Name Issue

[Agnapostate]

I'm having trouble devising an etymologically suitable term for the small political contingency that typically term themselves "libertarians," with a smaller internal sect that term themselves "anarcho-capitalists," or at times, simply "anarchists." We've certainly been over the problems with their claims of anarchism many times before, and that line of thought doesn't need to be rehashed. For those unfamiliar with the issue of the "libertarian" label, it's derived from that same issue, since the word "libertarian" was popularized as a political label in reference to anarchism, and is most consistent with that philosophy.

Some people here use the terms "libertarian capitalist" or simply "anarcho-capitalist," but apart from that conceding what shouldn't be conceded, given the aforementioned issues, "libertarian" and "anarcho" are adjectives modifying the noun "capitalist," which is a member of a class structure, as opposed to "socialist," which is an advocate of a certain social ideology. And very few actual capitalists are interested in the fringe kookiness of this political contingency, except to exploit their ignorant and inconsistent defenses of current class structure and property distribution when they can, which isn't commonly done or needed, since they have plenty of shields in front of them already, and since this contingency's political proposals are not popular or viable. As I've said, the majority of this branch are students ironically acting against their self-interest, though they're likely attending school on their parents' dime, nerdy Internet suburbanites without outside social lives, and a few fringe academics at state-funded universities. Hardly capitalists. And even if we came back to "advocate of 'libertarian'/'anarchist' capitalism," the scare quotes around "libertarian" and "anarchist" eventually get annoying and repetitive, aside from the aforementioned problems of using those words at all.

The most popular alternative term is "propertarian," but since they don't actually defend a property rights framework defined by distributive justice, I'm hesitant to grant them that title. Even when acknowledging the traditional socialist division between private and possessive property (which I also frown upon because of the confusion it breeds, but that's another point), they're opponents of property rights.

Also, is there any means of distinguishing between those who profess loyalty to "minarchism" and those who profess loyalty to "anarchism," though they actually favor neither of those ideologies?

[Skooma Addict]

Just call them anarcho-capitalists. It's not like any of you guys know what an anarchist society would look like anyways.

[Dean]

Just call them anarcho-capitalists. It's not like any of you guys know what an anarchist society would look like anyways.

An anarchist society would have to exist as a free association of individuals. Impossible in the context of a capitalist milieu, of course.

[RGacky3]

Just call them anarcho-capitalists. It's not like any of you guys know what an anarchist society would look like anyways. '

Anarchist spain in the 1930s is a pretty good picture of what it would look like.

[Agnapostate]

Just call them anarcho-capitalists. It's not like any of you guys know what an anarchist society would look like anyways.

LOL, behold Oaf, the master of non-refuting contradictions. I guess there weren't very advanced reading comprehension standards on your GED test, but are you unable to see where I outlined the issue of the non-anarchism and the non-capitalism of this group?

[Havet]

'

Anarchist spain in the 1930s is a pretty good picture of what it would look like.

If so, anarchism has no future then (no pun intended)

[Cal Engime]

I recently read an 1860 essay by one Paul Emile de Puydt titled "Panarchie" in which he advocates the exact same political system that Murray Rothbard did. Perhaps "panarchists" would satisfy you?

[Skooma Addict]

An anarchist society would have to exist as a free association of individuals. Impossible in the context of a capitalist milieu, of course.

Well it is great thinking about what you would want anarchism to look like. However, what is important is what anarchism would actually look like. This cannot be known a priori. For all we know anarchism in America could look similar to modern Somalia.


Anarchist spain in the 1930s is a pretty good picture of what it would look like.

Well that sucks. Although I wonder how you know this.


LOL, behold Oaf, the master of non-refuting contradictions. I guess there weren't very advanced reading comprehension standards on your GED test, but are you unable to see where I outlined the issue of the non-anarchism and the non-capitalism of this group?


And it should have been obvious that I was referring to the anarcho-capitalist portion. You are trying to group too many people under one umbrella.

[IcarusAngel]

Your typical Libertarian:
http://www.youtube.com/user/wizkid2000

[IcarusAngel]

Are you insinuating that Libertarians are not even capitalists they are so tyrannical? This has crossed my mind. I've heard Chomsky remark once that it is not the basic laws that are tyrannical - even marijuana laws, etc. - but the continual changing of laws without public input that is tyrannical. For example, speeding laws aren't tyrannical because people know they exist. It's only when the government arbitrarily starts defining laws (say, driving a Mazda rather than a Toyota) that it becomes tyrannical.

Libertarians may be tyrannical in this situation. Witness their continual changing of justifications for property, and what is and what isn't property. One moment they are arguing for neo-lockean property rights, the next moment they are arguing for a completely different set of property rights. One Libertarian told me any choice is a FREE choice - the context of the choice is irrelevant. So if you sold yourself into slavery, it's a free choice. It doesn't matter how the slavery came to be implemented. He used the example of you being in a hole and someone throwing you the rope. If the person who gives you the rope wants you to be his slave, and he gives you the rope to get you out, you are legally bound to be his slave if those are the conditions for your rescue.

It's just insane, and no one even today would implement it.

They may not be capitalists, they are a weird cult that has formed around capitalism. I wouldn't know what to call it.

[Agnapostate]

And it should have been obvious that I was referring to the anarcho-capitalist portion. You are trying to group too many people under one umbrella.

There's no modification of the categories themselves, simply the names.


Are you insinuating that Libertarians are not even capitalists they are so tyrannical?

They're not capitalists because capitalists are a specific class that few of them belong to; as far as I can tell, the majority are students and their intellectuals are academics.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't know what "academics" they've engaged in for the past 40 years. Everybody is familiar with the socialist scientists, computer scientists, mathematicians, etc. I've never heard of a productive "market academic."

Their claims seem to be anti-modern economics. They claim that free-markets lead to dispersed wealth through the population is disputed by many modern economists for ignoring things like high barriers to entry and other monopolistic features of markets. For example, I have the "freedom" to compete with Ford, that freedom is completely meaningless.

They also ignore the role that being in the right place in the right time, being able to acquire equity of highly profitable enterprises into their hands, and being connected enough to the government to be able to protect their wealth through the government.

I see them as useless academically, and politically they cause much damage by making alternatives look completely stupid.

[Agnapostate]

I'm referring to their various social scientist supporters, from Richard Epstein to Gordan Tullock and James Buchanan to the more extreme ones like Rothbard, Hoppe, and Block. It seems that the social sciences are so skewed to the left (except for economics, though even that's more left-leaning than popularly believed), that the only rightist academics are these so-called "libertarians." They're still extremely heterodox, but they're not absent.

[mikelepore]

The invisible handroids? The laissez fairies? The vampires of Randsylvania?

[RGacky3]

If so, anarchism has no future then (no pun intended)

Yes it does, thats waht it looked like in the 1930s in spain.

[Havet]

Yes it does, thats waht it looked like in the 1930s in spain.

Do you see any anarchic spain now? That is why I made that humorous yet intelligent remark.

[RGacky3]

Do you see any anarchic spain now? That is why I made that humorous yet intelligent remark.

No, I don't, btw your very loose on the words humorous yet intelligent, the reason I don't is not because it failed economically or politically, it was attacked by fascists who had the support of Germany and Italy, and the communists who were supported by the USSR, when they had only themselves, and considering their odds, they did a damn good job.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't know what "academics" they've engaged in for the past 40 years. Everybody is familiar with the socialist scientists, computer scientists, mathematicians, etc. I've never heard of a productive "market academic."

Really? You haven't heard of any? How about Milton Friedman at least?


Their claims seem to be anti-modern economics. They claim that free-markets lead to dispersed wealth through the population is disputed by many modern economists for ignoring things like high barriers to entry and other monopolistic features of markets. For example, I have the "freedom" to compete with Ford, that freedom is completely meaningless.

As Caplan explained in his book on democracy, economists are generally more market friendly than the general population.


http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/1199-econgen.cfm

[Dean]

Do you see any anarchic spain now? That is why I made that humorous yet intelligent remark.
Sounds just like your little mutualist shop that existed in the 1800s in chicago.

[Dean]

Well it is great thinking about what you would want anarchism to look like. However, what is important is what anarchism would actually look like.
That's right. It couldn't be capitalist, was the point. I wasn't describing an anarchist society - I was defining the term (free association of individuals), on terms politically neutral enough that I doubt any anarchists would refute them - left or right.


This cannot be known a priori. For all we know anarchism in America could look similar to modern Somalia.
Shit, it probably would, given the heavily militarized power structures in place. The economic character of Somalia is incredibly militarized, and a complete breakdown of the security structure in the context of competition and widespread weaponry will have the obvious consequence of capitalist martial law. And this is indeed what libertarians have been calling for for decades, some knowingly, some more muddled in their understanding.

In any case, I'm still waiting for your response to the issue a month ago - that is why did the state, which you claimed to be the sole catalyst for market "artificiality" become a necessary factor in your economic model? That would be like an anti-fascist turning around and saying "we need fascism to keep everyone safe." Preposterous, my friend.

[Havet]

No, I don't, btw your very loose on the words humorous yet intelligent, the reason I don't is not because it failed economically or politically, it was attacked by fascists who had the support of Germany and Italy, and the communists who were supported by the USSR, when they had only themselves, and considering their odds, they did a damn good job.

Sure, there'll be always some outside force. Be it a natural disaster or an army of blind sheep moved by the ideals of fascism, the thing is an anarchist society *must* be able to cope with this things. And the fact that the anarchist attempt at Spain failed ought to give us an insight on new ways to prevent that from happening. Maybe focusing on a more strategic geographical location would be better for a revolution. Maybe some form of weakening of the overall country's political system would be best before a revolution. I'm just sayin'.

[Havet]

Sounds just like your little mutualist shop that existed in the 1800s in chicago.

The store only ceased to exist because its creator found it so useful that he wanted to replicate the principles behind the shop on a larger scale, in a society.


Warren closed the store in May 1830 in order to depart to set up colonies based upon the labor-cost principle (the most successful of these being "Utopia"), convinced that the store was a successful experiment in "Cost the limit of price."

[Agnapostate]

As Caplan explained in his book on democracy, economists are generally more market friendly than the general population.

Economists are more leftward than commonly perceived, with only a minority advocating "free market" principles, though there's also a minority of self-identified socialists. The knowledge of basic issues like negative externalities and public goods that the fake libertarians lack compels that.

[Dean]

The store only ceased to exist because its creator found it so useful that he wanted to replicate the principles behind the shop on a larger scale, in a society.

Aha! I assume that they have become massive swellings of mutualist egalitarianism? I'm shocked you have never brought these colonies up before, they should be wonderful evidence for the fruits of your ideology.

Or was it a massive failure, like all the other shoot-yourself-in-the-foot business models you've thrown out there?

[Skooma Addict]

That's right. It couldn't be capitalist, was the point. I wasn't describing an anarchist society - I was defining the term (free association of individuals), on terms politically neutral enough that I doubt any anarchists would refute them - left or right.


Even if we did use your strange and vague definition, it could still be capitalist. For example, if the population in the society supported capitalism, then they are a free association of individuals. There is no logical reason why anarchism cannot be capitalist using your definition.



In any case, I'm still waiting for your response to the issue a month ago - that is why did the state, which you claimed to be the sole catalyst for market "artificiality" become a necessary factor in your economic model? That would be like an anti-fascist turning around and saying "we need fascism to keep everyone safe." Preposterous, my friend.

You mean why did I change my opinion? I was an anarcho-capitalist because I thought I could logically and theoretically explain what an anarchist society would look like. However, I also accepted Hayeks points regarding tacit knowledge and the impossibility to rationally plan out a productive economic order. When I realized the two were incompatible, I chose the latter.

[Havet]

Aha! I assume that they have become massive swellings of mutualist egalitarianism? I'm shocked you have never brought these colonies up before, they should be wonderful evidence for the fruits of your ideology.

Or was it a massive failure, like all the other shoot-yourself-in-the-foot business models you've thrown out there?

I find it rather amusing that you convey an emotion of shock, especially considering that I have brought these colonies up before, and that the reason for you not seeing them was probably the fact that you simply are not omnipotent to watch every single discussion I post.

Let us see how "Utopia" colony did:


The settlement was reorganized in 1847 as an individualist anarchist colony by Josiah Warren and associates. Personal invitation from the first settlers was required for admission to the community, with Warren reasoning that the most valuable individual liberty was “the liberty to choose our associates at all times.” Land was not owned communally, but individually, with lots being bought and sold at cost, as required by contractual arrangement. The economy of the community was a system based upon private property and a market economy where labor was the basis of exchange value (see mutualism). Goods and services were traded by the medium of labor notes. By the mid-1850s, the community eventually came to contain approximately forty buildings — about half of which were of an industrial nature. Also present were two time stores.

The impact of the Civil War, the rising prices of surrounding land that made expansion difficult, and the requirement of being invited by the original settlers are said to have led to the eventual dissolution of the project. However, as late as 1875, several of the original occupants remained, and some business in the area was still being conducted by labor notes. By that time, the area had come to be known as Smith’s Landing.

Warren left Utopia a year after its inception to lecture and assist in setting up other colonies. The most significant of these was Modern Times. However, he did return to visit occasionally. After his last visit in the winter of 1855-1856, he remarked:

My visit to that little germ of Equitable society, now eight and a half years old, has given me higher hopes and expectations than I had before dared to entertain. It is not the display that the little group of buildings makes to the eye… but knowing the means by which these… have been acquired, and seeing that there the subject of Equity has had eight years and six months deep study and practical trail, and that from the beginning… the subject had lost nothing with those who first took hold of it… but had gained… from year to year in their highest judgement and affectionate regard.

So it seems that colony was not strong enough to stand the effects of a Civil War, among others. I think that the ability to be required to have an invitation to join is what led to its greatest dissolution, since it proved a barrier to entry for expansion and growth. But that is open to debate. As we can see though, that dwelling, just like Anarchic Spain, failed, so the way they were both implemented should be reconsidered.

[Skooma Addict]

Economists are more leftward than commonly perceived, with only a minority advocating "free market" principles, though there's also a minority of self-identified socialists. The knowledge of basic issues like negative externalities and public goods that the fake libertarians lack compels that.

I don't really know what the common perception is. What I do know is that they are generally more market friendly than the rest of the population. As you said, very few economists would identify themselves as socialists.

[Agnapostate]

I don't really know

True enough. Your claim, however, doesn't say much for the rest of the population's support of market doctrine, since "free market" economics is an extreme minority in the field. Klein and Stern's Is There a Free-Market Economist in the House? The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1061797) illusrates that:


Here we present evidence from a survey of American Economic Association (AEA) members showing that a large majority of economists are either generally favorable to or mixed on government intervention, and hence cannot be regarded as supporters of free-market principles. Based on our finding, we suggest that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters.

They're themselves in that extreme minority, in case you wanted to offer ad hominem criticisms of that work, incidentally.


Even if we did use your strange and vague definition, it could still be capitalist. For example, if the population in the society supported capitalism, then they are a free association of individuals. There is no logical reason why anarchism cannot be capitalist using your definition.

And if a majority of people consciously elected an authoritarian head of state who would suspend future elections, a democracy could create a dictatorship. Of course, submission of electoral sovereignty would itself require admission that it existed. It's the sheer absurdity of voluntary slavery en masse that causes real anarchists to realize that such an arrangement has no possibility of existing outside of the dusty texts excitedly circulated by starry-eyed utopians at sparsely attended Mises Institute seminars. Anarchy is incompatible with the hierarchies of the capitalist labor market, actually existing capitalism, that is, not Walter Block's fantasies.


However, I also accepted Hayeks points regarding tacit knowledge and the impossibility to rationally plan out a productive economic order.

:lol:

You've proven over and over again that you can't even understand Burczak, so everyone here knows how comical that is.

[Skooma Addict]

Here we present evidence from a survey of American Economic Association (AEA) members showing that a large majority of economists are either generally favorable to or mixed on government intervention, and hence cannot be regarded as supporters of free-market principles. Based on our finding, we suggest that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters.
Well I may or may not agree depending on how those terms are being defined, but I don't see how you can really draw this conclusion after looking at the data. Almost every self proclaimed supporter of the free market supports government intervention. If it is commonly perceived that all economists are like Milton Friedman, such a perception is incorrect. Economists generally favor allowing the market to solve most potential problems, although there are times when government intervention is required.

