Opinions on anarcho-capitalism?

[Lanky Wanker]

I posted this under the learning section by accident and I can't remove it in case you're wondering why I reposted it here. Anyways, I hear most left wingers say that anarcho-capitalism is a load of bullshit and I gotta admit, it does sound like a bit of an oxymoron. So, what are your thoughts on it? I've only seen like one anarcho-capitalist on this site so far.

[ZombieRothbard]

What do you mean by "load of bullshit"? Do you mean it is bullshit, in the sense that you believe anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms? Or do you have specific reasons why you believe the theory behind the ideology is flawed?

[RedSunRising]

What do you mean by "load of bullshit"? Do you mean it is bullshit, in the sense that you believe anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms? Or do you have specific reasons why you believe the theory behind the ideology is flawed?

Class society necessarily involves class dictatorship which necessarily involves a state.

And yeah your private militias would kind of count as a state especially as they would naturally centralize as proletarian struggle grew.

[ZombieRothbard]

Class society necessarily involves class dictatorship which necessarily involves a state.

I don't follow this line of reasoning.


And yeah your private militias would kind of count as a state especially as they would naturally centralize as proletarian struggle grew.

I would hardly call my proposed method of defense "private militias". But for the sake of circumventing a wildly hypothetical discussion on the production of private defense, I will leave it at that.

[Revolution starts with U]

The answers are insufficient. An-cap makes sense, the theory, not the words. It makes very good sense. The only sense that is not made is by the supposed freedom loving advocates that don't realize the implications it will have for society. The Hoppean an-caps kinda get it, and that's why they're open aristocrats. But most of them think it will result in some liberating process for the people at large.... that's what doesn't make sense.

There should be a "it is a misguided attempt to institute a neo-feudalism in society" answer.

[Property Is Robbery]

I don't follow this line of reasoning.



I would hardly call my proposed method of defense "private militias". But for the sake of circumventing a wildly hypothetical discussion on the production of private defense, I will leave it at that.
Don't you realize that if an anarcho-capitalist revolution ever happened the workers would simply refuse to work and then you would have to be a worker like the rest of us? We wouldn't accept your fascist hierarchy if there was no state to stop us.

[Lanky Wanker]

What do you mean by "load of bullshit"? Do you mean it is bullshit, in the sense that you believe anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms? Or do you have specific reasons why you believe the theory behind the ideology is flawed?

That's why I posted, to find out what people mean when they say it's a load of bullshit. I'm not saying it's bullshit at all because I don't know enough about it to form an opinion yet. All I'm saying is the idea of anarchy being completely against capitalism and the fact that they are (pretty much) enemies makes it sound like a bit of a contradiction to me.

[RedSunRising]

I don't follow this line of reasoning.



You dont dominate people by waving flowers at them. Domination requires a level of centralization and cunning, with fire power power ever present in the back ground.

[Reznov]

I don't follow this line of reasoning.



I would hardly call my proposed method of defense "private militias". But for the sake of circumventing a wildly hypothetical discussion on the production of private defense, I will leave it at that.

Just re-name "private militia" to Red Guard or Revolutinary Vanguard or something like that.

Then RedSonRising would say its a great application of Leninist thought.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Anarcho-capitalism is redundant.

[#FF0000]

words

With no state, who enforces property rights?

[tm315]

Anarcho-capitalism is redundant.
Don't you mean "Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron?"

[Die Rote Fahne]

Don't you mean "Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron?"

Both.

[Magón]

Anarcho-Capitalism is a joke. There's really no reasoning with anyone who calls themselves such, because they're more than likely someone who's never read even the most brief explanation of what actual Anarchism is and means.

You can put "Anarcho-" on whatever you like. I could call myself an "Anarcho-Scientologist" if I wanted, but the moment I was serious about it, is the moment that insanity and stupidity set in.

[tm315]

Both.
I don't think I understand. Please explain.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I don't think I understand. Please explain.
It's no longer a useful idea....not that it ever was, but among capitalists.

Also an oxymoron because anarchy requires the elimination of capitalism.

[28350]

On paper and in theory, it looks nice (jk).
The fact of the matter is capitalism just doesn't work.

[red_rich]

i dont think anarcho-capitalism is a joke. It is more likely something to be feared. I dont like states too much but capitalism without one is alot more scary :ohmy:

[Quail]

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, and has absolutely nothing to do with anarchist thought. An anarcho-capitalist society would have rich corporations protected by private security companies (i.e. the owners of corporations would have their own "state") and it would be vastly more unequal than the capitalism we currently live under.

[red_rich]

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, and has absolutely nothing to do with anarchist thought. An anarcho-capitalist society would have rich corporations protected by private security companies (i.e. the owners of corporations would have their own "state") and it would be vastly more unequal than the capitalism we currently live under.


it has nothing to do with left-anarchist thought...

it is just the free market without the state, i dont see the contradiction? (other than the obvivous contradicitons within capitalism anyway) capitalism doesnt necessarily need the state in order to survive.

[Magón]

i dont think anarcho-capitalism is a joke. It is more likely something to be feared. I dont like states too much but capitalism without one is alot more scary :ohmy:

The likelihood of an actual anarcho-capitalist world or movement striking up in the world as a majority, is not going to happen. How many people do you know, or in the world completely, would want to revert to some kind of feudalistic type government/system, where instead of having lords and kings, etc. they're replaced by corporate conglomerates who treat them just as lords and kings in the ancient world did.

[Ocean Seal]

With no state, who enforces property rights?
The bourgeoisie do. Being that they have the freedom to hire private armies that's how I assume that they deal with this.
Capitalism-- the state, the military, the police, the courts
Anarcho-capitalism-- several corporate almost feudalesque mini-states, private military and police forces, and a tribunal before the ruling class

Boy oh boy ancaps have a strange idea of what freedom is.

[tm315]

it has nothing to do with left-anarchist thought...

it is just the free market without the state, i dont see the contradiction? (other than the obvivous contradicitons within capitalism anyway) capitalism doesnt necessarily need the state in order to survive.
It needs a state to defend private property.

[Quail]

it has nothing to do with left-anarchist thought...

it is just the free market without the state, i dont see the contradiction? (other than the obvivous contradicitons within capitalism anyway) capitalism doesnt necessarily need the state in order to survive.
It's necessary to have some form of "state" to protect private property. Anarchists are against private property and any kind of coerced authority. To protect private property, it is necessary to use coercion, which violates a person's autonomy. There is no way an anarcho-capitalist society could function without coercion, so it can't really be classed as anarchism.

[ZombieRothbard]

Don't you realize that if an anarcho-capitalist revolution ever happened the workers would simply refuse to work and then you would have to be a worker like the rest of us? We wouldn't accept your fascist hierarchy if there was no state to stop us.

You have some rather strange ideas about how the world works. Marxist thought baffles me.

[ZombieRothbard]

With no state, who enforces property rights?

Private law.

[ZombieRothbard]

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms, and has absolutely nothing to do with anarchist thought. An anarcho-capitalist society would have rich corporations protected by private security companies (i.e. the owners of corporations would have their own "state") and it would be vastly more unequal than the capitalism we currently live under.

Actually, by definition corporations require grants of privelege by states. Second, private security companies would have no incentive to protect big business, and refuse to protect other members of the population. Alienating customers is not good business practice. Again, going into private security theory is difficult enough with more "mainstream" people. It would be even more difficult with Marxists, so id rather not go down that road if at all possible. But the theorized models of private security would not favor big business at all. In fact, big business would likely end up footing the bill for the poor (who would be free riders).

[ZombieRothbard]

The likelihood of an actual anarcho-capitalist world or movement striking up in the world as a majority, is not going to happen. How many people do you know, or in the world completely, would want to revert to some kind of feudalistic type government/system, where instead of having lords and kings, etc. they're replaced by corporate conglomerates who treat them just as lords and kings in the ancient world did.

I find this post ironic, because even though this isn't what anarcho-capitalists advocate, it is actually what exists in the world today. And ironically, people tolerate it. The world is already in a state of "feudalism" with various states ruled by corporate conglomerates and corrupt politicians. This is precisely what anarcho-capitalism seeks to end.

[#FF0000]

Private law.

What? Can you elaborate on this?

[Drosophila]

Anarcho-capitalism is one of the stupidest theories out there.

Supporters of it always try to use that stupid "market incentive" argument.

[ZombieRothbard]

Anarcho-capitalism is one of the stupidest theories out there.

Supporters of it always try to use that stupid "market incentive" argument.

What is stupid about market incentives?

[Drosophila]

What is stupid about market incentives?

That they don't do what the anarcho-capitalists think they can do.
Example: how do you expect an anarcho capitalist society to distribute
health care to everyone? Answer: market incentives

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually, by definition corporations require grants of privelege by states. Second,
Not technically. Insurance companies could still offer limited liability protection, and the stock market definitely isn't going anywhere under an-cap. So, I see no reason the "free market" couldn't support the corporation.


private security companies would have no incentive to protect big business, and refuse to protect other members of the population.
You mean other than the fundamental aim of all business anywhere ever; to serve the consumer preferences of the monied interests.

Alienating customers is not good business practice.
No, but alienating people who can't be customers is really no big deal.


Again, going into private security theory is difficult enough with more "mainstream" people. It would be even more difficult with Marxists, so id rather not go down that road if at all possible. But the theorized models of private security would not favor big business at all.
There are no real theories in economics, that I know of... and few, if any, in any of the social sciences. You mean theorem or possibly hypothesis, but certainly not theory. This is important because there's a large difference between hypothesis and theory, namely observance of physical fact.


In fact, big business would likely end up footing the bill for the poor (who would be free riders).
The object of any business is to externalize costs as much as possible. They're really not in the business of free-riders.


I find this post ironic, because even though this isn't what anarcho-capitalists advocate, it is actually what exists in the world today. And ironically, people tolerate it. The world is already in a state of "feudalism" with various states ruled by corporate conglomerates and corrupt politicians. This is precisely what anarcho-capitalism seeks to end.

Didn't Hoppe or someone like that consider Pinochet or someone like that a paragon of liberal governance and prefered a ruler such as that over any inkling of democracy?

[ZombieRothbard]

That they don't do what the anarcho-capitalists think they can do.
Example: how do you expect an anarcho capitalist society to distribute
health care to everyone? Answer: market incentives

Why wouldn't market incentives create affordable healthcare to low income workers?

[Revolution starts with U]

Why wouldn't market incentives create affordable healthcare to low income workers?

Prove a negative and all that...
A better question is, why would they? They're only in the business of serving the consumer preferences of the monied interests.

[ZombieRothbard]

Not technically. Insurance companies could still offer limited liability protection, and the stock market definitely isn't going anywhere under an-cap. So, I see no reason the "free market" couldn't support the corporation.

Insurance companies could offer limited liability protection to an extent, but if an insurance company had to payout consistently there would obviously be no reason to continue providing such protection, provided the business could not continue to afford ever increasing premiums.


You mean other than the fundamental aim of all business anywhere ever; to serve the consumer preferences of the monied interests.

What do you mean by "monied interests"?


No, but alienating people who can't be customers is really no big deal.

Virtually anybody would be able to afford basic security coverage, provided they were willing to work for it. The poor already group together in apartment buildings out of affordability. The same would be true in an anarcho-capitalist society, with the poor being provided security services as a part of their rental agreement.


The object of any business is to externalize costs as much as possible. They're really not in the business of free-riders.

They would really have no choice.


Didn't Hoppe or someone like that consider Pinochet or someone like that a paragon of liberal governance and prefered a ruler such as that over any inkling of democracy?

I believe Marx was an anti-semite as well. Just because Hoppe has some sort of irrational attraction towards monarchy worship, doesn't mean I have to.

[#FF0000]

I believe Marx was an anti-semite as well. Just because Hoppe has some sort of irrational attraction towards monarchy worship, doesn't mean I have to. He was Jewish.

I'm still kind of wondering how private law works, but eh, you're kinda swamped I guess,

[ZombieRothbard]

He was Jewish.

I'm still kind of wondering how private law works, but eh, you're kinda swamped I guess,

Private law would simply be the rule of law that is competitively provided on the free market. Different judges could provide different rules of law. For example, if two individuals wanted to settle a dispute, they would choose a judge to go to. If they are both Muslim, than it would stand to reason that they would pick a judge who renders decisions based upon Shariah law. If they were atheists, they could go to a secular court. If one was Muslim, and one was an Atheist, they could compromise on some other type of court.

It is important to note that anarcho-capitalism would absolutely not be opposed to left-wing communes or collectives. As long as the land was legitimately purchased, it could be used in any way the owner wished. This includes allowing the poor to squat, or work collectively (left-wingers would likely provide a good portion of the private charity that anarcho-capitalists believe would exist in an ancap society). Other rule of law would not necessarily extend to your own property, so your commune could live competely independently.

[#FF0000]

Private law would simply be the rule of law that is competitively provided on the free market. Different judges could provide different rules of law. For example, if two individuals wanted to settle a dispute, they would choose a judge to go to. If they are both Muslim, than it would stand to reason that they would pick a judge who renders decisions based upon Shariah law. If they were atheists, they could go to a secular court. If one was Muslim, and one was an Atheist, they could compromise on some other type of court.

Who writes the law, be it secular, muslim, or otherwise? Why wouldn't every judge have a different set of laws?


y (left-wingers would likely provide a good portion of the private charity that anarcho-capitalists believe would exist in an ancap society).

More likely they'd provide a good portion of the numerous insurrections that anarcho-capitalists somehow don't think would exist in an ancap society.

[ZombieRothbard]

Who writes the law, be it secular, muslim, or otherwise? Why wouldn't every judge have a different set of laws?
Every judge WOULD have their own set of laws. That is the point.




More likely they'd provide a good portion of the numerous insurrections that anarcho-capitalists somehow don't think would exist in an ancap society.

I am not sure if ancaps don't expect insurrections. I would hope there wouldn't be violence, but it would be utopian to expect that injustice and warfare would vanish. I am unsure why socialists would wish to attack those that are participating in the free market voluntarily.

