Anarcho-capitalism?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I was just reading about Kowloon Walled City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City) and was wondering to what extent it can be considered to have been an example of "anarcho-capitalism."

[Havet]

Here, prostitutes installed themselves on one side of the street, while a priest preached and handed out powdered milk to the poor on the other; social workers gave guidance, while drug addicts squatted under the stairs getting high; what were children's games centres by day became strip show venues by night. It was a very complex place, difficult to generalise about, a place that seemed frightening but where most people continued to lead normal lives. A place just like the rest of Hong Kong.


—Leung Ping Kwan, City of Darkness, p. 120

I'd say its probably a good example

[Ligeia]

Here's a documentary which shows working conditions among other things:
fbsPEVbcsXc

[Revy]

I was just reading about Kowloon Walled City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City) and was wondering to what extent it can be considered to have been an example of "anarcho-capitalism."

If it was controlled by the Triads, how is it an example of anarchy? Anarcho-capitalist thinking about anarchy is so distorted. They think it means absence of a state as we know it. But there are other means of controlling people, ruling people. A corporation or a mafia can introduce even greater levels of tyranny.

"Anarcho-capitalism" should be called market feudalists. The anarcho-capitalist regime would have its own private army and police, its own form of administration. Basically, so-called anarcho-capitalism is the privatization of government in corporate hands. Of course, what is the definition of a state? It's not as narrow as the market feudalists believe. These fake anarchists would have our states replaced with a similar version. A corporation would buy some land and set itself up as the government of that land, and if somebody won't sell, they could just use their private army. ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart and Microsoft could be ruling large swaths of America, maybe having wars with each other. The CEO could be the all ruling dictator.

[Dimentio]

If it was controlled by the Triads, how is it an example of anarchy? Anarcho-capitalist thinking about anarchy is so distorted. They think it means absence of a state as we know it. But there are other means of controlling people, ruling people. A corporation or a mafia can introduce even greater levels of tyranny.

"Anarcho-capitalism" should be called market feudalists. The anarcho-capitalist regime would have its own private army and police, its own form of administration. Basically, so-called anarcho-capitalism is the privatization of government in corporate hands. Of course, what is the definition of a state? It's not as narrow as the market feudalists believe. These fake anarchists would have our states replaced with a similar version. A corporation would buy some land and set itself up as the government of that land, and if somebody won't sell, they could just use their private army. ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart and Microsoft could be ruling large swaths of America, maybe having wars with each other. The CEO could be the all ruling dictator.

It is possible to imagine competing "authorities". Instead of laws, there would be insurances against for example being murdered, meaning that you enjoy protection from some thugs against other thugs.

[John_Jordan]

If it was controlled by the Triads, how is it an example of anarchy? Anarcho-capitalist thinking about anarchy is so distorted. They think it means absence of a state as we know it. But there are other means of controlling people, ruling people. A corporation or a mafia can introduce even greater levels of tyranny.

"Anarcho-capitalism" should be called market feudalists. The anarcho-capitalist regime would have its own private army and police, its own form of administration. Basically, so-called anarcho-capitalism is the privatization of government in corporate hands. Of course, what is the definition of a state? It's not as narrow as the market feudalists believe. These fake anarchists would have our states replaced with a similar version. A corporation would buy some land and set itself up as the government of that land, and if somebody won't sell, they could just use their private army. ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart and Microsoft could be ruling large swaths of America, maybe having wars with each other. The CEO could be the all ruling dictator.

It's really annoying to see the word "feudalism" thrown around all over the place. It seems nobody knows what that word means.

And of course, none of this accurately describes how Anarcho-Capitalism is supposed to work.

[IcarusAngel]

Actually the comparison to feudalism is highly accurate. In feudalism, your destiny was largely determined by forces outside of your own control. For example, feudal lords could change political alliances, and at that point your whole nationality and identity would be changed and altered as well. Feudalism often used private property and private armies to protect the property.

What many on the far right are are feudalists. You have corporate feudalists (republicans) and then the anarcho-capitalist feudalists.

[John_Jordan]

Actually the comparison to feudalism is highly accurate. In feudalism, your destiny was largely determined by forces outside of your own control. For example, feudal lords could change political alliances, and at that point your whole nationality and identity would be changed and altered as well. Feudalism often used private property and private armies to protect the property.

What many on the far right are are feudalists. You have corporate feudalists (republicans) and then the anarcho-capitalist feudalists.

And none of that matters because Feudalism refers to things other than "your destiny being determined by forces outside of your own control".

[Die Rote Fahne]

If it was controlled by the Triads, how is it an example of anarchy? Anarcho-capitalist thinking about anarchy is so distorted. They think it means absence of a state as we know it. But there are other means of controlling people, ruling people. A corporation or a mafia can introduce even greater levels of tyranny.

"Anarcho-capitalism" should be called market feudalists. The anarcho-capitalist regime would have its own private army and police, its own form of administration. Basically, so-called anarcho-capitalism is the privatization of government in corporate hands. Of course, what is the definition of a state? It's not as narrow as the market feudalists believe. These fake anarchists would have our states replaced with a similar version. A corporation would buy some land and set itself up as the government of that land, and if somebody won't sell, they could just use their private army. ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart and Microsoft could be ruling large swaths of America, maybe having wars with each other. The CEO could be the all ruling dictator.

It's an inevitability of "Anarcho-capitalism". Remove the government and watch as the corporations, private militias and high power criminals form a government of their own.

[Orange Juche]

The most frustrating thing about "anarcho-capitalism" is that it isn't "anarcho" anything, in that it maintains a system of hierarchy, albeit a stateless one. The correct term for this type of society is "agorism."

