, then yeah, he has equal claim over it. Just because I fish in a river does'nt make it my river.


You don't really have arguments here. What you have are talking points.

What? then respond to the talking points, they are arguments, they are an acurate discription of Capitlaism.


No, you are not forced to purchase McDonalds food. I am sure there are some people who have never even eaten McDonalds in their life. It is absurd to say that you are actually being coerced into eating at McDonalds.

No but I am forced to accept the enviroment they create, without any say over the matter.

[Skooma Addict]

First of all, some 6 year old in China has no interest in the land you happened to be on. Second of all, if he did, then yeah, he has equal claim over it.

Well we disagree. I don't think he can have an equal claim.


Just because I fish in a river does'nt make it my river.


I agree.


What? then respond to the talking points, they are arguments, they are an acurate discription of Capitlaism.

Not an accurate description at all in my opinion. I think your just coming up with random numbers. I am not going to explain to you why I don't support slavery.


No but I am forced to accept the enviroment they create, without any say over the matter.

What environment which McDonalds creates are you forced to "accept?"

[Jazzratt]

Well we disagree. I don't think he can have an equal claim.



I agree.

You're making two contradictory statements. If use doesn't determine ownership then what in fuck's name does? If use doesn't determine ownership then what kind of claim could you possibly have over your precious homesteaded land that the 6 year old chinese kid doesn't?

[IcarusAngel]

First, how does the labor that you used to homestead the land magically make it "property"? Do you have a little hokus-pokus over it? Do you spread magic powder? Or is this another "a priori" assumption that the Miseans aren't supposed to justify?

McDonald's forces me to accept their monopolization of the land. In many countries, such as Haiti, a starving island, they are shipping more food out than they consume (maybe not now, but they were, due to a business installed dictator).

That's why right-wingers who blame the poor education, poor birth control, etc., on the Haitian people themselves are such assholes, because it was the UNITED STATES that forced them into that situation.

McDonald's forces me to accept their externalities, such as destroying rain forests for meat production. Obviously, society itself should determine if the costs are worth it, not a private company. Grazing lands and deforestation has been a huge detriment to Guatemala and many other third world countries.


Change in Forest Cover: Between 1990 and 2000, Guatemala lost an average of 54,000 hectares of forest per year. The amounts to an average annual deforestation rate of 1.14%. Between 2000 and 2005, the rate of forest change increased by 12.8% to 1.28% per annum. In total, between 1990 and 2005, Guatemala lost 17.1% of its forest cover, or around 810,000 hectares. Guatemala lost -402,000 hectares—0—of its primary forest cover during that time. Deforestation rates of primary cover have decreased 17.0% since the close of the 1990s. Measuring the total rate of habitat conversion (defined as change in forest area plus change in woodland area minus net plantation expansion) for the 1990-2005 interval, Guatemala lost 14.1% of its forest and woodland habitat.

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Guatemala.htm

Finally, and worst of all, in capitalism it is technically possible for an elite group of people to sell some items to a very limited amount of people, and claim ownership of the land merely because they "homesteaded" it. This essentially boils down to first come, first serve. They did not create the conditions of the land - all land has been worked on for centuries by many different a cultures.

These "property rights" are so full of holes it's amazing anybody can take it seriously.

In fact, they don't, that's why most people understand there must be limits to exploitative property, and it's only the state that keeps the property in place, not "Misean axioms" or other nonsense.

[Skooma Addict]

You're making two contradictory statements. If use doesn't determine ownership then what in fuck's name does? If use doesn't determine ownership then what kind of claim could you possibly have over your precious homesteaded land that the 6 year old chinese kid doesn't?

I think more is required than merely fishing in the river once in your life.


First, how does the labor that you used to homestead the land magically make it "property"? Do you have a little hokus-pokus over it? Do you spread magic powder? Or is this another "a priori" assumption that the Miseans aren't supposed to justify?

No, I just think that is the fairest most efficient way to do it. I see no reason why someone who has never seen nor has any desire to see any piece of land in their life should have an equal claim to it as a person who has lived on a piece of land their entire life. Another reason I oppose giving everyone equal claims to all land is because it would be bad in terms of the economy.