[Revolution starts with U]

Insurance companies could offer limited liability protection to an extent, but if an insurance company had to payout consistently there would obviously be no reason to continue providing such protection, provided the business could not continue to afford ever increasing premiums.
Under your own theory that would just force corporations to be more efficient. That, to you, should be a good thing.


What do you mean by "monied interests"?
"But need is not effective economic demand. Demand requires need and corresponding purchasing power." ~Henry Hazlitt
Money, regardless of people's wants and needs, is the real generator of economic demand, in a capitalist society.


Virtually anybody would be able to afford basic security coverage, provided they were willing to work for it. The poor already group together in apartment buildings out of affordability. The same would be true in an anarcho-capitalist society, with the poor being provided security services as a part of their rental agreement.
Explain to me how that's not feudalism.


They would really have no choice.
Yes they would. Let them fend for themselves, or starve. It's their property. You're certainly not going to make them, are you?


I believe Marx was an anti-semite as well. Just because Hoppe has some sort of irrational attraction towards monarchy worship, doesn't mean I have to.

I respect Marx. But I'm not a marxist.
I didn't implicate you as a monarchist. I pointed out that ancap/propertarians main goal is in no way "ending this type of governance."


Private law would simply be the rule of law that is competitively provided on the free market. Different judges could provide different rules of law. For example, if two individuals wanted to settle a dispute, they would choose a judge to go to. If they are both Muslim, than it would stand to reason that they would pick a judge who renders decisions based upon Shariah law. If they were atheists, they could go to a secular court. If one was Muslim, and one was an Atheist, they could compromise on some other type of court.
Or, when the poorer one refuses to go to either court, as he knows everyone will have a stake in the rich man winning (Iron Law of Oligarchy and all that), the rich man's PDA could arrest the poor man and force him to attend one.


It is important to note that anarcho-capitalism would absolutely not be opposed to left-wing communes or collectives.
In "theory", no. In reality, history tells me it will.

[#FF0000]

If every judge has his own law then how can anything be said to be purchased legitimately?

Who gives these judges their power?

Who or what stops them from just being totally arbitrary in their decisions?

Do lawyers have to be experts on everyone's individual law?

[RGacky3]

Private law would simply be the rule of law that is competitively provided on the free market. Different judges could provide different rules of law. For example, if two individuals wanted to settle a dispute, they would choose a judge to go to. If they are both Muslim, than it would stand to reason that they would pick a judge who renders decisions based upon Shariah law. If they were atheists, they could go to a secular court. If one was Muslim, and one was an Atheist, they could compromise on some other type of court.

It is important to note that anarcho-capitalism would absolutely not be opposed to left-wing communes or collectives. As long as the land was legitimately purchased, it could be used in any way the owner wished. This includes allowing the poor to squat, or work collectively (left-wingers would likely provide a good portion of the private charity that anarcho-capitalists believe would exist in an ancap society). Other rule of law would not necessarily extend to your own property, so your commune could live competely independently.

First of all, I gotta say your a trooper for being here and being respectful and trying to have proper discussions, I say that because its a rare thing and I appreciate it.

About the private courts, the richer person is obviously gonna be able to buy for profit courts, when you have market courts there is no way you can have justice for poor people, they simply can't afford it.

What you've made is essencially plutocracy, the rich control everything, even rule of law, really .... just dictatorships.


I am unsure why socialists would wish to attack those that are participating in the free market voluntarily.

Because there is no free market its impossible and by its very nature its not voluntary, when I go to a piece of land with apple trees, I don't "Voluntarily" choose to not pick the apples, I don't do it because I'll get arrested. Property rights by their very nature are not voluntary, they have to be enforced.

WHen yo have a society with the land contorlled by the rich, and the law controlled by the rich, and the buisinesses controlled by the rich, how could you NOT expect insurrection.

YOu say corporations are created by the state, and your right, but when the law is 100% controlled by the rich, and not by the people, you'd expect MORE privilege to be given to the rich.

See the real problem anacho-capitalists have is not power, or centralized authority, its not the state in of itself, because they are in favor of state like private institutions, their problem is with democracy, i.e. people having some sort of control without money being the deciding factor.

[ZombieRothbard]

Under your own theory that would just force corporations to be more efficient. That, to you, should be a good thing.

It would force businesses to be more efficient, and as a result, much smaller than they are now. A business that extended itself too far would risk inefficiency and lawsuits as a result. This would incentivize having an economy dominated by small/local business, and not multinational corporations.



"But need is not effective economic demand. Demand requires need and corresponding purchasing power." ~Henry Hazlitt
Money, regardless of people's wants and needs, is the real generator of economic demand, in a capitalist society.

I respect Hazlitt, and obviously I agree with that statement. Anarcho-capitalists would argue though, that in a free market the wealth would be more evenly distributed. The corporations wouldn't have economic privelege, and suck the wealth out of the lower classes. The government also sucks the wealth out of the lower and middle class, through the printing press. And of course corporations pass on their taxes to their employees and customers, or simply don't pay them by utilizing some loophole or foreign tax haven.


Explain to me how that's not feudalism.

If it is feudalism, than I suppose I am in favor of feudalism. Although if that is feudalism, we are living in a feudalistic world right now, and have been since the beggining of humanity.


Yes they would. Let them fend for themselves, or starve. It's their property. You're certainly not going to make them, are you?

The poor are quite a resourceful lot, and I actually am not that worried about their ability to defend themselves. As mentioned before, if they can afford to rent an apartment in a complex, the tenets would basically split the cost of paying for security.


Or, when the poorer one refuses to go to either court, as he knows everyone will have a stake in the rich man winning (Iron Law of Oligarchy and all that), the rich man's PDA could arrest the poor man and force him to attend one.

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't claim it could end injustice. Such an event could hypothetically occur. However if a court wishes to maintian its reputation as fair, and continue to have paying customers, it would necessarily be unbiased.

[ZombieRothbard]

If every judge has his own law then how can anything be said to be purchased legitimately?

There would probably be some law that would be standardized and considered common law, such as the purchase of property.


Who gives these judges their power?

Judges would simply be people who sell their own law on the market. They don't need any power. A man could call himself a judge in his basement, and charge people to render a decision. If his verdict is insane, the community would naturally reject it.


Who or what stops them from just being totally arbitrary in their decisions?

I don't think that is mutually exclusive to anarcho-capitalism. I think virtually any system of law would have some arbitrary aspects. In an anarhco-capitalist society, you pick your judge, so at least people would have an option.


Do lawyers have to be experts on everyone's individual law?

Lawyers would likely not exist. Hopefully legal codes aren't so complicated that you need scarce labor hours allocated to such waste.

[ZombieRothbard]

First of all, I gotta say your a trooper for being here and being respectful and trying to have proper discussions, I say that because its a rare thing and I appreciate it.

Thanks. The last time I had a dialogue with Marxists, it ended with them threatening my life. They told me id be one of the first to die in the revolution :crying:


About the private courts, the richer person is obviously gonna be able to buy for profit courts, when you have market courts there is no way you can have justice for poor people, they simply can't afford it.
Courts that were biased wouldn't really have any sort of support at all. Even the rich would want neutral courts, because if the courts were biased, nobody would take their rulings seriously.


Because there is no free market its impossible and by its very nature its not voluntary, when I go to a piece of land with apple trees, I don't "Voluntarily" choose to not pick the apples, I don't do it because I'll get arrested. Property rights by their very nature are not voluntary, they have to be enforced.

What if the person didn't pick the apple, because they wouldn't want somebody picking their oranges on their own property? This is where I believe the concept of rights comes from. The golden rule.


When yo have a society with the land contorlled by the rich, and the law controlled by the rich, and the buisinesses controlled by the rich, how could you NOT expect insurrection.

I would encourage insurrection if such a thing ocurred.


See the real problem anacho-capitalists have is not power, or centralized authority, its not the state in of itself, because they are in favor of state like private institutions, their problem is with democracy, i.e. people having some sort of control without money being the deciding factor.

This may be largely true. I view dollars as a direct way of voting. What people buy and is demanded, is what will be supplied. This is in stark contrast to socialism, where it becoems much fuzzier what is demanded, and what the needs of the people are (you will likely disagree, this is just from my understanding of socialism). But I think even socialists could admit that they have an "efficiency problem". I think they just think that efficiency is unethical.

[RedSunRising]

Private law would simply be the rule of law that is competitively provided on the free market. Different judges could provide different rules of law. For example, if two individuals wanted to settle a dispute, they would choose a judge to go to. If they are both Muslim, than it would stand to reason that they would pick a judge who renders decisions based upon Shariah law. If they were atheists, they could go to a secular court. If one was Muslim, and one was an Atheist, they could compromise on some other type of court.


Thats civil law, what about criminal law? And what if in a civil law case people cant decide which type of judge they want?

If I steal your lawn mover I probably dont have any interest in agreeing to go to court over the theft...Who is gonna make me?

An-caps are hopelessly utopian, so hopelessly utopian that they make other anarchists look like pillars of realism.

[ZombieRothbard]

Thats civil law, what about criminal law? And what if in a civil law case people cant decide which type of judge they want?

Everything would be handled in the way I described earlier. Murder investigations would likely be handled by private defense companies.


If I steal your lawn mover I probably dont have any interest in agreeing to go to court over the theft...Who is gonna make me?

Nobody would make you go to court over anything. However if you didn't, your community would likely ostracize you, since you have revealed yourself to be untrustworthy and criminal.

[#FF0000]

There would probably be some law that would be standardized and considered common law, such as the purchase of property.

Unless a judge doesn't acknowledge property ownership, or there's some technicality that would lead a judge to say "this is illegitimate".


Judges would simply be people who sell their own law on the market. They don't need any power. A man could call himself a judge in his basement, and charge people to render a decision. If his verdict is insane, the community would naturally reject it.


What if his decision is just unpopular? People would just reject it then? Who would enforce these decisions?

I mean, neither are good ways to deal with bad verdicts, ignoring it, or "voting with your wallet" and not going back to that judge again after the damage has been done

[RedSunRising]

Everything would be handled in the way I described earlier. Murder investigations would likely be handled by private defense companies.


What you described was pretty utopian.

From whom would these private defense companies draw their authority to act? What if a family doesnt have the money to employ them? What if the murderer has the money to employ private defense companies against the private defense companies persuing him or her for murder?

What happens of course in situations where there is no centralized authority is that people gather around "strong men" for protection which they give in return for services and sub-ordination. Just study what happened in western Europe with the collapse of the Roman Empire or large parts of the world today.

[RedSunRising]

Nobody would make you go to court over anything. However if you didn't, your community would likely ostracize you, since you have revealed yourself to be untrustworthy and criminal.

You think that social pressure would be enough for people just to accept punishment, especially in the case of serious crime?

You could just move.

[Revolution starts with U]

8]It would force businesses to be more efficient, and as a result, much smaller than they are now. A business that extended itself too far would risk inefficiency and lawsuits as a result. This would incentivize having an economy dominated by small/local business, and not multinational corporations.
I don't think it would at all. As long as business can keep the costs of these lawsuits below profits, they will continue to expand. Expansion is the goal of nearly any business.


I respect Hazlitt, and obviously I agree with that statement. Anarcho-capitalists would argue though, that in a free market the wealth would be more evenly distributed.
You would argue that. Not all, probably not even most ancaps would argue that.

The corporations wouldn't have economic privelege, and suck the wealth out of the lower classes.
Private business sucks the wealth out of the "lower" classes merely by the nature of its existence.

The government also sucks the wealth out of the lower and middle class, through the printing press. And of course corporations pass on their taxes to their employees and customers, or simply don't pay them by utilizing some loophole or foreign tax haven.
I agree. Business needs to externalize costs by any means.


If it is feudalism, than I suppose I am in favor of feudalism. Although if that is feudalism, we are living in a feudalistic world right now, and have been since the beggining of humanity.
It's not feudalism now, in this system because those property holders are at least, now, subject to SOME (albeit minor) democratic control.


The poor are quite a resourceful lot, and I actually am not that worried about their ability to defend themselves. As mentioned before, if they can afford to rent an apartment in a complex, the tenets would basically split the cost of paying for security.
Ya, it's called the mafia and gang wars :rolleyes:




Anarcho-capitalism doesn't claim it could end injustice. Such an event could hypothetically occur. However if a court wishes to maintian its reputation as fair, and continue to have paying customers, it would necessarily be unbiased.
Not really. It will necessarily be biased towards the monied interests. And the more it can show it is bias to said interests, the more it will attract said interests.

You know what I never hear ancaps talking about? Juries. It just goes to show their fundamental opposition to anything democratic, and fundamental support to things oligarchic in nature.

[Revolution starts with U]

Courts that were biased wouldn't really have any sort of support at all. Even the rich would want neutral courts, because if the courts were biased, nobody would take their rulings seriously.
If they were biased towards the monied interests, the monied interests would take their rulings very seriously.


I would encourage insurrection if such a thing ocurred.
You should get prepared to encourage insurrection then :lol:



This may be largely true. I view dollars as a direct way of voting.
Yes, and it is 1 man 0-infinite votes. It is inherently undemocratic, in the sense of 1 person 1 vote.



What you described was pretty utopian.

From whom would these private defense companies draw their authority to act? What if a family doesnt have the money to employ them? What if the murderer has the money to employ private defense companies against the private defense companies persuing him or her for murder?

What happens of course in situations where there is no centralized authority is that people gather around "strong men" for protection which they give in return for services and sub-ordination. Just study what happened in western Europe with the collapse of the Roman Empire or large parts of the world today.

That's what's so funny. Ancaps just don't see that their system, for all intents and purposes has really been tried before.
The modern state is just that, modern. In ancient times, the private sector and the government were one and the same, and people made no illusions otherwise.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Anarcho Capitalism = Trust the rich, private security monopolies and corporations not to try and rule you, or band together, or make things better for themselves at the expense of the working class.

[Zav]

Capitalism cannot be anarchic because it invariably involves exploitation, and thus is hierarchical.

[Drosophila]

Why wouldn't market incentives create affordable healthcare to low income workers?

Why would they? You assume that insurance companies would all of a
sudden get all touchy-feely as soon as government disappeared.

We've seen that, during periods of low govt interference, capitalism ruins
societies. That should be enough evidence to prove that anarcho-capitalism
is bullshit.