Here is a portion of a good overview of the survey called "The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members: The Results of a New Survey" by Robert Whaples.



Trade. The economics profession continues to show a consensus in favor
of unfettered international trade, as 83 percent agree and only 10 percent disagree
that the United States should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers.7 This
agreement need not imply a completely laissez-faire policy toward trade, however,
as a majority (52 percent) favor the idea of increasing benefits to workers who lose
their jobs due to international competition.

Environmental Issues. Economists are almost unanimous in agreeing that
the U.S. should not ban genetically modified crops and are very skeptical of the
economic and environmental benefits of the federal subsidy to ethanol (51 cents
per gallon at the time of the survey). As Table 2 shows, the majority, 55 percent,
favor eliminating government subsidies to ethanol production and another 23
percent favor reducing the subsidy, while only 12 percent endorse the current level
and 10 percent favor a hike. The majority (58 percent) reject repealing laws
mandating municipal curbside recycling, while a quarter favor the idea.


And if a majority of people consciously elected an authoritarian head of state who would suspend future elections, a democracy could create a dictatorship. Of course, submission of electoral sovereignty would itself require admission that it existed. It's the sheer absurdity of voluntary slavery en masse that causes real anarchists to realize that such an arrangement has no possibility of existing outside of the dusty texts excitedly circulated by starry-eyed utopians at sparsely attended Mises Institute seminars. Anarchy is incompatible with the hierarchies of the capitalist labor market, actually existing capitalism, that is, not Walter Block's fantasies.But if you are defining anarchy as simply the "voluntary association of individuals," then there is no reason why such a society cannot be capitalist. What if the members of the society agree with capitalism? I don't think any ancaps would disagree with you when you say anarchism is incompatible with currently existing capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalists aren't any less utopian than any other anarchists. The idea that you could have any clue regarding what would happen if you just abolished an institution as important and as intertwined with society as the state is unjustifiable.


:lol:

You've proven over and over again that you can't even understand Burczak, so everyone here knows how comical that is. If you want to contest what I said, go ahead. Your extremely uncreative and repetitive insults aren't as funny as they used to be. Now it is just getting boring.

[Agnapostate]

Well I may or may not agree depending on how those terms are being defined, but I don't see how you can really draw this conclusion after looking at the data.

But no one here cares what you think. No one's under the impression that your speculative opinions are somehow superior to empirical research that reviewed both Caplan and Whaples, and concluded that actual supporters of "free market" capitalism (utopian and perpetually nonexistent), were an extreme minority in the economics profession.


But if you are defining anarchy as simply the "voluntary association of individuals," then there is no reason why such a society cannot be capitalist. What if the members of the society agree with capitalism? I don't think any ancaps would disagree with you when you say anarchism is incompatible with currently existing capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalists aren't any less utopian than any other anarchists. The idea that you could have any clue regarding what would happen if you just abolished an institution as important and as intertwined with society as the state is unjustifiable.

Aside from the very clear point made in the beginning of the thread that almost none of the supporters of your fake anarchism are capitalists, mainly being students and academics without practical experience, the point on this issue is that it's an issue of a democracy knowingly voting in a dictatorship that deprives them of future opportunities to vote - perhaps conceivable in some twisted, ludicrous fantasy, but with little chance of real-world implementation. Capitalism involves labor market hierarchy; hierarchy is incompatible with anarchy.


If you want to contest what I said, go ahead. Your extremely uncreative and repetitive insults aren't as funny as they used to be. Now it is just getting boring.

You are a troll, Oaf. It is fitting that you be treated as a troll. I mentioned the fact that you didn't understand Burczak as a reason that you don't understand the nature of Hayekian tacit knowledge.

[Agnapostate]

Incidentally, real anarchism has involved real-world implementation and mass support as a facet of labor activism.

http://www.workerseducation.org/crutch/graphics/dosch/dosch01.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/IWW_demonstration_NY_1914.jpg

http://libcom.org/files/durruti_funeral%5B1%5D.jpghttp://www.socialistworker.co.uk/chimage.php?image=2006/2010/spain3.jpghttp://www.socialistworker.co.uk/chimage.php?image=2006/2010/spain3.jpghttp://flag.blackened.net/revolt/graphics/durruti_funeral.jpghttp://libcom.org/files/spain-workers-1936_0.gif

"Anarchist" capitalism is more along these lines:

http://www.collier.k12.fl.us/nhs/lmc/2006seniors/scott.jpghttp://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/themes/thesis_15/rotator/Walter%20Block%20Stephan%20Ethan%20Kinsella%20port rait%2012-03.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Fx_jRwkwtpU/SrHRGZpqkTI/AAAAAAAAAAM/9IG0GWrlvn0/S220/Photo+27.jpghttp://www.katalaksija.com/v2.0/images/stories/HansHermannHoppe.jpg

[Skooma Addict]

But no one here cares what you think. No one's under the impression that your speculative opinions are somehow superior to empirical research that reviewed both Caplan and Whaples, and concluded that actual supporters of "free market" capitalism (utopian and perpetually nonexistent), were an extreme minority in the economics profession.

You ignored everything I said. So we can just end this portion of our discussion with your non-answer. As I said, people like Friedman are not good examples of what most economists are like.


Aside from the very clear point made in the beginning of the thread that almost none of the supporters of your fake anarchism are capitalists, mainly being students and academics without practical experience, the point on this issue is that it's an issue of a democracy knowingly voting in a dictatorship that deprives them of future opportunities to vote - perhaps conceivable in some twisted, ludicrous fantasy, but with little chance of real-world implementation. Capitalism involves labor market hierarchy; hierarchy is incompatible with anarchy.

We are talking about a society with members who all support capitalism. There is no reason why that society could not be anarchist if you are defining anarchism as a free association of individuals (which is a terrible definition). You are completely missing the point. If hierarchy is incompatible with anarchy, then I assume you believe "anarchist Spain" was not anarchist, correct?



You are a troll, Oaf. It is fitting that you be treated as a troll. I mentioned the fact that you didn't understand Burczak as a reason that you don't understand the nature of Hayekian tacit knowledge.

All you did was repeat yourself. If you want to contest my initial statement, go ahead. In case you forgot, here it is...


I was an anarcho-capitalist because I thought I could logically and theoretically explain what an anarchist society would look like. However, I also accepted Hayeks points regarding tacit knowledge and the impossibility to rationally plan out a productive economic order. When I realized the two were incompatible, I chose the latter.

[Agnapostate]

You ignored everything I said. So we can just end this portion of our discussion with your non-answer. As I said, people like Friedman are not good examples of what most economists are like.

You said that you thought the empirical research was wrong, a baseless contradiction without evidential or argumentative support. The study mentioned pointed to the fact that the vast majority of economists favor more of the government intervention so integral to the capitalist economy because they recognize its economic expediency, and since only 8 percent can be identified as supporters of the "free market," that distinguishes them from the 20 percent of the general public that can be identified as supporters of the "tea party" movement alone.


We are talking about a society with members who all support capitalism. There is no reason why that society could not be anarchist if you are defining anarchism as a free association of individuals (which is a terrible definition). You are completely missing the point.

And as I said, the probability of mass democratic support of anti-democratic dictatorship is infinitesimal, an extreme logical improbability if not an outright impossibility. Anarchism is a politico-economic doctrine that advocates societal arrangement according to the elimination of ruler-ship, which the hierarchies of capitalism involve.


If hierarchy is incompatible with anarchy, then I assume you believe "anarchist Spain" was not anarchist, correct?

I don't suppose this could be a not-so-subtle setup for reference to the majestic Bryan Caplan?


All you did was repeat yourself. If you want to contest my initial statement, go ahead. In case you forgot, here it is...

And my statement was that you don't have an actual understanding of Hayek's points regarding tacit knowledge and their application to planning, since you're so eager to defend the mutual interdependence that characterizes the oligopolistic nature of capitalism, as well as the centralized hierarchies that are at the core of the orthodox capitalist firm, both impediments to tacit knowledge transmission. As I said, read some Burczak (http://books.google.com/books?id=jckEle2Omh8C).

[Skooma Addict]

You said that you thought the empirical research was wrong, a baseless contradiction without evidential or argumentative support. The study mentioned pointed to the fact that the vast majority of economists favor more of the government intervention so integral to the capitalist economy because they recognize its economic expediency, and since only 8 percent can be identified as supporters of the "free market," that distinguishes them from the 20 percent of the general public that can be identified as supporters of the "tea party" movement alone.

I don't know what criteria is being used to define and determine whether or not an economist supports the "free market." For all I know you need to hold beliefs similar to Friedman to be put in with the 8%. If you actually look at the survey, the economists really aren't that friendly towards intervention. Look at the overviews I presented earlyer of the economists views on trade and environmental policy for example.

If you want to compare the beliefs of economists to those of the general public, look at the survey I showed you earlier, and it is clear that the economists are generally more friendly towards the market than the general population.

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/1199-econgen.cfm


And as I said, the probability of mass democratic support of anti-democratic dictatorship is infinitesimal, an extreme logical improbability if not an outright impossibility. Anarchism is a politico-economic doctrine that advocates societal arrangement according to the elimination of ruler-ship, which the hierarchies of capitalism involve.

I was not using your definition of anarchism. I was explaining how given the presented definition, an anarchist society could be capitalist. I wasn't making any claims on the likely hood of any such society becoming a reality.


I don't suppose this could be a not-so-subtle setup for reference to the majestic Bryan Caplan?


Are you going to deny that there was any hierarchy in "anarchist Spain?"


And my statement was that you don't have an actual understanding of Hayek's points regarding tacit knowledge and their application to planning, since you're so eager to defend the mutual interdependence that characterizes the oligopolistic nature of capitalism, as well as the centralized hierarchies that are at the core of the orthodox capitalist firm, both impediments to tacit knowledge transmission. As I said, read some Burczak (http://books.google.com/books?id=jckEle2Omh8C).

Well then I guess Hayek didn't understand his own points on tacit knowledge then? But anyways, I know the point you made, since you repeated it many times. I was hoping you would actually defend it. But I will read "Socialism after Hayek" since apparently Burczak is correct by default.

[Agnapostate]

I don't know what criteria is being used to define and determine whether or not an economist supports the "free market." For all I know you need to hold beliefs similar to Friedman to be put in with the 8%.

The 3%. Can't you read?


If you actually look at the survey, the economists really aren't that friendly towards intervention. Look at the overviews I presented earlyer of the economists views on trade and environmental policy for example.

If you want to compare the beliefs of economists to those of the general public, look at the survey I showed you earlier, and it is clear that the economists are generally more friendly towards the market than the general population.

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/1199-econgen.cfm

The majority of economists mark themselves as opponents of protectionism because the elementary doctrines of comparative advantage and differences in opportunity costs inform us that there are gains from trade, which renders autarky undesirable. The majority of economists are also aware of the infant industry argument, however, and economic historians are aware that developed countries relied on substantial "intervention" in the form of protectionist tariff establishment and quotas to build themselves up. So it would be unlikely that the majority support unrestricted "free trade," especially since that term is a misnomer since there's no "freedom" in constricting labor markets.

Ultimately, it would be a matter of determining whether the study I cited, which explicitly referred to and discussed the survey that you mentioned and I already reviewed myself, ultimately was accurate. Since you haven't read it, you have no means of making that determination.


I was not using your definition of anarchism. I was explaining how given the presented definition, an anarchist society could be capitalist. I wasn't making any claims on the likely hood of any such society becoming a reality.

If it contained widespread labor market hierarchies, based on "an"-cap proponents' tolerance, and even endorsements, of such, it would very clearly be non-anarchist.


Are you going to deny that there was any hierarchy in "anarchist Spain?"

You don't know enough about the subject to make a conclusion one way or the other. The Republican regions that were dominated by the syndicalist union contingencies were characterized by considerably less hierarchy than capitalism, and not enough hierarchy to describe them as non-anarchist. We non-utopians look to generalities rather than absolutes, given human imperfections, you see. But since you haven't read any literature on the topic except Caplan's feeble attempt at an attack piece (that was quickly refuted), I doubt you'll be able to say otherwise.


Well then I guess Hayek didn't understand his own points on tacit knowledge then?

Not very well. Not everyone who defends sound axioms can recognize their application into different rules.


But anyways, I know the point you made, since you repeated it many times. I was hoping you would actually defend it.

It's been repeated and defended, as anyone here who's read my comments will affirm. That you simply regurgitate the same talking points that were already refuted, like a broken spambot, doesn't change that.


But I will read "Socialism after Hayek" since apparently Burczak is correct by default.

Correct according to the strength of his arguments, which aren't strongly disputed by moderate Austrian economists (as evidenced by positive reviews from the likes of Boettke and Prychitko), and ignored by thickheaded extremists like Block and Reisman.

[LeftSideDown]

as opposed to "socialist," which is an advocate of a certain social ideology.

A socialist is just one who opposes privately owned means of production. There is no "certain social ideology."

[Agnapostate]

A socialist is just one who opposes privately owned means of production. There is no "certain social ideology."

A socialist is one who supports de facto public ownership of the means of production.

[Skooma Addict]

The 3%. Can't you read?



I can't read the minds of people.


You don't know enough about the subject to make a conclusion one way or the other. The Republican regions that were dominated by the syndicalist union contingencies were characterized by considerably less hierarchy than capitalism, and not enough hierarchy to describe them as non-anarchist. We non-utopians look to generalities rather than absolutes, given human imperfections, you see. But since you haven't read any literature on the topic except Caplan's feeble attempt at an attack piece (that was quickly refuted), I doubt you'll be able to say otherwise.

Well I am no expert on CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia, but I don't need to be to recognize that it was hierarchical. Anyone who looks at the subject from a fair perspective would recognize this. To me anarchism is just what occurs after a state is abolished. This way people cannot cheaply avoid any criticism by saying "well X and Y really weren't anarchist." I have no idea how much hierarchy you believe is required before a society can no longer be called anarchist. I read The critique of Caplan and I thought it made some good points, but it was still ultimately a failure which used the exact methods it criticized Caplan of using.


Not very well. Not everyone who defends sound axioms can recognize their application into different rules.

I don't see how you could accept Hayek's main points and still remain an anarchist. You have no idea what an anarchist society in America for example would look like. To think that you somehow know the answer to this a priori is utopian.


It's been repeated and defended, as anyone here who's read my comments will affirm. That you simply regurgitate the same talking points that were already refuted, like a broken spambot, doesn't change that.


I don't recall which arguments exactly you are referring to. If it is the incorrect claim that horizontal firms do not suffer from tacit knowledge problems to the extent that hierarchical firms do, such a claim is irrelevant since I am asking you how you know what an anarchist society would look like to begin with.

[Cal Engime]

and since only 8 percent can be identified as supporters of the "free market,"
The 3%. Can't you read?He can read. That must mean you can't write.

[syndicat]

Well I am no expert on CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia, but I don't need to be to recognize that it was hierarchical. Anyone who looks at the subject from a fair perspective would recognize this. To me anarchism is just what occurs after a state is abolished. This way people cannot cheaply avoid any criticism by saying "well X and Y really weren't anarchist." I have no idea how much hierarchy you believe is required before a society can no longer be called anarchist. I read The critique of Caplan and I thought it made some good points, but it was still ultimately a failure which used the exact methods it criticized Caplan of using.



Catalonia was a society in the midst of a revolutionary process. The CNT never got to the point of fully carrying out its program. Thus the state persisted. The CNT did make a proposal for a process of dismantling the state, replacing the central government with a Defense Council, to oversee a unified militia, and with this Defense Council accountable to a Workers Congress, made up of delegates elected from the assemblies.
This proposal was blocked due to opposition from the state socialists.

Where they did do constructive work along anarchist lines was in the expropriation of the capitalists and reorganization of a huge proportion of industry and agriculture under workers self-management. Also, in the early militia they built, with elected officers and assemblies, directed by a union defense committee.

