Anarcho-Capitalism is Illogical

[Drace]

Anarchism as a term, falsely being defined as being only the opposition to the state, has been used by those favoring a stateless capitalism to call themselves anarchists.

Anarchism though is much more to this. It is and has been historically and logically the rejection of all hierarchy in economic and political matters.

While definition games make no useful arguments, the distinction leads to important ones.

While generally the objective of both rightist and leftist anarchism is the greatest freedom and liberty for the individual members of society, there is still quite an important distinction to be made. For historical anarchists, the struggle is more specially the emancipation of the working class from the chains of economic hierarchy - the abolition of the private means of production and thus freedom of wage slavery and a democratic means to production and organization.

Capitalism however, fails to meet the principle of voluntary organization. The ignorance of classes and their conflict and struggle is a delusional view. The obvious distinction between the very few individuals of society who own the means of productions and the masses who labor for it cannot be hidden. Capitalism has placed two greatly opposing factors in the process of production with the bourgeoisie having the upper hand in power but not in number. It is thus still a hierarchical society, with participants still bound to the same ruling class (currently being the bourgeoisie) that has in its history constituted various oppressive institutions - being monarchy, slavery, wars, exploitation, poor working conditions, etc. The modern bourgeoisie are the evolutionary precedents of former landowners and slave owners! How can the liberation of man from hierarchy be achieved without liquidation of the class that upholds its antithesis?
Did the capitalist emergence magically change the forces of nature?

Yet defenders of the "free" market argue that the worker/capitalist relation is purely voluntary, which only applies true if ignoring the consequences of the dismissal of cooperation with the bourgeoisie - starvation, poverty, death. What better is it than being a dog subject to its master who without you are unfed, dirty and lonely. Can it not then be argued that serfs too were acting voluntary in their relationship with their land masters who took their labor and allowed them to keep the small only a small amount for the means of subsistence? O, just how much the process of exploitation is evolved! Yet they mock us for using the term "wage slavery".

They argue that the link between master and worker in the factory is beneficial to both. Though I ask, in what proportion?

While their ideology focuses on the boogeyman of the State, they use the boogeyman of "society" and individual freedom to critique organization without masters.
To them, a voluntary organization and direct democracy is envisioned as a supreme evil leader named "Society" which oppresses all.

They argue for the good of all man, while promoting a system that seeks profit. How profitable is it to clothe and feed a man, as well as to house him? Are the poor determinants of their own actions? It is rather in their fate that they are made poor, and isolated from happiness.
The only means to a house and to food is the subjection of self to wage slavery which is to pay wages substantial enough to give the power to afford such necessities. The social climate has shifted the blame of being poor to those who cannot acquire a substantial wage rather then on the capitalists who do not provide the living wages.
It has thus placed all members of the working class in competition for higher education and thus the higher paying jobs while the rest of the population is considered slacks. Almost all the means of life are produced in factories, yet the ones working them are the one's whose backs are not only covered in sweat but also the social burden which only weighs the pain.
Yet the wealthy capitalist whose wealth has emerged from the factory will cry out "My workers should have worked harder in life!"

Though are not all these jobs required in the subsistence of society as a whole? Does this not then mean that the poor, being the producers of great wealth, are only subject to poverty because of the system that cannot survive without their disastrous social condition? What economic collapse would it be if people were paid their fair wages and profit ceased to exist!

[John_Jordan]

Anarchism as a term, falsely being defined as being only the opposition to the state, has been used by those favoring a stateless capitalism to call themselves anarchists.

I don't "advocate" stateless capitalism, but I use that definition.



Anarchism though is much more to this. It is and has been historically and logically the rejection of all hierarchy in economic and political matters.

While definition games make no useful arguments, the distinction leads to important ones.

While generally the objective of both rightist and leftist anarchism is the greatest freedom and liberty for the individual members of society, there is still quite an important distinction to be made. For historical anarchists, the struggle is more specially the emancipation of the working class from the chains of economic hierarchy - the abolition of the private means of production and thus freedom of wage slavery and a democratic means to production and organization.

I'm not sure that's right. Did Proudhon advocate the abolition of private ownership of the means of production? (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "private means to production") I'm sure Proudhon would not object to me building my own house on some land, living in it, and producing from it and the land, even though this certainly would qualify as "owning" some "means of production" through my own labour.



Capitalism however, fails to meet the principle of voluntary organization. The ignorance of classes and their conflict and struggle is a delusional view. The obvious distinction between the very few individuals of society who own the means of productions and the masses who labor for it cannot be hidden.

Depending on what you mean by "hidden". I would in no way say that it's as clear a distinction as it used to be in the mid 19th century.


Yet defenders of the "free" market argue that the worker/capitalist relation is purely voluntary, which only applies true if ignoring the consequences of the dismissal of cooperation with the bourgeoisie - starvation, poverty, death.

This only is true if one ignores the actual views of An-caps. In what sense can the Anarcho-Capitalists stop me from ignoring them and making my own commune, with more "collectivist" leanings? They can not do so and remain loyal to their views. And because of this, there isn't any real threat of starvation, poverty, or death. At least no more than in any other sort of societal organization.


They argue that the link between master and worker in the factory is beneficial to both. Though I ask, in what proportion?

And I ask, what is the importance of proportion?



While their ideology focuses on the boogeyman of the State, they use the boogeyman of "society" and individual freedom to critique organization without masters.
To them, a voluntary organization and direct democracy is envisioned as a supreme evil leader named "Society" which oppresses all.

And you complain about a voluntary organization, which to you is a supreme evil called "Capitalism" which oppresses all.

Does it really matter? If they don't want to be "oppressed" by "society" then who cares? You shouldn't. Just like they shouldn't care that you don't want to be "oppressed" by "capitalism".



They argue for the good of all man, while promoting a system that seeks profit.

Systems don't seek profit. They don't do anything. They're systems, not people.

[Drace]

I don't "advocate" stateless capitalism, but I use that definition.

Don't.


I'm not sure that's right. Did Proudhon advocate the abolition of private ownership of the means of production?

Yes. Have you heard of Property is Theft!?


And I ask, what is the importance of proportion?

How far is it if I give you 1/50th of the pizza while I keep the rest?


This only is true if one ignores the actual views of An-caps. In what sense can the Anarcho-Capitalists stop me from ignoring them and making my own commune, with more "collectivist" leanings? They can not do so and remain loyal to their views. And because of this, there isn't any real threat of starvation, poverty, or death. At least no more than in any other sort of societal organization.

The bourgeoisie will stop you! Regardless, socialism isn't possible if the means of productions are owned by the capitalists.


And you complain about a voluntary organization, which to you is a supreme evil called "Capitalism" which oppresses all.

Capitalism is a real system that exists. Society is nothing but a concept which anarcho-caps, especially Ayn Rand who think society is going to go around and handcuff everyone to each other or some shit.