[La Comédie Noire]

Anarcho-capitalists are thinking beyond the status quo, I'll give them that.

[Magón]

That should be enough evidence to prove that anarcho-capitalism
is bullshit.

The name does that already, without anyone even having to ask what it is.

[RGacky3]

Courts that were biased wouldn't really have any sort of support at all. Even the rich would want neutral courts, because if the courts were biased, nobody would take their rulings seriously.


YOU don't have to take them seriously, you have private police to force them to take it seriously, poeple don't obay the law because its so just, its because they don't want to go to prison.


What if the person didn't pick the apple, because they wouldn't want somebody picking their oranges on their own property? This is where I believe the concept of rights comes from. The golden rule.


Most people don't own land, and thats the point, the whole notion of property, especially starting with land, is rediculous.


I would encourage insurrection if such a thing ocurred.


WHich is the inevitable outcome of capitalism, of any type.


This may be largely true. I view dollars as a direct way of voting. What people buy and is demanded, is what will be supplied. This is in stark contrast to socialism, where it becoems much fuzzier what is demanded, and what the needs of the people are (you will likely disagree, this is just from my understanding of socialism). But I think even socialists could admit that they have an "efficiency problem". I think they just think that efficiency is unethical.

We don't actually have an efficiency problem, if its one man one vote rather than one dollar one vote you have a proper democracy.

One dollar one vote is plutocracy, meaning rule by the rich.


Murder investigations would likely be handled by private defense companies.


Meaning poor people's murders don't get investigated, meaning you have carte blanche on killing poor people.

[ZombieRothbard]

Unless a judge doesn't acknowledge property ownership, or there's some technicality that would lead a judge to say "this is illegitimate".

A judge not acknowledging property ownership is fine, as long as he doesn't coerce people to accept his rulings.


What if his decision is just unpopular? People would just reject it then? Who would enforce these decisions?

If the decision is unpopular, the decision would likely be rejected. Nobody would forcefully make anybody do anything. They would just be untrustworthy, and in an anarcho-capitalist society, your reputation would be worth its weight in gold.


I mean, neither are good ways to deal with bad verdicts, ignoring it, or "voting with your wallet" and not going back to that judge again after the damage has been done

It depends on the crime. Simple property damage or theft would just be covered by your insurer. More serious crimes would likely have their own rules and regulations.

[ZombieRothbard]

Why would they? You assume that insurance companies would all of a
sudden get all touchy-feely as soon as government disappeared.

We've seen that, during periods of low govt interference, capitalism ruins
societies. That should be enough evidence to prove that anarcho-capitalism
is bullshit.

Basing your opinions of capitalism on historical precedent is in my opinion flawed, because capitalism has never been tried, just as communism hasn't.

[#FF0000]

Basing your opinions of capitalism on historical precedent is in my opinion flawed, because capitalism has never been tried, just as communism hasn't.

:mellow:

[Revolution starts with U]

They sure do like to butcher the word capitalism don't they :lol:

"Hey mom, I'm going to the supercapitalism to capitalism some money for apples."

[#FF0000]

There are different definitions of capitalism in this discussion. That's the problem.

[L.A.P.]

Just re-name "private militia" to Red Guard or Revolutinary Vanguard or something like that.

Then RedSonRising would say its a great application of Leninist thought.

What's wrong with you? Don't team kill.

[The Man]

Basing your opinions of capitalism on historical precedent is in my opinion flawed, because capitalism has never been tried, just as communism hasn't.

Then, in plain terms, what is the type of Capitalism you talk about? Laissez-Faire? If so, look how great that is working out for Haiti.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Class society necessarily involves class dictatorship which necessarily involves a state.

And yeah your private militias would kind of count as a state especially as they would naturally centralize as proletarian struggle grew.

Probably not a fruitful line of discussion, as an-caps don't see class the same way leftists do, and also don't see the state in the same way leftists do.

I actually wouldn't bother arguing against anarcho-capitalism. It has zero influence on the thought of actual capitalists, for obvious reasons (the state works for them, why would they abolish it?) I'm not convinced that it exists anywhere but on the internet and in a couple of university economics departments (Walter Block, Hans Hermann Hoppe, etc)

[Revolution starts with U]

Interestingly enough, neither Hayek, nor Mises were anarchists.

[ZombieRothbard]

Then, in plain terms, what is the type of Capitalism you talk about? Laissez-Faire? If so, look how great that is working out for Haiti.

Actually Haiti isn't laissez-faire. Haiti could probably dig itself out of its hole if they legalized the drug and weapons trade. If they sold that stuff to American's, and reformed their tax policies to attract foreign employers, they could probably pull themselves out of their economic situation quite easily. The problem is, the U.S. government obviously wouldn't allow that to happen.

[Magón]

Actually Haiti isn't laissez-faire. Haiti could probably dig itself out of its hole if they legalized the drug and weapons trade. If they sold that stuff to American's, and reformed their tax policies to attract foreign employers, they could probably pull themselves out of their economic situation quite easily. The problem is, the U.S. government obviously wouldn't allow that to happen.

Besides everything else said, I have to ask you this. Do you know US Gun laws at all?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Although (adding on to what I said last) oddly I find an-caps to be some of the more amusing reactionaries out there. A couple of members from the "market anarchist" set aren't all that bad, like Kevin Carson or Roderick Long. They at least don't have totally reactionary views on social issues & foreign policy. Also, Karl Hess was pretty cool. He was just some dope-smokin', tax-evadin' hippie who lived out in the woods. The IRS basically made sure that he had no money, so he just kind of lived out in the boonies and read Ayn Rand & Emma Goldman, lol.

I read anti-state.com sometimes, too. That site is always good for a few lol's.

Some of the more famous an-caps (like Rothbard, the "racial realist", and Mises [not really an an-cap], the man who was so scared of working-class power that he viewed fascism as a positive development) were awful people, though.

[The Man]

Although (adding on to what I said last) oddly I find an-caps to be some of the more amusing reactionaries out there. A couple of members from the "market anarchist" set aren't all that bad, like Kevin Carson or Roderick Long. They at least don't have totally reactionary views on social issues & foreign policy. Also, Karl Hess was pretty cool. He was just some dope-smokin', tax-evadin' hippie who lived out in the woods. The IRS basically made sure that he had no money, so he just kind of lived out in the boonies and read Ayn Rand & Emma Goldman, lol.

I read anti-state.com sometimes, too. That site is always good for a few lol's.

Some of the more famous an-caps (like Rothbard, the "racial realist", and Mises [not really an an-cap], the man who was so scared of working-class power that he viewed fascism as a positive development) were awful people, though.

Actually, after Rothbard coined the term "Anarcho"-Capitalist, he wrote an essay how that was a complete contradiction in terms, and should not be taken seriously.

[The Man]

Actually Haiti isn't laissez-faire. Haiti could probably dig itself out of its hole if they legalized the drug and weapons trade. If they sold that stuff to American's, and reformed their tax policies to attract foreign employers, they could probably pull themselves out of their economic situation quite easily. The problem is, the U.S. government obviously wouldn't allow that to happen.

You say that Capitalism has never existed. Then what type of Capitalism do you want?

[ZombieRothbard]

Although (adding on to what I said last) oddly I find an-caps to be some of the more amusing reactionaries out there. A couple of members from the "market anarchist" set aren't all that bad, like Kevin Carson or Roderick Long. They at least don't have totally reactionary views on social issues & foreign policy. Also, Karl Hess was pretty cool. He was just some dope-smokin', tax-evadin' hippie who lived out in the woods. The IRS basically made sure that he had no money, so he just kind of lived out in the boonies and read Ayn Rand & Emma Goldman, lol.

I read anti-state.com sometimes, too. That site is always good for a few lol's.

Some of the more famous an-caps (like Rothbard, the "racial realist", and Mises [not really an an-cap], the man who was so scared of working-class power that he viewed fascism as a positive development) were awful people, though.

"Racial Realist"?

[ZombieRothbard]

Besides everything else said, I have to ask you this. Do you know US Gun laws at all?

Somewhat. Why is that relevant?

[ZombieRothbard]

You say that Capitalism has never existed. Then what type of Capitalism do you want?

Capitalism that is void of interventionism and corporatism.

[The Man]

Capitalism that is void of interventionism and corporatism.

So something that resembles the shithole that was Feudal Europe?

[ZombieRothbard]

So something that resembles the shithole that was Feudal Europe?

More like the Icelandic Commonwealth/American West.

[The Man]

More like the Icelandic Commonwealth/American West.

So it has existed?
How'd that work out for them?

[Magón]

Somewhat. Why is that relevant?

Because the post you made about Haiti and guns doesn't make sense to anyone who actually does know something about US Gun Laws.

To put it simply, Haiti couldn't sell their guns to American citizens because of US Gun Laws that have been around since the mid-70s, and even older in some cases.

I suggest you stick with reality, and not some fantasy of what a nation should do about it's guns, but can't/couldn't in reality.

[Revolution starts with U]

More like the Icelandic Commonwealth
A semi-feudal system with just as much war as any other nation, that quickly degenerated into a full-on feudalism?




American West.
Ya, if I wanted to live in that type of society, I would move back into the inner city. No thanks.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Actually, after Rothbard coined the term "Anarcho"-Capitalist, he wrote an essay how that was a complete contradiction in terms, and should not be taken seriously.

what essay are you refering to.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Racial Realist"?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

Members of the Lew Rockwell clique have been linked to very unsavoury characters in paleoconservative and white nationalist circles, esp. through Sam (http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/) Francis (http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/03/02/from-lew-rockwell-to-racist-collectivism/)

There was actually a good blog I found once that was run by a libertarian, and it was all about calling out racist and homophobic libertarians and paleoconservatives. There was a good deal of interesting info there about connections between a lot of the more extreme right-wing libertarians (not the more "mainstream" ones like the Cato Institute and Reason) and white nationalists.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find it now.

[The Man]

Because the post you made about Haiti and guns doesn't make sense to anyone who actually does know something about US Gun Laws.

To put it simply, Haiti couldn't sell their guns to American citizens because of US Gun Laws that have been around since the mid-70s, and even older in some cases.

I suggest you stick with reality, and not some fantasy of what a nation should do about it's guns, but can't/couldn't in reality.

Yeah, Nin is somewhat right on this one. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 passed, Machine guns weren't allowed to be imported in to the United States. I mean, you can buy them in a deactivated version, and then convert in to machine guns.

[The Man]

what essay are you refering to.

I forget what it was called, but I will ask a few people, and I will get it for you. :)

[Drosophila]

Capitalism that is void of interventionism and corporatism.

How in the world does that happen? What, all of a sudden people just decide
not to be assholes? Just because government's gone, now all the rich people
will pay their workers a living wage? How horribly unrealistic. You're worse
than the rest of the anarchists.

[ZombieRothbard]

Because the post you made about Haiti and guns doesn't make sense to anyone who actually does know something about US Gun Laws.

To put it simply, Haiti couldn't sell their guns to American citizens because of US Gun Laws that have been around since the mid-70s, and even older in some cases.

I suggest you stick with reality, and not some fantasy of what a nation should do about it's guns, but can't/couldn't in reality.

It is still possible to smuggle weapons illegally isn't it? I wasn't referring to an alternative reality where U.S. gun laws are different. I was saying that if Haiti wanted to get out of their economic slump, they would legalize the drug and weapon smuggling business. Of course the U.S. government would then use its muscle to prevent Haiti from doing so. The U.S. government is the reason why Haiti is the way it is, not laissez-faire economic policy (drug and gun prohibition isn't laissez-faire).

[ZombieRothbard]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

Members of the Lew Rockwell clique have been linked to very unsavoury characters in paleoconservative and white nationalist circles, esp. through Sam (http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/) Francis (http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/03/02/from-lew-rockwell-to-racist-collectivism/)

There was actually a good blog I found once that was run by a libertarian, and it was all about calling out racist and homophobic libertarians and paleoconservatives. There was a good deal of interesting info there about connections between a lot of the more extreme right-wing libertarians (not the more "mainstream" ones like the Cato Institute and Reason) and white nationalists.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find it now.

I am a left-libertarian and a left-Rothbardian, so I don't exactly agree with the lew rockwell crowds social views. In fact I find them outdated and not in line with what I would consider "libertarian" social views.

But I never recall Rothbard being a "racial realist", whatever that means. I know that later in his life he made some rather bizarre comments about womens roll in society, as well as the poor. My own theory is that he was either going senile, or throwing the neocons a bone. In either case, I prefer Rothbards work from when he was allied with the New Left.

[ZombieRothbard]

How in the world does that happen? What, all of a sudden people just decide
not to be assholes? Just because government's gone, now all the rich people
will pay their workers a living wage? How horribly unrealistic. You're worse
than the rest of the anarchists.

Unless you study Austrian School economics and consider the free markets roll in regulating itself, you won't understand the anarcho-capitalist position. In fact, the idea of a free market void of interventionism ending cronyism is rather counter intuitive. Instead of totally casting it off as utopian however, I would urge you to look into it a bit.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I am a left-libertarian and a left-Rothbardian, so I don't exactly agree with the lew rockwell crowds social views. In fact I find them outdated and not in line with what I would consider "libertarian" social views.

But I never recall Rothbard being a "racial realist", whatever that means. I know that later in his life he made some rather bizarre comments about womens roll in society, as well as the poor. My own theory is that he was either going senile, or throwing the neocons a bone. In either case, I prefer Rothbards work from when he was allied with the New Left.

"Racial realism" is what racists like to call their beliefs when they want to give the impression that said beliefs are somehow scientific.

[Drosophila]

Unless you study Austrian School economics and consider the free markets roll in regulating itself, you won't understand the anarcho-capitalist position. In fact, the idea of a free market void of interventionism ending cronyism is rather counter intuitive. Instead of totally casting it off as utopian however, I would urge you to look into it a bit.

The problem with that is it totally disregards people. What to do with seniors? Children of lower-income parents? Sick people? I've studied microeconomics quite a bit, and I've never seen a valid reason to believe that a free market will guarantee everything that a mixed market would.

[¿Que?]

YdDMrncAy4U

Don't infract me bro!