[syndicat]

the problem with the way this question is posed is that we can't simply stipulate what name will in fact be used to refer to a particular group or their views. it depends on mass usage of the word. so, "libertarian" in the USA has come to refer to a certain kind of right-wing, pro-capitalist perspective, or family of related perspectives. So I call them "right-wing libertarians" and I differentiate them from "left-wing libertarians". They can be called "libertarians" in that each group claims to regard liberty as a primary value. From my point of view, this claim on the part of the right-wing libertarians is entirely fake. So I sometimes say that they can be differentiated by whose liberty they are concerned with -- the liberty of capitalists or the liberty of workers and the oppressed. To put it another way, "freedom" is an essentially contested concept, so it is understandable that there are two completely incompatible political perspectives that lay claim to the territory.

[Skooma Addict]

He can read. That must mean you can't write.

He expects me to be able to read the minds of the authors of this quote...



Here we present evidence from a survey of American Economic Association (AEA) members showing that a large majority of economists are either generally favorable to or mixed on government intervention, and hence cannot be regarded as supporters of free-market principles. Based on our finding, we suggest that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters.....and know what criteria is used to determine who falls into what category without reading the article.



Catalonia was a society in the midst of a revolutionary process. The CNT never got to the point of fully carrying out its program. Thus the state persisted.So then you don't believe CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia was anarchist, correct?

[syndicat]

So then you don't believe CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia was anarchist, correct?

It's not quite correct to call it "CNT-FAI controlled". They had a great deal of power but did not consolidate the power of the working class, and allowed the old regional government to still exist. It was a region in the midst of a revolutionary process, where major revolultionary gains were made by CNT-FAI.

[Dean]

I find it rather amusing that you convey an emotion of shock, especially considering that I have brought these colonies up before, and that the reason for you not seeing them was probably the fact that you simply are not omnipotent to watch every single discussion I post.

Let us see how "Utopia" colony did:



So it seems that colony was not strong enough to stand the effects of a Civil War, among others. I think that the ability to be required to have an invitation to join is what led to its greatest dissolution, since it proved a barrier to entry for expansion and growth. But that is open to debate. As we can see though, that dwelling, just like Anarchic Spain, failed, so the way they were both implemented should be reconsidered.

So, I guess its fair to say that if mutualism looks like "utopia," it has no future? I'm surprised that such a "profitable" enterprise waned to make the way for other business models.

It's just a joke, Hayenmill. A market economy always produces a capitalist paradigm. It makes sense - this is why every socialist or otherwise egalitarian regime arranges itself along capitalist business models.

Anything short of decentralized, community-based control over society is going to have to lead to capital accumulation, precisely because production, distribution and sale always tends towards more profitable ventures. the goal of selling off bread is to have money to purchase either capital or consumer goods for oneself.


You mean why did I change my opinion? I was an anarcho-capitalist because I thought I could logically and theoretically explain what an anarchist society would look like. However, I also accepted Hayeks points regarding tacit knowledge and the impossibility to rationally plan out a productive economic order. When I realized the two were incompatible, I chose the latter.
Wait - so you ceased to believe that you could blame the state for all economic "artificiality" because "an anarchistic society can't produce a rational economic paradigm"? That doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm still all ears - why did the greatest villain in your paradigm suddenly start to enjoy the luxury of being the sole "necessary" firm? Are we going to subsequently start to believe the rest - that all the other managers of capital, Wal-Mart, UBS, Goldman Sachs - are necessary for a stable economy as well?

[Agnapostate]

I can't read the minds of people.

Apparently, you can't even read an abstract that was linked to.


Well I am no expert on CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia, but I don't need to be to recognize that it was hierarchical. Anyone who looks at the subject from a fair perspective would recognize this. To me anarchism is just what occurs after a state is abolished. This way people cannot cheaply avoid any criticism by saying "well X and Y really weren't anarchist." I have no idea how much hierarchy you believe is required before a society can no longer be called anarchist. I read The critique of Caplan and I thought it made some good points, but it was still ultimately a failure which used the exact methods it criticized Caplan of using.

There seems to be no way to demonstrate to you that no one here is interested in your speculative muttering, in your constant regurgitation of "Well, I know nothing about this topic, but this is what it's about anyway." Consider not commenting on a topic if you freely admit that you have no knowledge of it. The state is one manifestation of hierarchical power, but the continued existence of other forms of hierarchy in some widespread manner is incompatible with anarchy. That's the etymological meaning of the term, regardless of the attempts of idiots on the Internet to misappropriate it.


I don't see how you could accept Hayek's main points and still remain an anarchist. You have no idea what an anarchist society in America for example would look like. To think that you somehow know the answer to this a priori is utopian.

Speculating about the nature of "an anarchist society" in some Brave New World style rhetoric is utopian enough, so I instead make it clear enough that I endorse nothing more complicated than horizontally organized workers' ownership and management of the means of production. Anyone with an understanding of tacit knowledge will realize the problem of tacit knowledge loss in hierarchical, centralized organizational structures.


I don't recall which arguments exactly you are referring to. If it is the incorrect claim that horizontal firms do not suffer from tacit knowledge problems to the extent that hierarchical firms do, such a claim is irrelevant since I am asking you how you know what an anarchist society would look like to begin with.
I wouldn't expect you to comment intelligently on tacit knowledge problems in hierarchical and horizontal organizational structures, respectively, since you actually have a very weak understanding of Hayek. If you'd read Burczak, actually endorsed by Austrian economists because he accurately extrapolated Hayekian insights and demonstrated their application in support of market socialism, you'd know better. The fact that this turn of the socialist calculation debate on its head has been recognized by others who point out the application of the economic calculation problem to capitalism, including advocates of decentrally planned socialism, is emphasized by Burczak when he writes that, "Albert and Hahnel's critique of the forgone tacit knowledge in hierarchical firms resonates with the argument that this book presents for worker cooperatives. It may well be the case that worker cooperatives or firms that are planned by workers' councils would elicit more tacit knowledge from their members than the typical capitalist enterprise is able to extract from its employees."


He can read. That must mean you can't write.

You a useless sock? Run along unless the number '3' starts to make sense to you.

[Cal Engime]

You a useless sock? Run along unless the number '3' starts to make sense to you.Read the post of yours that he quoted and tell me if it says 3 percent or 8 percent.

[Agnapostate]

Read the post of yours that he quoted and tell me if it says 3 percent or 8 percent.

Oaf said, "For all I know you need to hold beliefs similar to Friedman to be put in with the 8%," which is a ridiculous statement, since strong supporters of "free market" capitalism were a smaller number, less than 3%.

[Cal Engime]

You miss his point: what does that mean, anyway? How is a supporter of the free market defined? What's the difference between a supporter and a "strong supporter?" I don't know because I haven't read the paper, and I'm not going to because it costs $25.

I don't think argumenta ad verecundiam are worth very much, anyway.

Edit: And if you haven't read it either, you're in good company: a 2002 study (http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043) by Mikhail Simkin and Vwani Roychowdhury found that most scientists don't read all of the articles they cite.

I haven't read it.

[Agnapostate]

You miss his point: what does that mean, anyway? How is a supporter of the free market defined? What's the difference between a supporter and a "strong supporter?" I don't know because I haven't read the paper, and I'm not going to because it costs $25.

A proponent of capitalism who doesn't have two cents to rub together? Interesting. Thanks to the generosity of the Bolshevik Internetz, however, the full text is at FindArticles (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_2_66/ai_n27275089/). You miss my point: If the 8% were to be along the lines of Milton Friedman, what were the 3% to be?


I don't think argumenta ad verecundiam are worth very much, anyway.

If you ever take an introductory logic course, you might realize the comical nature of this statement. A reference to peer-reviewed empirical research is an appeal to statistical evidence, not to authority.


Edit: And if you haven't read it either, you're in good company: a 2002 study (http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043) by Mikhail Simkin and Vwani Roychowdhury found that most scientists don't read all of the articles they cite.

As a non-scientist, I'm thankfully free from that encumbrance.


I haven't read it.

I wouldn't expect otherwise, given that you can't even properly read short posts on this forum.

[Cal Engime]

A proponent of capitalism who doesn't have two cents to rub together? Interesting.I must be lying. Obviously I defend capitalism because of my selfish class interests.:rolleyes:

[Agnapostate]

I must be lying. Obviously I defend capitalism because of my selfish class interests.:rolleyes:

No, I was joking. In fact, I've always found it an interesting sociological phenomenon that I haven't spotted a single capitalist among the proponents of "anarchist" capitalism, probably because a serious attempt to bring about "laissez-faire" free markets would cause capitalism to collapse.

[Cal Engime]

Fair enough. Let me go back to this.
A reference to peer-reviewed empirical research is an appeal to statistical evidence, not to authority.Yeah, but why is that evidence being cited in the first place? The aggregated, unsupported opinions of some anonymous mass of economists are not relevant in an argument, unless the subject is history and we want to know whether economists generally favoured the free market in a particular period.

[Agnapostate]

Fair enough. Let me go back to this.Yeah, but why is that evidence being cited in the first place? The aggregated, unsupported opinions of some anonymous mass of economists are not relevant in an argument, unless the subject is history and we want to know whether economists generally favoured the free market in a particular period.

The interest is Oaf's, not mine, so you ought to consult him. I was merely refuting the ill-informed nonsense that he spews on the forum in an attempt to be a contradictory troll. Incidentally, that would better be classified as an argumentum ad populum.

[Cal Engime]

I had trouble deciding between the two, since it's an argument to popularity among authorities. Maybe this kind of argument should have its own Latin name.

[Havet]

So, I guess its fair to say that if mutualism looks like "utopia," it has no future? I'm surprised that such a "profitable" enterprise waned to make the way for other business models.

It's just a joke, Hayenmill. A market economy always produces a capitalist paradigm. It makes sense - this is why every socialist or otherwise egalitarian regime arranges itself along capitalist business models.

Anything short of decentralized, community-based control over society is going to have to lead to capital accumulation, precisely because production, distribution and sale always tends towards more profitable ventures. the goal of selling off bread is to have money to purchase either capital or consumer goods for oneself.


You are commiting a fallacy that you should know better about. Just because a venture/practical application of an ideology failed does not mean the ideology itself is flawed; what it does mean is that that particular manner of application was incorrect. Else I could easily claim that anarchism has no future simply because anarchist spain didn't have any future. But I don't. And you should do the same.

[Skooma Addict]

Speculating about the nature of "an anarchist society" in some Brave New World style rhetoric is utopian enough, so I instead make it clear enough that I endorse nothing more complicated than horizontally organized workers' ownership and management of the means of production. Anyone with an understanding of tacit knowledge will realize the problem of tacit knowledge loss in hierarchical, centralized organizational structures.

You advocate abolishing the state, and I want to know how you know what society will look after the state is abolished. Why won't there be gang/turf warfare on a large scale?

A hierarchical firm of 3 people does not suffer from tacit knowledge problems any more than a horizontal firm of 3 people does. A hierarchical firm of 70,000 people suffers from tacit knowledge problems less than a horizontal firm of 70,000 people does.


I wouldn't expect you to comment intelligently on tacit knowledge problems in hierarchical and horizontal organizational structures, respectively, since you actually have a very weak understanding of Hayek. If you'd read Burczak, actually endorsed by Austrian economists because he accurately extrapolated Hayekian insights and demonstrated their application in support of market socialism, you'd know better. The fact that this turn of the socialist calculation debate on its head has been recognized by others who point out the application of the economic calculation problem to capitalism, including advocates of decentrally planned socialism, is emphasized by Burczak when he writes that, "Albert and Hahnel's critique of the forgone tacit knowledge in hierarchical firms resonates with the argument that this book presents for worker cooperatives. It may well be the case that worker cooperatives or firms that are planned by workers' councils would elicit more tacit knowledge from their members than the typical capitalist enterprise is able to extract from its employees."


I know that you think I have a weak understanding of Hayek, since you believe that anyone who hasn't read Burczak has a weak understanding of Hayek by default. You believe Hayek had a weak understanding of his own points and that he was incorrect by default. This is the only reasonable conclusion since you stubbornly refuse to actually explain why Hayek was incorrect.

I don't know what your Burczak quote is supposed to prove. Remember, not everyone believes that he is correct by default.


The interest is Oaf's, not mine, so you ought to consult him. I was merely refuting the ill-informed nonsense that he spews on the forum in an attempt to be a contradictory troll. Incidentally, that would better be classified as an argumentum ad populum.

My interest was that economists support a free market relative to the general population, which is true.

[Skooma Addict]

Wait - so you ceased to believe that you could blame the state for all economic "artificiality" because "an anarchistic society can't produce a rational economic paradigm"? That doesn't make much sense to me.

I initially began to support a state when I recognized that nobody has any idea what Anarchy would actually look like. Everyone thinks it will conform to their own preconceived plans for society, but in reality nobody knows. It could just end up like Somalia or result in the degeneration of the legal code and a return to the lex talionis.

[syndicat]

You advocate abolishing the state, and I want to know how you know what society will look after the state is abolished. Why won't there be gang/turf warfare on a large scale?


Abolishing the state, as understood by libertarian socialists since the time of Bakunin, has not meant that there is no governance system or system for making and enforcing social rules. It means that this is done in a relatively horizontal way, based on direct democracy.

Capitalism is inherently bureaucratic in that it leads to concentration not only of ownership in the hands of a few, but also managerialist pyramids with a relative concentration of decision-making authority and expertise and info related to management decision-making into the hands of a few.

Libertarian socialism means that this is replaced by democratization of knowledge, decision-making rooted in direct democracy, social ownership of means of production and workers self-management.

A state exists when the structure that rules over a territory and can exercize a monopoly on violence in that territory is separated from the direct control of the mass of the people. A libertarian governance structure lacks that separation, and is thus not suited for the defense of the interests of a dominating and exploiting class. That's why it isn't a state.

[Agnapostate]

You advocate abolishing the state, and I want to know how you know what society will look after the state is abolished. Why won't there be gang/turf warfare on a large scale?

Statism has already produced gang/turf warfare. As syndicat explained to you, anarchist literature has never advocated elimination of all coordination structures, instead emphasizing decentralized social organization through direct democracy in workplaces and communities.


A hierarchical firm of 3 people does not suffer from tacit knowledge problems any more than a horizontal firm of 3 people does.

No firm with 3 employees controls substantial market shares in comparison to the largest corporations, so you can stop trying to pluck out the most moronic exceptions to general rules, as they have extremely limited practical application. That's one of your classic habits, though, so I doubt it will stop, even though it does nothing but prove the weakness and untenability of your claims.


A hierarchical firm of 70,000 people suffers from tacit knowledge problems less than a horizontal firm of 70,000 people does.

That's quite absurd. A hierarchical firm of that size could very well suffer from diseconomies of scale problems such as communication impediments from losses in distributed and tacit knowledge. The horizontal firm eliminates the additional costs and limited knowledge associated with centralized managerial chains, and the divergent interests associated with principal-agent problems.


I know that you think I have a weak understanding of Hayek, since you believe that anyone who hasn't read Burczak has a weak understanding of Hayek by default. You believe Hayek had a weak understanding of his own points and that he was incorrect by default. This is the only reasonable conclusion since you stubbornly refuse to actually explain why Hayek was incorrect.

It's quite easy: Market concentration produces monopoly and oligopoly of various sorts. The behemoth firms with centralized managerial structures that result are subject to Hayekian knowledge problems just as the centralized allocation structures of the command economy are, and capitalist markets have now themselves become centralized allocation structures, as opposed to the impossibility of this occurring in a market socialist economy.


I don't know what your Burczak quote is supposed to prove. Remember, not everyone believes that he is correct by default.

You've not read a single aspect of that literature, so you'll have no means of asserting whether he's correct or incorrect.


My interest was that economists support a free market relative to the general population, which is true.