Systems don't seek profit. They don't do anything. They're systems, not people.


Be serious...
Capitalism is built on profit.

[John_Jordan]

Don't.

And why shouldn't I? I have never heard a good reason why I shouldn't.



Yes. Have you heard of Property is Theft!?


I have also heard that Property is Freedom.



How far is it if I give you 1/50th of the pizza while I keep the rest?

It depends on how the pizza was produced, how much I want the pizza, and other such things. If my friend made the pizza from scratch out of ingredients he gathered and made himself through his own labour, I would be quite content with 1/50th of said pizza. Assuming I liked the pizza.


The bourgeoisie will stop you! Regardless, socialism isn't possible if the means of productions are owned by the capitalists.

An-Caps will not stop me. If they try, they are not An-Caps. Just like how I believe if YOU try to stop An-Caps, you are not an Anarchist. If any sort of Anarchist tries to get anybody else to conform to their style of Anarchism by force, they are not Anarchists.

As proudhon said, "Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy".



Capitalism is a real system that exists. Society is nothing but a concept which anarcho-caps, especially Ayn Rand who think society is going to go around and handcuff everyone to each other or some shit.

I'm starting to think you don't really have any good arguments. Ayn Rand was not an Anarcho-Capitalist. She absolutely hated the idea of lack of government, and thought that Capitalism could not survive without a state. So it doesn't really matter what Ayn Rand thinks, because she's not an Anarcho-Capitalist, nor did she even see anything good in it.

Also, Capitalism is no more real than "Society" is. Capitalism is a sort of system, a system composed of a bunch of people doing certain things. Society is also just a bunch of people doing things. The word "society" just doesn't require those people to do any particular thing in order to be called a society.



Be serious...
Capitalism is built on profit.

In some sort of sense it is, but who cares about that? You may not like it, but An-caps do.

[Drace]

And why shouldn't I? I have never heard a good reason why I shouldn't.Because historically Anarchism has been left-wing. Its like a Communist taking Ayn Rand's term Objectivism to describe historical materialism...



I have also heard that Property is Freedom. Stop being an idiot, please. You asked whether Proudhon was against private property. I answered your question by bringing up the book Property is Theft! which he wrote.


It depends on how the pizza was produced, how much I want the pizza, and other such things. If my friend made the pizza from scratch out of ingredients he gathered and made himself through his own labour, I would be quite content with 1/50th of said pizza. Assuming I liked the pizza.Except that is not the case. The argument is that while a worker certainly benefits from working for a capitalist as it is his only means of life, it doesn't not automatically justify the transaction. The capitalist has the upper hand in the use of workers.


An-Caps will not stop me. If they try, they are not An-Caps. Just like how I believe if YOU try to stop An-Caps, you are not an Anarchist. If any sort of Anarchist tries to get anybody else to conform to their style of Anarchism by force, they are not Anarchists. That's ridiculous. Should we then let the returning of serfdom? Anarchism calls for voluntary organization, in which I have argued that capitalism is incapable of. The only force in denying the return of capitalism and wage slavery will be the people's conscious and the additional force they themselves might apply.


I'm starting to think you don't really have any good arguments. Im starting to think you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about and keep using strawmans.


Ayn Rand was not an Anarcho-Capitalist. She absolutely hated the idea of lack of government, and thought that Capitalism could not survive without a state. So it doesn't really matter what Ayn Rand thinks, because she's not an Anarcho-Capitalist, nor did she even see anything good in it.?????????
Might want to start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand


Rand held that the only moral social system is laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism). Her political views were strongly individualist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism) and hence anti-statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statist) and anti-Communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Communist). This is a women so extreme that praised a serial killer because he rejected societies values.

And yes, it does matter what she thinks even if she weren't an anarcho-capitalist because her view on this particular subject is the one that's spread by an-caps regardless.


Also, Capitalism is no more real than "Society" is. Capitalism is a sort of system, a system composed of a bunch of people doing certain things. Society is also just a bunch of people doing things. The word "society" just doesn't require those people to do any particular thing in order to be called a society.An-caps think society and democracy will enslave everyone to everyone. That somehow, through voluntary organization, individual freedoms will be lacking because people will have to somehow subject to others.
But, if your not going to take that line of argument, then there is no point discussing it.


In some sort of sense it is, but who cares about that? You may not like it, but An-caps do. I already stated my criticism of a profit based system.

[Drace]

Btw...how ironic is that I am the restricted one in this argument?

RESTRICT THE REACTIONARY! :D

[John_Jordan]

Because historically Anarchism has been left-wing. Its like a Communist taking Ayn Rand's term Objectivism to describe historical materialism...

What was done historically is not compelling. Words change. And I don't believe Anarcho-Capitalism came out of nowhere with its name.



Stop being an idiot, please. You asked whether Proudhon was against private property. I answered your question by bringing up the book Property is Theft! which he wrote.

That which I produce through my own labour and use with my labour, is my property according to Proudhon. And so I can claim possession of some land, if I am actually using that land to produce something. And land is a means of production. And so I can own a means of production. Proudhon was only against private property which was "property" in the sense that some law said it was property, or it was claimed and kept through coercion. He was not against private property gained through labour.



Except that is not the case. The argument is that while a worker certainly benefits from working for a capitalist as it is his only means of life, it doesn't not automatically justify the transaction. The capitalist has the upper hand in the use of workers.It is justifiable if the worker wishes to be there. To use your pizza analogy, if I helped my friend make the pizza, with the prior agreement that he was to take 49/50th of the pizza, I don't have much room to complain when I help him make the pizza and he only gives me 1/50th. I didn't have to deal with him at all.

Do remember also that I deny that starvation, poverty, and death are consequences of not dealing with An-caps.


That's ridiculous. Should we then let the returning of serfdom? Anarchism calls for voluntary organization, in which I have argued that capitalism is incapable of. The only force in denying the return of capitalism and wage slavery will be the people's conscious and the additional force they themselves might apply.I would allow the returning of "serfdom" if the serfs were there of their own will, and had the option to leave and form any society they wanted at any time. Although I don't think anybody would actually want to be a serf.



Im starting to think you have no idea what the hell I'm talking about and keep using strawmans.Go ahead and point out the straw-men I'm using if you think I'm using them.


?????????
Might want to start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_RandFrom what you've written so far, I'm sure I've read more about and by Ayn Rand than you have. It is patently absurd (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_gov ernment) to call her an Anarcho-Capitalist, or a sympathizer or affiliate of Anarcho-Capitalism.



An-caps think society and democracy will enslave everyone to everyone. That somehow, through voluntary organization, individual freedoms will be lacking because people will have to somehow subject to others.DO An-caps think that? I don't know of any. Could you point me to some an-caps on this board that actually think that? I'd like to talk to them.



I already stated my criticism of a profit based system.I repeat that you don't like it. That doesn't mean others don't.

[Nolan]

Btw...how ironic is that I am the restricted one in this argument?