[Skooma Addict]

Unless you study Austrian School economics and consider the free markets roll in regulating itself, you won't understand the anarcho-capitalist position. In fact, the idea of a free market void of interventionism ending cronyism is rather counter intuitive. Instead of totally casting it off as utopian however, I would urge you to look into it a bit.

It could also be profitable to hire mercenaries and extort the population. Whether this is more profitable than starting a PDA and abiding by libertarian morality cannot be known a priori.

Also, the financial system would collapse were the government to disappear. Destroy the financial system and you destroy the economy.

[agnixie]

Unless you study Austrian School economics and consider the free markets roll in regulating itself, you won't understand the anarcho-capitalist position. In fact, the idea of a free market void of interventionism ending cronyism is rather counter intuitive. Instead of totally casting it off as utopian however, I would urge you to look into it a bit.


Austrian school economics are basically voodoo. What I know of Mises shows him to be laughably wrong when it comes to political ideologies (especially the way his definition of socialism would make the czars socialists), and the road to serfdom is a worthless political tract.

[Skooma Addict]

Austrian school economics are basically voodoo. What I know of Mises shows him to be laughably wrong when it comes to political ideologies (especially the way his definition of socialism would make the czars socialists), and the road to serfdom is a worthless political tract.

The Road to Serfdom?

[RGacky3]

Book by Hayek, an austrian economist.

[Skooma Addict]

A book which has nothing to do with AE

[Revolution starts with U]

AE is still vodoo philosophy

[agnixie]

A book which has nothing to do with AE

Reactionary philosophy by a charlatan Austrian economist

[Skooma Addict]

Reactionary philosophy by a charlatan Austrian economist

Have you read it?

[gorillafuck]

Both anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism have crypto-states. I don't see why anyone even uses the prefix anarcho.

Anarcho-capitalism is pretty fucking nuts. Also I don't agree with Proudhon's mutualism but it's not totally nuts like anarcho-capitalism.

[Chicxulub]

Like all forms of anarchism and capitalism, it is fundamentally flawed.

[RGacky3]

Years ago I read the book Anarchy state and Utopia by Robert Nozak (don't quote me on the spelling .... obviously), he tried to analytically prove that Minarchism or anarcho-capitalism worked, and there were so many holes in every page of that book a child could see through it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Every judge WOULD have their own set of laws. That is the point.


A judge not acknowledging property ownership is fine, as long as he doesn't coerce people to accept his ruling.


This is a crucial point, I feel.

Firstly, you obviously seem intelligent and thoughtful, so I have to ask how is it you could be so obtuse as to not realise that not acknowlging property ownership would be by definition require "coercion" if such ideas are to be put into action, and attempted defense on the part of property owners.

Immediately it should become apperent that anarcho capitalism, far from offering "private law", offers private law only within the context of enforced capitalist property rights. If you don't agree with capitalist property relationships, you are forced to obey them.

To take this futher, what defines coercion, you seem to take the typical definition of something like the use of force threatened force. Fine, but in which case this is a purely technical definition, capitalist property is "forced" on people who do not agree with it in a communist society. You will probably object to this, considering that you must feel that to act against capitalist property rights is always an initiation of force, but that is only acceptable if you introduce a moral character into your definition of coercion, that capitalist property rights are always non forceful, coercion is no longer simply a technical definition of who forces what, but one based on the subjective morals of a bunch of white kids online who feel a certain way about something. This claim rests on the unproven assertion that capitalist property rights are ethically correct, or somehow have a moral quality that means enforcing something onto people though threat of violence is not, in this case, force. You are welcome to try that (although I doubt you shall given your claim in an earlier thread that ethics are subjective and useless to argue over) but you are wrong to argue that anarcho capitalism does not involve force, or that socialism does, prior to establishing that ethical principle as valid.

Even if you do establish such a principle, it is likely you would have to divorce coercion or force into two concepts - one being an amoral, technical definition, and the other being a ethical one, according to your established ethical principles, for if you do not, and "force" is not force if it is ethically justified, then by that standard convicted rapists are not actually being forced into prison -_- (presuming you feel rape isn't moral). Anarcho capitalist justifications, far too much, at least from my experience of their theory and debating with them, are based on a confusion and unconcious hopping between those two concepts. Arguing that socialism is based on force as it requires force to take people's property, denying any ethical reasoning that socialism isn't forceful on those grounds, but then turning around and arguing that capitalism isn't forceful as we have "self ownership" or a right to property, a moral argument.

Sadly, this confusion is the basis for a lot of anarcho capitalist supporters, who actually seem like fairly nice young men who want to encourage more freedom. This is also why anarcho capitalism really pisses me off at times, because for an ideology with such grandiose aims and statements, counter to what seems to me to be obviously greatly important moral sentiment (Like say, not thinking it is okay for old ladies die in the street) a large part of their common arguments is based on incredibly bad and hypocritical reasoning, as they apply their moral standards, and advocate forcing a variety of property rights which which will likely mercilessly harm the poor and vulnerable onto society, while criticizing others in the harshest terms for being "forceful" and "tyrannical."

[ZombieRothbard]

This is a crucial point, I feel.

Firstly, you obviously seem intelligent and thoughtful, so I have to ask how is it you could be so obtuse as to not realise that not acknowlging property ownership would be by definition require "coercion" if such ideas are to be put into action, and attempted defense on the part of property owners.
It is true that somebody that feels that they have a legitimate right to another's property would face coercion on behalf of the property owners. This coercion however is no different than the coercion that a rapist, murderer or other thief faces by society. Beneath it all, any system has elements of coercion in them if you are to have a rule of law.

Now I understand that as somebody who does not feel private property ownership is a legitimate right, you would not agree with the analogy I just made. However the analogy I just made is perfectly consistent with my own ethical views on where rights are derived from, and what rights are legitimate and not legitimate.


Immediately it should become apperent that anarcho capitalism, far from offering "private law", offers private law only within the context of enforced capitalist property rights. If you don't agree with capitalist property relationships, you are forced to obey them.

I would agree with this statement, as it parallels a murderer being coerced not to murder by the rest of society. I don't mean to be hyperbolic, as I place people over property, and I don't believe murder and property damage are an equal comparison. But it is an example of how what you may consider coercion under your "code of ethics" is not the same as mine.


To take this futher, what defines coercion, you seem to take the typical definition of something like the use of force threatened force. Fine, but in which case this is a purely technical definition, capitalist property is "forced" on people who do not agree with it in a communist society. You will probably object to this, considering that you must feel that to act against capitalist property rights is always an initiation of force, but that is only acceptable if you introduce a moral character into your definition of coercion, that capitalist property rights are always non forceful, coercion is no longer simply a technical definition of who forces what, but one based on the subjective morals of a bunch of white kids online who feel a certain way about something. This claim rests on the unproven assertion that capitalist property rights are ethically correct, or somehow have a moral quality that means enforcing something onto people though threat of violence is not, in this case, force. You are welcome to try that (although I doubt you shall given your claim in an earlier thread that ethics are subjective and useless to argue over) but you are wrong to argue that anarcho capitalism does not involve force, or that socialism does, prior to establishing that ethical principle as valid.

I agree that ethics are subjective and worthless to argue over, which is why when it comes to property ownership, I take a non-ethical approach. It is true that personally I believe property theft or destruction is unethical, but convincing somebody else of this is a worthless task, if it is just purely on ethical grounds. Even if you convince them, it says nothing about the real world, as ethics are not tangible.

Also, how do you know that I am a white kid? :confused:

I prefer to make an argument about how property ownership is necessary in a world of scarcity. Property ownership is a way of settling conflicts over scarce resources, as well as establishing a mechanism for valuation.


Even if you do establish such a principle, it is likely you would have to divorce coercion or force into two concepts - one being an amoral, technical definition, and the other being a ethical one, according to your established ethical principles, for if you do not, and "force" is not force if it is ethically justified, then by that standard convicted rapists are not actually being forced into prison -_- (presuming you feel rape isn't moral). Anarcho capitalist justifications, far too much, at least from my experience of their theory and debating with them, are based on a confusion and unconcious hopping between those two concepts. Arguing that socialism is based on force as it requires force to take people's property, denying any ethical reasoning that socialism isn't forceful on those grounds, but then turning around and arguing that capitalism isn't forceful as we have "self ownership" or a right to property, a moral argument.

I agree that anybody that argues that point is being fallacious. Like you said, it is a double edged sword. Both socialism and capitalism have coercive elements to them. It is the job of ethics to try to argue for what forms of coercion are most harmful or least harmful. In the end it is better to simply argue from an efficiency and plausibility standpoint, because ethics alone are not enough.


Sadly, this confusion is the basis for a lot of anarcho capitalist supporters, who actually seem like fairly nice young men who want to encourage more freedom. This is also why anarcho capitalism really pisses me off at times, because for an ideology with such grandiose aims and statements, counter to what seems to me to be obviously greatly important moral sentiment (Like say, not thinking it is okay for old ladies die in the street) a large part of their common arguments is based on incredibly bad and hypocritical reasoning, as they apply their moral standards, and advocate forcing a variety of property rights which which will likely mercilessly harm the poor and vulnerable onto society, while criticizing others in the harshest terms for being "forceful" and "tyrannical."

My criticism of socialism is actually quite similar. It seems like it is comprised of a lot of genuinely good compassionate people. Unfortunately, socialists use ethics to formulate their theories about how a society should operate. The economic plausibility of the socialist system seems to be neglected in favor of purely ethical arguments. As stated earlier, ethics is subjective and seemingly arbitrary. An argument based purely on an ethical interpretation of the world does not translate to a functional and plausible system.

[RGacky3]

I prefer to make an argument about how property ownership is necessary in a world of scarcity. Property ownership is a way of settling conflicts over scarce resources, as well as establishing a mechanism for valuation.


Why would'nt democracy be a better way of settling those disputes?

[W1N5T0N]

hey, why don't we start a new topic. Lets call it: Marxist Imperialism.

oh wait, that doesn't make sense. :D

Because marxism is the exact opposite of Imperialism, geddit?

[ZombieRothbard]

Why would'nt democracy be a better way of settling those disputes?

Would a democracy be able to settle disputes over individual scarce goods?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Would a democracy be able to settle disputes over individual scarce goods?

Scarcity is a myth.

[ZombieRothbard]

Scarcity is a myth.

:confused:

Wha..... WHHHAAATTTTTT?????!!!!!!!!!!!

[Revolution starts with U]

It seems crazy to see that, and technically it is wrong to say scarcity is a myth. But most of the scarcity in the world is artificially created by private property rights. We produce enough food to feed the entire world population. But somebody owns it, and it they have to make money off it.
Most waste by grocery stores is perfectly fine produce that was thrown out becuase it was browning. Instead of just giving it away, they throw it away, because it's theirs and they need to make money.
England produced more than enough food to feed the Irish. But the potato famines still happened.
If you want links I can provide them, but I'm omw out the door.

[RGacky3]

Would a democracy be able to settle disputes over individual scarce goods?

Yes, much more than property rights.

[ZombieRothbard]

Yes, much more than property rights.

Erm, what if a collectivist society somehow managed to manufacture an iPod. You would gather everybody together and vote on who received it? Wouldn't that lead to major conflict and alienation?

[Die Rote Fahne]

:confused:

Wha..... WHHHAAATTTTTT?????!!!!!!!!!!!

Scarce goods like what?

If you think food is scarce youre a complete nut.

[ZombieRothbard]

Scarce goods like what?

If you think food is scarce youre a complete nut.

Food IS scarce. That's likely one of the reasons why hunters and gatherers started growing their own food. Food is still a scarce resource today. Even air is sometimes a scarce resource, if you are going diving for example.

[Revolution starts with U]

Erm, what if a collectivist society somehow managed to manufacture an iPod. You would gather everybody together and vote on who received it? Wouldn't that lead to major conflict and alienation?

Not at all. That wouldn't be an issue. WHat has happened is a collectivist society somehow built an IPod Factory. ANd you would vote on how many iPods to create.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, since you continue to pursue the "food is not just artifically scarce" line, here are those links I promised you:
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone?

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.
http://www.alternet.org/investigations/146487/how_the_top_5_supermarkets_waste_food?page=entire

Grocery stores have lots of foods that need to be taken off shelves daily: stock that needs to rotate, surplus food like bananas that are starting to have brown spots, or refrigerated items that need to move for the new product coming in. Food products make up 63 percent of a supermarket’s disposed waste stream, according to a California Integrated Waste Management Board industry study. That’s approximately 3,000 lbs. thrown away per employee every year. The stores can’t sell the food, so they toss it in the compost or garbage.

Honestly, if you don't think private property is the major hindrance to combating hunger you're just not paying attention.

[hatzel]

I remember syndicat saying something insightful about this in some thread recently...we can say that it depends on how we define 'scarce'. Of course, there isn't a limitless supply of absolutely every single thing in the whole wide world, so the scarcity of a product of course rests on our demand for it, particularly in balance with our demand for other products. There is a limit on our production at any given time, even under a much more efficient system, and if there was huge demand from everybody for a certain product, that product could become scarce, even though there is more than enough to meet the requirements of everybody. To then meet that demand (if we're going to ensure that the product isn't scarce, which isn't necessarily worth it) requires us to dedicate time to it which could have been used producing something else. If there is then a huge demand from everybody for that product, then again, some other product somewhere will become scarcer. We can say that every product has the potential to be scarce, if the demand for said product is so high that it outstrips supply. Scarce in the terms of insufficient quantities to meet need, rather than desire...well, that's opening up the proverbial can of worms, what is and isn't a need etc. But there is a definite potential for any single product to be scarce, particularly when taking into consideration the need to meet a wide range of demands for a great many different products in addition to the product in question...of course, though, it's possible to produce the vast majority of products, simultaneously, to avert scarcity to a reasonable degree, if we assume that everybody won't suddenly try to get their hands on a dozen cars each, as well as 3 tons of potatoes a week and...and...and etc. :) Of course if they did, scarcity would ensue, suggesting that the scarcity of the product pre-exists as a potential, just that some products are scarcer than others...

[robbo203]

Food IS scarce. That's likely one of the reasons why hunters and gatherers started growing their own food. Food is still a scarce resource today. Even air is sometimes a scarce resource, if you are going diving for example.