I think the agorists just like using the term "anarcho-capitalism" because the word "anarchy" is, in western society, mostly associated with revolutionary and anti-establishmentarian imagery. Really, it's a form of propaganda they use - getting young, conservative libertarian types on their side is easier with a trendy word like "anarcho" rather than "agorism."

[IcarusAngel]

I thought some "agorists" actually supported more equality and tried to distance themselves from the an-caps in that way, by calling themselves merely market anarchists and mutualists.

Really, it's "the enemy" within problem. They have made anarchism so confusing it's hard for people to take it seriously.

[John_Jordan]

The most frustrating thing about "anarcho-capitalism" is that it isn't "anarcho" anything, in that it maintains a system of hierarchy, albeit a stateless one. The correct term for this type of society is "agorism."

I think the agorists just like using the term "anarcho-capitalism" because the word "anarchy" is, in western society, mostly associated with revolutionary and anti-establishmentarian imagery. Really, it's a form of propaganda they use - getting young, conservative libertarian types on their side is easier with a trendy word like "anarcho" rather than "agorism."

I could have sworn I've heard this exact post earlier in the month.

Agorism is not an ideology like Anarcho-capitalism. Agorism is a method for achieving something, it's a tactic, not a sort of society.


I thought some "agorists" actually supported more equality and tried to distance themselves from the an-caps in that way, by calling themselves merely market anarchists and mutualists.

Really, it's "the enemy" within problem. They have made anarchism so confusing it's hard for people to take it seriously.

Agorists could be mutualists, they could be Market Anarchists, they could be An-caps. Agorism is a method, not an ideology in itself.

And puh-leez. You act like it's easy to take Anarchism of any form seriously in the first place. It elicits immediately eye-rolling and calls of "Anarchists would be the first to die if they ever got what they wanted" amongst the average person.

And it's not take seriously not because it's "confusing", but because it's different from what we do now, not easily explainable, and has "media" bias against it. It doesn't matter what sort of Anarchism you advocate, if it has the word "Anarchism" in it, or the prefix "Anarcho", the common man is going to not take it seriously. An-caps would probably do better for themselves to not identify with the Anarchist cause at all because of this.

[RGacky3]

You act like it's easy to take Anarchism of any form seriously in the first place. It elicits immediately eye-rolling and calls of "Anarchists would be the first to die if they ever got what they wanted" amongst the average person.


Which is why Noam Chomsky has been the most respected intellectual in the past decades, and continues to be, and thats why some of the biggest unions in europe are anarcho-syndicalist ones.


Agorists could be mutualists, they could be Market Anarchists, they could be An-caps. Agorism is a method, not an ideology in itself.


People that call themselves Agorists tend to be the market anarchist/anarcho-capitalist types, some like heyenmill call themselves mutualists but that they fight for exact same thing anarcho-capitalists fight for (leave the corporations alone, get the government, don't mess with the capitalits, just stop the regulation.)

[Havet]

some like heyenmill call themselves mutualists but that they fight for exact same thing anarcho-capitalists fight for (leave the corporations alone, get the government, don't mess with the capitalits, just stop the regulation.)

WHAT THE FUCK?

What the hell do you think you are doing? Now you like to make up things about me, is that it?

Where the fuck have I said "leave the corporations alone" or "don't mess with the capitalists" or "just stop the regulation"???

I always said:
- NO corporations
- END capitalist privilege
- NO regulation, which is different than me supporting deregulation. Either it all goes out at once, or don't bother, because it'll probably do more harm than good.

[Dean]

I'd say its probably a good example

So anarcho capitalism leads to martial law by gangs like the Triads. Sound like a great system!

[Jazzratt]

- NO corporations
- END capitalist privilege
- NO regulation, which is different than me supporting deregulation. Either it all goes out at once, or don't bother, because it'll probably do more harm than good.

I'm fascinated by your faith that without regulations there will be no privelege. It's the most arse-backward thinking I've ever seen. Even hopless drunkards living in their own filth can spot the flaw in your idea (namely that without regulation the bourgeoisie can pay starvation wages, remove any safety systems and - of course - concentrate all the wealth in their own pockets).

Why don't you just call yourself a fucking ancap and be done with it. "Mutualism" and the like is nonsense.

[Havet]

I'm fascinated by your faith that without regulations there will be no privelege. It's the most arse-backward thinking I've ever seen. Even hopless drunkards living in their own filth can spot the flaw in your idea (namely that without regulation the bourgeoisie can pay starvation wages, remove any safety systems and - of course - concentrate all the wealth in their own pockets).

Yes, they can pay starvation wages. Nobody's stopping you from forming your own commune/cooperative and pay higher wages. If you don't take the initiative and have the enterprise to start institutions which offer better conditions, they are naturally going to take more time before they appear naturally.

How exactly do you think business owners are going to concentrate all the wealth in their pockets? By using the free-market? As always, you fail to agknowledge even the most basic historical facts.

And its not faith. Its fucking REASON.


Why don't you just call yourself a fucking ancap and be done with it. "Mutualism" and the like is nonsense.

Why don't you call yourself a fucking ignorant and be done with it?

[danyboy27]

Yes, they can pay starvation wages. Nobody's stopping you from forming your own commune/cooperative and pay higher wages. If you don't take the initiative and have the enterprise to start institutions which offer better conditions, they are naturally going to take more time before they appear naturally.

the problem with that is, other big buisness with starvation wage will absorb/anilhate you for the sake of the market.

[Havet]

the problem with that is, other big buisness with starvation wage will absorb/anilhate you for the sake of the market.

How do you expect a big business to gain that much of a share of the market?

[danyboy27]

How do you expect a big business to gain that much of a share of the market?

how to do expect those buisness not to gain that big share of a market?

if a buisness can pay their worker in a shit way, you can be sure it will be falowed by a rapid expansion beccause of the reduction of production cost.

and if you think members of a community can control a buisness, think again.

with wealth accumulation, a buisness can virtually do everything, intimidation, corruption, sky is the limit!