It's decidedly false. Many people here could probably qualify as supporters of the "free market" according to your subjective cherry-picking interpretation, since they advocate the elimination of the government's macroeconomic stabilization policies in order to bring about a collapse of capitalism. Supporters of "free market" capitalism, as opposed to individual rightist policies, particularly devout ones like Rothbard, Block, and Reisman, are a rarity among the economics profession. The 8% might not be exactly like Friedman, but they're probably along the lines of Chicago school neoclassicals, and the < 3% are probably Austrians or near-Austrians. So we have a total of 10 to 11%, versus the 20% of the population that are supporters of the tea party movement's rightist economic principles.

That means that more than 97% of the economics profession accepts that some degree of centralized state controls are necessary for the function of capitalism. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're correct, as large numbers of social scientists have favored dramatically wrong conclusions in the past. But you brought it up, and there's an answer to your claim.


I initially began to support a state when I recognized that nobody has any idea what Anarchy would actually look like. Everyone thinks it will conform to their own preconceived plans for society, but in reality nobody knows. It could just end up like Somalia or result in the degeneration of the legal code and a return to the lex talionis.

This is simply more evidence that you really know nothing about what you're talking about. Somalia is characterized by substantial hierarchies, extreme military hierarchies of force and coercion, in fact. The widespread existence of hierarchy is antithetical to anarchy. That's why anarchists reject Yugoslavian market socialism as a manifestation of anarchism despite its implementation of the workers' management that is associated with anarchism, and should properly be associated with socialism as a whole.

[Gecko]

I'm having trouble devising an etymologically suitable term for the small political contingency that typically term themselves "libertarians," with a smaller internal sect that term themselves "anarcho-capitalists," or at times, simply "anarchists." We've certainly been over the problems with their claims of anarchism many times before, and that line of thought doesn't need to be rehashed. For those unfamiliar with the issue of the "libertarian" label, it's derived from that same issue, since the word "libertarian" was popularized as a political label in reference to anarchism, and is most consistent with that philosophy.

Some people here use the terms "libertarian capitalist" or simply "anarcho-capitalist," but apart from that conceding what shouldn't be conceded, given the aforementioned issues, "libertarian" and "anarcho" are adjectives modifying the noun "capitalist," which is a member of a class structure, as opposed to "socialist," which is an advocate of a certain social ideology. And very few actual capitalists are interested in the fringe kookiness of this political contingency, except to exploit their ignorant and inconsistent defenses of current class structure and property distribution when they can, which isn't commonly done or needed, since they have plenty of shields in front of them already, and since this contingency's political proposals are not popular or viable. As I've said, the majority of this branch are students ironically acting against their self-interest, though they're likely attending school on their parents' dime, nerdy Internet suburbanites without outside social lives, and a few fringe academics at state-funded universities. Hardly capitalists. And even if we came back to "advocate of 'libertarian'/'anarchist' capitalism," the scare quotes around "libertarian" and "anarchist" eventually get annoying and repetitive, aside from the aforementioned problems of using those words at all.

The most popular alternative term is "propertarian," but since they don't actually defend a property rights framework defined by distributive justice, I'm hesitant to grant them that title. Even when acknowledging the traditional socialist division between private and possessive property (which I also frown upon because of the confusion it breeds, but that's another point), they're opponents of property rights.

Also, is there any means of distinguishing between those who profess loyalty to "minarchism" and those who profess loyalty to "anarchism," though they actually favor neither of those ideologies?


hell man,by the time you figure out your name there the revolution will have already been over :lol:

[Skooma Addict]

Abolishing the state, as understood by libertarian socialists since the time of Bakunin, has not meant that there is no governance system or system for making and enforcing social rules. It means that this is done in a relatively horizontal way, based on direct democracy.
Did I ever imply otherwise? I know you don't want there to a complete collapse of the legal structure. I am asking why that wouldn't be the case. So far nobody here has even come close to giving any kind of actual answer.


Capitalism is inherently bureaucratic in that it leads to concentration not only of ownership in the hands of a few, but also managerialist pyramids with a relative concentration of decision-making authority and expertise and info related to management decision-making into the hands of a few.

Libertarian socialism means that this is replaced by democratization of knowledge, decision-making rooted in direct democracy, social ownership of means of production and workers self-management.

A state exists when the structure that rules over a territory and can exercize a monopoly on violence in that territory is separated from the direct control of the mass of the people. A libertarian governance structure lacks that separation, and is thus not suited for the defense of the interests of a dominating and exploiting class. That's why it isn't a state.What was the point in quoting me if you aren't going to address what I said? You may as well have just made your post without quoting me.


Statism has already produced gang/turf warfare. As syndicat explained to you, anarchist literature has never advocated elimination of all coordination structures, instead emphasizing decentralized social organization through direct democracy in workplaces and communities.
You are just avoiding my question. I know you don't advocate warfare and a collapse of the legal code. I am asking you how you know what anarchy will look like if you overthrow the state via revolution.


No firm with 3 employees controls substantial market shares in comparison to the largest corporations, so you can stop trying to pluck out the most moronic exceptions to general rules, as they have extremely limited practical application. That's one of your classic habits, though, so I doubt it will stop, even though it does nothing but prove the weakness and untenability of your claims. I am not plucking out any exceptions. There is no rule that hierarchical firms suffer from tacit knowledge problems more than horizontal firms do.


That's quite absurd. A hierarchical firm of that size could very well suffer from diseconomies of scale problems such as communication impediments from losses in distributed and tacit knowledge.I never claimed otherwise. But you do know that horizontal firms suffer from diseconomies of scale as well, yes? The second half of your sentence is you assuming what you have to prove. Try again.


The horizontal firm eliminates the additional costs and limited knowledge associated with centralized managerial chains, and the divergent interests associated with principal-agent problems.Well sure you wouldn't have to pay the managers salaries, but managers make workers more productive. That is why people hire managers. There are already methods which are used to deal with principal agent problems.

A horizontal firm is more restricted in its ability to expand than a hierarchical firm, and is thus unable to reap economies of scale where a hierarchical firm could. Managers also have an incentive to turn workers tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. A co-worker in a horizontal firm does not have this incentive to the same extent. Also, every efficient supply chain model used today requires managers. Containing and neutralizing constraints within a company requires managers, as workers rarely spot constraints. You think you know a lot more about efficient business than you really do.

Finally, can you give me a good reason why horizontal firms are not far more common other than "market power?" Are they being held back by the evil greedy capitalists?


You've not read a single aspect of that literature, so you'll have no means of asserting whether he's correct or incorrect. So why did you present that pointless quote if I can't determine whether or not it is correct?


It's decidedly false. Many people here could probably qualify as supporters of the "free market" according to your subjective cherry-picking interpretation, since they advocate the elimination of the government's macroeconomic stabilization policies in order to bring about a collapse of capitalism. Supporters of "free market" capitalism, as opposed to individual rightist policies, particularly devout ones like Rothbard, Block, and Reisman, are a rarity among the economics profession. The 8% might not be exactly like Friedman, but they're probably along the lines of Chicago school neoclassicals, and the < 3% are probably Austrians or near-Austrians. So we have a total of 10 to 11%, versus the 20% of the population that are supporters of the tea party movement's rightist economic principles.

That means that more than 97% of the economics profession accepts that some degree of centralized state controls are necessary for the function of capitalism. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're correct, as large numbers of social scientists have favored dramatically wrong conclusions in the past. But you brought it up, and there's an answer to your claim.I don't know what your 97% figure is supposed to prove. The tea party people believe some degree of centralized state controls are necessary. I am not going by your arbitrary 8% 3% rule (and by the way, more than 8% of economists support free market principals. Just look at the survey). I am going by the actual survey taken. I linked it before. All you have to do is read it yourself.



This is simply more evidence that you really know nothing about what you're talking about. Somalia is characterized by substantial hierarchies, extreme military hierarchies of force and coercion, in fact. The widespread existence of hierarchy is antithetical to anarchy. That's why anarchists reject Yugoslavian market socialism as a manifestation of anarchism despite its implementation of the workers' management that is associated with anarchism, and should properly be associated with socialism as a whole.I honestly don't see how this is so hard for you to understand.


I said...



I initially began to support a state when I recognized that nobody has any idea what Anarchy would actually look like. Everyone thinks it will conform to their own preconceived plans for society, but in reality nobody knows. It could just end up like Somalia or result in the degeneration of the legal code and a return to the lex talionis.
You completely evaded what I said, instead pointing out that you and other anarchists disapprove of Somalia. However, I never claimed or implied otherwise. You are clearly evading the point.:(

[Agnapostate]

You are just avoiding my question. I know you don't advocate warfare and a collapse of the legal code. I am asking you how you know what anarchy will look like if you overthrow the state via revolution.

I haven't advocated overthrow of the state via revolution, especially as I think it an unlikely process in politically stable first-world countries, where the solution will come through nationalization and conversion to market socialism, perhaps with a phase of social democratic capitalism. Since anarchy exists when archy has been eliminated, I would expect anarchy to take the form of voluntary decentralized organization via confederations of individual communities and regions and labor-managed firms within them along the lines of much of Republican Spain.


I am not plucking out any exceptions. There is no rule that hierarchical firms suffer from tacit knowledge problems more than horizontal firms do.

It's a very simple adage that people on the ground know what's going on, Oaf. Distant managers in centralized hierarchies can't accomplish what local organs can, be it in the command economy or the behemoth capitalist firm.


I never claimed otherwise. But you do know that horizontal firms suffer from diseconomies of scale as well, yes? The second half of your sentence is you assuming what you have to prove. Try again.

LOL, no. Communication problems are a very specific deficiency associated with centralized hierarchies, which was one of the thrusts of the economic calculation problem. Why don't you explain to us why the massive centralized firm will not be affected by the same impediments to knowledge diffusion will be? Gargantuan corporations may produce greater outputs than small command economies.


Well sure you wouldn't have to pay the managers salaries, but managers make workers more productive. That is why people hire managers.

Hierarchical managers that are not themselves workers don't inspire greater productivity than workers' ownership and democratic management, particularly that of the labor cooperative. That's why such organization models are more productive than orthodox capitalist firms, but capitalists are obviously not interested in relinquishing control merely for the purpose of greater overall efficiency.


There are already methods which are used to deal with principal agent problems.

Actually, some of the mechanisms employed in capitalist firms in order to combat agency dilemmas are themselves partial introduction of quasi-workers' ownership schemes, such as co-determination policies. The inherent flaw is that there is still a division of interests that results from the divorce of ownership, management, and labor that is eliminated in the self-managed firm. That's one of the critical reasons for the greater efficiency of workers' ownership and management, illustrated in the peer-reviewed empirical research that you dismiss without actual refutation.


A horizontal firm is more restricted in its ability to expand than a hierarchical firm, and is thus unable to reap economies of scale where a hierarchical firm could.

Horizontally managed firms may be more restricted in "ability to expand than a hierarchical firm" because of the correlation of horizontal management with workers' ownership and the rarity of workers' ownership due to the oligopolistic nature of the capitalist economy, but if you're making an assertion about the fundamental expansive deficiencies of those firms, you'll have to actually provide arguments instead of idiotically expecting everyone here to accept your statements without challenge. As a tip, economies/diseconomies of scale are concerned with size, not organizational structure, so an assertion that a large horizontal firm could not reap the economies of scale benefits that a large hierarchical firm could contradicts your earlier assertion that, "horizontal firms suffer from diseconomies of scale as well." The problem is that you repeat talking points without actual knowledge of theory of the firm.


Managers also have an incentive to turn workers tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. A co-worker in a horizontal firm does not have this incentive to the same extent.

On the contrary, if tacit knowledge diffusion or conversion brings about resource innovation that minimizes the importance of certain managerial inputs, there's a very significant incentive to act as an impediment to dynamic efficiency enhancement. The absence of principal-agent problems in the labor-managed firm because of the unification of ownership and management means that workers are interested in greater firm profitability, which is certainly an incentive on their parts.


Also, every efficient supply chain model used today requires managers. Containing and neutralizing constraints within a company requires managers, as workers rarely spot constraints.

Hierarchical management in an externally owned firm, so that it's clear that you're not attacking a strawman, since no one here has attacked "managers." I've attacked the institution of the divorce of ownership and management, as well as labor. So if your more accurate claim was that hierarchical management in firms not owned by workers is necessary, reconcile these statements with empirical research such as Logue and Yates's Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization (http://eid.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/686), which concludes that "A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital."


You think you know a lot more about efficient business than you really do.

More of your comedy, since I've actually taken the time to study the empirical literature on the topic, unlike you. I've done this to such a greater extent than you that you've cited work that you perceive to be in contradiction to my views (with no greater understanding than that, just that it's somehow opposed to me), with my previous reading of the very piece that you cited enabling me to reveal you as a moron for not having read the article that you were referring to, since it directly contradicted you. If memory serves, you hastily dropped reference to it.

I notice there's a tendency in your posts to subtly or not so subtly ignore critical points even while posting text, providing the illusion that you're engaging in dialogue. In your last ill-informed rants against my commentary on the issue of the labor-managed firm, nearly all of the points that you were regurgitating by the end of the thread weren't even responses to the original posts, which you'd gradually dropped even while continually bringing up red herrings that I obliged. Anyone here can affirm this.


Finally, can you give me a good reason why horizontal firms are not far more common other than "market power?"

Is there a reason you've placed the term "market power" in scare quotes, as though concentration in the forms of monopoly and oligopoly (as opposed to your mythical free markets), does not actually characterize the capitalist economy. Can you cite the Herfindahl Index scores of the major industries that you believe labor-managed firms logically ought to be dominating, so that we can examine the degree of market power in each?


Are they being held back by the evil greedy capitalists?

There's little need for ethical condemnation of capitalism, yet alone individual capitalists. The inefficiency of the system alone condemns it.


So why did you present that pointless quote if I can't determine whether or not it is correct?

The reason that you can't determine whether it's correct or not is because you have not read and therefore do not understand the argument. That has not stopped you from contradicting it, so since the argument cannot be explained to you, I'm pointing out the fact that an Austrian-endorsed economist who has studied and extensively written on Hayek realizes that consistent understanding of tacit knowledge generates proclivities towards support of decentralized workers' management.


I don't know what your 97% figure is supposed to prove. The tea party people believe some degree of centralized state controls are necessary. I am not going by your arbitrary 8% 3% rule (and by the way, more than 8% of economists support free market principals. Just look at the survey). I am going by the actual survey taken. I linked it before. All you have to do is read it yourself.

Simply repetition of your tried and tested method of repeating contradictions without actually issuing refutations. That was why you failed so badly in attempting to troll the thread about Rothbard, where you wildly flailed to try and grasp at a red herring involving Bertrand Russell instead of addressing the reality of Rothbard's racism.


I honestly don't see how this is so hard for you to understand.

I said...

You completely evaded what I said, instead pointing out that you and other anarchists disapprove of Somalia. However, I never claimed or implied otherwise. You are clearly evading the point.:(

It's your ignorance that makes comprehension a problem, not the evasion of anyone here. For the last time that this will be explained to you, Somalia is characterized by substantial authoritarian hierarchy, and hierarchy, by the very nature of the etymological structure of its descriptive term, is incompatible with anarchy. The term "anarchy" does of course literally mean "no ruler/authority" or "without rulers/authority" (derived from the Greek ἀν-ἀρχός), which effectively means that anarchism is an ideology of opposition to hierarchical governance, as "hierarchy" is derived from the Greek term ἱεραρχία. Now, ἀρχός and αρχία are parallel terms, so by its very nature, any ideology that has as its end the preservation of archy (namely hierarchy), as a normal condition is opposed to anarchism.

[Skooma Addict]

I haven't advocated overthrow of the state via revolution, especially as I think it an unlikely process in politically stable first-world countries, where the solution will come through nationalization and conversion to market socialism, perhaps with a phase of social democratic capitalism. Since anarchy exists when archy has been eliminated, I would expect anarchy to take the form of voluntary decentralized organization via confederations of individual communities and regions and labor-managed firms within them along the lines of much of Republican Spain.

What would most likely happen is that after industry is nationalized, there would be no market socialism. There would just be a huge parasitical government and an extremely hampered and overregulated market.


It's a very simple adage that people on the ground know what's going on, Oaf. Distant managers in centralized hierarchies can't accomplish what local organs can, be it in the command economy or the behemoth capitalist firm.