Food is not scarce

According to the Food First organisation, for example:

The world today produces enough grain alone to provide every human being on the planet with 3,500 calories a day.' That's enough to make most people fat! And this estimate does not even count many other commonly eaten foods-vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. In fact, if all foods are considered together, enough is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day. That includes two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myth_FoodScarcity.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myth_FoodScarcity.html))

The problem is not our technological ability to produce enough. The problem is capitalism. It is becuase of capitalism that this technological potential is so often thwarted or simply allowed to go to waste. Food is a commodity under capitalism. Food is not actually produced for the purpose of feeding people - strange as that may sound - it is produced to be sold on a market in order to realise a profit. If you dont have the money to buy a square meal you go hungry. Its as simple as that.

So you get absurdly surreal situations like farmers being paid not to produce. In 1999 the EU Commission doubled the amount of land withdrawn from production under its mandatory "set aside" policy from 5% to 10% (amounting to 1.5 million hectares) in order to cut grain output by an estimated 8-10 million tons. Why? To keep up prices. Too much food was being produced causing prices to slump which hits the farmers who then have to be protected by subsidies and the like(http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/1998/98-08/dtricks.htm#EU).

There are literally massive amounts of food that simply go to waste

A ten year study conducted by Timothy Jones, an anthropologist at the University of Arizona, which examined practices on farms and orchards, as well as such areas as food processing, retailing, consumption and waste disposal, concluded that between forty to fifty per cent of all food ready for harvest in America never gets eaten (25 November 2004, http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Supply-Chain/Half-of-US-food-goes-to-waste).


I live in a part of Spain where almonds and olive groves as well as citrus and grape vines cover the landscape. There are places I have worked at, doing strimming and chainsaw work, which have not been harvested for years and years - the price of almonds for example has been so low at times that it has not even been worth contacting the harvest gangs to do the work. Fallen oranges and lemons litter the ground by the ton, rotting and going to waste because they are deemed of non standard proportions by crackpot EU regulations formulated in the interests of the big commercial farmers. Down on the coast, around Almeria, where the environmentally disastrous greenhouse belt has expanded like some out-of-control cancer - the only manmade feature apart form the Great Wall of China that is visible form outer space - and all in pursuit of a fast buck http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/21/spain.gilestremlett, Ive seen cherry tomatoes dumped in ramblas by the truckload. At least they can rot down but not the plastic out of which the greenhouses are made, many of which now stand empty because underground water supply greedily sucked up by illegal wells has been polluted by an ingress of seawater to fill the vacuum created, leading to salinisation. Short term profit takes precedence over long term sustainability

What a sick crazy capitalist world we live in, eh?

[#FF0000]

Food is scarce in that it is finite.


Erm, what if a collectivist society somehow managed to manufacture an iPod. You would gather everybody together and vote on who received it? Wouldn't that lead to major conflict and alienation?

Is that really the most efficient way you can think of things being distributed under Socialism?

[Skooma Addict]

Food is not scarce

According to the Food First organisation, for example:

The world today produces enough grain alone to provide every human being on the planet with 3,500 calories a day.' That's enough to make most people fat! And this estimate does not even count many other commonly eaten foods-vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. In fact, if all foods are considered together, enough is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day. That includes two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myth_FoodScarcity.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myth_FoodScarcity.html))

But you cannot assume that this same level of production would continue under socialism.

[RGacky3]

Yes you can, technology made the food abundance, not market policies, which actually retard production.

[Skooma Addict]

No you can't. The same incentive structure isn't there. Basic elementary stuff here.

[RGacky3]

The incentive structure there now is mostly government subsidies ...

[Die Rote Fahne]

No you can't. The same incentive structure isn't there. Basic elementary stuff here.

Incentive: grow food for everyone to eat. Otherwise get the fuck off the land and someone who will do it can work there.

I dont understand how you right libertarians function, a lot of meth smoked during pregnancy perhaps.

[robbo203]

But you cannot assume that this same level of production would continue under socialism.


No you cant. Thats quite right. There is good reason to think it might actually be significantly increased. In fact even under capitalism there is huge potential for exanding output. On a per hectare basis small peasants farmers are significantly more productive than large scale commercial farmers - certainly in the third world where the evidence is indisputable - becuase of such practices as multiple cropping. Howver increasing land concentration and other factors are increasingly eroding the position of the small farmer with capitalist agribuisness increasingly calling the shots and destroying the ecological basis of sound farming practices

In socialism you simply will not have these factors to contend with since food will no longer be a commodity. Farming will become much more ecologically sustainable as well as productive

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

It is true that somebody that feels that they have a legitimate right to another's property would face coercion on behalf of the property owners. This coercion however is no different than the coercion that a rapist, murderer or other thief faces by society. Beneath it all, any system has elements of coercion in them if you are to have a rule of law.

Now I understand that as somebody who does not feel private property ownership is a legitimate right, you would not agree with the analogy I just made. However the analogy I just made is perfectly consistent with my own ethical views on where rights are derived from, and what rights are legitimate and not legitimate.


I would agree with this statement, as it parallels a murderer being coerced not to murder by the rest of society. I don't mean to be hyperbolic, as I place people over property, and I don't believe murder and property damage are an equal comparison. But it is an example of how what you may consider coercion under your "code of ethics" is not the same as mine.

That seems fine to me. I think though, at least in discussions with people from other ideologies, you should refrain from claiming you oppose "force" or "coercion", as you have often done in your posts, since most of them will take it to mean you feel capitalism is not forceful in a technical sense, and that "interventionism" or whatever is. Rather than what you say now you mean, that your belief is that it is moral to enforce capitalism onto people, but not anything else. Just clears up confusions, you'll waste a lot of time down tangents otherwise I think. Surely this means you break with a lot of libertarians, Rothbard and so on, who seem to, at least as far as I can tell, felt that capitalism was always "non forceful" in some absolute sense, or morally just sense, and is constantly, in his writings, critising what he refers to as "socialism" for initiation of force and so on. From the libertarians i've encountered, a large amount of them seem to feel the justness of capitalism derives from its lack of force, or "freedom." and so on.







My criticism of socialism is actually quite similar. It seems like it is comprised of a lot of genuinely good compassionate people. Unfortunately, socialists use ethics to formulate their theories about how a society should operate. The economic plausibility of the socialist system seems to be neglected in favor of purely ethical arguments. As stated earlier, ethics is subjective and seemingly arbitrary. An argument based purely on an ethical interpretation of the world does not translate to a functional and plausible system.

Well sure, thats the same with every ideology?

I mean, I wouldn't diss formulating theories with ethics, after all, without ethics to decide on what was worthwhile to aim for and what wasn't, all these theories would be totally useless, so it is natural to hold your ethical views before trying to find a workable theory.

But I don't think socialism is concerned overtly with ethics, or socialists, I would guess that is just a matter of not finding educated socialists to talk too, since I think a lot of people on this site are brilliant theoretically, and a lot of past socialist figures. Its a bit of an effort, but i'd really advise you to read them yourself, with an open mind as far as possible, they're, well I think they're good, obviously :o. Not really comparable to Mises or Rothbard, they're generally a bit harder/obsucrationist, depending on your viewpoint, but at least I feel they are totally on another level of anlysis and depth.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

No you cant. Thats quite right. There is good reason to think it might actually be significantly increased. In fact even under capitalism there is huge potential for exanding output. On a per hectare basis small peasants farmers are significantly more productive than large scale commercial farmers - certainly in the third world where the evidence is indisputable - becuase of such practices as multiple cropping. Howver increasing land concentration and other factors are increasingly eroding the position of the small farmer with capitalist agribuisness increasingly calling the shots and destroying the ecological basis of sound farming practices

In socialism you simply will not have these factors to contend with since food will no longer be a commodity. Farming will become much more ecologically sustainable as well as productive

Sorry but if thats the case, why don't capitalists adopt such farming practises?

Also I somehow doubt socialism will get rid of large scale agriculture, because most of us don't wish to have farming as our main job. Garden farming mabye, but i'm personally definitely not going to spend 8 hours a day sowing grain or whatever.

[ColonelCossack]

its... like... super capitalism. a kind of mafia would arise and they'd rule and it would be SHIT. like thugs ruling everything. its kinda scary.

[Baseball]

Incentive: grow food for everyone to eat. Otherwise get the fuck off the land and someone who will do it can work there.

I dont understand how you right libertarians function, a lot of meth smoked during pregnancy perhaps.


What kind of food? How much? Growing where as opposed to using the land for other needed goods?

[RGacky3]

Whatever people want to eat, how ever much they needed, decided on democratically, one man one vote rather than one dollar one vote.

[cogar66]

Never understood people who say that Democracy couldn't tell us where to allocate resources.

[RGacky3]

Exactly, one dollar one vote = awesome, one man one vote = total disaster???? Does'nt make sense.

[Blake's Baby]

Sorry but if thats the case, why don't capitalists adopt such farming practises?..

How? Capitalism is predicated on buying short, selling long; on exploiting a working class by expropriating their labour; on competition to drive down costs and keep up profits, as well as getting rid of competitors. How can 'capitalists' then adopt democratically-administered methods for producing for need not profit? They'd cease to be capitalists, and capitalism would cease to be capitalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Anarcho-capitalism is very reactionary, like "national socialism" is, just in a different way. Anarcho-capitalists and their supporters can go to hell.

[Baseball]

Never understood people who say that Democracy couldn't tell us where to allocate resources.


Because "democracy" simply describes the process in making the decision. It says nothing about the content of that decision.

And even in the former, it makes no sense. Such a process means ALL economic wants and needs of a person are subject to approval (and yes, it is approval) by the majority.

[Baseball]

Exactly, one dollar one vote = awesome, one man one vote = total disaster???? Does'nt make sense.



Sure it does. Should that empty piece of land be used to grow food, or to build homes? What is the justifications which people of different opinion use in convincing others that their views are correct?
That has nothing to do with democracy.

[Blake's Baby]

So you think the person with the most dollars should decide? That makes less sense than almost any other decision making process that could be imagined.

[hatzel]

So you think the person with the most dollars should decide? That makes less sense than almost any other decision making process that could be imagined.

I suggest we just flip a coin. Even with democracy, the best orator has the advantage, and can convince others to agree with them. Therefore, democracy isn't truly libertarian. The only way to ensure every individual remains entirely autonomous, and not subject to another's desire, is for all decision-making processes to involve flipping coins, rolling dice and drawing straws. All hail total liberty! :thumbup:

But Baseball, you don't seriously think that society should just be based on the rich deciding literally everything, do you? :confused:

[RGacky3]

Sure it does. Should that empty piece of land be used to grow food, or to build homes? What is the justifications which people of different opinion use in convincing others that their views are correct?
That has nothing to do with democracy.

The justification is what would benefit the neighborhood or community, maybe some rich guy just wants to make it into an estate, when the community around needs more food grown.

In your senario the rich guy's needs are more important. Because he has more money.

It has everything to do with democracy vrs plutocracy.

[Baseball]

The justification is what would benefit the neighborhood or community, maybe some rich guy just wants to make it into an estate, when the community around needs more food grown.

In your senario the rich guy's needs are more important. Because he has more money.

It has everything to do with democracy vrs plutocracy.


Even within the socialist community as described, people will presumably dispute over the best use for a piece land. Presumably, people in a socialist community will need food and a place to live. Both uses would benefit the community. Yet in order to have any sort of functioning democracy, there needs to be a way to JUSTIFY, to PROVE, that one use is better than the other. Democracy does not provide that justification.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2120393]So you think the person with the most dollars should decide?


Nope.


That makes less sense than almost any other decision making process that could be imagined.

The suggestions of gacky do not measure the content of decision. It gives no direction. It evaluates nothing. It is no more than the Rabbi's coin-toss.

[cogar66]

Because "democracy" simply describes the process in making the decision. It says nothing about the content of that decision.

And even in the former, it makes no sense. Such a process means ALL economic wants and needs of a person are subject to approval (and yes, it is approval) by the majority.

The wants and needs of people are "Subject to approval by the majority" of people with money in a market. If one person wants shit sandwiches the market isn't going to produce it for him. The only difference is that everyone has an equal say in Democracy.

[Blake's Baby]

Even within the socialist community as described, people will presumably dispute over the best use for a piece land. Presumably, people in a socialist community will need food and a place to live. Both uses would benefit the community. Yet in order to have any sort of functioning democracy, there needs to be a way to JUSTIFY, to PROVE, that one use is better than the other. Democracy does not provide that justification.

Of course, that's not true. In order to have a functioning democracy, people need to decide how best to use that land. What is 'best' depends on certain objective and certain subjective factors. How much housing do we need? How much land for food? What do we think we should do with what's left? Is there a way to do that which still allows the possibility that later info could get us to change our minds?

Discussion and local decision-making (ie, those that the decision affects make that decision) should sort out those problems. Oh, look, we decided to build two low-impact houses and turn the rest of the plot into a communal vegetable garden. Job done.

[Baseball]

The wants and needs of people are "Subject to approval by the majority" of people with money in a market. If one person wants shit sandwiches the market isn't going to produce it for him. The only difference is that everyone has an equal say in Democracy.

In the same circumstances, why would those sandwiches be produced in a socialist community?

[Baseball]

Of course, that's not true. In order to have a functioning democracy, people need to decide how best to use that land. What is 'best' depends on certain objective and certain subjective factors. How much housing do we need? How much land for food? What do we think we should do with what's left? Is there a way to do that which still allows the possibility that later info could get us to change our minds?

Discussion and local decision-making (ie, those that the decision affects make that decision) should sort out those problems. Oh, look, we decided to build two low-impact houses and turn the rest of the plot into a communal vegetable garden. Job done.


That doesn't solve the problem. All you have suggested is a compromise. Nothing has been done to demonstrate that such a compromise was the best use for the land. It was politics, pure and simple. And perhaps a reasonable political decision does automatically translate into a reasonable economic one.

[Revolution starts with U]

You don't get it. Yes there's a compromise, but it's still a decision. And it is a much more ethical decision making process, imo, compared to the autocracy of private property.

Compromise v Fiat, Democracy v Plutocracy

[Blake's Baby]

Because your insistence that there is a 'best use', and that determining this 'best use' is necessary, are both false.