RESTRICT THE REACTIONARY! :D

Yeah, it seems the thought police have been lagging recently.

[Skooma Addict]

Because historically Anarchism has been left-wing. Its like a Communist taking Ayn Rand's term Objectivism to describe historical materialism...

There have been anarchists for thousands of years.

[mikelepore]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a rhetorical trick. Capitalism couldn't exist for one minute without laws enforcing contracts, laws putting people out of their homes if they are late making mortgage payments, laws prohibiting shoplifting, laws requiring workers to be accurate on their time cards, etc. The so-called anarcho-capitalist knows this, and will therefore reply, "Of course, we should keep all those GOOD laws! I just want to repeal the BAD laws!" So out go the safety inspections of factories and mines. Out go the health standards for food products. Out go the prohibitions of false product labeling and false advertising. Out go the limitations on air and water pollution. Welcome to the 19th century.

[Drace]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a rhetorical trick. Capitalism couldn't exist for one minute without laws enforcing contracts, laws putting people out of their homes if they are late making mortgage payments, laws prohibiting shoplifting, laws requiring workers to be accurate on their time cards, etc. The so-called anarcho-capitalist knows this, and will therefore reply, "Of course, we should have all those GOOD laws! I just want to eliminate the BAD laws!" So out go the safety inspections of factories. Out go the health standards for food products. Out go the prohibitions of false product labeling and false advertising. Out go the limitations on air and water pollution. Welcome to the 19th century.

Its much more than this though.
Capitalism is a hierarchical system where 1% of the population are owners of all institutes of production while the rest are laborers.
How can this at all be viewed as individualism and liberty?

What purpose is there to declaring the authority of the state as illegitimate but not to capitalist ownership?

[Dimentio]

Couldn't we simply have one thread about anarcho-capitalism?

[Zanthorus]

There have been anarchists for thousands of years.

No, people who advocated ideas similar to "anarcho"-capitalism have been around for thousands of years and "anarcho" (More accurately "private state")-capitalists like to call them anarchists in a nice piece of historical revisionism to make it seem as though their totally ahistorical ideology is somehow rooted in the anarchist movement. I quote from the first person to actually call himself an anarchist:


Capital...in the political field is analogous to government...The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them...What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.

[Skooma Addict]

No, people who advocated ideas similar to "anarcho"-capitalism have been around for thousands of years and "anarcho" (More accurately "private state")-capitalists like to call them anarchists in a nice piece of historical revisionism to make it seem as though their totally ahistorical ideology is somehow rooted in the anarchist movement. I quote from the first person to actually call himself an anarchist:

Many different types of anarchists have been around for thousands of years. I am actually unaware of any AnCap before Molinari, and he was born in 1819. Proudhon may have been the first person to come up with the anarchist label, but he was not the first anarchist by a long shot. So I am perfectly justified in calling AnCaps anarchists.

[Belisarius]

an interesting quote from Keynes (allthough i generally don't agree with him) about (anarcho-)capitalism:
[anarcho-]Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.

it's just amusing:)

[Zanthorus]

I am actually unaware of any AnCap before Molinari, and he was born in 1819.

If memory serves Molinari was not actually an ancap because he advocated compulsory schooling.


Proudhon may have been the first person to come up with the anarchist label, but he was not the first anarchist by a long shot.

That makes no sense. You seem to be trying to say that words have some kind of mystical transcendental meaning outside of context.

[Nolan]

Many different types of anarchists have been around for thousands of years. I am actually unaware of any AnCap before Molinari, and he was born in 1819. Proudhon may have been the first person to come up with the anarchist label, but he was not the first anarchist by a long shot. So I am perfectly justified in calling AnCaps anarchists.

Leftist anarchists have a much more in-depth understanding of human society and class relations than ancaps. Ancaps see exploitation as just "an exchange."

I suppose you could call ancaps some kind of anarchists, but it's just semantics. Anarchists oppose the state and heirarchy, you only oppose the regulations of the central government but desire to maintain the state apparatus. Youre as anarchist as the nazis were communist.

[Skooma Addict]

If memory serves Molinari was not actually an ancap because he advocated compulsory schooling.I have never heard about that before, but it wouldn't surprise me. He changed his mind quite a few times throughout his life and if my memory serves me right he also renounced his anarchism before his death.



That makes no sense. You seem to be trying to say that words have some kind of mystical transcendental meaning outside of context.I don't know where I gave that impression. All I am saying is that Proudhon was not the first anarchist. Just because he came up with the term, that does not mean he was the first anarchist, or that all anarchists must hold exactly the same beliefs as Proudhon. There have been people who were against any kind of state long before Proudhon.


Leftist anarchists have a much more in-depth understanding of human society and class relations than ancaps. Ancaps see exploitation as just "an exchange."

I suppose you could call ancaps some kind of anarchists, but it's just semantics. Anarchists oppose the state and heirarchy, you only oppose the regulations of the central government but desire to maintain the state apparatus. Youre as anarchist as the nazis were communist.


Well I disagree with your first point. I think leftist anarchists (AnComs and AnSynds) have an obsolete and incorrect class theory.

AnCaps are anarchists because they are anti-state, and I don't see where you get the idea that they want to maintain the state apparatus.

[Zanthorus]

I have never heard about that before, but it wouldn't surprise me. He changed his mind quite a few times throughout his life and if my memory serves me right he also renounced his anarchism before his death.

Yeah, there was a big debate between him and Frederic Passy (The guy who won the first Nobel Peace Prize) about it (Passy was against compulsory schooling obv).


I don't know where I gave that impression. All I am saying is that Proudhon was not the first anarchist. Just because he came up with the term, that does not mean he was the first anarchist, or that all anarchists must hold exactly the same beliefs as Proudhon. There have been people who were against any kind of state long before Proudhon.

Well I agree that no all anarchists have to follow Proudhon, but I still think that it would do good to understand what Proudhon's ideas were and why he considered them consistent with anarchism because his identification of Capital and Religion as forms of authority influenced a lot of later anarchist thinkers (not least Bakunin).

Also being against the state doesn't necessarily mean that you're an anarchist. Even right-libertarians wouldn't accept simply being against the state as the condition for being an anarchist (they oppose all forms of intiatory violence to person and property, not just the states).

I'd say I'm probably a bit of a bigger tent kind of anarchist than the ones who argue that anyone who tries to do wage labour should be punished for the good of the community, but I agree with Bakunin that "Society...can justly treat such persons as parasites" (Revolutionary Catechism). I also can't see how a conception of freedom based on private property is really a robust conception of freedom. Again I take the classics (specifically Bakunin) as my starting point:


I do not mean the completely formal freedom which the State imposes, judges and regulates, this eternal lie which in reality consists always of the privileges of a few based upon the slavery of all – not even the individualist, egotistical, narrow and fictitious freedom which the school of J.J. Rousseau and all other systems of property moralists, middle class bourgeoisism and liberalism recommend – according to which the so called rights of individuals which the State "represents" has the limit in the right of all, whereby the rights of every individual are necessarily, always reduced to nil. No, I consider only that as freedom worthy and real as its name should imply, which consists in the complete development of all material, intellectual and spiritual powers which are in a potential state in everyone, the freedom which knows no other limits than those prescribed by the laws of our own nature...I mean that freedom of the individual which, instead of stopping far from the freedom of others as before a frontier, sees on the contrary the extending and the expansion into the infinity of its own free will, the unlimited freedom of the individual through the, freedom of all; freedom through solidarity, freedom in equality.

- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/writings/whereistand.html

[Skooma Addict]

Well I agree that no all anarchists have to follow Proudhon, but I still think that it would do good to understand what Proudhon's ideas were and why he considered them consistent with anarchism because his identification of Capital and Religion as forms of authority influenced a lot of later anarchist thinkers (not least Bakunin).

Also being against the state doesn't necessarily mean that you're an anarchist. Even right-libertarians wouldn't accept simply being against the state as the condition for being an anarchist (they oppose all forms of intiatory violence to person and property, not just the states).

I'd say I'm probably a bit of a bigger tent kind of anarchist than the ones who argue that anyone who tries to do wage labour should be punished for the good of the community, but I agree with Bakunin that "Society...can justly treat such persons as parasites" (Revolutionary Catechism). I also can't see how a conception of freedom based on private property is really a robust conception of freedom. Again I take the classics (specifically Bakunin) as my starting point:

Out of curiosity, what else besides being against the state in your mind is required to be considered an anarchist? What would you call someone who is against the state, but is not an anarchist?

I can't see how a conception of freedom based on the AnComs or AnSynds idea of legitimate property is a preferable conception of freedom either. To me, private property is preferable as long as people realize it is not always wrong to violate it. Under a system of property where everyone has equal access to all the resources, I don't see much of an incentive for capital investment and hence economic growth.

[Wolf Larson]

To John Jordan: When you pervert Proudhon, when he said property is freedom, you're ignoring the fact [ignoring facts is what anarcho capitalists like to do] that Proudhon was saying equal access to the means of production is liberty. Proudhon did in fact think the artisan should be able to own his/her own means of production. What your insincere cherry picking revisionist position ignores is these are one person jobs such as barber, hat maker, book binder, printer, shoe repairman etc. Proudhon did not advocate property as in one person owning the means of production and employing other people- AKA- wage slavery. Proudhon advocated collective ownership of the industrial means of production while preserving the artisans ability to be self employed. He did not advocate capitalist property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. Nor did Max Stirner, Tucker, Spooner and or any other individualist anarchist you capitalists cheery pick. Give it up.

Rothbard was a subjective revisionist and his hackery and quackery is seen for what it is by anyone with half a working mind. Those who want to excuse, promote and preserve capitalism while denting capitalism's negative effects on the masses will use Rothbardian semantics like a life preserver in a raging ocean. This Rothbardian life preserver of yours is a lie with a HUGE hole in the middle. Empty insincere revisionist rhetoric. Anarcho capitalism is a fraud. A disgusting fraud perpetrated by Randroids and racist white working class John Galt poseurs.

[Zanthorus]

Out of curiosity, what else besides being against the state in your mind is required to be considered an anarchist? What would you call someone who is against the state, but is not an anarchist?

Well as I just noted, even right-libertarians aren't against just the state, they're (you're) against agression against property in general in general (the state is not the only aggressive instiution).

I would say that the criterion for being an anarchist is wanting the self-government of the masses and a committment of emancipation. As to what that entails in practice, a general opposition to patriarchy, racism and homophobia is pretty essential. Even propertarians can't deny that it's hard to be free when you aren't allowed in certain restuaraunts cause of the colour of your skin.

As to what that entails in terms of societal arrangements TBH I don't really care although I think most people would prefer ansyn or ancom as the most humane systems. Anything less crazy than Ben Tucker is ok wit me :cool:

[John_Jordan]

To John Jordan: When you pervert Proudhon, when he said property is freedom, you're ignoring the fact [ignoring facts is what anarcho capitalists like to do] that Proudhon was saying equal access to the means of production is liberty. Proudhon did in fact think the artisan should be able to own his/her own means of production. What your insincere cherry picking revisionist position ignores is these are one person jobs such as barber, hat maker, book binder, printer, shoe repairman etc. Proudhon did not advocate property as in one person owning the means of production and employing other people- AKA- wage slavery. Proudhon advocated collective ownership of the industrial means of production while preserving the artisans ability to be self employed. He did not advocate capitalist property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. Nor did Max Stirner, Tucker, Spooner and or any other individualist anarchist you capitalists cheery pick. Give it up.

I'm not an An-cap, first of all. Second, I know what Proudhon meant. If you actually read anything I said about Proudhon, you'll notice I did not bring up an individual "employing" other people. All throughout my talks of Proudhon I made sure to only speak of one person doing these things, himself "through his own labour". In my head I imagined a farmer, because a farmer can realistically use both land and house, and produce by himself.


Rothbard was a subjective revisionist and his hacker and quackery is seen for what it is by anyone with half a working mind. Those who want to excuse, promote and preserve capitalism while denting capitalism's negative effects on the masses will use Rothbardian semantics like a life preserver in a raging ocean. This Rothbardian life preserver of yours is a lie with a HUGE hole in the middle. Empty insincere revisionist rhetoric. Anarcho capitalism is a fraud. A disgusting fraud perpetrated by Randroids and racist white working class John Galt poseurs.You sound insane. You're ranting about things I never said, things I don't believe, and things I don't particularly care about, all for seemingly no reason. This paragraph wouldn't sound out of place in Time Cube.

[Skooma Addict]

Well as I just noted, even right-libertarians aren't against just the state, they're (you're) against agression against property in general in general (the state is not the only aggressive instiution).

I would say that the criterion for being an anarchist is wanting the self-government of the masses and a committment of emancipation. As to what that entails in practice, a general opposition to patriarchy, racism and homophobia is pretty essential. Even propertarians can't deny that it's hard to be free when you aren't allowed in certain restuaraunts cause of the colour of your skin.

As to what that entails in terms of societal arrangements TBH I don't really care although I think most people would prefer ansyn or ancom as the most humane systems. Anything less crazy than Ben Tucker is ok wit me :cool:Your usage of the term "right-libertarian" makes your point difficult to understand since term "right-libertarian" is so ambiguous it is practically meaningless. I am only against aggression against private property in certain scenarios. If there is a community of socialists for example, I don't have much of a problem with them aggressing against private property in their own community.

You can be a racist/homophobe and still be an anarchist. In fact, wasn't Proudhon a racist? To me, an anarchist is just one who opposes a state. I think such a definition is pretty sound.