Why do you critique hierarchical firms if you don't know how they work? There is a pyramid, the most distant managers rarely if ever make ground orders. Instead, they will determine things such as where to open new plants or how to increase the cash flow of the company as a whole.


LOL, no. Communication problems are a very specific deficiency associated with centralized hierarchies, which was one of the thrusts of the economic calculation problem. Why don't you explain to us why the massive centralized firm will not be affected by the same impediments to knowledge diffusion will be? Gargantuan corporations may produce greater outputs than small command economies.

Ugh. Communication problems are associated with large firms. It has nothing to do with being hierarchical. This is why small hierarchical firms don't suffer from them. This is one of the reasons why horizontal firms are limited in how far they can grow. Economies of scale however can sometimes outweigh communication problems depending on the industry and market conditions.



Actually, some of the mechanisms employed in capitalist firms in order to combat agency dilemmas are themselves partial introduction of quasi-workers' ownership schemes, such as co-determination policies. The inherent flaw is that there is still a division of interests that results from the divorce of ownership, management, and labor that is eliminated in the self-managed firm. That's one of the critical reasons for the greater efficiency of workers' ownership and management, illustrated in the peer-reviewed empirical research that you dismiss without actual refutation.


That is one way among many ways used to combat it. However, since ownership is separated from labor, the workers are not put through the same kind of risk as the owner. The owner may have all of his money tied up into the business. This protection from risk is one of the reasons why workers choose to work for a boss. Also, different workers within each firm have divergent interests as well. It is not something that just arises out of a firm being hierarchical. Workers in one division often times have conflicting interests with workers in another division.


Horizontally managed firms may be more restricted in "ability to expand than a hierarchical firm" because of the correlation of horizontal management with workers' ownership and the rarity of workers' ownership due to the oligopolistic nature of the capitalist economy, but if you're making an assertion about the fundamental expansive deficiencies of those firms, you'll have to actually provide arguments instead of idiotically expecting everyone here to accept your statements without challenge. As a tip, economies/diseconomies of scale are concerned with size, not organizational structure, so an assertion that a large horizontal firm could not reap the economies of scale benefits that a large hierarchical firm could contradicts your earlier assertion that, "horizontal firms suffer from diseconomies of scale as well." The problem is that you repeat talking points without actual knowledge of theory of the firm.


I want you to read a little bit slower this time. Okay?

Horizontal firms cannot expand to the extent that hierarchical firms can. Thus, if economies of scale persist at production capacities which can be reached by a hierarchical firm but not a horizontal firm, the hierarchical firm has the advantage in that respect. This does not mean horizonotal firms can never reach the point of diseconomies of scale. I know that economies/diseconomies of scale is concerned with size, and I never implied otherwise. I did not contradict myself as you claim.


On the contrary, if tacit knowledge diffusion or conversion brings about resource innovation that minimizes the importance of certain managerial inputs, there's a very significant incentive to act as an impediment to dynamic efficiency enhancement. The absence of principal-agent problems in the labor-managed firm because of the unification of ownership and management means that workers are interested in greater firm profitability, which is certainly an incentive on their parts.


Workers would only be concerned with profitability to a far smaller extent. In a big firm, a change which could be profitable but which could harm the working conditions of some workers (i.e. reorganizing the production process in order to make use of tacit knowledge) could be combated against by many workers who feel their position will be worsened, even though the company as a whole would benefit.


So if your more accurate claim was that hierarchical management in firms not owned by workers is necessary, reconcile these statements with empirical research such as Logue and Yates's Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization (http://www.anonym.to/?http://eid.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/686), which concludes that "A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital."


Yes, that is what I mean. I also have to read that before I can comment on it. Although that may not be for a while since I ordered (and most likely wasted my paycheck on) "Socialism after Hayek" from amazon. I am also not going to spend money to read that essay.


Is there a reason you've placed the term "market power" in scare quotes, as though concentration in the forms of monopoly and oligopoly (as opposed to your mythical free markets), does not actually characterize the capitalist economy. Can you cite the Herfindahl Index scores of the major industries that you believe labor-managed firms logically ought to be dominating, so that we can examine the degree of market power in each?

I put it in quotes because it is a terrible, terrible, terrible excuse. There are no barriers to entry which apply to horizontal firms which do not apply to hierarchical firms. Why is it that small hierarchical firms come up all the time? If "market power" were a good excuse, we would not expect to see small firms popping up all the time. So even though a group of workers could acquire startup funds easier than a single sole proprietor most of the time, there is still not a wave of worker coops that we would expect to see if they were as efficient as you claim. So do you have any actual valid excuses?



It's your ignorance that makes comprehension a problem, not the evasion of anyone here. For the last time that this will be explained to you, Somalia is characterized by substantial authoritarian hierarchy, and hierarchy, by the very nature of the etymological structure of its descriptive term, is incompatible with anarchy. The term "anarchy" does of course literally mean "no ruler/authority" or "without rulers/authority" (derived from the Greek ἀν-ἀρχός), which effectively means that anarchism is an ideology of opposition to hierarchical governance, as "hierarchy" is derived from the Greek term ἱεραρχία. Now, ἀρχός and αρχία are parallel terms, so by its very nature, any ideology that has as its end the preservation of archy (namely hierarchy), as a normal condition is opposed to anarchism.

In your attempt to achieve an anarchist society, I want to know what makes you believe that we won't just end up with a situation similar to Somalia. Since you apparently don't advocate revolution, this does not really apply to you. But many anarchists do favor abolishing the government through revolutionary means.

[Cal Engime]

Hehe, "Oaf!" I get it now. That's clever.

I thought up some more clever nicknames we can use! That would really raise the level of debate.

Kropotkin = Crackpotkin
Karl Marx = Karl Farts
Lenin = Lame-in
Bakunin = Bokonon
Chomsky = Chop Suey

[Agnapostate]

What would most likely happen is that after industry is nationalized, there would be no market socialism. There would just be a huge parasitical government and an extremely hampered and overregulated market.

It's impossible to overemphasize that no one is interested in your baseless speculations. The Yugoslav economy was converted from a standard command economy of the Soviet bloc to a more vibrant market socialist economy characterized by labor-managed firms through the power of state ownership. This naturally meant that it was not an anarchist economy, along with the political authoritarianism and republican (as opposed to direct democratic) nature of the workers' management that was implemented, but it stands out as a successful example of socialism and non-Leninist Marxism.

There are two major outlets that I perceive as amenable to the establishment of market socialism: Scandinavia, already dominated by countries that can make the transition from social democratic capitalism to "democratic socialism" relatively easily and without major shifts in public opinion, and China, already characterized by a non-capitalist market economy and a rhetorical commitment to the advancement of socialism.


Why do you critique hierarchical firms if you don't know how they work? There is a pyramid, the most distant managers rarely if ever make ground orders. Instead, they will determine things such as where to open new plants or how to increase the cash flow of the company as a whole.

You haven't answered the question: Why are massive firms with centralized hierarchical managerial structures not subject to the same economic calculation problems associated with insufficient knowledge diffusion that command economies are, particularly since the output level of multi-national firms might exceed that of a small command economy?

That should be a very easy question for you to answer if you know your Hayek like you think you do. It's a matter of the imperfect monitoring associated with asymmetric information, which is the ultimate reason why the agency problems of adverse selection and moral hazard even occur! But aside from that, you have things a bit backwards; as a consistent opponent of central planning, unlike you, it's not that I don't understand how orthodox capitalist firms work; it's that I do understand how they don't work. As an example, consider an article called How GE Is Disrupting Itself (http://hbr.org/2009/10/how-ge-is-disrupting-itself/ar/1), written by Jeffrey R. Immelt, board chairman and CEO of GE, Harvard business professor Vijay Govindarajan, and Harvard business administration professor Chris Trimble.

The focus of the piece is on maximizing allocative efficiency by eliminating the inadequacy of centralized administrative procedures and product research and development (R&D) in the increasingly complex global economy. This is due to the fact that product differentiation between more expensive and advanced inventory and cheaper (in every sense) merchandise has not been so pronounced as to influence consumers to purchase higher-priced items distributed by U.S.-based multinationals, meaning that conditions of high price elasticity of demand carry the day, with consumers in less developed countries (LDCs) more interested in lower prices (given their lower per capita income and consequent lesser purchasing power) than higher quality performance, and therefore turning to substitute and inferior products rather than the higher-priced top of the line material. Moreover, the vastly different infrastructure of many of these countries, often characterized by undeveloped roads and paths to rural villages where consumers are clustered rather than the high urban development levels of the larger cities of developed regions and other countries, also means that portability and convenience of technology must be explored to adapt to these local conditions. Immelt, Govindarajan, and Trimble’s recommendations for alleviating these problems are here examined and their merits and demerits discussed.

The general centralized and relatively large structure of the orthodox capitalist firm (existent in oligopolistic conditions of mutual interdependence as it is), is facilitative of benefits derived from scalar advantages (economies of scale), but is also affected by issues of asymmetric information and agency problems, due to the divergent knowledge and interests of different employees in such firms. Strictly vertical hierarchical structure, which is not conducive to grassroots innovation and administrative management, will inevitably encounter distributed and tacit knowledge problems, and will be ill-equipped to adapt to the localized demands of "reverse innovation" strategy as a result. In short, "without autonomy, the LGTs [local growth teams] will become pawns of the global business and won’t be able to focus on the problems of customers in emerging markets."

GE encountered this specific problem because the firm’s regional officials in developing countries were not authorized to conduct product development or approval, and were hard-pressed to persuade higher global managers to engage in customized local product development because of their lack of interest and comprehension. The article notes that, "If you were a leader of a GE operation in a developing country, as Raja was, here’s what you were up against: Your formal responsibilities included neither general management nor product development. Your responsibility was to sell, distribute, and service GE’s global products locally and provide insights into customers’ needs to help the company adapt its offerings. You were expected to grow revenues by 15% to 20% a year and make sure that costs increased at a much slower rate, so that margins rose. You were held rigidly accountable for delivering on plan. Just finding the time for an extracurricular activity like creating a proposal for a product tailored to the local market was challenging." This is hardly a business model suitable for productive growth and innovation, and it is an encouraging sign that top executives and prominent business professors are among the forefront of advocates of change. It is a discouraging sign, however, that there are people like you that defend the inefficient structure of the orthodox capitalist firm.


Ugh. Communication problems are associated with large firms. It has nothing to do with being hierarchical. This is why small hierarchical firms don't suffer from them. This is one of the reasons why horizontal firms are limited in how far they can grow. Economies of scale however can sometimes outweigh communication problems depending on the industry and market conditions.

Communications problems associated with impeded diffusion of dispersed knowledge are the epitome of everything wrong with the chain of command. Even basic intuitions should reveal that the distant bosses are out of touch with the people on the ground. That's certainly a significant factor behind the intuitive appeal of the knowledge element of the economic calculation problem. You also didn't answer my question as to how large hierarchical firms would benefit from economies of scale while large democratic firms wouldn't when those benefits are associated with size and scope rather than management structure. That contradicted your other statement that they would be affected by diseconomies of scale problems.


That is one way among many ways used to combat it. However, since ownership is separated from labor, the workers are not put through the same kind of risk as the owner. The owner may have all of his money tied up into the business. This protection from risk is one of the reasons why workers choose to work for a boss.

I've read Bryan Caplan's pseuso-anarchist FAQ too. Workers "choose" to work for a boss because they are faced with a Hobson's choice of subordinating themselves to the authoritarian hierarchies of the capitalist labor market or enduring the impoverishment associated with not working. But since labor-managed firms are more efficient and productive than orthodox capitalist firms, as evidenced by the general consensus of the empirical literature on the topic, there is no reason for workers to choose to surrender their democratic sovereignty to dictatorship and theft of surplus value if there are legitimate opportunities for an alternative. Only masochists choose to subordinate themselves under bossism when it produces more inefficient results.


Also, different workers within each firm have divergent interests as well. It is not something that just arises out of a firm being hierarchical. Workers in one division often times have conflicting interests with workers in another division.

Um, the point was that laborers have diminished interests and therefore greater incentives to shirk because of their lack of personal financial stake in the success or failure of the firm, due to the divorce of ownership and labor. The unification of ownership, management, and labor eliminates such principal-agent problems. Feel free to detail a divergence of interests between different work crews that would constitute a principal-agent problems.


I want you

That's fascinating. Can you cite peer-reviewed empirical research concerned with growth limitations of democratically managed enterprises, or are we once again supposed to accept your baseless assertions without argument on your part?


Workers would only be concerned with profitability to a far smaller extent. In a big firm, a change which could be profitable but which could harm the working conditions of some workers (i.e. reorganizing the production process in order to make use of tacit knowledge) could be combated against by many workers who feel their position will be worsened, even though the company as a whole would benefit.

The nature of the elimination of agency dilemmas means that there is a common interest in firm profitability. Why don't you detail a situation that involves an interest of employees to sabotage company profits, and therefore their own gains?


Yes, that is what I mean. I also have to read that before I can comment on it. Although that may not be for a while since I ordered (and most likely wasted my paycheck on) "Socialism after Hayek" from amazon. I am also not going to spend money to read that essay.

So you have no refutation to offer of that study. That doesn't invalidate the summary provided in its abstract. The point stands by default for now, in that case, since the onus is on you to offer a rebuttal.


I put it in quotes because it is a terrible, terrible, terrible excuse. There are no barriers to entry which apply to horizontal firms which do not apply to hierarchical firms. Why is it that small hierarchical firms come up all the time? If "market power" were a good excuse, we would not expect to see small firms popping up all the time. So even though a group of workers could acquire startup funds easier than a single sole proprietor most of the time, there is still not a wave of worker coops that we would expect to see if they were as efficient as you claim. So do you have any actual valid excuses?

You're not able to produce the HHI indexes for the industries that workers' ownership and management logically ought to be dominating if it represented a more efficient organization model? Any indication of moderate to severe concentration, which would have represented the high barriers to entry so integral to the nature of oligopoly, would have sunk your claim. Partnerships and sole proprietorships represent the majority of firms in existence; however, as I've mentioned countless times before, they control the smallest market shares. A small number of massive corporations hold the most substantial market shares, as any consultation of the Statistical Abstract would reveal.

But your comments are asinine even aside from your ignorance of market concentration. Financial institutions are not prone to provide loans to firms that they know they will not possess permanent ownership stakes in, and the correlation of firm ownership with actual labor localizes firm size, as opposed to capitalist shareholders who can purchase ownership in companies regardless of their location.


In your attempt to achieve an anarchist society, I want to know what makes you believe that we won't just end up with a situation similar to Somalia. Since you apparently don't advocate revolution, this does not really apply to you. But many anarchists do favor abolishing the government through revolutionary means.

I don't "attempt to achieve an anarchist society" in the sort of utopian fable that your phony anarchist comrades do. Your rambling is simply incoherent; Somalia is governed by a central state in one region and a series of smaller state powers in other regions. There is no anarchist movement in the country and was no attempt to implement anarchist policies, so what possible relationship is there?

And really, Oaf, get the hell back on topic.

[Skooma Addict]

It's impossible to overemphasize that no one is interested in your baseless speculations. The Yugoslav economy was converted from a standard command economy of the Soviet bloc to a more vibrant market socialist economy characterized by labor-managed firms through the power of state ownership. This naturally meant that it was not an anarchist economy, along with the political authoritarianism and republican (as opposed to direct democratic) nature of the workers' management that was implemented, but it stands out as a successful example of socialism and non-Leninist Marxism.

There are two major outlets that I perceive as amenable to the establishment of market socialism: Scandinavia, already dominated by countries that can make the transition from social democratic capitalism to "democratic socialism" relatively easily and without major shifts in public opinion, and China, already characterized by a non-capitalist market economy and a rhetorical commitment to the advancement of socialism.



I didn't make any baseless speculations. I was making my determination based on what usually happens when a government nationalizes industry. The governments do not become market socialist like you are hoping for. So far your strategy appears to be "nationalize everything, and then bank there being market socialism."