The 'best use' of the land is the use that the community agrees to. The way to reach this agreement is through debate and discussion not through market mechanisms or cutting open a chicken and consulting its entrails or any other means.

[Baseball]

You don't get it. Yes there's a compromise, but it's still a decision. And it is a much more ethical decision making process, imo, compared to the autocracy of private property.

Compromise v Fiat, Democracy v Plutocracy


Yes. Its a decision. However socialists like to claim that socialism is economically a superior system to capitalism. Yet how can that be if the socialist community has no way to measure the impact of the various choices which they face?

[Baseball]

Because your insistence that there is a 'best use', and that determining this 'best use' is necessary, are both false.

The 'best use' of the land is the use that the community agrees to. The way to reach this agreement is through debate and discussion not through market mechanisms or cutting open a chicken and consulting its entrails or any other means.


It is not necessary to determine the best use of land? How about whenn determining what to produce in a factory? Is it also not necessary to determine the best use of this factory?

Whatever the majority says is by definition correct?

[Blake's Baby]

It does, it measures them by results (ie, have they fulfilled needs) not by money, which won't exist after the revolution anyway.

Frankly, if a bunch of people want to harvest some crops by hand (ie 'inefficiently' as capitalism would see it) because they want to hang out in the field for the afternoon having a gas and a picnic, I don't think that would be a problem. It's only a problem if you have to sell the produce afterwards (which you don't).

EDIT: and it does decide the best use of the land. The best use is the use the community wants to use it for. The community decides what to use it for.

Ditto the factory. It is a plastics-moulding factory. The community decides what it needs, which is primarily widgets and a few doodads, realises it has production capacity to spare, gets in touch with the commune next door and says 'do you need anything we can make our plastics moulding machine?', next-door-commune says 'cool we could use some widgets' and Bob is one's parents' sibling.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes. Its a decision. However socialists like to claim that socialism is economically a superior system to capitalism. Yet how can that be if the socialist community has no way to measure the impact of the various choices which they face?...

It is not necessary to determine the best use of land? How about whenn determining what to produce in a factory? Is it also not necessary to the best use of this factory?

Whatever the majority says is by definition correct?

Only time will tell that it is a superior system.

The question is; are you okay with autocracy as long as it is economically efficient?
If so, what if slavery proves effecient (as it did for some economies)?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2120848]It does, it measures them by results (ie, have they fulfilled needs) not by money, which won't exist after the revolution anyway.

Frankly, if a bunch of people want to harvest some crops by hand (ie 'inefficiently' as capitalism would see it)

It would be considered "inefficient" in a capitalist community because that method of harvesting would not produce the quanities of food which more "efficient" ways would. It would mean that farming labor was not producing goods to levels which the community would reasonably expect. Frankly, it is difficult to see why a socialist community would tolerate such silliness amongst its workers.

but then again, the socialist system would have a difficult time determining that such "inefficient" systems of harvesting food was, in fact "inefficient" since it would have difficulty in measuring success or failure in production on this score.

[Baseball]

Only time will tell that it is a superior system.

The question is; are you okay with autocracy as long as it is economically efficient?
If so, what if slavery proves effecient (as it did for some economies)?


Ahhhh...!! The fallback argument.

But if socialism is NOT more efficient, than clearly all else of its claims falls to pieces. I mean, socialism is supposedly against poverty. If it can't say they will do a better job than capitalism in enriching the community... The claim that they not "autocratic" becomes fairly irrelevent (and in fact can be disproven).

[Blake's Baby]

No, you're mising the point. It would produce the same amount of food, because the field is the same size, it would just produce it more slowly, and with more work-hours in it. Instead of taking an hour for one person with a machine to do, taking four hours and ten people might be more pleasant.

Of course, pleasant working conditions (such that 'work' pretty much ceases to be an unpleasant thing at all) would seem silly to someone who supports capitalism. Honestly, I can live with being thought silly by someone who thinks that people can't make decisions without the existence of money and private property.

[Property Is Robbery]

You have some rather strange ideas about how the world works. Marxist thought baffles me.
That's not an argument, tell me how my statement was wrong.

[cogar66]

In the same circumstances, why would those sandwiches be produced in a socialist community?

I never said they would. I was just pointing out the fact that there's little difference, except everyone's demand is taken into account in Socialism.

Edit: Wow, I can't believe I didn't notice that.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

[QUOTE]

It would be considered "inefficient" in a capitalist community because that method of harvesting would not produce the quanities of food which more "efficient" ways would. It would mean that farming labor was not producing goods to levels which the community would reasonably expect. Frankly, it is difficult to see why a socialist community would tolerate such silliness amongst its workers.

but then again, the socialist system would have a difficult time determining that such "inefficient" systems of harvesting food was, in fact "inefficient" since it would have difficulty in measuring success or failure in production on this score.

You seem to be so wedded to the idea of an economic calculation problem that you are unable to see that, in the example you have talked about for the following posts, it is clearly possible to measure productivity according to the quantity of grain harvested. This won't always work for every product, but for something similar like wheat, it is an obvious manner in which productivity could be judged.

Since in a socialist society, nobody has advocated people will be simply given goods without being able to say what they want, I would think people would be able to tell what goods were desired and therefore "efficient" to spend time producing depending on what people choose to buy/possess.

I don't see where this is any differnet to how capitalism decides such things, in that there is some body of people who interpret what people have bought, and who get paid to try and decide from that what people will want in the future. Of course in capitalism, this raw aim is prevented by factors related to the division of production between private entities, creating problems such as lack of information, divorcing of the personal and collective good etc in many cases.

[RGacky3]

Even within the socialist community as described, people will presumably dispute over the best use for a piece land. Presumably, people in a socialist community will need food and a place to live. Both uses would benefit the community. Yet in order to have any sort of functioning democracy, there needs to be a way to JUSTIFY, to PROVE, that one use is better than the other. Democracy does not provide that justification.

Yes it does, more people agree that the land is put to better use one way, thats justification, the market does'nt justify anything, or need to prove anything, a rich guy can buy land that poor people need to grow food and make it his own personal hunting ground (not far from the truth), and he does'nt need to justify it to anyone.


It gives no direction. It evaluates nothing.

No it does, theres analysis, discussion then collective decision making.

The only evaluation or direction Capitalism has is what do the peoeple with the most money want.


Yet how can that be if the socialist community has no way to measure the impact of the various choices which they face?

If people are happy with the decision as the years go on, then clearly it was a good decision ... if not then they'll change it, you evaulate it that way, its really not that hard.


But if socialism is NOT more efficient, than clearly all else of its claims falls to pieces. I mean, socialism is supposedly against poverty. If it can't say they will do a better job than capitalism in enriching the community... The claim that they not "autocratic" becomes fairly irrelevent (and in fact can be disproven). But if socialism is NOT more efficient, than clearly all else of its claims falls to pieces. I mean, socialism is supposedly against poverty. If it can't say they will do a better job than capitalism in enriching the community... The claim that they not "autocratic" becomes fairly irrelevent (and in fact can be disproven). Today 01:12

Not at all, he was'nt saying socialism is not more efficiant, he was saying EVEN IF IT WAS, it does'nt justify Capitalism.

But Socialism Can be proved that it can enrich the community as a whole more.

The only argument you have had against socialism production so far is the ones you've mentioned above (i.e. how do they make decisions), and its been answered over and over again sufficiently, you hav'nt come up with any argument as to why markets are better.

[Agnapostate]

what essay are you refering to.

The essay is probably Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html), which Rothbard wrote in the mid-1950s. His conclusion was, "Considering the dominant anarchists, it is obvious that the question 'are libertarians anarchists?' must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative. We are at completely opposite poles." They are also pseudo-libertarians in addition to pseudo-anarchists, but Rothbard apparently could not extend his logic further.


There was actually a good blog I found once that was run by a libertarian, and it was all about calling out racist and homophobic libertarians and paleoconservatives. There was a good deal of interesting info there about connections between a lot of the more extreme right-wing libertarians (not the more "mainstream" ones like the Cato Institute and Reason) and white nationalists.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find it now.

Those affinities can more or less be documented on Scumfront (Stormfront), but links are now blocked.

Rothbard regarded existing class inequalities as the natural consequence of genetically determined mentally inequalities between racial groups.

RACE! THAT MURRAY BOOK (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html)

"If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors."

Therefore, he was cognizant of affinities between white supremacism and pseudo-libertarianism, and sought to build political alliances with mainstream paleoconservatives and outright white nationalists during the final years of his life.

RIGHT-WING POPULISM (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html")


A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short:

l. Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS.

2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.

3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire "civil rights" structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.

4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters. Money and banking are recondite issues. But the realities can be made vivid: the Fed is an organized cartel of banksters, who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of the average American. The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks.

7. America First. A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority. The American economy is not only in recession; it is stagnating. The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago. Come home America. Stop supporting bums abroad. Stop all foreign aid, which is aid to banksters and their bonds and their export industries. Stop gloabaloney, and let's solve our problems at home.

8. Defend Family Values. Which means, get the State out of the family, and replace State control with parental control. In the long run, this means ending public schools, and replacing them with private schools. But we must realize that voucher and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatized education; instead, they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon the private schools. Within the sound alternative is decentralization, and back to local, community neighborhood control of the schools.

Further: We must reject once and for all the left-libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control. But that means: that the public schools must allow prayer, and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that "establishment of religion" means not allowing prayer in public schools, or a creche in a schoolyard or a public square at Christmas. We must return to common sense, and original intent, in constitutional interpretation.

The pretensions of his libertarianism or anarchism that he had maintained since the 1960s had essentially vanished by that point.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Blake's Baby;2120862]No, you're mising the point. It would produce the same amount of food, because the field is the same size, it would just produce it more slowly, and with more work-hours in it. Instead of taking an hour for one person with a machine to do, taking four hours and ten people might be more pleasant.

It might indeed be more pleasant.

It also means that the community has nine people who are working in a field harvesting grain who can't be out picking apples. And since the work is done slower, the yields across the board would have to be smaller since TIME is also a factor.

[Baseball]

I never said they would. I was just pointing out the fact that there's little difference, except everyone's demand is taken into account in Socialism.

Edit: Wow, I can't believe I didn't notice that.

And what is the rationale for denying somebody that product, in a socialist system?

[RGacky3]

It might indeed be more pleasant.

It also means that the community has nine people who are working in a field harvesting grain who can't be out picking apples. And since the work is done slower, the yields across the board would have to be smaller since TIME is also a factor.

If that is a problem, i.e. people NEED to pick more apples, then they would shift to more apples.

The yields might be smaller if less yields are needed, and more if more are needed.

Meaning over production (as is done now), is avoided, while under distribution (as is done now) is also avoided.


And what is the rationale for denying somebody that product, in a socialist system?

Its an unreasonable demand, need and reason has no bearing in a Capitalist system.

If 90 poor people are starving in a community but 5 rich people want golden dildos made, guess who's gonna get denied a product and guess who's getting their product (hint, its not the people that need it, and it is the irrational ones getting it).

[Baseball]

it is clearly possible to measure productivity according to the quantity of grain harvested.

You could show productivity by showing how many tons of grain was harvested, true.
But how would you know whether the methods used to produce that amount of grain was, in fact, the most productive way?
How would you know that many tons of grains was in fact what the community needed as opposed corn?


This won't always work for every product, but for something similar like wheat, it is an obvious manner in which productivity could be judged.

The production of wheat requires items which also must be produced somewhere. How do you measure that, against other items which must be produced for other productions?


Since in a socialist society, nobody has advocated people will be simply given goods without being able to say what they want, I would think people would be able to tell what goods were desired and therefore "efficient" to spend time producing depending on what people choose to buy/possess.

Which is done how? Everyone votes on what he or she wants? Submits a questionairre to the local community board via the internet?

[RGacky3]

But how would you know whether the methods used to produce that amount of grain was, in fact, the most productive way?


Compare and contrast methods .... research and development.


How would you know that many tons of grains was in fact what the community needed as opposed corn?


The production of wheat requires items which also must be produced somewhere. How do you measure that, against other items which must be produced for other productions?


You ask them, or see how much is consumed of each product and measure how much more or less you need.


Which is done how? Everyone votes on what he or she wants? Submits a questionairre to the local community board via the internet?

Could be done that way, could just measure consumption, or how much is left over, or how quickly things are consumed and so on and so forth, there are many many methods that have been used.

[cogar66]

And what is the rationale for denying somebody that product, in a socialist system?
That it is illogical to devote production to a product that only one person is going to use. That said, if the person is willing to make it themselves they would not be denied access to the means of production.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2121008]Yes it does, more people agree that the land is put to better use one way, thats justification,


Based upon what? Raw power, it seems (the majority telling the minority how things are going to be). No other explanation has been offered.




No it does, theres analysis

Based upon what? Yes, what is "discussed" and "collectively decided." Completely circular.




If people are happy with the decision as the years go on, then clearly it was a good decision ...


Not so. It could just as well mean it wasn't a bad decision.

[Baseball]

That it is illogical to devote resources(including labor) to production for a product that only one person is going to use. That said, if the person is willing to make it themselves they would not be denied access to the means of production.


I agree. So why condemn capitalism for doing it?

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2122016]Compare and contrast methods .... research and development.

Based upon what criteria?





You ask them, or see how much is consumed of each product and measure how much more or less you need.

How many tons of corn do you eat a year, Gacky?





Could be done that way, could just measure consumption, or how much is left over, or how quickly things are consumed and so on and so forth, there are many many methods that have been used.

In other words, measure yesterday's production...

[RGacky3]

Based upon what? Raw power, it seems (the majority telling the minority how things are going to be). No other explanation has been offered.


Yeah, but its based on concensus, I'm a believer in consensus democracy, but also based on the idea that land cannot be owned and thus land disputes must be resolved with both parties having equal say.

The explination is that it is the best way, and that your way is simply a totalitarian way, when there is a dispute your answer is to give it to the richer one, mine is that it should be and equal level and based on consensus.


Based upon what? Yes, what is "discussed" and "collectively decided." Completely circular.


Based on what is consumed, waht the resources are, what the demand is.