Currently, some states are able to limit the move of buisness, but barely, if you remove the state, you remove the last safety net and give them limitless opportunities to screw the people over.

[Havet]

how to do expect those buisness not to gain that big share of a market?

if a buisness can pay their worker in a shit way, you can be sure it will be falowed by a rapid expansion beccause of the reduction of production cost.

Why do you assume that workers will not be able to receive the full product of their labor, given that restrictions on access to the means of production pretty much disappear with the removal of business privilege?


and if you think members of a community can control a buisness, think again.

Why couldn't they?


Currently, some states are able to limit the move of buisness, but barely, if you remove the state, you remove the last safety net and give them limitless opportunities to screw the people over.

Its not very wise to analyze what happens in a mixed economy and translate that to the outcome of a hypothetical free-market with equality of opportunity.

[Jazzratt]

Yes, they can pay starvation wages. Nobody's stopping you from forming your own commune/cooperative and pay higher wages. If you don't take the initiative and have the enterprise to start institutions which offer better conditions, they are naturally going to take more time before they appear naturally.

Plenty would stop me. You seem to believe that just because I've nothing legally preventing me I'll magically have the fucking resources to own the means of production. That isn't the case, the case is that it would be the same pack of twats as always exploiting workers for their own pockets. Even if I could set up a business it'd still be a fucking losing proposition because my products would have to be more expensive (remember I have to fork out for wages, use expensive (but non-toxic) materials, pay for safety measures and so on; all driving up the cost of my product) meaning there would be absolutely no incentive for people to go to me.

The "iniative" workers need to take is to take out the leeches and own the means of production in common. Things won't improve "naturally" or otherwise if we don't, not for us anyway.


How exactly do you think business owners are going to concentrate all the wealth in their pockets? By using the free-market? As always, you fail to agknowledge even the most basic historical facts.

Of course they'll use the free market. I can't conceive of any other outcome.


And its not reason. Its fucking BOLLOCKS.

Fixed.



Why don't you call yourself a fucking ignorant and be done with it?

Witty.

[danyboy27]

Why do you assume that workers will not be able to receive the full product of their labor, given that restrictions on access to the means of production pretty much disappear with the removal of business privilege?
.
beccause even before buisness priviledges existed, buisness succesfully screwed and exploited the worker.



Why couldn't they?


has i said, intimidation, bribery and murder. BIg buisness can offord mercenaries, pay the local council or send some dude break the legs of some opposition leaders.

its been on for hundred of year.





Its not very wise to analyze what happens in a mixed economy and translate that to the outcome of a hypothetical free-market with equality of opportunity.

In your hypotetical world, there will not be equality of opportunity.
Some people will exploit other, other will be exploited.
Without regulation, buisness will become super duper buisness, macdonald x3.

removing buisness priviledges will change nothing, in exchange for limitless freedom, no rules and regulation, no safety rules, no enployee respect regulation, no discrimination policy, ending up buisness priviledges is a verry verry big deal, its like selling alaska for a penny.

[Dean]

Its not very wise to analyze what happens in a mixed economy and translate that to the outcome of a hypothetical free-market with equality of opportunity.

It's also not wise to analyze a mixed economy and assume that only "virtuous" phenomena will carry over into a free-market with "equality of opportunity".*

In fact, can you explain to me how private security (something a free market would inevitably take over) wouldn't end in capitalist martial law?

Do you actually think that, without the state, capitalism wouldn't exist??

*what is that, some kind of market-socialist dogma?

[Havet]

Plenty would stop me. You seem to believe that just because I've nothing legally preventing me I'll magically have the fucking resources to own the means of production. That isn't the case, the case is that it would be the same pack of twats as always exploiting workers for their own pockets. Even if I could set up a business it'd still be a fucking losing proposition because my products would have to be more expensive (remember I have to fork out for wages, use expensive (but non-toxic) materials, pay for safety measures and so on; all driving up the cost of my product) meaning there would be absolutely no incentive for people to go to me.

The "iniative" workers need to take is to take out the leeches and own the means of production in common. Things won't improve "naturally" or otherwise if we don't, not for us anyway.

You don't magically get the resources, that's obvious. But you will have the means to acquire them. In the beginning, its obvious conditions would not be perfect, but there would be every incentive for safer workplaces, higher wages etc. If there are no restrictions on enterprise-creation, the supply of workers will decrease as more people start their own businesses. This means scarcer workers, requiring them to be more skilled and being able to (collectively or not) negotiate higher wages.



Of course they'll use the free market. I can't conceive of any other outcome.

HOW will they use the free-market?


Witty.

Interesting, you're a witty? Or do you think that having special website powers makes you argumentatively right a priori?

[Havet]

beccause even before buisness priviledges existed, buisness succesfully screwed and exploited the worker.

Examples?


has i said, intimidation, bribery and murder. BIg buisness can offord mercenaries, pay the local council or send some dude break the legs of some opposition leaders.

its been on for hundred of year.

I agree, big business can afford that. What I don't understand is how do you expect businesses to become big.


In your hypotetical world, there will not be equality of opportunity.
Some people will exploit other, other will be exploited.
Without regulation, buisness will become super duper buisness, macdonald x3.

removing buisness priviledges will change nothing, in exchange for limitless freedom, no rules and regulation, no safety rules, no enployee respect regulation, no discrimination policy, ending up buisness priviledges is a verry verry big deal, its like selling alaska for a penny.

How do you know that people will exploit others on a regular basis (like it happens today) instead of it being a rare case?

[Havet]

It's also not wise to analyze a mixed economy and assume that only "virtuous" phenomena will carry over into a free-market with "equality of opportunity".*

I don't exclude the unvirtuous. But I believe there is good reason to expect the unvirtuous to cease to exist given the structure of the hypothetical system and its incentives.