As for Yugoslavia, the labor market did not function correctly since they were skewed by the reforms. There was in increased spread in the income of workers in capital intensive firms relative to those in less capital intensive firms. Workers in less capital intensive firms barely had an incentive to invest. The absence of private property in nonhuman capital prevented real capital markets from emerging, and it also hampered labor markets.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_6.pdf


You haven't answered the question: Why are massive firms with centralized hierarchical managerial structures not subject to the same economic calculation problems associated with insufficient knowledge diffusion that command economies are, particularly since the output level of multi-national firms might exceed that of a small command economy?

They suffer similar problems, although not to the same degree. A business still has to operate within the context of profit/loss through the markets price system. Knowledge conveyed through prices is more attainable by the firm. But I do not disagree that large firms (be they hierarchical or horizontal) suffer from such problems. But as I said, sometimes the benefits of size can outweigh the costs, and if a horizontal firm cannot expand to the relevant size, they are at a disadvantage.


Blah blah blah....ad hoc....blah...here is a a wall of text discussing some of the problems with a failing company which I will apply to all hierachical firms...blah blah blah....I will blame the crippled markets in Africa on the hierarchical structure of the firm...blah blah blah.... I will mention reverse innovation even though it is an argument against my point...blah blah blah...I need to read Michal E Porter for the answers to supposed problems which don't even follow from the text I cided...blah...I am correct by default...blah blah.

Classy.



Communications problems associated with impeded diffusion of dispersed knowledge are the epitome of everything wrong with the chain of command.


If that were true, then a chain of command with 5 people would suffer from such problems. But they don't. So you are wrong.


You also didn't answer my question as to how large hierarchical firms would benefit from economies of scale while large democratic firms wouldn't when those benefits are associated with size and scope rather than management structure. That contradicted your other statement that they would be affected by diseconomies of scale problems.

If you didn't suffer from short term memory loss you would know that I didn't contradict myself. A hierarchical firms chain of command is what allows it to expand beyond the size of a horizontal firm. A horizontal firm with 600,000 people would be unable to coordinate its actions. You yourself agreed with me when I claimed that horizontal firms could not grow to the size horizontal firms could. So I don't know what you are arguing about.


Workers "choose" to work for a boss because they are faced with a Hobson's choice of subordinating themselves to the authoritarian hierarchies of the capitalist labor market or enduring the impoverishment associated with not working. But since labor-managed firms are more efficient and productive than orthodox capitalist firms, as evidenced by the general consensus of the empirical literature on the topic, there is no reason for workers to choose to surrender their democratic sovereignty to dictatorship and theft of surplus value if there are legitimate opportunities for an alternative. Only masochists choose to subordinate themselves under bossism when it produces more inefficient results.

There is nothing stopping workers from starting their own horizontal firms. But they don't seem to do this. They should also be able to acquire the startup funds pretty easily, especially if their business is proven to be so efficient. The problem for you is that none of this is happening.

I like working for a steady wage. I don't want to risk everything for my business.




Um, the point was that laborers have diminished interests and therefore greater incentives to shirk because of their lack of personal financial stake in the success or failure of the firm


:laugh:


The unification of ownership, management, and labor eliminates such principal-agent problems. Feel free to detail a divergence of interests between different work crews that would constitute a principal-agent problems.

They are still coordination problems. A reform will help the company but harm a very influential sector of the company. Thus those workers combat the reform where management would have allowed it. There you go.


The nature of the elimination of agency dilemmas means that there is a common interest in firm profitability. Why don't you detail a situation that involves an interest of employees to sabotage company profits, and therefore their own gains?

See above.


So you have no refutation to offer of that study. That doesn't invalidate the summary provided in its abstract. The point stands by default for now, in that case, since the onus is on you to offer a rebuttal.

Not only do you expect me to read everything you link, you also expect me to pay money to do so. If I don't pay 20 dollars, you are correct by default. This is classic stuff.

By your logic I could link 50 articles, and I am correct by default on each one that you don't rebuke. In fact, by your stupid logic, whoever gets the last word is correct. So scientists are actually wrong on the topics they have stopped contesting because there are always a few nay sayers who will write "refutations" to answers to problems which have been solved and left in the back drawer.


You're not able to produce the HHI indexes for the industries that workers' ownership and management logically ought to be dominating if it represented a more efficient organization model? Any indication of moderate to severe concentration, which would have represented the high barriers to entry so integral to the nature of oligopoly, would have sunk your claim. Partnerships and sole proprietorships represent the majority of firms in existence; however, as I've mentioned countless times before, they control the smallest market shares. A small number of massive corporations hold the most substantial market shares, as any consultation of the Statistical Abstract would reveal.

But your comments are asinine even aside from your ignorance of market concentration. Financial institutions are not prone to provide loans to firms that they know they will not possess permanent ownership stakes in, and the correlation of firm ownership with actual labor localizes firm size, as opposed to capitalist shareholders who can purchase ownership in companies regardless of their location.


Yet if worker coops were as efficient as you claim, we would see more of them. We see small hierarchical firms start up all the time. So clearly "market power" is a terrible excuse. Loans will be given where a profit can be made. So that is no excuse either, since horizontal firms should be very profitable. So do you have any more last gasp attempts at an explanation, or are we done here?


I don't "attempt to achieve an anarchist society" in the sort of utopian fable that your phony anarchist comrades do. Your rambling is simply incoherent; Somalia is governed by a central state in one region and a series of smaller state powers in other regions. There is no anarchist movement in the country and was no attempt to implement anarchist policies, so what possible relationship is there?

The connection is that anarchists want to abolish the state. The ones who want to do this via revolution have no idea what the result would be. It could look like Somalia.


And really, Oaf, get the hell back on topic.

Why? The topic is stupid and you still haven't come up with a name which makes any sense.

[Agnapostate]

Does this idiot know how to do anything except repeat things that have been already rebutted over and over again? Show of hands! :lol:

[Skooma Addict]

You and I are the only two people who have read all of this, and I don't think asking a group of people on a forum dedicated to revolutionary leftism qualifies as a neutral group.

I will specifically point out a few instances where you have been refuted.

You said.



The nature of the elimination of agency dilemmas means that there is a common interest in firm profitability. Why don't you detail a situation that involves an interest of employees to sabotage company profits, and therefore their own gains?I said...

They are still coordination problems. A reform will help the company but harm a very influential sector of the company. Thus those workers combat the reform where management would have allowed it. There you go.

You said...


So you have no refutation to offer of that study. That doesn't invalidate the summary provided in its abstract. The point stands by default for now, in that case, since the onus is on you to offer a rebuttal.I said...

Not only do you expect me to read everything you link, you also expect me to pay money to do so. If I don't pay 20 dollars, you are correct by default. This is classic stuff.

By your logic I could link 50 articles, and I am correct by default on each one that you don't rebuke. In fact, by your stupid logic, whoever gets the last word is correct. So scientists are actually wrong on the topics they have stopped contesting because there are always a few nay sayers who will write "refutations" to answers to problems which have been solved and left in the back drawer.

You said...


You also didn't answer my question as to how large hierarchical firms would benefit from economies of scale while large democratic firms wouldn't when those benefits are associated with size and scope rather than management structure. That contradicted your other statement that they would be affected by diseconomies of scale problems.I said...

If you didn't suffer from short term memory loss you would know that I didn't contradict myself. A hierarchical firms chain of command is what allows it to expand beyond the size of a horizontal firm. A horizontal firm with 600,000 people would be unable to coordinate its actions. You yourself agreed with me when I claimed that horizontal firms could not grow to the size horizontal firms could. So I don't know what you are arguing about.

That is all for now. Point out specifically where you refuted all of this (or go ahead and just claim you are correct by default).

[Comrade Anarchist]

you could just call them free market anarchists or voluntaryists it really doesn't matter what you call them as long as you realize that we dont condone the modern state of affairs and don't believe in giant mega corporations running the world like many of you unfortunately believe. And someone mentioned panarchy which is a load that rothbard never professed. he believed in anarchism or a society without a state where individuals with natural rights could interact within a free market. He may have been wrong on some social issues but economically and politically he was an anarchist that believed in free market capitalism, so anarcho-capitalist is what i would call the man. Panarchy has competing governments so it still has governments and anyways it seems to be a load of minarchist bull crap like rand's night watchmen state and such.

[Dean]

If you didn't suffer from short term memory loss you would know that I didn't contradict myself. A hierarchical firms chain of command is what allows it to expand beyond the size of a horizontal firm. A horizontal firm with 600,000 people would be unable to coordinate its actions. You yourself agreed with me when I claimed that horizontal firms could not grow to the size horizontal firms could. So I don't know what you are arguing about.

Actually, you're right here. Its rather silly for a communist to attempt to redefine economic democracy as "profitable," it is not. Capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive systems precisely for the reason you bring up - that centralized authority is more capable of efficient profiteering - and I would take it further and point out that autocratic economic regimes will always prosper first and foremost,because acquiring their goals, that is serving the interests of a narrower population will always include fewer competing interests and fewer interests to fulfill.

[RGacky3]

and don't believe in giant mega corporations running the world like many of you unfortunately believe.

We don't believe that thats actually what you want, but we understnad that what you want will nessesarily turn into something like that, if it survives not developing a state.

[Comrade Anarchist]

We don't believe that thats actually what you want, but we understnad that what you want will nessesarily turn into something like that, if it survives not developing a state.

Well you obviously keep forgetting about competition. Monopolies whether state based or congealing on their own need protection from a central authority to prevent competition. Without a state with empty regulations and a monopoly on force competition will continue to grow constantly and fail or succeed.

[HEAD ICE]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Fx_jRwkwtpU/SrHRGZpqkTI/AAAAAAAAAAM/9IG0GWrlvn0/S220/Photo+27.jpg

Sorry to go off-topic, but where did you find this picture? I know this guy in real life. And yes he is exactly everything you think he is.

[Agnapostate]

Random Internet search for "anarcho"-capitalism or something along those lines. Source should be in the image URL.

[RGacky3]

Well you obviously keep forgetting about competition. Monopolies whether state based or congealing on their own need protection from a central authority to prevent competition. Without a state with empty regulations and a monopoly on force competition will continue to grow constantly and fail or succeed.

You don't think that in the absense of a state, large economic powers would'nt create a statelike entity to protect their property/interests? (instead it would be much worse than a state because it probably would have no public accountability). Also competition does't really solve the problem of capital accumulation and centralization, it just forces more ruthelessness, 2 world powers is'nt THAT much better than 1 world power, infact in some instances its worse.

[syndicat]

am asking you how you know what anarchy will look like if you overthrow the state via revolution.


that's the point to the development of mass social movements that are internally democratic, such as worker mass organizations that are self-managed by the members. the idea is that we develop a movement that is a "shadow" goverance structure to corporate management.

unlike Agnapostate, I do see libertarian socialism as emerging out of a revolutionary situation. In this situation the idea is that the worker mass organizations take over the direct management of the various industries, and the alliance of the mass social movement organizations, including the union organizations, create the new structures of popular power.

the new structure of society is thus "prefigured" in the social movement that grows to replace the old capitalist regime & state.

in regard to scaling up the horizontal system of economic self-management, that's the point to a system of participatory planning.

[Bud Struggle]

You don't think that in the absense of a state, large economic powers would'nt create a statelike entity to protect their property/interests? (instead it would be much worse than a state because it probably would have no public accountability). Also competition does't really solve the problem of capital accumulation and centralization, it just forces more ruthelessness, 2 world powers is'nt THAT much better than 1 world power, infact in some instances its worse.

I keep saying that I am FOR the Revolution. :)

[Agnapostate]

unlike Agnapostate, I do see libertarian socialism as emerging out of a revolutionary situation. In this situation the idea is that the worker mass organizations take over the direct management of the various industries, and the alliance of the mass social movement organizations, including the union organizations, create the new structures of popular power.

Well, Shroom Addict has misconstrued things a bit. Socialism can be implemented through violent revolution in politically unstable regions of the world subject to frequent changes in government and high poverty rates, but the stability and relative prosperity of the first world makes insurrectionary tactics unlikely and unrealistic, I've said.

[Skooma Addict]

Well, Shroom Addict has misconstrued things a bit. Socialism can be implemented through violent revolution in politically unstable regions of the world subject to frequent changes in government and high poverty rates, but the stability and relative prosperity of the first world makes insurrectionary tactics unlikely and unrealistic, I've said.

Well it technically could be implemented through a revolution. It is just that nobody has any idea what the aftermath of the revolution would look like. For example, after the overthrow of the state, there could just be warring factions and a breakdown of the legal code. Or the revolutionaries could just seize power for themselves. You cannot know the answer a priori.

[Agnapostate]

Well

Oaf, my patience for dialogue with you has ended until you learn basic economics and argumentative logic. As long as you keep regurgitating the same drivel over and over again no matter how many times it's addressed, it's too boring for me to care.

[Dean]

Oaf, my patience for dialogue with you has ended until you learn basic economics and argumentative logic. As long as you keep regurgitating the same drivel over and over again no matter how many times it's addressed, it's too boring for me to care.

Yeah, he has a real problem with his ability to consume arguments or ideas and respond in kind. Remember that in his mind, the state used to be the sole purveyor of "market artificialities" which were in turn responsible for all that was "bad" in a market; now the state is indispensable - his new argument, a warning against "the unknown." Real powerful stuff!

When someone engages in a shift like that, and can't even admit that there is or was some dishonesty, confusion or problems with his belief structure, you're simply not dealing with someone who is going to be straightforward.

[syndicat]

Well, Shroom Addict has misconstrued things a bit. Socialism can be implemented through violent revolution in politically unstable regions of the world subject to frequent changes in government and high poverty rates, but the stability and relative prosperity of the first world makes insurrectionary tactics unlikely and unrealistic, I've said.

I'm not an "insurrectionary anarchist", so it seems like a false dichotomy. The mass strike may involve some sort of insurrectionary activities in that context, but that is not the main thing about it.

I don't know how long "stability" will continue to reign in the "first world" countries. I wouldn't assume this is going to be a permanent state of affairs.

[Skooma Addict]

Oaf, my patience for dialogue with you has ended until you learn basic economics and argumentative logic. As long as you keep regurgitating the same drivel over and over again no matter how many times it's addressed, it's too boring for me to care.


You didn't make an argument against my point that we can't know the end result of such a revolution a single time. This is the 1,000th time you said your patience with me has ended, which leaves me to believe it is just a way for you to avoid the topic.


Yeah, he has a real problem with his ability to consume arguments or ideas and respond in kind. Remember that in his mind, the state used to be the sole purveyor of "market artificialities" which were in turn responsible for all that was "bad" in a market; now the state is indispensable - his new argument, a warning against "the unknown." Real powerful stuff!

When someone engages in a shift like that, and can't even admit that there is or was some dishonesty, confusion or problems with his belief structure, you're simply not dealing with someone who is going to be straightforward.

:laugh:

Dean, I told you at least 3 times why I changed my opinion on the topic. Are you so dogmatic and so ideologically blinded that you don't understand how people could change their opinions on topics? I explained to you at least 3 times what the problems in my belief structure were, so you are just flat out lying here.

[Dean]

You didn't make an argument against my point that we can't know the end result of such a revolution a single time. This is the 1,000th time you said your patience with me has ended, which leaves me to believe it is just a way for you to avoid the topic.
I don't have to refute it, because I don't disagree with you in general on this point. Given certain conditions, revolutions beget certain power structures, though in your "blank" example, there is no reason to assume any specific outcome. I don't expect you to actually understand this, because you refuse to acknowledge extant power structures, but that's the case.

:laugh:

Dean, I told you at least 3 times why I changed my opinion on the topic. Are you so dogmatic and so ideologically blinded that you don't understand how people could change their opinions on topics? I explained to you at least 3 times what the problems in my belief structure were, so you are just flat out lying here.
You refuse to specifically address the issue of state-market relations, which has been a consistent theme in our discussions. The "problems," if I recall correctly were summed up as such:
-a certain article or book prompted you to "reassess" the issue (I think it was one of those point-counterpoint type of books that solely provide two extremist, rather than actually providing pieces based on their validity) or it was some book which claimed that the state is the "bad boy," whose arguments you reassessed and found wanting.
-you also said that "a state seemed clearly necessary," whether this means necessary for security or necessary in determinist terms was never made clear.