[mikelepore]

Capitalism is a hierarchical system where 1% of the population are owners of all institutes of production while the rest are laborers.
How can this at all be viewed as individualism and liberty?


What the supporters of capitalism say about that is an argument that is essentially a claim that all lesser-evil choices are free choices. They assert that it's a result of free choice if you have the working conditions at company A because you could have worked for company B instead, and it's a result of free choice if you have the working conditions at company B because you could have worked for company A instead. They deny the fact that there is systematic coercion implicit in being given a limited menu of options where you are destined to be exploited by someone and you may choose by whom.

(Then they immediately violate their own argument by complaining about the requirement to pay taxes, even though the individual can choose which national government to live under.)

[Orange Juche]

The correct term for a self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalist" is an "agorist." I think they just like to use "anarcho" because of the revolutionary type of imagery that comes along with anarchists and anarchism. Agorism doesn't sound appealing, or revolutionary in any way.

This oxymoron is just a form of propaganda.

[Nolan]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is for libertarian kiddies who think being anarchist is cool but don't want to give up capitalism. lol

[Drace]

What the supporters of capitalism say about that is an argument that is essentially a claim that all lesser-evil choices are free choices. They assert that it's a result of free choice if you have the working conditions at company A because you could have worked for company B instead, and it's a result of free choice if you have the working conditions at company B because you could have worked for company A instead. They deny the fact that there is systematic coercion implicit in being given a limited menu of options where you are destined to be exploited by someone and you may choose by whom.

That argument doesn't even begin to answer the question of exploitation.
Would it be any more just for me as a serf to pick which feudal lord I should work for?

How bout if what the workers want is the alternate of a worker run society - which is a goal that ultimately should be aimed for and also something that's directly opposed to the private means of productions.


(Then they immediately violate their own argument by complaining about the requirement to pay taxes, even though the individual can choose which national government to live under.)

Excellent argument!

[John_Jordan]

What the supporters of capitalism say about that is an argument that is essentially a claim that all lesser-evil choices are free choices. They assert that it's a result of free choice if you have the working conditions at company A because you could have worked for company B instead, and it's a result of free choice if you have the working conditions at company B because you could have worked for company A instead. They deny the fact that there is systematic coercion implicit in being given a limited menu of options where you are destined to be exploited by someone and you may choose by whom.

(Then they immediately violate their own argument by complaining about the requirement to pay taxes, even though the individual can choose which national government to live under.)

No An-Cap would stop people from forming a different sort of society if they wanted to. This is the difference between what An-Caps want and what the State wants. While you can choose your state, you can't stop participating. And yet, you can refuse to participate in an An-Cap society. They aren't going to stop you, unless they are in fact, not An-caps.


The correct term for a self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalist" is an "agorist." I think they just like to use "anarcho" because of the revolutionary type of imagery that comes along with anarchists and anarchism. Agorism doesn't sound appealing, or revolutionary in any way.

This oxymoron is just a form of propaganda.

Wrong. Agorism is a method for subverting the state and trying to bring about a "free market", while Anarcho-Capitalism is not by itself, a method of bringing about anything. Anarcho-Capitalism is a way of structuring society.

[Zanthorus]

Your usage of the term "right-libertarian" makes your point difficult to understand since term "right-libertarian" is so ambiguous it is practically meaningless.

I don't think so, there's a definite difference between the ALL crowd and the Von Mises crowd. The former is less completely out of touch with reality :lol:


You can be a racist/homophobe and still be an anarchist. In fact, wasn't Proudhon a racist?

He was anti-semitic although it only came up about 6 times in all his works including his private letters and twice in his actual published works.

Proudhon's much bigger problem was that he was a sexist nutcase. He tried to work out mathematically the ratio to which men were greater than women. If I remember right he worked it out as 27:1 :lol:

He was also really back and forth on the whole property question.

However what's important is that all of this went directly against some of Proudhon's best thoughts on anarchism. Proudhon developed a good idea of the core of anarchism but then contradicted himself because of his own pre-existing prejudices.


To me, an anarchist is just one who opposes a state. I think such a definition is pretty sound.

Ok, then would you accept "national anarchists" as real anarchists?

[Skooma Addict]

I don't think so, there's a definite difference between the ALL crowd and the Von Mises crowd. The former is less completely out of touch with reality :lol:

The problem is that the LVMI crowd ranges from Ron Paul supporters to constitutionalists to anarcho-capitalists. When people use the term "right-libertarian" they often times mean any member of the LP all the way to an anarcho-capitalist. But then you cannot say right-libertarians believe X, since many of the so called right-libertarians disagree on practically every issue. This makes the whole term meaningless.



Ok, then would you accept "national anarchists" as real anarchists?


National anarchists? What do they believe?

[Dimentio]

National anarchists? What do they believe?

Basically that the world should be divided into ethnic enclaves where each ethnic group should have a segregated anarchist society.

[Zanthorus]

National anarchists? What do they believe?

It's basically an insane combination of anarchist and lefty anti-globalisation and environmentalist rhetoric and ultranationalist ideas about race. The wiki article seems ok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National-Anarchism&oldid=347946496

[Skooma Addict]

Hmm. That is some strange stuff. From reading the wiki article, I can't say that I know enough to say whether I think they are anarchists or not. I do not think that any of their dreams will ever be achieved in any anarchist society. I also don't see how they could ever enforce the racial separatism they desire without a state. I don't see how any of their goals could be achieved without a government of some sort, and they probably implicitly support state institutions, in which case they would not be anarchists.

[John_Jordan]

Hmm. That is some strange stuff. From reading the wiki article, I can't say that I know enough to say whether I think they are anarchists or not. I do not think that any of their dreams will ever be achieved in any anarchist society. I also don't see how they could ever enforce the racial separatism they desire without a state. I don't see how any of their goals could be achieved without a government of some sort, and they probably implicitly support state institutions, in which case they would not be anarchists.

One wouldn't need to "enforce" it. If for example, one were running under Mutualist rules, then all that needs to happen is a bunch of X people (where X is some random "race") get together in a close-knit community, and start producing things on an individual basis, gathering up all the land that is to form their small community. Farmers, craftsman, whatever. Because it's significantly close-knit, there shouldn't be space inside the community for anybody else, regardless of race. New people would have to set up on the edges. What you end up with is something akin to what Nat-ans want, or at least part of it.

That's just one way. It doesn't really matter, if you have enough like minded people and no state to force them to not create their own communities, you're going to see a lot of different sorts of communities, including nat-an sorts, as far as I can see anyway.

[Skooma Addict]

I was under the impression that they wanted the whole of society to be divided into such communities.

[John_Jordan]

Define "society".

They couldn't possibly demand the entire world follow their cause, or else they wouldn't be Anarchists. I've never talked to one though, so maybe I'm being too lenient in that assumption. But I do like to give everybody the benefit of the doubt.

[Dimentio]

Define "society".