In fact, can you explain to me how private security (something a free market would inevitably take over) wouldn't end in capitalist martial law?

I don't have time to go through all of this again. Talk to Olaf about it (here's (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html) a quick link i was able to find, but i doubt you'll read it), he's far more concerned on that issue than me. I believe that there is a great possibility that defense in communities is done voluntarily without any profit by concerned citizens. But that's just me - and communists.


Do you actually think that, without the state, capitalism wouldn't exist??

Lol, are you serious??? That's like communism 101. Except communists believe that proposition by entirely different reasons (namely that without a state to force property rights then capitalism crumbles).


*what is that, some kind of market-socialist dogma?

Its simply a shorter way to explain the lack of privilege will allow each to produce according to their need/demand without being prevented by others with the use of force.

[Dean]

Its simply a shorter way to explain the lack of privilege will allow each to produce according to their need/demand without being prevented by others with the use of force.

So you believe in wealth redistribution, then? Or do you think that greater capital doesn't translate into privilege?

I don't think you understand the fundamental character of systems of exploitation, be they state or private. That is, that they have an interest in accruing greater private property (if possible by force).

Communists have explained that comprehensive, socially active systems of democracy are necessary for a free society. You, on the other hand, think that some can accrue economic power but "without the help of the state," will not become forcible entities. The fact that you make this erroneous assertion, and in the same breath claim "defense in communities is done voluntarily without any profit by concerned citizens" without even beginning to speculate as to why coercion would not come about, really underlines your lack of credibility when it comes to economic systems, or indeed your lack of interest in economics in general.

It is easy enough to say that "things will be better" once your beloved system or proposal comes about. It is another thing entirely to directly confront and analyze systems of economic and political power. Furthermore, only such a sober analysis can provide the tools necessary to understand how society can and does work.

It is incredibly clear that controlling the means of production, politics or economy directly translate into vast systems of control and exploitation. You could call this property, politics, the state, freedom, democracy, or mutualism, but at the end of the day, all those minority factions who control social mechanisms act the same way-towards their interests. It doesn't change the fundamental character of the systems, however.

You refuse to even start a cursory analysis of extant systems, and rather indulge in some vague mutualist fantasy, fundamentally reliant on incredibly obtuse, mystical characteristics which you impose on the human being and his tools. In fact, its not clear exactly what you propose, since you consistently refuse to describe what mechanisms would maintain a "non-coercive" state-of-things in your proposed society. Really, you don't even have a cursory vantage to offer us, and frankly I don't think you have one to offer yourself.

...just some vague moralities which, ideally would be true in the context of your emotional paradigm, so by golly they must work out great in human society!

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've noticed that a lot of people have abandoned the phrase "anarcho-capitalism" lately, instead branding themselves "market anarchists". I guess it's probably because they've realized how closely knit the state and capitalism have been throughout history. You can't have capitalism without the state.

That's not to say that the alternatives are any better, though. I'd rather live in a state capitalist society where I'm at least supposed to have some kind of voice in accordance with liberal democratic ideology than be under the thumb of a private security firm or a tribal militia or a crime syndicate or some kind of theocratic body, for example. There's nothing inherently evil about the state in and of itself that couldn't be also said for any collection of people in power exercising coercion in furthering their own interests at the expense of the majority.

And no, the anarcho-capitalist claim that a completely unrestricted free market would result in a higher quality of life for everyone is not convincing to me.

[Havet]

So you believe in wealth redistribution, then? Or do you think that greater capital doesn't translate into privilege?

I don't think you understand the fundamental character of systems of exploitation, be they state or private. That is, that they have an interest in accruing greater private property (if possible by force).

Communists have explained that comprehensive, socially active systems of democracy are necessary for a free society. You, on the other hand, think that some can accrue economic power but "without the help of the state," will not become forcible entities. The fact that you make this erroneous assertion, and in the same breath claim "defense in communities is done voluntarily without any profit by concerned citizens" without even beginning to speculate as to why coercion would not come about, really underlines your lack of credibility when it comes to economic systems, or indeed your lack of interest in economics in general.

It is easy enough to say that "things will be better" once your beloved system or proposal comes about. It is another thing entirely to directly confront and analyze systems of economic and political power. Furthermore, only such a sober analysis can provide the tools necessary to understand how society can and does work.

It is incredibly clear that controlling the means of production, politics or economy directly translate into vast systems of control and exploitation. You could call this property, politics, the state, freedom, democracy, or mutualism, but at the end of the day, all those minority factions who control social mechanisms act the same way-towards their interests. It doesn't change the fundamental character of the systems, however.

You refuse to even start a cursory analysis of extant systems, and rather indulge in some vague mutualist fantasy, fundamentally reliant on incredibly obtuse, mystical characteristics which you impose on the human being and his tools. In fact, its not clear exactly what you propose, since you consistently refuse to describe what mechanisms would maintain a "non-coercive" state-of-things in your proposed society. Really, you don't even have a cursory vantage to offer us, and frankly I don't think you have one to offer yourself.

...just some vague moralities which, ideally would be true in the context of your emotional paradigm, so by golly they must work out great in human society!

I'm done with this. You claim that I do not care to argue for my points; you are right. I will only do so when you present historical evidence for your claims. I don't want to repeat myself when you clearly are not interested in pursuing truth, only in defending your preconceived ideas. I have wasted far too much time with others of your "kind" before; I will not waste anymore until you wish to actually debate.

[danyboy27]

Buisness where pretty much free at the begining of the industrial stage of human evolution, and we all know how it was back then.