Indeed, your arguments have been consistently vague. The point I make is this:
Why the hell did you ever claim that the state (now a necessary character of society!) was the primary purveyor of "bad" market conditions?

The reason your explanation was preposterous is because I never read Friedman and said "what a silly argument! the inverse must therefore be true." Rather, In my discussion of The Law of Demand, I saw the argument as preposterous and discovered a logic set or criticism that made sense.

In your case, we don't have any reasonable inverse. We don't have a real argument for why the state is good. That's why I'm asking for one. If you are honest,you don't come out of an argument piece saying "this argument is poor so its conclusion is wrong." You might say "the conclusion can't be reached this way" or something similar. Giving up your rejection of the state shouldn't entail embracing the state, unless you've found a good reason for the second shift.

But you haven't provided any good reason for that second turn, and you never really provided a good reason to denounce the state for any and all market evil. Furthermore, it contradicts your previous mode of operation to blame the state consistently when we start to see that you think the state is necessary - so the state serves some purpose, provides some good service to the market system, but what? It's like a communist suddenly claiming that capitalism will be necessary in a limited fashion, but completely unable to explain why he thinks it besides that "arguments for complete communist organization don't work." It's a leap of logic.

So I repeat: what the hell are you thinking?

[Skooma Addict]

I don't have to refute it, because I don't disagree with you in general on this point. Given certain conditions, revolutions beget certain power structures, though in your "blank" example, there is no reason to assume any specific outcome. I don't expect you to actually understand this, because you refuse to acknowledge extant power structures, but that's the case.You don't have to refute it because I wasn't talking to you.


Why the hell did you ever claim that the state (now a necessary character of society!) was the primary purveyor of "bad" market conditions?Because I believed that the market could provide all goods and services in a superior manner than a state, and I believed I could know what a stateless society on a large scale in America would look like. Given the correct culture and incentive structure A stateless society would work fine, as it does not necessarily suffer from any inherent defects. It is just that there is no reason to believe that the prerequisites for a peaceful stateless society would be fulfilled if the state were to suddenly collapse, and we cannot know what the end result of a revolution would be a priori. So all revolutionary movements are doing is gambling with society and assuming the end result will turn out well.



In your case, we don't have any reasonable inverse. We don't have a real argument for why the state is good. That's why I'm asking for one. If you are honest,you don't come out of an argument piece saying "this argument is poor so its conclusion is wrong." You might say "the conclusion can't be reached this way" or something similar. Giving up your rejection of the state shouldn't entail embracing the state, unless you've found a good reason for the second shift.Here are some good things about a well functioning state.

-environmental protection laws.
-Enforcement of private property
-Allows for a stable legal code and the long term plans by economic actors which result.

[Agnapostate]

Here's irony at its ripest, courtesy of Walter Block. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block153.html)


But, the enemies of libertarianism are always trying to take words away from us. They have already long ago stolen "liberal." We must now call ourselves "classical liberals" if we want to use that appellation at all. Some have recently had the audacity to try to take away the word "libertarian." I refer, here, to Noam Chomsky, who has the temerity to characterize himself as a libertarian. On this attempted theft, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. (Also see this and this essay on Chomsky, written by real libertarians; and here is Chomsky on Rothbardian libertarianism; and here he is on Ron Paul libertarians.) True, Chomsky does not try to pass as a plain old libertarian. Rather, he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist." But, this creates more problems than it solves. For most people use the word socialist to depict a nation where the means of production, that is, capital goods, pretty much all of them, are owned by the government. A situation more removed from the world favored by libertarianism would be hard to imagine.

Every word we use to describe ourselves is precious. We must keep them all, jettison none of them. And this includes (classical) liberals, free enterprisers, libertarians, Austro-libertarians, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, laissez faire capitalists, and, yes, plain old unadorned "capitalists." Ayn Rand, bless her heart, never failed to rally to the banner of capitalism. I do not of course agree with everything she ever wrote, but on this matter I am very grateful to her. There were few wordsmiths in our movement better acquainted with the importance of language.

Classical liberalism was advocated by the rights-oriented philosophers in the aftermath of the Enlightenment. But "laissez-faire" prescriptions offered by classical liberal thinkers during a period in which agrarian conditions and relatively egalitarian land distribution were expected to maintain equitable economic conditions are largely inapplicable to modern economic and more broadly societal conditions in which large-scale industrial development after the phase of the primitive accumulation of capital has spawned corporate capitalism, a state-supported economic structure that involves market and wealth concentration and thus, consolidation of primary influence over government and near-complete ownership and management rights over industry by an elite capital class. That problem exists even aside from the fact that many classical liberal philosophers and economists (most notably Adam Smith) were significantly more protectionist in nature than they are disingenuously depicted as by modern rightists. Moreover, the economy as a whole was not as drastically unregulated as is commonly perceived and support for regulation amongst the Founding Fathers was not as sparse as is commonly perceived. In fact, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, was effectively the first to comprehensively advocate the infant industry argument (a protectionist trade argument, if anyone here is unfamiliar with it) in his Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Subject of Manufactures.

Regardless, the main point is that classical liberal philosophy generally offers a defense of property rights based on individual appropriation of the product of one's labor that many classical liberal theorists expected to result in relatively egalitarian conditions. No defense of vast corporate structure that modern propertarians defend as legitimate fixtures of fair market exchange and the massive concentration of wealth that they defend as the earned reward of entrepreneurial spirit can be drawn from that philosophy. Our capitalist economy is not composed of independent producers and artisans, but of large-scale corporate structure and rampant concentration of wealth and property. The pseudo-libertarians simply steal liberal rhetoric. For example, the political scientist Robert Dahl (A Preface to Economic Democracy, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985) notes this:


[A]n economic order that spontaneously produced inequality in the distribution of economic and political resources acquired legitimacy at least in part, by clothing itself in the recut garments of an outmoded ideology in which private property was justified on the ground that a wide diffusion of property would support political equality. As a result, Americans have never asked themselves steadily or in large numbers whether an alternative to corporate capitalism might be more consistent with their commitment to democracy.

Now, perhaps the underlying axioms of the pseudo-libertarian ideology are consistent with classical liberalism, but given the harsh reaction to Kevin Carson's exposition of their "vulgar libertarianism," that community is not generally willing to admit that the profound inequities in property distribution might be problematic, asserting or implying that they're generally due to natural inequalities.

"Free enterprise" does not work because the authoritarianism and hierarchies of the capitalist labor market make it laughable to refer to such an economic paradigm as "free," and the high barriers to entry generated by the oligopolistic nature of the capitalist economy that they implicitly defend by defending the property distribution that has been created also prevent application of the term, since there are very substantial impediments to competitive enterprise in that sense also.

I don't think I need to go into the problems with anything derived from the words "libertarian" and "anarchist" on this forum, and as I've said, the problem with labels derived from "capitalist" center around the fact that these people are almost never capitalists, generally being academics, think-tank lackeys, or students. I think I'll go with "pseudo-libertarian" and "pseudo-anarchist," ultimately.

[Dean]

Because I believed that the market could provide all goods and services in a superior manner than a state, and I believed I could know what a stateless society on a large scale in America would look like. Given the correct culture and incentive structure A stateless society would work fine, as it does not necessarily suffer from any inherent defects. It is just that there is no reason to believe that the prerequisites for a peaceful stateless society would be fulfilled if the state were to suddenly collapse, and we cannot know what the end result of a revolution would be a priori. So all revolutionary movements are doing is gambling with society and assuming the end result will turn out well.
So, let me get this straight:
-You no longer believe the market is more efficient in some ways
-You don't know what to expect of a stateless society

And this is all it takes for you to endorse a system of state control?


Here are some good things about a well functioning state.

-environmental protection laws.
-Enforcement of private property
-Allows for a stable legal code and the long term plans by economic actors which result.
:laugh:
"I'm afraid of the unknown and I realize that the market is a failure so I need the state now. Also here is what the state has to do for me."

So, what are we going to do if these particular ideals don't manifest? You don't assess the relationship between the market and the state. You don't make mention of state "artificialities" or market "skewing" of state function.

The simple fact is that you don't really have any underlying logic you're following. Its just a bunch of ideals. You don't take economics seriously, you only take very narrow brands of economic idealism seriously.

And this is all I'm asking for: what made you think the state created "bad artificial conditions"? What makes you think the state will fulfill "good" economic needs now? There isn't any argument, there's no mention of power structures. There's just the unending crusade for the "perfect property system," whose perfection is interestingly disassociated from any actual measurable economic conditions - just precious little ideals.

[Skooma Addict]

So, let me get this straight:
-You no longer believe the market is more efficient in some ways
-You don't know what to expect of a stateless society

And this is all it takes for you to endorse a system of state control?

If we lived in a well functioning stateless society with a stable legal code, then there is no need to support a state. I endorse a state because there is a good possibility that a stateless society could be chaos. I do not possess the knowledge to know what a stateless society in America would look like.



So, what are we going to do if these particular ideals don't manifest? You don't assess the relationship between the market and the state. You don't make mention of state "artificialities" or market "skewing" of state function.

But there are environmental protection laws, private property is enforced, and there is a stable legal code.


The simple fact is that you don't really have any underlying logic you're following. Its just a bunch of ideals. You don't take economics seriously, you only take very narrow brands of economic idealism seriously.

I don't know what you are talking about here, and I don't think you do either. You again misuse the word idealism, and I am less narrow minded than you when it comes to economics, as evidenced by the fact that you are shocked that a person could change their opinion on a topic.


And this is all I'm asking for: what made you think the state created "bad artificial conditions"? What makes you think the state will fulfill "good" economic needs now? There isn't any argument, there's no mention of power structures. There's just the unending crusade for the "perfect property system," whose perfection is interestingly disassociated from any actual measurable economic conditions - just precious little ideals.

The state does create what you refer to as "bad artificial conditions." Take binding price floors for example. It is just that I believe the state can fulfill a productive role (stable legal code) where before I believed I had some idea what the legal code in a stateless society would look like. Now I realize that nobody possesses the knowledge to know that.

[Dean]

If we lived in a well functioning stateless society with a stable legal code, then there is no need to support a state. I endorse a state because there is a good possibility that a stateless society could be chaos. I do not possess the knowledge to know what a stateless society in America would look like.
So you've confirmed it. It is simply fear of the unknown.


But there are environmental protection laws, private property is enforced, and there is a stable legal code.
Did you even read what I said?

I said: Why would x,y,z exist and persist?
You: Because x,y,z exist.

It's not really a valuable point.

I don't know what you are talking about here, and I don't think you do either. You again misuse the word idealism, and I am less narrow minded than you when it comes to economics, as evidenced by the fact that you are shocked that a person could change their opinion on a topic.
-I'm shocked that you have no logical arguments to explain why the state is or isn't a bad economic actor, or why the state must or mustn't exist. All you've said is "I'm scared of the unknown, I don't think the market is as efficient" which is fine and all as a set of opinions, but it doesn't hold up when someone asks why you think that.
-You're an idealist because you define "why your ideals will come about" with the ideals themselves. This is classic idealism.

The state does create what you refer to as "bad artificial conditions." Take binding price floors for example. It is just that I believe the state can fulfill a productive role (stable legal code) where before I believed I had some idea what the legal code in a stateless society would look like. Now I realize that nobody possesses the knowledge to know that.
So, you know the state is a negative influence, but because we "don't know" what else might work, we should stick with it. Classic conservatism - just don't change! We don't know what the outcome might be.

This is why your arguments are so laughable. Your descriptors for a reasonable state (apparently the whole basis for your support of such a system) boil down to self-fulfilling ideals. Your renounciation of the state boils down to mistrust of anti-state arguments and fear of the unknown (though no specific arguments for the state which go beyond wish lists!).

Don't you see why its hard to take your "shift in ideas" seriously? Why should I have ever believed that you thought the state was "bad and artificial in market terms" when now you say that its existence is critical for a stable society?

[RGacky3]

If we lived in a well functioning stateless society with a stable legal code, then there is no need to support a state. I endorse a state because there is a good possibility that a stateless society could be chaos. I do not possess the knowledge to know what a stateless society in America would look like.

I honestly think its just he realized that private property and thus markets cannot exist without a state, which is more important to libertarians than anything (private capitalist property)

[Dean]

You are commiting a fallacy that you should know better about. Just because a venture/practical application of an ideology failed does not mean the ideology itself is flawed; what it does mean is that that particular manner of application was incorrect. Else I could easily claim that anarchism has no future simply because anarchist spain didn't have any future. But I don't. And you should do the same.

Market economies by their nature beget for-profit power systems; this has been exemplified and broken down to you, and you've not even scratched the surface of it. You didn't even criticize the argument (besides some silly linguistic points), and furthermore my point never relied solely on historical evidence.

In addition, you originally brought up the point that anarchism is "doomed to failure,' my entire spiel was to point out that the same criticism - perhaps more well - can be applied to your ideology.

[Skooma Addict]

So you've confirmed it. It is simply fear of the unknown.I don't fear the unknown. It is just that I, like you, have no idea what a stateless society in America would look like. Thus, I am not willing to gamble with society only to find out that the end result is chaos.


Did you even read what I said?

I said: Why would x,y,z exist and persist?
You: Because x,y,z exist.

It's not really a valuable point.What am I going to do if x,y,z don't come about? Well that would depend on the society I would live in in this hypothetical scenario. But this whole point is stupid since x,y, and z do exist.


-I'm shocked that you have no logical arguments to explain why the state is or isn't a bad economic actor, or why the state must or mustn't exist.A stable legal code.



So, you know the state is a negative influence, but because we "don't know" what else might work, we should stick with it. Classic conservatism - just don't change! We don't know what the outcome might be.You are defining all non-revolutionaries as conservatives. Again, misuse of words.



This is why your arguments are so laughable. Your descriptors for a reasonable state (apparently the whole basis for your support of such a system) boil down to self-fulfilling ideals. Your renounciation of the state boils down to mistrust of anti-state arguments and fear of the unknown (though no specific arguments for the state which go beyond wish lists!).Okay Dean, can you tell me what a stateless society in America would look like on a large scale?


Don't you see why its hard to take your "shift in ideas" seriously? Why should I have ever believed that you thought the state was "bad and artificial in market terms" when now you say that its existence is critical for a stable society?
I don't see how it is hard to take a change in opinion seriously. You are simply in awe that a person could change their opinion.


I honestly think its just he realized that private property and thus markets cannot exist without a state, which is more important to libertarians than anything (private capitalist property)I don't think that, as it is incorrect. It is extremely easy to understand how markets and private property could exist without a state. Take an imaginary society where everyone supports markets and private property. In such a society, no state is required for markets or private property. That is one example, but it does not need to be so extreme.


-You're an idealist because you define "why your ideals will come about" with the ideals themselves. This is classic idealism.

What you mean by that, I have no idea. You just think that materialism sounds scientific, while idealism sounds pseudo-scientific. Thus, you label everyone you disagree with as an idealist. I assume you refer to yourself as a materialist?

[Havet]

Market economies by their nature beget for-profit power systems; this has been exemplified and broken down to you, and you've not even scratched the surface of it. You didn't even criticize the argument (besides some silly linguistic points), and furthermore my point never relied solely on historical evidence.

It may have been exemplified, but no evidence was presented to support your statements, rendering them as mere opinions.


In addition, you originally brought up the point that anarchism is "doomed to failure,' my entire spiel was to point out that the same criticism - perhaps more well - can be applied to your ideology.

I never claimed that "anarchism" is doomed to fail. That is why I am an anarchist, in the plurest sense of the word.

[RGacky3]

I don't think that, as it is incorrect. It is extremely easy to understand how markets and private property could exist without a state. Take an imaginary society where everyone supports markets and private property. In such a society, no state is required for markets or private property. That is one example, but it does not need to be so extreme.