They couldn't possibly demand the entire world follow their cause, or else they wouldn't be Anarchists. I've never talked to one though, so maybe I'm being too lenient in that assumption. But I do like to give everybody the benefit of the doubt.

I think they are particularists, at least the people at ANUS who somehow ideologically are spearleading the natan movement. Yet, their ideology is stinking and would probably lead to increased racism if implemented.

[Skooma Addict]

I am going by this wiki quote.

In their place, national-anarchists seek to establish a regional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalism_%28politics%29) network of politically meritocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy), economically secessionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_secession), and ecologically sustainable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability) village-communities,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National-Anarchism&oldid=347946496#cite_note-Macklin_2005-5) which practice racial, ethnic, religious and sexual separatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatism) as a means to achieve "authentic cultural diversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_diversity)".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National-Anarchism&oldid=347946496#cite_note-ARV-3)

I could be wrong, but it seems like they want all of society to be divided into such communities. I am not sure though.

I am using the term "society" informally, and all I really mean by it is the the mass of people who once lived under the central government.

[John_Jordan]

I think they are particularists, at least the people at ANUS who somehow ideologically are spearleading the natan movement. Yet, their ideology is stinking and would probably lead to increased racism if implemented.

ANUS? Really?

I wouldn't know about any increased racism, I don't give Nat-Anarchism much thought.


I am going by this wiki quote.

In their place, national-anarchists seek to establish a regional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalism_%28politics%29) network of politically meritocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy), economically secessionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_secession), and ecologically sustainable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability) village-communities,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National-Anarchism&oldid=347946496#cite_note-Macklin_2005-5) which practice racial, ethnic, religious and sexual separatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatism) as a means to achieve "authentic cultural diversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_diversity)".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National-Anarchism&oldid=347946496#cite_note-ARV-3)

I could be wrong, but it seems like they want all of society to be divided into such communities. I am not sure though.

I am using the term "society" informally, and all I really mean by it is the the mass of people who once lived under the central government.

While they might like it ideally, I'm sure An-Synds also want "all of society" to do it their way. The question is though, do they want it so much that they will force the issue?

[Drace]

Anyway, my main objection to anarcho-capitalism and the one I tried to point out is that capitalism is still a hierarchical society.

How can this at all be viewed as individualism if few men dominate through wage slavery and the ownership over the means of production as well as other institutes and services, such as the media and communication?

[John_Jordan]

Anyway, my main objection to anarcho-capitalism and the one I tried to point out is that capitalism is still a hierarchical society.

How can this at all be viewed as individualism if few men dominate through wage slavery and the ownership over the means of production as well as other institutes and services, such as the media and communication?

Because as far as An-caps are concerned, everybody has "equal opportunity", and the ability to "succeed" in the sense that An-caps find important. It's not "hierarchical" in a meaningful sense to An-caps. You don't agree. Fine. You have your reasons. That's cool. Just don't join an An-cap society and you'll be fine.

[Bankotsu]

Anyway, my main objection to anarcho-capitalism and the one I tried to point out is that capitalism is still a hierarchical society.

How can this at all be viewed as individualism if few men dominate through wage slavery and the ownership over the means of production as well as other institutes and services, such as the media and communication?

The main driving force of economic activity is still the pursue of profits in a price system.



Two things should be noted. In the first place, these various stages or periods are additive in a sense. and there are many survivals of earlier stages into later ones. As late as 1925 there was a manor still functioning in England, and Cecil Rhodes's chartered company which opened up Rhodesia (the British South Africa Company) was chartered as late as 1889. In the same way owner-managed private firms engaging in industrial activities, or corporations and holding companies engaging in financial activities, could be created today. In the second place all the later periods are called capitalism.

This term means "an economic system motivated by the pursuit of profits within a price system."

The commercial capitalist sought profits from the exchange of goods; the industrial capitalist sought profits from the manufacture of goods; the financial capitalist sought profits from the manipulation of claims on money; and the monopoly capitalist sought profits from manipulation of the market to make the market price and the amount sold such that his profits would be maximized.

http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/02.html



The Nazi system was dictatorial capitalism—that is, a society organized so that everything was subject to the benefit of capitalism; everything, that is, compatible with two limiting factors: (a) that the Nazi Party, which was not capitalist, was in control of the state, and (b) that war, which is not capitalist, could force curtailment of capitalist benefits (in the short run at least). In this judgment we must define our terms accurately. We define capitalism as "a system of economics in which production is based on profit for those who control the capital." In this definition one point must be noted: the expression "for those who control the capital" does not necessarily mean the owners. In modern economic conditions large-scale enterprise with widely dispersed stock-ownership has made management more important.... Accordingly, profits are not the same as dividends, and, in fact, dividends become objectionable to management, since they take profits out of its control.

The traditional capitalist system was a profit system. In its pursuit of profits it was not primarily concerned with production, consumption, prosperity, high employment, national welfare, or anything else. As a result, its concentration on profits eventually served to injure profits.


This development got the whole society into such a mess that enemies of the profit system began to rise up on all sides. Fascism was the counterattack of the profit system against these enemies. This counterattack was conducted in such a violent fashion that the whole appearance of society was changed, although, in the short run, the real structure was not greatly modified. In the long run Fascism threatened even the profit system, because the defenders of that system, businessmen rather than politicians, turned over the control of the state to a party of gangsters and lunatics who in the long run might turn to attack businessmen themselves...


http://real-world-news.org/bk-quigley/09.html#28

[Drace]

Because as far as An-caps are concerned, everybody has "equal opportunity", and the ability to "succeed" in the sense that An-caps find important. It's not "hierarchical" in a meaningful sense to An-caps. You don't agree. Fine. You have your reasons. That's cool.
Just don't join an An-cap society and you'll be fine.

Its hierarchical in a way in which every anarchist should object.

But you suggest as if there could coexistence. Capitalism is a globalized system in which corporations reach over nations. Yet you expect that by simply wishing in your head to depart from capitalism, then you will escape the system?

You either have worker control over the means of production or private property.

Having mini capitalist societies makes no sense.

[John_Jordan]

Its hierarchical in a way in which every anarchist should object.

Obviously not, as An-caps don't object to it.


But you suggest as if there could coexistence. Capitalism is a globalized system in which corporations reach over nations. Yet you expect that by simply wishing in your head to depart from capitalism, then you will escape the system?

Capitalism as An-caps see it is not a "globalized system in which corporations reach over nations." That doesn't make sense, An-caps don't advocate "nations".



You either have worker control over the means of production or private property.

Wrong. We've been over this. One can have individuals own means of production through Mutualist means.


Having mini capitalist societies makes no sense.

How does it not make sense? It seems perfectly reasonable to me, as far as An-caps define capitalism anyway.

[Drace]

Obviously not, as An-caps don't object to it.

That's why there not fucking anarchists.


Capitalism as An-caps see it is not a "globalized system in which corporations reach over nations." That doesn't make sense, An-caps don't advocate "nations".