Buisnesses didnt received special priviledges from the governement and where free to do pretty much whatever they wanted with their worker, no minimum wage, no healthy working condition, labor union suppressed by private armies, that kind of shit happened over and over at the begining of the industrialisation during the coal age.

back then, governement didnt allowed special priviledges on smaller or bigger buisness.

giving a free pass to buisness is only a recipies for opression and bloodshed.

allowing people to hire and exploit the labor of another human being is just another sick pyramidal scheme, where a fews got the wealth, and a lot sweat a whole bunch for it.

why do you support that man?

[Havet]

Buisness where pretty much free at the begining of the industrial stage of human evolution, and we all know how it was back then.

I know how it was. Do you know it? Please provide evidence of "how it was back then".


Buisnesses didnt received special priviledges from the governement and where free to do pretty much whatever they wanted with their worker, no minimum wage, no healthy working condition, labor union suppressed by private armies, that kind of shit happened over and over at the begining of the industrialisation during the coal age.

So you mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States) was not a special privilege? Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States)? Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1828)?

You want more? Check out these sources:

Guelzo, Allen C. (1999), Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President, Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, ISBN 0-8028-3872-3

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Act_of_1887

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Anti-trust_Act



back then, governement didnt allowed special priviledges on smaller or bigger buisness.

right...see above


allowing people to hire and exploit the labor of another human being is just another sick pyramidal scheme, where a fews got the wealth, and a lot sweat a whole bunch for it.

why do you support that man?

I don't support the exploitation of one's labor because the exploited had no choice on the matter except to sell his labor. And he has to do that due to the system of privilege in place which prevents him to compete with his superior and have equal opportunity to acquire means of production.

[danyboy27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germinal_(1993_film)


i didnt know banks where buisness priviledges, i was thinking it was used to store wealth and make loan, that answered the need of a capitalistic society.

ou cannot guarantee that things like banks wouldnt exist anymore in your ideal society.

buisness need banks.
no buisness, no banks.

[Jazzratt]

You don't magically get the resources, that's obvious. But you will have the means to acquire them. In the beginning, its obvious conditions would not be perfect, but there would be every incentive for safer workplaces, higher wages etc. If there are no restrictions on enterprise-creation, the supply of workers will decrease as more people start their own businesses. This means scarcer workers, requiring them to be more skilled and being able to (collectively or not) negotiate higher wages.

What utter fucking rot. Its not really relevant to business owners that the workers could in theory create an enterprise doomed to failure. As I pointed out having decent wages, safety features and so on means that you'll be making products far more expensive than those made by your competitor who doesn't give a fuck and has virtual slaves working in asbestos lined sweatshops. The market does not reward concern for your fellow man.


HOW will they use the free-market?

Those that have the wealth to will simply undercut their competetiors, buy out threatening upstarts and so on. When they hold all the wealth their really isn't anything you can do to stop them, especially as you have absolutely no legal recourse.



Interesting, you're a witty? Or do you think that having special website powers makes you argumentatively right a priori?

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Havet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germinal_(1993_film)

Fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germinal_(1993_film)). Somehow the link wasn't working for me.

So give me some more info on the plot and the sources it bases itself on. The wikipedia article doesn't say much.

Actually, I think im going to watch this movie. But in the meantime, let's continue talking :)

[Dean]

I'm done with this. You claim that I do not care to argue for my points; you are right. I will only do so when you present historical evidence for your claims. I don't want to repeat myself when you clearly are not interested in pursuing truth, only in defending your preconceived ideas. I have wasted far too much time with others of your "kind" before; I will not waste anymore until you wish to actually debate.

I do wish to debate, maybe you don't.

I'll specifically ask the question which I asked before, without the long-winded context:

What systemic characteristics of your proposal (rather than idealisms like "equal opportunity" and "seeks to achieve") would provide the material conditions for a society conducive of equal opportunity and rights, as well as a complete lack of capitalist-oriented or centralized security firms?

It's an absolute joke that you refuse to confrontthese topics, yet claim that I am "not interested" in debate. Simply directing me to links without providing anything but your own ideal is really absurd.

[gorillafuck]

Hayenmill: Since businesses are obviously very keen on using state privilege to put themselves ahead of the competition, what makes you think that in the absence of a state, they would not use the institutions in that sort of system to get an unfair advantage just like they do now? It would be easy for a large business to pay off the private militia hired by a small business (if that business could afford it) to let them sabotage the smaller business in some way to eliminate the competition. The smaller business could have been formed by workers disgruntled with their old business, and the large business could very, very easily sabotage a new business that they try to form.

[Havet]

What utter fucking rot. Its not really relevant to business owners that the workers could in theory create an enterprise doomed to failure. As I pointed out having decent wages, safety features and so on means that you'll be making products far more expensive than those made by your competitor who doesn't give a fuck and has virtual slaves working in asbestos lined sweatshops. The market does not reward concern for your fellow man.

I'm going to say this in a simple way:

Imagine there are two communities. One is my theoretical free-market which you like to strawman, and the other is your communist utopia with everything free. A new set of people arrive from some other place. Why the fuck do you think they will choose my community over yours, if yours offers more decent wages, etc?

Why the fuck do you think people would work as slaves if they can start their own enterprise (whether a sole proprietorship, a cooperative, a commune, etc), or even be employed by others which offer them better alternatives than the initial slave-employer?


Those that have the wealth to will simply undercut their competetiors, buy out threatening upstarts and so on. When they hold all the wealth their really isn't anything you can do to stop them, especially as you have absolutely no legal recourse.

*sigh*...

If you're talking about predatory pricing, predatory pricing is only harmful when there are businesses which hold a monopoly on the market (or oligopoly, and collude) and use that technique to drive out newcomers. But gaining a monopoly is very difficult in a free-market environment with equality of opportunity, as i've said ebfore.