Its not circular at all, it happens all the time in corporate boardroom, except its based on money comming in rather than actual demand, and the onle ones invovled are those in the boardrooms.

My solution is to base it on actual demand (not just monied demand) and allow every one who the decision effects in on the discussion and decision making.

Its not that difficult, this stuff happens all the time.


Not so. It could just as well mean it wasn't a bad decision.

And that no one has come up with a better decisoin so far, so what ...

[cogar66]

I agree. So why condemn capitalism for doing it?
Because that's not what Capitalism does. It devotes production to things the people with money want. AND it denies others access to the means of production.

www . juesatta . com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/starvation.jpg

These people need food, their demand is not taken into account because they don't have money. What's more they're also denied access to the means to produce their own food.

[RGacky3]

Based upon what criteria?


The same criteria that capitalists use, except everyone having the same purchasing power.


How many tons of corn do you eat a year, Gacky?


I don't know, but I bet stores know how much was bought, and non-profit comunity stores would know as well.


In other words, measure yesterday's production...

Which is how things are done now as well, except based on monied criteria rather than actual demand.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2122011]If that is a problem, i.e. people NEED to pick more apples, then they would shift to more apples.

Why and how would they do that? The storyline was that using ten people to produce the same amount of grain as one might just be more pleasurable. And we are often told how about how much more pleasant a socialist community will make work, and also that that is one of its objectives.




Its an unreasonable demand, need and reason has no bearing in a Capitalist system.

Again, based upon what criteria? The whims of the majority? there is no pleasure for the workers in producing sh-t sandwiches?


If 90 poor people are starving in a community but 5 rich people want golden dildos made, guess who's gonna get denied a product


I would suppose that the golden dildo factory and the workers therein are not going to be producing food anyways under other circumstances, nor are their workers trained farmers. So its a moot point (unless of course you are going to force the golden dildo factory and its workers to do something they have democratically voted not to do).

[RGacky3]

Why and how would they do that? The storyline was that using ten people to produce the same amount of grain as one might just be more pleasurable. And we are often told how about how much more pleasant a socialist community will make work, and also that that is one of its objectives.


Well, you balance what is needed with what is possible with what is most pleasurable, your arguement against it doesn't make any sense and it assumes inflexibility, which is rediculous.


Again, based upon what criteria? The whims of the majority? there is no pleasure for the workers in producing sh-t sandwiches?


"the whims of the majority," if you want to call it that, but I'd prefer that to it being based on its profitability to Capitalists ...

As for your last sentance I don't get what your point is.


I would suppose that the golden dildo factory and the workers therein are not going to be producing food anyways under other circumstances, nor are their workers trained farmers. So its a moot point (unless of course you are going to force the golden dildo factory and its workers to do something they have democratically voted not to do).

They would have produced food if there as a profitable industry that would hire them to do so and they could get a wage for it, but there is'nt because poor people can't afford it, instead they are making golden dildos because there is a market for it, but not for food.

Its not a moot point at all, thats the way markets work.

[#FF0000]

these are some of the worst arguments i've ever seen

[cogar66]

On both sides?

[#FF0000]

No. From Baseball.

[RGacky3]

If your talking about Baseball, yeah, they are basically non-starters, arguments that a child could shut down easily.

If your talking about mine, which ones and why?

[#FF0000]

If your talking about Baseball, yeah, they are basically non-starters, arguments that a child could shut down easily

It's not even that. He's just demanding that you speculate on how a theoretical socialist society would look. I mean, this is reasonable but you can only speculate so far.

And these questions like "BUT WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS? BASED ON WHAT ARE THEIR DECISIONS" have literally no answer but "it depends". It depends on how many resources are available, on what there's demand for, on what's needed, on all of these things. That is, everything you'd take into consideration when producing anything ever in any system.

[RGacky3]

Could'nt have said it better myself.

[Queercommie Girl]

Anarcho-capitalism is basically a Social Darwinist hell-hole. If you are "less able", then you would be mercilessly brushed aside by the iron logic of the Market. Anarcho-capitalism is to genuine anarchism what national socialism is to genuine socialism. The fascist scums in this thread should fuck off and go to hell.

[Jazzratt]

I'm not sure there's any point in anarcho-capitalism. I mean I'm sure there are other ways of telling people you're an unlikeable pompous asshole with the basic humanity of a rabid baboon. That is the aim of it, right? It's not an actual thing that people think is it?

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm not sure there's any point in anarcho-capitalism. I mean I'm sure there are other ways of telling people you're an unlikeable pompous asshole with the basic humanity of a rabid baboon. That is the aim of it, right? It's not an actual thing that people think is it?

This is the most correct statement of life.

[Blake's Baby]

What I fundamantally don't understand about 'anarcho-capitalism' is this: do they think control of the means of production gives you power in society? If they do, how come they are allowed to retain the means of production, but we're not allowed to socialise it? How are they allowed a power over us, that we're not allowed to have over them?

Conversely, if control doesn't grant power, what's the problem with the means of production being socialised?

[the Leftâ„¢]

What I fundamantally don't understand about 'anarcho-capitalism' is this: do they think control of the means of production gives you power in society? If they do, how come they are allowed to retain the means of production, but we're not allowed to socialise it? How are they allowed a power over us, that we're not allowed to have over them?

Conversely, if control doesn't grant power, what's the problem with the means of production being socialised?

:thumbup1:

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

[QUOTE]

I would suppose that the golden dildo factory and the workers therein are not going to be producing food anyways under other circumstances, nor are their workers trained farmers. So its a moot point (unless of course you are going to force the golden dildo factory and its workers to do something they have democratically voted not to do).

http://kahlich.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/sunday-remix-you-are-so-dumb.jpg?w=480&h=360

[Hebrew Hammer]

I've played Bioshock, seems like that would be how a "anarcho-capitalist," society would pan out, no thanks, lol.

[#FF0000]

Nah, Bioshock was inspired by Objectivism, which isn't really anarcho-capitalist

[Kuppo Shakur]

I've played Bioshock, seems like that would be how a "anarcho-capitalist," society would pan out, no thanks, lol.
Still, communism better make me some fuckin plasmids or I'm out.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Nah, Bioshock was inspired by Objectivism, which isn't really anarcho-capitalist

I know but close enough, atleast for a joke.


Still, communism better make me some fuckin plasmids or I'm out.

That's what I'm sayin.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=#FF0000;2122045]It's not even that. He's just demanding that you speculate on how a theoretical socialist society would look. I mean, this is reasonable but you can only speculate so far.

Thus far, there have been some concrete suggestions as to how a socialist system might function to which I responded (growing of food). Certainly speculating on the harvest is not going to far- on an example a revlefter started.


And these questions like "BUT WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS? BASED ON WHAT ARE THEIR DECISIONS" have literally no answer but "it depends". It depends on how many resources are available, on what there's demand for, on what's needed, on all of these things. That is, everything you'd take into consideration when producing anything ever in any system.

Yes. But certainly it is fair to speculate that a socialist system will seek to employ a socialist solution in production. Answers along the lines of basically -doing what the capitalists do- ought to be suspect. And even if it is considered a reasonable response within the socialist system, it is certainly fair to speculate the impact of copying a capitalist solution, upon the socialist project.

[Baseball]

What I fundamantally don't understand about 'anarcho-capitalism' is this: do they think control of the means of production gives you power in society? If they do, how come they are allowed to retain the means of production, but we're not allowed to socialise it? How are they allowed a power over us, that we're not allowed to have over them?

Conversely, if control doesn't grant power, what's the problem with the means of production being socialised?

The defenders of capitalism would argue that capitalists do not control the means of production-- the consumer does, since the capitalist can only accrue a profit should the consumer desire its product.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2122029]Yeah, but its based on concensus, I'm a believer in consensus democracy, but also based on the idea that land cannot be owned and thus land disputes must be resolved with both parties having equal say.

You keep jumping the step. I'll say it again: Consensus based upon what?

In order for people to have a debate about the best use of land, there has to be a way for those people to make an argument. Right? They have to be able to say: based upon A & B, thi is the best use of land. What is A & B? statistics? based upon what? what was done in the past? Why is that relevent ect ect ect


The explination is that it is the best way, and that your way is simply a totalitarian way, when there is a dispute your answer is to give it to the richer one, mine is that it should be and equal level and based on consensus.


That isn't my argument. All I have said is there needs to be a way to measure the value of the land for a particular use, in the example thus far given. What you have said, it seems to me, is the value of the land is based upon what the majority votes.



Based on what is consumed, waht the resources are, what the demand is.

Measured how?




My solution is to base it on actual demand (not just monied demand) and allow every one who the decision effects in on the discussion and decision making.

Truly? How does this work? Democracy? Looking at my computer right now, I am wondering how these will ever be made if every component part is subject to votes not just of the producers of those parts, but the potential recipients as well parts as well, never made the final consumer...

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

[QUOTE]
Truly? How does this work? Democracy? Looking at my computer right now, I am wondering how these will ever be made if every component part is subject to votes not just of the producers of those parts, but the potential recipients as well parts as well, never made the final consumer...

http://kahlich.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/sunday-remix-you-are-so-dumb.jpg?w=480&h=360

[Blake's Baby]

[

Thus far, there have been some concrete suggestions as to how a socialist system might function to which I responded (growing of food). Certainly speculating on the harvest is not going to far- on an example a revlefter started...

I started it to demonstrate in principle how decisions might be made as, you were fixated on how socialism might not be as 'efficient' as capitalism and how decisions would be made. I was suggesting that decisions would be made taking into account factors other than economic efficiency - for instance, pleasantness of the work. Other factors that may (should I would say) be taken into account are safety and environmental impacts. All of these can be taken into account and the solutions to these problems may not be in line with what capitalism considers to be 'efficient' - if the 'efficient' solution is less pleasant, more environmentally damaging, more dangerous etc than doing things 'inefficiently' then it may be decided to do things another way.

This is not an organising principle of society, it's not a statement of faith that every harvest will be gathered slowly by hand with picnics, it's a suggestion about how some hypothetical people might reach a decision in certain hypothetical circumstances. In other circumstances it might be decided that one person taking an hour on their own with a with a combine harvester would be a better way of getting in the harvest; if it needed to be done quickly for instance, the relative unpleasantness might be thought more important than it being done slowly with more social interaction. The same people might come to different conclusions in different circumstances. The point is the process; those doing the work are the ones deciding how the work is done.

[Revolution starts with U]

You keep jumping the step. I'll say it again: Consensus based upon what?
Based upon what is best for the company and its workers.


In order for people to have a debate about the best use of land, there has to be a way for those people to make an argument. Right? They have to be able to say: based upon A & B, thi is the best use of land. What is A & B? statistics? based upon what? what was done in the past? Why is that relevent ect ect ect
IDK, ask a CEO... because that's exactly what they do!



That isn't my argument. All I have said is there needs to be a way to measure the value of the land for a particular use, in the example thus far given. What you have said, it seems to me, is the value of the land is based upon what the majority votes.
As opposed to what the minority votes.. you know, the way it is now.


Truly? How does this work? Democracy? Looking at my computer right now, I am wondering how these will ever be made if every component part is subject to votes not just of the producers of those parts, but the potential recipients as well parts as well, never made the final consumer...
The bolded part is a straw man.
The italics are unintelligible.

[Rafiq]

The defenders of capitalism would argue that capitalists do not control the means of production-- the consumer does, since the capitalist can only accrue a profit should the consumer desire its product.

Don't get too personal with economic theory.

They still own the means of production, it's under their name, they have property rights to it. If they wanted, they can tell the consumer to fuck off and not make any profit.

They employ workers, fire them, hire them, whatever.

Can consumers storm factories and take their means of production then, if they wanted? Is it legal under capitalism?

[Rafiq]

[QUOTE]


Truly? How does this work? Democracy? Looking at my computer right now, I am wondering how these will ever be made if every component part is subject to votes not just of the producers of those parts, but the potential recipients as well parts as well, never made the final consumer...

We are Marxists, not utopians or Idealists.

After the workers get rid of capitalism, they'll estabilish a society of their own, based on common fucking sense.

Who said every computer part will be voted on? I'm sure the workers will estabilish some shit.

For now, stop derailing the subject... Our job is to prove capitalism is bound to failure (Which has been proven in Capital).

[Rafiq]

Fucking Baseball, I suppose that workers could elect delegates who can decide all that crap, and if they have a problem with it they'll tell the delegates or just get rid of them.

So much Idealistic Utopian shit though. I hate that.

[Rafiq]

Basing your opinions of capitalism on historical precedent is in my opinion flawed, because capitalism has never been tried, just as communism hasn't.

But capitalism has been 'tried.'

Every country today runs off a Capitalist mode of production (Stfu, I know their are exceptions).

When Capital exists, when the Bourgeois class exists, exploiting the proletariat class, you have capitalism.

[Baseball]

IDK, ask a CEO... because that's exactly what they do!

Operating within the capitalism system. Presumably capitalist solutions to economic issues would not be available to the socialist community.







The bolded part is a straw man.

The straw man was first stated by gacky, not I.

[Baseball]

They still own the means of production, it's under their name, they have property rights to it. If they wanted, they can tell the consumer to fuck off and not make any profit.

They could. But then where would all the socialist theories of capitalism be?


They employ workers, fire them, hire them, whatever.

Yep, they do indeed. And...?


Can consumers storm factories and take their means of production then, if they wanted?

Can the workers, in a socialist system? Of course not.

[Baseball]

Fucking Baseball, I suppose that workers could elect delegates who can decide all that crap, and if they have a problem with it they'll tell the delegates or just get rid of them.

So much Idealistic Utopian shit though. I hate that.

Yep. They could and supposedly will.

Presumably elected delegates in a socialist system would not seek out capitalist answers to "all that crap."

So what WILL they do?

[Baseball]

I started it to demonstrate in principle how decisions might be made as, you were fixated on how socialism might not be as 'efficient' as capitalism and how decisions would be made.

Part of my "fixation" is based upon the stated claim by revlefters that people will be wealthier under socialism, and that life will be fairer. If production is not as efficient in a socialist system as a capitalist one, then it does call into question the claims that people will be wealthier in socialism, and certainly the socialist claims for life to fairer subject to scepticism as well.