Now your just finding stupid things to argue about.
Whether a nation exists or not, the premise is the same. A globalized system in which businesses dominate lands far away.
How's that?


How does it not make sense? It seems perfectly reasonable to me, as far as An-caps define capitalism anyway.

Please do explain...

[Dimentio]

http://www.anus.com/

Yes, ANUS.

:lol:

[John_Jordan]

That's why there not fucking anarchists.

So you say. All I see however is a disagreement on what is legitimate hierarchy. It's not like An-caps are in total opposition to a united front of Anarchism. They are in opposition to several other forms of Anarchism that each have all sorts of disagreements with each other, some of which stem from what is legitimate hierarchy. Of course, you'll probably say every sort which doesn't agree with you is not "Anarchism", but your agreement or disagreement isn't a compelling argument.

In the end, they all share the most important things in common. They don't want a state. And they all can not stop each other from existing and remain Anarchists.



Now your just finding stupid things to argue about.
Whether a nation exists or not, the premise is the same. A globalized system in which businesses dominate lands far away.
How's that?No, actually, the premise is not the same. If one takes away the "nations" your definition of what "Capitalism" is does not apply, for your definition specifically referenced nations. If we are to use your previous definition, then what An-caps argue for is not "Capitalism" as you see it.

As to your newer definition here, it's really vague. What do you mean by "globalized"? If you just mean "everybody must be capitalist" then no, that's not what An-caps want. And while an An-cap may not object to a business "dominating" (read: owning) land "far away" it is not a part of An-cap beliefs that all lands will be so owned.



Please do explain...Me? Explain? You made the first claim did you not? Not only that, but I asked you first. Do explain how "having mini capitalist societies" makes no sense. After you have done so, I will be happy to take my turn and answer your question.



http://www.anus.com/

Yes, ANUS.

:lol:

That's terrible. But fitting, since Nihilism is also terrible.

[Wolf Larson]

I'm not an An-cap, first of all. Second, I know what Proudhon meant. If you actually read anything I said about Proudhon, you'll notice I did not bring up an individual "employing" other people. All throughout my talks of Proudhon I made sure to only speak of one person doing these things, himself "through his own labour". In my head I imagined a farmer, because a farmer can realistically use both land and house, and produce by himself.

You sound insane. You're ranting about things I never said, things I don't believe, and things I don't particularly care about, all for seemingly no reason. This paragraph wouldn't sound out of place in Time Cube.

You obviously don't enjoy having your ass handed to you. Go pretend you understand anarchism on the Mises forums.

[John_Jordan]

Right. I'm so totally convinced now. :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Because as far as An-caps are concerned, everybody has "equal opportunity", and the ability to "succeed" in the sense that An-caps find important. It's not "hierarchical" in a meaningful sense to An-caps. You don't agree. Fine. You have your reasons. That's cool. Just don't join an An-cap society and you'll be fine.

Problem is equality of opportunity is impossible in a market system, if I have $100, and the next 10 people only have $10, I have x10 more opportunity to control the market than they do, so there IS no equality of opportunity in a market system, and what you want to enforce is property (market) tyranny, which is less Anarchistic than social-democracy, much so.

[John_Jordan]

Problem is equality of opportunity is impossible in a market system, if I have $100, and the next 10 people only have $10, I have x10 more opportunity to control the market than they do, so there IS no equality of opportunity in a market system, and what you want to enforce is property (market) tyranny, which is less Anarchistic than social-democracy, much so.

As you define it, yes, you are correct. But remember that An-caps do not define equality of opportunity as you do.

And it's not just a matter of "oh well they're just wrong." Even if it was, it's not really important. The differing definitions themselves are what is important, because both you and the An-caps do care about "equality of opportunity", but just disagree on what that means. Even if they are wrong, they don't think they are, and if given the change, they will attempt to create a society that protects what they care about.

Which is fine. You would do the same if given the chance. You're not going to stop each other, so what's the problem?

[RGacky3]

As you define it, yes, you are correct. But remember that An-caps do not define equality of opportunity as you do.

Well then I don't understand how you COULD define equality of opportunity to fit around that sort of market tyranny.

I'm pretty sure if one person has 10 fold mroe opportunity than the other to control the market thats not equality of opportunity, under what possible definition is it?

[Left-Reasoning]

You obviously don't enjoy having your ass handed to you. Go pretend you understand anarchism on the Mises forums.

Burned!

[John_Jordan]

Well then I don't understand how you COULD define equality of opportunity to fit around that sort of market tyranny.

I'm pretty sure if one person has 10 fold mroe opportunity than the other to control the market thats not equality of opportunity, under what possible definition is it?

They do it. To them, the only important thing is that there is no legitimized active force stopping anybody from accumulating wealth. The sorts of things you have problems with are passive forces, which An-caps aren't concerned with.


Burned!

Oh, so you agree with him then? Could one of you then actually quote me and point out my incorrect theorizing using Mutualism?

[LeftSideDown]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is a rhetorical trick. Capitalism couldn't exist for one minute without laws enforcing contracts, laws putting people out of their homes if they are late making mortgage payments, laws prohibiting shoplifting, laws requiring workers to be accurate on their time cards, etc. The so-called anarcho-capitalist knows this, and will therefore reply, "Of course, we should keep all those GOOD laws! I just want to repeal the BAD laws!" So out go the safety inspections of factories and mines. Out go the health standards for food products. Out go the prohibitions of false product labeling and false advertising. Out go the limitations on air and water pollution. Welcome to the 19th century.

Anarchism couldn't exist without "laws" or at least a common morality/ethical beliefs. I think the big beef that anarchism has with the state is that it has a monopoly on the use of force and conflict resolution. While anarchism would eliminate what can be be a tyrannical force, there would likely arise "Conflict Resolution" companies that are paid to resolve conflicts between people (which will arise, there is no doubt). These companies would compete to be the fairest and have the lowest price (basically following free-market forces). This same thing would be applied for consumer protection services, obviously there would be a market for this type of thing. So there wouldn't be legislation, just free-market handling these things.

And about your "mortgage" payment thingy. Without the bank you would never be able to live in that house. Why should you not be kicked out when you don't pay for it? Why should you get anything that you don't pay for? Because of some positive right you think entitles you to it? Without the bank loaning you the funds you wouldn't have a chance of living in that house without years of saving, so if you stop paying why shouldn't you be kicked out?

[LeftSideDown]

What the supporters of capitalism say about that is an argument that is essentially a claim that all lesser-evil choices are free choices. They assert that it's a result of free choice if you have the working conditions at company A because you could have worked for company B instead, and it's a result of free choice if you have the working conditions at company B because you could have worked for company A instead. They deny the fact that there is systematic coercion implicit in being given a limited menu of options where you are destined to be exploited by someone and you may choose by whom.

(Then they immediately violate their own argument by complaining about the requirement to pay taxes, even though the individual can choose which national government to live under.)