Even most economists agree that it's not a valid concept (even though nowadays its more valid than ever due to the existence of more monopolies). But they reject it given that the initial policy was created due to scares of 19th century "free"-markets. But this was historically false. See these sources for info on how predatory pricing has not been historically (as in when the market was slightly freer) abundant:

Ida Tarbell, The History of the Standard Oil Company (New York: Peter Smith, 1950). Tarbell's brother, William, was treasurer of Pure Oil Company.

Harold Demsetz, "Barriers to Entry," American Economic Review 72 (May 1982): 52-56.

Frank Easterbrook, "Predatory Strategies and Counterstrategies," University of Chicago Law Review 48 (1981): 334.

John McGee, "Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case," Journal of Law and Economics 1 (April 1958): 13769. (5) Ibid., p. 168.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, "The Origins of Antitrust: An Interest Group Perspective," International Review of Law and Economics 5 (Fall 1985): 7390.

For the full article i'm basing myself upon (I don't usually use this source, but I agree with it in this case), see here.


What the fuck are you talking about?

You say one thing, and it's okay. I say the exact same thing, only directed to you, and i'm the witty. Talk about double standards...:rolleyes:

[Havet]

Since businesses are obviously very keen on using state privilege to put themselves ahead of the competition, what makes you think that in the absence of a state, they would not use the institutions in that sort of system to get an unfair advantage just like they do now? It would be easy for a large business to pay off the private militia hired by a small business (if that business could afford it) to let them sabotage the smaller business in some way to eliminate the competition.

How do you expect a business to be big enough to afford a private militia to enforce their own law? How do you expect people to just sit and wait and watch what happens?

[Havet]

[/B]It's an absolute joke that you refuse to confrontthese topics, yet claim that I am "not interested" in debate. Simply directing me to links without providing anything but your own ideal is really absurd.

How do you suppose we can discuss anything if you do not care to look at DATA, EVIDENCE, FACTS?

[danyboy27]

Fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germinal_(1993_film)). Somehow the link wasn't working for me.

So give me some more info on the plot and the sources it bases itself on. The wikipedia article doesn't say much.

Actually, I think im going to watch this movie. But in the meantime, let's continue talking :)


its about how coal miner where exploited in 1860 in france.
this applies to basicly all industrialised nation at this time, england for exemple.

its basicly your dreamworld: big buisness, able to use their positions to underpaid the worker.

but hey! worker had real free opportunity! they could stack their money and start their own buisness! Pretty much all buisness where paying shit, where is the freedom in that? you cant stack money to start a buisness, you need your pity salary to live!

[Dean]

How do you suppose we can discuss anything if you do not care to look at DATA, EVIDENCE, FACTS?

Provide an argument with the context of data. But you have been linking me to outside sources for your entire argument. Explain the system, and I won't even be perturbed if you don't provide the data for it. Its an incredibly simple discussion format that nearly everyone else here seems comfortable with.

[Havet]

its about how coal miner where exploited in 1860 in france.
this applies to basicly all industrialised nation at this time, england for exemple.

Then i'm sure you already know that around that time, countries like france and UK were not my dreamworld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Liability_Act_1855

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Stock_Companies_Act_1856


but hey! worker had real free opportunity! they could stack their money and start their own buisness! Pretty much all buisness where paying shit, where is the freedom in that? you cant stack money to start a buisness, you need your pity salary to live!

I'm very dubious that they had real opportunity. Do you have any evidence to prove that argument?

[gorillafuck]

How do you expect a business to be big enough to afford a private militia to enforce their own law?
How will businesses not be able to become big? Is the state in your opinion the sole factor responsible for big business?


How do you expect people to just sit and wait and watch what happens?
I don't really.

[Havet]

How will businesses not be able to become big? Is the state in your opinion the sole factor responsible for big business?

The State, in my opinion, is the greatest factor responsible for big business, but not the only one. But I asked you the question. I am anxious to listen to your reasons about why you think businesses can become big enough to become monopolies/oligopolies in a free-market.


I don't really.

Good. Neither do I. Another reason why there shouldn't be laws restricting gun ownership/possession.

[gorillafuck]

The State, in my opinion, is the greatest factor responsible for big business, but not the only one. But I asked you the question. I am anxious to listen to your reasons about why you think businesses can become big enough to become monopolies/oligopolies in a free-market.
A large business in this case (which I didn't communicate very well, sorry) would probably just be the largest business in a fairly large area, but not in a nation (or the territory that used to constitute a nation), and you don't need to afford private law to sabotage attempts of employees at starting a competing business. If a business just gets started it would be pretty easy and inexpensive to meddle in their affairs if your business can afford to pay a private militia off. Here's a real life example.

There's a company called Company X (we'll say they grow rice just for the example). It makes a lot of money and grows quite a lot (it's pretty easy because they pay their employees very little) and so they become fairly large (not American corporation large, but still big). Some employees quit to start their own company because they're pretty fed up (Company Y). Company Y manages to find some farmland that isn't already controlled by other companies, and they begin to start their new business. Since law and order is enforced by private militias (that belief is shared by mutualists and ancaps alike, right?), they buy a fairly cheap provider because they haven't started making a lot of money yet. The big company pays off the private militia to leave Company Y and so at night they go and salt all the farmland without being stopped by any sort of private militia (they've been paid off). So Company Y has to either go somewhere else and risk the same thing happening again, or go back to Company X. What is there to stop this from happening?


Good. Neither do I. Another reason why there shouldn't be laws restricting gun ownership/possession.
You and me are in total agreement there.