That would require everyone to respect private capitalist property no matter what, which is extreamly unlikely, when it comes to personal property its slightly more clear cut, when it comes to capitalist property (nessesary for a market) it gets much more hard to do without a state, imagen a diamond mine, how on earth would that work? Or a factory producing rolexes, or a large farm, its rediculous, its almost as likely as EVERYONE supporting a monarch no matter what, its almost as likely to have an anarcho-monarchy.

[Skooma Addict]

That would require everyone to respect private capitalist property no matter what, which is extreamly unlikely, when it comes to personal property its slightly more clear cut, when it comes to capitalist property (nessesary for a market) it gets much more hard to do without a state, imagen a diamond mine, how on earth would that work? Or a factory producing rolexes, or a large farm, its rediculous, its almost as likely as EVERYONE supporting a monarch no matter what, its almost as likely to have an anarcho-monarchy.

It is not required that everyone abide by private property 100% of the time. It just requires that enough people follow it in general cases. In this case, socialism would require a state to implement. What social system requires a state depends on the social context. In a society full of people who are vehemently against capitalism, then capitalism requires a state. The same idea holds true regarding socialism.

I don't know what you are asking when you say "how would a diamond mine work?" I am sure you could go look up information about diamond mind operations on your own time.

[RGacky3]

It is not required that everyone abide by private property 100% of the time. It just requires that enough people follow it in general cases.

For a Market to funtion you would requre it 100%, the easiest cases of private property is personal property, which is easy, disputes over personal property would probably be rare, where it would get complicated is capitalist property, the type that would facilitate a market, land ownership, production rights, all the such, in those things its very very unlikely that people would just respect the property rights for no reason just to allow a market.


In this case, socialism would require a state to implement. What social system requires a state depends on the social context. In a society full of people who are vehemently against capitalism, then capitalism requires a state. The same idea holds true regarding socialism.


Socialism would'nt require a state at all, because the whole point of socialism is democracy, if people democratically decide to allow a guy to HAVE certain capitalist property rights, then thats it (I have no idea why they would), without a state and with the full option of socialism I don't think its possible for capitalism to work, no would support private property to the degree to facilitate a market, its almost as inconcievable as people supporting an absolute monarchy without coercion and with a full democratic option.


I don't know what you are asking when you say "how would a diamond mine work?" I am sure you could go look up information about diamond mind operations on your own time.

What I mean is how the hell would a guy own a diamond mine and have his workers just respect his property rights without a state? How do you expect them to just assume that the diamonds are his and they are ony selling their labor, thats rediculous.

[Skooma Addict]

For a Market to funtion you would requre it 100%, the easiest cases of private property is personal property, which is easy, disputes over personal property would probably be rare, where it would get complicated is capitalist property, the type that would facilitate a market, land ownership, production rights, all the such, in those things its very very unlikely that people would just respect the property rights for no reason just to allow a market.



Private property does not need to be enforced all the time for markets to function. If that were true, there would be no markets. In many countries with a strong common law tradition for example, people may respect land ownership and production rights without a state.


Socialism would'nt require a state at all, because the whole point of socialism is democracy, if people democratically decide to allow a guy to HAVE certain capitalist property rights, then thats it (I have no idea why they would), without a state and with the full option of socialism I don't think its possible for capitalism to work, no would support private property to the degree to facilitate a market, its almost as inconcievable as people supporting an absolute monarchy without coercion and with a full democratic option.

Okay, what about a society where most of the people are against democracy since they see it as mob rule? Then I don't see how you could implement socialism without a state. Also, how are rights determined in such a society? Are they determined democratically as well? If not, how are they determined?

[RGacky3]

Private property does not need to be enforced all the time for markets to function. If that were true, there would be no markets.

But it needs to be enforced, and thats what the state does.


In many countries with a strong common law tradition for example, people may respect land ownership and production rights without a state.


I doubt enough to allow a market or profit. Land ownership may be respected but as soon as it gets to a point where people need food and the land owner can make a profit, or where people have to work for him for his profit, there would be no reason to respect that land ownership, when it comes to production rights its the same thing, as soon as it gets to a point of scarcity those rights go out the window.

Its like having a monarch tradition, like the monarchy in England, the Monarch still has powers but as soon as she uses it its out the window, thus its not a funtioning monarchy, (because she cannot enforce it), it would be the same way with capitalism in a anarchist society.


Okay, what about a society where most of the people are against democracy since they see it as mob rule? Then I don't see how you could implement socialism without a state. Also, how are rights determined in such a society? Are they determined democratically as well? If not, how are they determined?

Come again? A society where most of the people are against democracy? Ok, so what would they rather? This is a funny concept.

[Bud Struggle]

Come again? A society where most of the people are against democracy? Ok, so what would they rather? This is a funny concept.

People give up democracy all the time--they trade it for security. One of the best examples is the Weimar Republic. People gave up freedom for security and growth, and for the most part quite willingly.

Another example is the USA--though at a much slower pace. People have been ginig up their freedoms little by little since the country was founded.

[RGacky3]

Another example is the USA--though at a much slower pace. People have been ginig up their freedoms little by little since the country was founded.

Come again? I thought you were the one preaching that the US was getting better?


One of the best examples is the Weimar Republic. People gave up freedom for security and growth, and for the most part quite willingly.


It was based on rediculous and lies, the choice between security and democracy has never been a real choice, theres never been a corelation to how democratic and free a society is and how safe they are, or how authoritarian they are and how safe they are, so in reality its not really an issue. But we were talking about property and markets.

[Bud Struggle]

Come again? I thought you were the one preaching that the US was getting better?

Ouch! I said things were getting better I never said things were getting freer. That's what the Tea Parties are for.


It was based on rediculous and lies, the choice between security and democracy has never been a real choice, theres never been a corelation to how democratic and free a society is and how safe they are, or how authoritarian they are and how safe they are, so in reality its not really an issue. But we were talking about property and markets.

I saw it myself in my business--I gave people choice and freedom and it fell apart pretty quickly. Maybe it's conditioning, but there are plenty of people that like some sort of security in their lives. In a way Communism is all about security. "People shouldn't go hungry." "People should have the basics of life provided for." All that. It's going to cost something, that security--either freedom (under Leninism,) or opportunity to be (vastly) successful under Anarchism.

I think you are one of those people that likes security, otherwise you'd be an entrepreneaur not a Communist.

There is always a price, always a trade off for everything.

[RGacky3]

Ouch! I said things were getting better I never said things were getting freer. That's what the Tea Parties are for.

Ok your gonna have to back that up now, what is not getting unfree and how are the tea parties helping it.


I saw it myself in my business--I gave people choice and freedom and it fell apart pretty quickly. Maybe it's conditioning, but there are plenty of people that like some sort of security in their lives. In a way Communism is all about security. "People shouldn't go hungry." "People should have the basics of life provided for." All that. It's going to cost something, that security--either freedom (under Leninism,) or opportunity to be (vastly) successful under Anarchism.


Of coarse in a buisiness where people work FOR a boss, its not gonna work, the same way soldiers fighting for someone elses interest are not gonna fight hard if they arn't forced.

As far as Stress under Anarchism, the times there has been socialist anarchism that was never a problem, nor is there ANY corrolation between freedom, democracy and stress, because guess what, the cool thing is you don't HAVE to participate in decisions that don't affect you if you don't want too. Its much MORE stressfull to not have control over your own life.


I think you are one of those people that likes security, otherwise you'd be an entrepreneaur not a Communist.

There is always a price, always a trade off for everything.

wait what? an entrepreneaur not a communist? A communist is'nt a profession. But I suppose all people that are wage workers would rather security than freedom (Because there is so much security for wage workers), and you say I'm on the planet of OZ :)

[Skooma Addict]

But it needs to be enforced, and thats what the state does.

The state currently enforces private property, yes. But as I was saying, this need not be the case if the conditions are right.



I doubt enough to allow a market or profit. Land ownership may be respected but as soon as it gets to a point where people need food and the land owner can make a profit, or where people have to work for him for his profit, there would be no reason to respect that land ownership, when it comes to production rights its the same thing, as soon as it gets to a point of scarcity those rights go out the window.

Workers don't need to be starving for the capitalist to make a profit. Also, underpaying workers gives others an incentive to enter the industry and offer higher wages.


Come again? A society where most of the people are against democracy? Ok, so what would they rather? This is a funny concept.

Plenty of people throughout history have been against democracy. Also, I am fairly certain that most people today would not want literally everything to be decided democratically. But I want to know, how are rights determined? democratically?

[RGacky3]

The state currently enforces private property, yes. But as I was saying, this need not be the case if the conditions are right.


Well if it is enforced in everycase, it can be safe to assume it MUST be enforced.


Workers don't need to be starving for the capitalist to make a profit. Also, underpaying workers gives others an incentive to enter the industry and offer higher wages.

As long as there is unemployment no it does'nt. THey don't need to be starving but, they need to be in real need.


Plenty of people throughout history have been against democracy. Also, I am fairly certain that most people today would not want literally everything to be decided democratically. But I want to know, how are rights determined? democratically?

Again I ask you what would they rather, of coarse they don't want EVYERTHING decided democratically, desicions that are personal they want to make themself, but I ask you, what situation would people rather have no say in something that affects them, or no opportunity to have a say.

Yeah, rights are pretty much decided democratically, but its not formal, let me ask you, if there was no cop would you go around kicking people in the shin for no reason? Probably not, if you did, most people would'nt stand for it, its the same concept.

[Skooma Addict]

Well if it is enforced in everycase, it can be safe to assume it MUST be enforced.
Private property is not enforced in every case though. But private property must be enforced at least as a general rule for markets to function. However, there is nothing inherent about private property which requires it to be enforced by a state.


As long as there is unemployment no it does'nt. THey don't need to be starving but, they need to be in real need.The extent that unemployment effects the scenario depends on the skills of those who are unemployed. Also, in the long run this does not eliminate the potential for profit in the industry where workers are being under payed, since we are assuming that the capitalist continues to underpay his workers even after unemployed workers find jobs. Also, competitors can outbid the capitalist and pay the workers a wage closer to their MVP for a profit.


Again I ask you what would they rather, of coarse they don't want EVYERTHING decided democratically, desicions that are personal they want to make themself, but I ask you, what situation would people rather have no say in something that affects them, or no opportunity to have a say.

Yeah, rights are pretty much decided democratically, but its not formal, let me ask you, if there was no cop would you go around kicking people in the shin for no reason? Probably not, if you did, most people would'nt stand for it, its the same concept.I don't think anyone would want to live in a society where they have a say in everything that affects them. I wouldn't want my neighbor to have a say in whether or not I can maintain my garden just because they don't like the smell of flowers.

If rights were determined democratically, what are the boundaries which determine who may participate in each regional vote? I assume that people in Seattle would not be voting on whether to build a park in Detroit, correct? And also I am assuming they must not have a say in anything pertaining to rights.

My follow up question is what is going to stop a community from voting to enslave or deny certain basic rights to group X? If there are going to be certain rights which are guaranteed to everyone, then these rights must be created by some authority in a non-democratic way, or they themselves must be determined democratically, in which case there is nothing stopping one group being exempt from such rights.

To me this all seems like hopeless utopian speculation. The best place to look for scholarly work on the topics relevant to stateless societies is here...

http://analyticalanarchism.net/

[Dean]

The extent that unemployment effects the scenario depends on the skills of those who are unemployed.
Right. In an advanced capitalist economy with sufficient dispersion of education access, like the US, skilled labor becomes an increasingly mundane - and therefore cheaper commodity.


Also, in the long run this does not eliminate the potential for profit in the industry where workers are being under payed, since we are assuming that the capitalist continues to underpay his workers even after unemployed workers find jobs.
Right and wrong; in fact, "underpayment" of workers should be understood as compensation in terms of market value. A larger pool of labor creates favorable market conditions for profit, so savvy capitalists will make charitable contributions to organizations which provide them with more workforce, or reinvest in industries or business models which utilize less skilled or otherwise cheaper labor.

In short, the successful capitalist firm is that which manages to provide bare-bones compensation to labor.

Furthermore, the ridiculous notion about "companies competing for labor" simply doesn't apply except, as previously mentioned, in markets with labor scarcity. Given the historical trend of capital especially in the last 50 years, the aforementioned tactics are apparently much more potent than any childish notions of "competition for labor."

I could just as easily say "workers will compete to provide labor for a lower price," but this again doesn't capture the character of the market:

In fact, workers do not typically get hired for promising to work for less, either! Only arbitrary distinctions - such as organizational and national prejudice - tend to represent these disparities (notably labor-friendly and union firms versus poverty-wage firms; the compensation given to US versus Mexican and El Salvadorean nationals).

The fact is that markets aren't some simple system to which you can apply your own (conveniently pro-labor!) interpretation. Markets beget profit-generating systems, and mass dispersion of wealth via purchase of labor is an anomalous condition.


Also, competitors can outbid the capitalist and pay the workers a wage closer to their MVP for a profit.
I assume this "profit" is in acquiescence of "market shares"? Again, for this to apply to labor, it has to be a scarce commodity.

We've already seen that valuable labor in a capitalist market is precisely that labor which generates value without much burden on the capitalist. Just as any more profitable venture enjoys increasing investment and expansion, so too does cumbersome labor - that is labor which provides capital at higher compensation rates - experience a reduction in market shares.

So the right-wingers have a point that labor unions, and more specifically high compensation for labor, tend to weaken their native industries and firms. The reason for this is simple.

In a growing market, the market value of human labor consistently decreases; that is to say that its value, and more importantly compensation in terms of wages in benefits, consistently cheapens. The funny thing about you market types is that you run around in circles with vague references to economic theory attempting to justify that "the market will dictate the correct value." But its no secret that the market has definitive power over pricing. What you fail to notice is any of the actual tendencies of the market, and ultimately the fact that the market will always work in the favor of those who can manipulate market conditions: capitalists in possession of political, economic, military etc. capital.

[RGacky3]

But private property must be enforced at least as a general rule for markets to function. However, there is nothing inherent about private property which requires it to be enforced by a state.

It must be enforced as a general rule, it needs a state, because its only gonna want to be enforced by large capitalist property owners, that are generally in the minority.


The extent that unemployment effects the scenario depends on the skills of those who are unemployed. Also, in the long run this does not eliminate the potential for profit in the industry where workers are being under payed, since we are assuming that the capitalist continues to underpay his workers even after unemployed workers find jobs. Also, competitors can outbid the capitalist and pay the workers a wage closer to their MVP for a profit.

Exactly, it does depend on the skill, but with large unemployment it does'nt really matter too much in the big picture. Let me ask you something, if production goes up whats more profitable for a capitalist, hire more workers, or have his workers work longer and harder (The latter is more, as proven by empirical evidence), now you'll yell COMPETITION, well not really, because a competitor who might higher more workers and have them work less will only be able to hire so many, and will probably be under cut by the more efficient company in the market.

What free market people have to do is look at ALL the variables, you can't just pick one to make a point.


I don't think anyone would want to live in a society where they have a say in everything that affects them. I wouldn't want my neighbor to have a say in whether or not I can maintain my garden just because they don't like the smell of flowers.


You as well as I know, that, that scenario is not one where it would be considered something that directly affects the neighbor, bounds of reason, and those bounds are set democratically, in otherwords, if there is a conflict the community decides. (also your scenario is EXTREAMLY unlikely, and if it was gonna happen it probably would have happened in communities like the Kibbutz and other socialist anarchist communities).


If rights were determined democratically, what are the boundaries which determine who may participate in each regional vote? I assume that people in Seattle would not be voting on whether to build a park in Detroit, correct? And also I am assuming they must not have a say in anything pertaining to rights.


Why would anyone in Seattle care about whether or not a park is built in Detroit?


My follow up question is what is going to stop a community from voting to enslave or deny certain basic rights to group X? If there are going to be certain rights which are guaranteed to everyone, then these rights must be created by some authority in a non-democratic way, or they themselves must be determined democratically, in which case there is nothing stopping one group being exempt from such rights.

Why would they? Also keep in mind that group X would also be able to vote in the matter. BUt think about it, with direct democracy, and no profit motive, and no power structures, who would enslave or deny basic rights to a group?

ANd don't you think its MORE likely to happen when its up the the whims of 1 or a few people?

That argument is a non issue.