How can you say there is scarcity in the case of companies willing to hire and not understand also that there is a scarcity of workers as well? Companies compete for labor, and also compete for lower prices. Workers compete to be hired by better companies, and this can mean working for lower prices. Worker's "sell" their time, just like companies sell goods.

What none of you seem to realize, is even if a company has the "upper hand" in a dealing, that that it is still voluntary. However, dealings with the government are not voluntary. Companies cannot threaten to jail you or even kill you for not buying their product, governments can. All governments can.

[los.barbaros.ganan]

[QUOTE=LeftSideDown;1691836]Anarchism couldn't exist without "laws" or at least a common morality/ethical beliefs. I think the big beef that anarchism has with the state is that it has a monopoly on the use of force and conflict resolution. While anarchism would eliminate what can be be a tyrannical force, there would likely arise "Conflict Resolution" companies that are paid to resolve conflicts between people (which will arise, there is no doubt). These companies would compete to be the fairest and have the lowest price (basically following free-market forces). This same thing would be applied for consumer protection services, obviously there would be a market for this type of thing. So there wouldn't be legislation, just free-market handling these things.

no need to say thats a liberal utopia

[los.barbaros.ganan]

How can you say there is scarcity in the case of companies willing to hire and not understand also that there is a scarcity of workers as well? Companies compete for labor, and also compete for lower prices. Workers compete to be hired by better companies, and this can mean working for lower prices. Worker's "sell" their time, just like companies sell goods.

When the cost of labour gets to expensive companies move to poorer country's, they bring in new workers or they trow out working rights.
Look around you and use your common sense for a change

What none of you seem to realize, is even if a company has the "upper hand" in a dealing, that that it is still voluntary. However, dealings with the government are not voluntary. Companies cannot threaten to jail you or even kill you for not buying their product, governments can. All governments can.

So you say I and others work because it's my own choice?

p.s. I don't work, there a not enough jobs overhere, who's to blame?
That's right the market and the capital

[los.barbaros.ganan]

What none of you seem to realize, is even if a company has the "upper hand" in a dealing, that that it is still voluntary. However, dealings with the government are not voluntary. Companies cannot threaten to jail you or even kill you for not buying their product, governments can. All governments can.[/QUOTE]

And companies can't because of the governement (theorethical)

[Physicist]

I don't really see why this topic has to be pursued ad nauseum when the tentative pillar of opposing government makes one opposed to human existence. Government is merely one person exercising authority over another, and that will never go away - a bartender intervening in a scuffle is effectively acting out as a government. A landlord preventing hooligans from crossing his or her property is too. When disagreements become societal - such as abortion, or property rights - government takes on its modern characteristics of preventive law enforcement. The only real hope in rescuing this debate is distinguishing between the government and the state; otherwise anarchism is nothing more than extreme minarchism. (Or perhaps less so, as a minarchist federal government could theoretically bar certain abuses that would be allowed under a more decentralized network).

It's all “Nonsense upon stilts."

[LeftSideDown]

When the cost of labour gets to expensive companies move to poorer country's, they bring in new workers or they trow out working rights.
Look around you and use your common sense for a change

So you say I and others work because it's my own choice?

p.s. I don't work, there a not enough jobs overhere, who's to blame?
That's right the market and the capital

The cost, or price, only matters if its low skilled, easily replaceable workers. If they're paying a high price because the workers have rare skills they won't move to a poorer country because those countries will have an even smaller amount of people who are high skilled.

And it is your choice. You don't have to work, just like you don't have to eat, just like you don't have to live in a house. Your opportunity cost for not working is much higher than a companies opportunity cost is for not hiring you. However, if you're a rare, high-skilled worker their opportunity cost will be high, and yours will be low because you can work anywhere with your high-skill base. Look at that! The worker is exploiting the companies.

I don't know where "overthere" is so I don't know whose to blame. If its the United States I could say with 100% certainty it is the government's fault. Low interest rates led to mal-investment, mal-investments grew larger and larger because their higher "Profit" margin allowed them to. Eventually a scarcity of resources made consumers realize that they didn't demand the things these mal-investments were selling and these companies had to be liquidated. These liquidated companies led to unemployment and thus the problem. In the case of the US the mal-investments were houses.

[LeftSideDown]

And companies can't because of the governement (theorethical)

Companies cannot, currently, because of the government, yes.

In an AnCap world they could not because they would be violating property rights, and this is something you cannot do. If it happened there would be demand for a conflict resolution company who could use force to make these companies stop. The difference is that there will not be a monopoly on the use of force, it will be subject to free-market competition like everything else.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't really see why this topic has to be pursued ad nauseum when the tentative pillar of opposing government makes one opposed to human existence. Government is merely one person exercising authority over another, and that will never go away - a bartender intervening in a scuffle is effectively acting out as a government. A landlord preventing hooligans from crossing his or her property is too. When disagreements become societal - such as abortion, or property rights - government takes on its modern characteristics of preventive law enforcement. The only real hope in rescuing this debate is distinguishing between the government and the state; otherwise anarchism is nothing more than extreme minarchism. (Or perhaps less so, as a minarchist federal government could theoretically bar certain abuses that would be allowed under a more decentralized network).

It's all “Nonsense upon stilts."

Interesting theory, thanks for posting.

Although I believe Bentham was referring to mythical natural rights when he made that quote.

[Drace]

In an AnCap world they could not because they would be violating property rights, and this is something you cannot do. If it happened there would be demand for a conflict resolution company who could use force to make these companies stop. The difference is that there will not be a monopoly on the use of force, it will be subject to free-market competition like everything else.

Really, is that what we need?

Your position really asks for the principles of "might makes right" to be put into practice.

I never understood how ancaps could propose a society in which non-profit organizations like the police force, and law could be dealt with, other than making them for-profit. But when money controls all forces of society, the problem of inefficiency in allocating resources to these sectors arises. This in turn can only be solved by making these institutions privately owned profitable organizations, the result being a monopolized force controlled by the capitalist and a widening gap between rich and poor, which is yet another factor for settlements being made through "might makes right".

[Spideynw]

While generally the objective of both rightist and leftist anarchism is the greatest freedom and liberty for the individual members of society, there is still quite an important distinction to be made. For historical anarchists, the struggle is more specially the emancipation of the working class from the chains of economic hierarchy

Everyone works. The "working class" is a fantasy. All you are saying is "people". And it is impossible to emancipate people from working.

I don't see what the point is of reading past this point in your post.

[Drace]

Everyone works. The "working class" is a fantasy. All you are saying is "people". And it is impossible to emancipate people from working.

I don't see what the point is of reading past this point in your post. Please don't come off trying to sound smart when you don't understand someone else's position. It just destroys any good discussion.

The term "working class" is generally understood to be those who produce and provide services, which is differentiated from the upper or ruling class (the bourgeoisie) which includes capitalists, bankers, investors, etc.

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