[Havet]

There's a company called Company X (we'll say they grow rice just for the example). It makes a lot of money and grows quite a lot (it's pretty easy because they pay their employees very little)

I'm sorry, but we have to assume competition, and competition drives wages up and costs down. So if that company pays their employees very little, another one that shows up and produces a product with a cost equal or less to the "bad" competitor, the workers will prefer the "good" competitor.


and so they become fairly large (not American corporation large, but still big). Some employees quit to start their own company because they're pretty fed up (Company Y). Company Y manages to find some farmland that isn't already controlled by other companies, and they begin to start their new business. Since law and order is enforced by private militias (that belief is shared by mutualists and ancaps alike, right?),

Well not quite. Ancaps are more fans of private defense agencies. Mutualists are moore into (from what i've been able to tell) common law, tort law and intersubjective consensus (a fancy word for direct democracy).


they buy a fairly cheap provider because they haven't started making a lot of money yet. The big company pays off the private militia to leave Company Y and so at night they go and salt all the farmland without being stopped by any sort of private militia (they've been paid off). So Company Y has to either go somewhere else and risk the same thing happening again, or go back to Company X. What is there to stop this from happening?

I'm really not the best person to talk about this, because I haven't got much experience when it comes to talk about private defense agencies (you should talk to Olaf about this particular case). Anyway, from what I understand of anarcho-capitalism (which is not a system I defend, because its a contradiction in terms for starters), Company Y made a contract with the private militia. If the private militia failed to act on what they had agreed in the contract, the private militia now owns Company Y the amount necessary to restore the damage done. Of course, proofs are required, so I imagine company y hiring (again we are assuming competition, therefore low costs) a private defense agency to represent them in an arbitration procedure in order to determine who's right or wrong. I dont really remmember, but i think after a decision has been reached, either the faulty party is forced into paying the restitution (which wouldn't actually be coercion, because technically it would constitute self-defense from previous aggression) or they are ostracized to the point where they can no longer do business in that community, with technology similar to Ebay buyer/seller ratings.

[gorillafuck]

I'm sorry, but we have to assume competition, and competition drives wages up and costs down. So if that company pays their employees very little, another one that shows up and produces a product with a cost equal or less to the "bad" competitor, the workers will prefer the "good" competitor.
I know that proper competition drives wages up and prices down. My example was one of a company being able to pay little through violence against companies that come along and try to compete, hence having power to pay little. I'm trying to get at how the state is not the only way to enforce privilege.


Well not quite. Ancaps are more fans of private defense agencies. Mutualists are moore into (from what i've been able to tell) common law, tort law and intersubjective consensus (a fancy word for direct democracy).Oh. That's cool.


Anyway, from what I understand of anarcho-capitalism (which is not a system I defend, because its a contradiction in terms for starters), Company Y made a contract with the private militia. If the private militia failed to act on what they had agreed in the contract, the private militia now owns Company Y the amount necessary to restore the damage done. Of course, proofs are required, so I imagine company y hiring (again we are assuming competition, therefore low costs) a private defense agency to represent them in an arbitration procedure in order to determine who's right or wrong. I dont really remember, but i think after a decision has been reached, either the faulty party is forced into paying the restitution (which wouldn't actually be coercion, because technically it would constitute self-defense from previous aggression) or they are ostracized to the point where they can no longer do business in that community, with technology similar to Ebay buyer/seller ratings.
Okay, I think I understand that. But basically, wealthier companies still get much better protection against aggression than smaller ones, and can afford being flimsier with the laws. I don't see how that isn't privilege.

[RGacky3]

Then i'm sure you already know that around that time, countries like france and UK were not my dreamworld.


Wait what? So because they were allowed to incorporate, THATS 100% responsible for the poor conditions? It had nothing to do with the Market system? If only there was no such thing as a corporation everything will be wonderful.

Lots of regulation = pretty good.
Less regulation = worst
Little regulation = terrible
No regulation other than state recognized corporations and/or a central bank = Hell on earth
Absolutely no state interferance what so ever = Equitable fair good society???

How the hell can you state your theory with a straight face?


I'm very dubious that they had real opportunity. Do you have any evidence to prove that argument?

If you have a right to quit your job, then they actually do. The burdon of proof is on you to show they don't.

But the fact is they did'nt have opportunity, not because of teh state recognizing corporations, but because of the market system.


I'm sorry, but we have to assume competition, and competition drives wages up and costs down. So if that company pays their employees very little, another one that shows up and produces a product with a cost equal or less to the "bad" competitor, the workers will prefer the "good" competitor.


Or both companies can pay really bad so that they can keep their class system (as it works now), or the bigger company will pay less make a bigger profit, be able to sell for less, and thus the smaller company will have to cut even more to even try and compete.

The market is not one dimensional.

[Havet]

I know that proper competition drives wages up and prices down. My example was one of a company being able to pay little through violence against companies that come along and try to compete, hence having power to pay little. I'm trying to get at how the state is not the only way to enforce privilege.

Well, if they use violence, they are a de facto state (my definition of state is a person or group of people who enforce rules against the common intersubjective criteria in a society/community), and every action is legitimate in stopping them because it would constitute self-defense.

However, I don't really see a higher affinity for these kinds of problems to appear than we do now, where businesses are larger, less open to public input and can get away with pretty much everything.


Okay, I think I understand that. But basically, wealthier companies still get much better protection against aggression than smaller ones, and can afford being flimsier with the laws. I don't see how that isn't privilege.

It is privilege. I don't see how you will expect to see such discrepancies in companies when the ability for workers to receive the full product of their labor will be possible (aka self-employment/voluntary organization).

[gorillafuck]

It is privilege. I don't see how you will expect to see such discrepancies in companies when the ability for workers to receive the full product of their labor will be possible (aka self-employment/voluntary organization).
I can understand how there wouldn't be corporations like there are today, but you'll really need to explain how you think all businesses will have almost the same size and amount of power.

[Havet]

I can understand how there wouldn't be corporations like there are today, but you'll really need to explain how you think all businesses will have almost the same size and amount of power.

Because almost nobody will want to empower businesses when they will be able to join in other forms of organization (coops and communes) and/or start their own venture.

[Havet]

Wait what? So because they were allowed to incorporate, THATS 100% responsible for the poor conditions? It had nothing to do with the Market system? If only there was no such thing as a corporation everything will be wonderful.

Do you know what incorporation implies? Look it up.


Lots of regulation = pretty good.
Less regulation = worst
Little regulation = terrible
No regulation other than state recognized corporations and/or a central bank = Hell on earth
Absolutely no state interferance what so ever = Equitable fair good society???


This makes no sense whatever

[gorillafuck]

Because almost nobody will want to empower businesses when they will be able to join in other forms of organization (coops and communes) and/or start their own venture.
You think people are more likely to work in communes and work together?

What are you, a commie?:laugh:

[Wolf Larson]

Because almost nobody will want to empower businesses when they will be able to join in other forms of organization (coops and communes) and/or start their own venture.

Free market mutualist semantics. Non of you actually believe that. The fact of the matter is, if wage slavery was somehow made voulentary or free association side by side with a collectivist alternative only the local idiot would choose to subject himself to such exploitation [wage slavery]. The reality is your precious capitalist free market cannot exist without compulsion/coercion [private property/exclusion from equal access to the means of life] and private property cannot exist without the state [coercion].

Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner and Stirner, who many free market mutualists hack, never advocated labor for a boss. When Proudhon said property is theft but is also liberty he meant an individuals ability to control his personal means of production is liberty he did NOT mean using property to employ wage slaves was liberty. Stirner was also opposed to wage slavery as was Tucker. Tucker believed an individual should be able to be self sufficient or trade labor with another worker he never advocated the employer/employee- boss/worker relationship. Proudhon, Tucker and Stirner were also against landlordism [rent] interest and usury. Capitalism. Rothbard came along and cherry picked their positions as do most mutualists and agorists. all of the insincere cherry picking revisionism started with Rothbard and now Konkin has taken it to a whole new level. Your private state [courts, security agencies, military, prisons] and capitalist free market rhetoric is not compatible with anarchism or liberty. Liberty for the owner of the means of production yes but not for the wage worker. Also, in reality capitalism cannot coexist with socialism. Not only can it not exist without a state it cannot exist side by side with socialism which is why in reality capitalists used their state to facilitate global containment of socialism. Non of the so called anarcho capitalists live in reality. It's all wishful thinking that depends on some fantasy that capitalists greed is benign and even beneficial, in a symbiotic fashion, to society. Reality shows us different. Reality has shown us there is no such thing as rational self interest in the mind of a capitalist. Greed does not symbiotically provide for all mankind. That's a lie of megalithic proportions.

[Havet]

You think people are more likely to work in communes and work together?

Yeah. And coops and probably some small sole proprietorship businesses.

[Havet]

Free market mutualist semantics. Non of you actually believe that. The fact of the matter is, if wage slavery was somehow made voulentary or free association side by side with a collectivist alternative only the local idiot would choose to subject himself to such exploitation [wage slavery]. The reality is your precious capitalist free market cannot exist without compulsion/coercion [private property/exclusion from equal access to the means of life] and private property cannot exist without the state [coercion].

Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner and Stirner, who many free market mutualists hack, never advocated labor for a boss. When Proudhon said property is theft but is also liberty he meant an individuals ability to control his personal means of production is liberty he did NOT mean using property to employ wage slaves was liberty. Stirner was also opposed to wage slavery as was Tucker. Tucker believed an individual should be able to be self sufficient or trade labor with another worker he never advocated the employer/employee- boss/worker relationship. Proudhon, Tucker and Stirner were also against landlordism [rent] interest and usury. Capitalism. Rothbard came along and cherry picked their positions as do most mutualists and agorists. all of the insincere cherry picking revisionism started with Rothbard and now Konkin has taken it to a whole new level. Your private state [courts, security agencies, military, prisons] and capitalist free market rhetoric is not compatible with anarchism or liberty. Liberty for the owner of the means of production yes but not for the wage worker. Also, in reality capitalism cannot coexist with socialism. Not only can it not exist without a state it cannot exist side by side with socialism which is why in reality capitalists used their state to facilitate global containment of socialism. Non of the so called anarcho capitalists live in reality. It's all wishful thinking that depends on some fantasy that capitalists greed is benign and even beneficial, in a symbiotic fashion, to society. Reality shows us different. Reality has shown us there is no such thing as rational self interest in the mind of a capitalist. Greed does not symbiotically provide for all mankind. That's a lie of megalithic proportions.

Nice rant.

If a person has the choice, in my utopian society, to receive the full product of his labor, without being compelled to sell his labor to a capitalist, then what are you afraid of?

So long as one man, or class of men, are able to prevent others from working for themselves because they cannot obtain the means of production or capitalize their own products, so long those others are not free to compete freely with those to whom privilege gives the means, then there will not be a free and equal society.

For instance, can you see any competition between the farmer and his hired man? Don't you think he would prefer to work for himself? Why does the farmer employ him? Is it not to make some profit from his labor? And does the hired man give him that profit out of pure good nature? Would he not rather have the full product of his labor at his own disposal?

Can't you see that the necessity of an employer is forced upon him by his lack of ability to command the means of production? He cannot employ himself, therefore he must sell his labor at a disadvantage to him who controls the land and capital. Hence he is not free to compete with his employer any more than a prisoner is free to compete with his jailer for fresh air.

If you admit this scenario as true, then you admit that there is not free competition in the present state of society. In other words, you admit that the laboring class are not free to compete with the holders of capital, because they have not, and cannot get, the means of production. Now for your 'what of that?' It follows that if they had access to land and opportunity to capitalize the product of their labor they would either employ themselves, or, if employed by others, their wages, or remuneration, would rise to the full product of their toil, since no one would work for another for less than he could obtain by working for himself.