I was suggesting that decisions would be made taking into account factors other than economic efficiency - for instance, pleasantness of the work. Other factors that may (should I would say) be taken into account are safety and environmental impacts. All of these can be taken into account and the solutions to these problems may not be in line with what capitalism considers to be 'efficient' - if the 'efficient' solution is less pleasant, more environmentally damaging, more dangerous etc than doing things 'inefficiently' then it may be decided to do things another way.

Fair enough. But there remain a need to objectively measure whether the "inefficiency" is in fact worth it, or whether the negative impact of production (which will exist in a socialist community as well) is "worth" it.


This is not an organising principle of society, it's not a statement of faith that every harvest will be gathered slowly by hand with picnics, it's a suggestion about how some hypothetical people might reach a decision in certain hypothetical circumstances. In other circumstances it might be decided that one person taking an hour on their own with a with a combine harvester would be a better way of getting in the harvest; if it needed to be done quickly for instance, the relative unpleasantness might be thought more important than it being done slowly with more social interaction. The same people might come to different conclusions in different circumstances. The point is the process; those doing the work are the ones deciding how the work is done.

But the purpose of the harvest isn't to keep the farmers busy, or happy. Its to feed people, the consumer. Why should the consumer of food be subject to the whims of the people doing the actual work? Should not the work by the farmers, or any other worker anywhere, be based upon what the consumer of those products want, how they want it, in what quanity, quality ect ect?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

But the purpose of the harvest isn't to keep the farmers busy, or happy. Its to feed people, the consumer. Why should the consumer of food be subject to the whims of the people doing the actual work? Should not the work by the farmers, or any other worker anywhere, be based upon what the consumer of those products want, how they want it, in what quanity, quality ect ect?

The issue communists have, or should have isn't that we disagree with consumers getting to buy what they want, but that the technical act of "owning" the means of production puts those that do in an advantageous position over those who do not without any reason on their part relating to actual status or technical ability (Although of course it is possible for any bourgeois to have those as well), at least part of their privileged position is due to the technicality of "ownership", rather than something relating to their ability to satisfy consumer demands.

[Revolution starts with U]

Operating within the capitalism system. Presumably capitalist solutions to economic issues would not be available to the socialist community.
You miss the point. Decisions are already made on a consensus basis, by looking at past performance, and future projections.
The burden of proof is on you to show this could not happen in a socialist economy.









The straw man was first stated by gacky, not I.
2 wrongs don't make a right.
It is a misnomer to say "all" decisions have to be made by vote.

[Old Mole]

Something like Somalia in the nineties is the only thinkable consequence of "anarcho-capitalism" I can imagine.

[SpineyNorman]

Anarcho-capitalism is probably the most ridiculous form of petty-bourgeois dissidence. Basically it's isolated, anti-social people who can't understand why other people don't share their anti-society motives and don't want to pay any tax.

Any communist who wastes their time debating with these morons needs to take a long, hard look at him or herself. It's pointless - they have no power and real big capital thinks they're a joke too. They're never going to be a movement that's big enough to pose a genuine threat so why bother? There's real enemies, enemies with power, out there. Concentrate your energy on them.

[Rafiq]

Can the workers, in a socialist system? Of course not.

Stop avoiding the topic. We're talking about the problem here, about capitalism. Solutions come after.

[Rafiq]

Yep. They could and supposedly will.

Presumably elected delegates in a socialist system would not seek out capitalist answers to "all that crap."

So what WILL they do?

You're like a religious person asking all the questions of the universe, expecting an answer right away.

My Job isn't to lay out the blueprints of society.

Scientists and computer specialists could put together computers, and the delegetes or someone could decide which ones are produced, or the people can decide, ect. But if most people have a problem, they could just bring it up.

This is so fucking utopian though. So much Idealist crap.

How the fuck could they solve the problems with capitalist answers anyway?

Capitalism was the problem to begin with.

Look, even if Socialism or Communism doesn't work, (I really don't know if they do, but I'll guess maybe) criticizim of capitalism is still never the less necessary, and, never the less, it's important to find solutions once the problem has been abolished (through the solution). Get it?

For me communism is just a process. Not a general state of affairs to be achieved.

[Kotze]

The defenders of capitalism would argue that capitalists do not control the means of production-- the consumer doesExploitation happens prior to produced goods going to a market.

What existed before the system with workers and employers? Peasants had to work on land owned by nobility, you had to work longer than needed for sustaining yourself and the nobility took some of the stuff you produced. Some of it they took directly for their own consumption, some of it to sell, did that distinction matter for the peasants? Hey look, nobleman X leeches off peasant A and nobleman Y leeches off peasant B, but then nobleman X and nobleman Y exchange some of the leeched off stuff, so it's in the end the consumer who controls everything, and we are all consumers after all, so if we don't like it we can just vote with our wallets and consume less, that will show 'em!

Well, it might show them that we can live with even less, but hopefully that's not the message they will get.

And we should also demand to participate in their administrative meetings, like their newfangled "parliament" thing!

This can be a powerful tool, as long as they don't start moving decisions into other meetings we don't know about, so their officially important meetings become theatre. But that would be very mean of them, so it probably won't happen.

Finally, I shall send this angry letter to this other new invention, the newspaper.

Some strong criticism against the powers that be, this will certainly shake up things. I can't wait to see this published in the paper they control.

And that was the history of reformism.



Eh, what was the question, again?
Part of my "fixation" is based upon the stated claim by revlefters that people will be wealthier under socialism, and that life will be fairer. If production is not as efficient in a socialist system as a capitalist one, then it does call into question the claims that people will be wealthier in socialism, and certainly the socialist claims for life to fairer subject to scepticism as well.Oh, if only production could be as efficient under socialism as under the reliable system of supply (by cross-licensing cartels of patent spammers using child labour) and demand (of millionaires signalling their need for bumhole bleaching as more important than your need to have any teeth left). :rolleyes:

[Blake's Baby]

Part of my "fixation" is based upon the stated claim by revlefters that people will be wealthier under socialism, and that life will be fairer. If production is not as efficient in a socialist system as a capitalist one, then it does call into question the claims that people will be wealthier in socialism, and certainly the socialist claims for life to fairer subject to scepticism as well...

Well, approxiamtely 80% of 'production' in capitalism is inefficient, because of wars, and banking, and red tape, policing costs, and inability to afford machinery and the necessity for a pool of unemployed workers to keep wages down, and other workers being worked to death, and taxation systems and other governmental and generally unnecessary shit, so under socialism, even if nothing else changed, we'd have approximately 4 times more productive ability that is at present being wasted.

It is the liberation of that capacity (both human and economic) which will enable choices to be made about whether we want to produce more efficiently or not. Even inefficient socialist production is going to be 2-3 times more efficient than efficient capitalist production.

But that's by the by. What you have done is taken one hypothetical decision in one hypothetical example involving 10 hypothetical people in one hypothetical location at one hypothetical time, and exptrapolated it to a world system of 7 billion people. 'Socialism is more inefficient than capitalism, because 10 people *might* decide that they are going cut some corn by hand because it might be more fun'. Fucking marvellous, that just demolishes the whole socialist project, I'm sure we now all feel very foolish.

[Agnapostate]

Anarchism is a legitimate social theory, that has in the past inspired millions of workers to become activists and the living embodiment of the socialist ideal.

"Anarcho"-capitalism is something for upper-class and often socially retarded white nerds in their twenties to argue about on mises.org when they're not busy coding.

[Kuppo Shakur]

socially retarded white nerds ... busy coding.
Woah woah woah, you got a problem with me, bruh?

[ImStalinist]

What do you mean by "load of bullshit"? Do you mean it is bullshit, in the sense that you believe anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms? Or do you have specific reasons why you believe the theory behind the ideology is flawed?
Anarchism teaches that there should be no leaders, in Capitalism their is a CEO and a sometimes a President of the corporation or company.

It should be called Stateless Capitalism which it will be.

If there is no state who is going a revolution, dear open Reactionary?

[cogar66]

Anarchism teaches that there should be no leaders, in Capitalism their is a CEO and a sometimes a President of the corporation or company.

It should be called Stateless Capitalism which it will be.

If there is no state who is going a revolution, dear open Reactionary?

No rulers, actually. Someone who leads by consent is fine. :thumbup1: Capitalists are rulers.

[hatzel]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is something for upper-class and often socially retarded white nerds in their twenties to argue about on mises.org when they're not busy coding.

I really don't think that resorting to such ad hominem attacks is useful for anybody. Particularly when Zombie, one of the anarcho-capitalists who have posted in this thread, has shown himself to be perfectly capable of formulating in-depth and eloquent arguments, based on a not insignificant knowledge of economic theory even though we don't necessarily reach the same conclusions. He has also, in fact, proven to be more than willing to listen, to take our ideas on board and think about them, before deciding whether he agrees or not, rather than just dismissing them out of hand. This has been shown not only in this and other threads, but also in PM conversations I've had with him.

His arguments in support of anarcho-capitalism are far superior to your arguments against it.

Also:


If there is no state who is going a revolution, dear open Reactionary?

I'm very sorry, but I don't understand this statement. I think you might have missed out a word somewhere. Could you perhaps rephrase it? I don't think Zombie has been active on the forum for a week or so, so I may be able to address the question on his behalf, despite my not being an anarcho-capitalist :)

[Dean]

But you cannot assume that this same level of production would continue under socialism.

You can't assume production would decrease either.

[Blake's Baby]

...
But the purpose of the harvest isn't to keep the farmers busy, or happy. Its to feed people, the consumer. Why should the consumer of food be subject to the whims of the people doing the actual work? Should not the work by the farmers, or any other worker anywhere, be based upon what the consumer of those products want, how they want it, in what quanity, quality ect ect?

The purpose of the harvest is to get the harvest in. But the purpose of being alive is not 'to do work'. Work is necessary, because to live people need stuff to be done. It doesn't follow that this work has be dangerous, boring, degrading or any other form of unpleasantness because it needs to be done 'efficiently'.

Our (let's say) agricultural collective has 50 members and produces enough grain to give to another 4 nearby communities (who specialise in making other products, only one of which actually processes the grain to make other things out of). So while 40 members are off tending cucumbers and raising pigs, 10 people decide to take an afternoon getting the grain cut. They could have decided that 9 of them were going to laze about, play charades or paint the roof of the library, while one person went out in the combine, but it's a sunny day and they've got lemonade, so they decide to harvest it the slow way.

You seem to think this is wrong and horrible and the people are stupid and evil because the ultimate consumers of the grain (whether they're the workers in the Morgan Freeman Bicycle Factory, or the bakers of the Friends of Durrutti Bakery) might get it a couple of hours later than they could have done, if someone had been made to do the harvest by themself with a machine.

Why should the worker be subject to the whims of the consumer? Why should the worker not be in a position to say, if you want the grain faster, cut it yourself, with your Morgan Freman Bicycle or Friends of Durrutti Oven Gloves? It is the worker (in this case, the workers in the Agricultural Collective) who get to say howe the grain is harvested. It's their work, why shouldn't they organise how it's done? I wouldn't expect them to tell the Morgan Freeman Bicycle workers how to make bicycles.

To be honest though, I would expect them to listen to reasoned requests. If the Bakery Collective said "for some really good technical reason perhapos involving critical heating times, availability of fuel and whatnot, it would be really helpful if we could have the grain by lunchtime" or even if the Bicycle Factory said "help we've got no grain for making lunch with for the workers coming off shift in 2 hours" then maybe the agricultural collective would say "we'll get someone on it as soon as we can" and do it by machine. Why not? The thing is, these decisions will be made by the people that impliment them as opposed to someone else deciding 'this will be done, you have to do it'.

[Agnapostate]

His arguments in support of anarcho-capitalism are far superior to your arguments against it.

They aren't. I simply haven't expressed my arguments against "anarcho-capitalism" because there is not a need, as that mythology has essentially been definitively buried by the writers of the FAQ, with no response from these pseudo-anarchists.

[Bronco]

They aren't. I simply haven't expressed my arguments against "anarcho-capitalism" because there is not a need, as that mythology has essentially been definitively buried by the writers of the FAQ, with no response from these pseudo-anarchists.

There has been an An-Cap response to the Anarchist FAQ, I havent read it but just did a quick google search and it brought up this http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html

David Friedman also wrote a partial response to it, mainly concerning Medieval Iceland http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Iceland_Anarch_FAQ2_reply.html

[Ilyich]

"Anarcho"-capitalists do not seem to understand that under capitalism, the state is simply a tool used by the bosses to oppress the workers. It exists only to further the goals of capitalism. Capitalism without a state, would hardly be any different from our current system except "anarcho"-capitalism would be more naked than capitalism.

[∞]

Ancap ftw! I mean we're so underground...left wing anarchism is sooo mainstream.

http://reason.com/assets/mc/tcavanaugh/NewMurrayRothbard.jpg

Like my glasses and bow-tie???, its kind of like an avante-garde/professor look.

[∞]

Also math is eeewww....ancap logic ftw.

[NewSocialist]

David Friedman also wrote a partial response to it, mainly concerning Medieval Iceland http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Iceland_Anarch_FAQ2_reply.html

The AFAQ already responded to Friedman's critique: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/afaq-and-medieval-iceland

[hatzel]

They aren't. I simply haven't expressed my arguments against "anarcho-capitalism" because there is not a need, as that mythology has essentially been definitively buried by the writers of the FAQ, with no response from these pseudo-anarchists.

Ergo his arguments for it are better than yours against it, because you haven't provided any, and seem surprisingly proud of not having provided any. Saying "well, somebody else has already done it so I don't have to" doesn't make your argument better, not least because it doesn't actually address the opponents' arguments. You could at least do us (or, more precisely, the ancaps) the honour of trudging through the FAQ to find and copy-paste those bits that actually reply to the arguments made, rather than just resorting to a load of ad homs that do nothing but make you look like a numpty. So until you provide a single argument to this discussion other than ad homming, my accusation stands: Zombie's arguments are better than yours, because he has provided sensible and mature arguments, backed up some form of logical evaluation, and you have provided nothing but ad homs and baseless dismissals.

In fact, have you even addressed one single argument made by any ancap on this thread? Not that I've seen. Irrespective of whether or not you have better ideas floating around in your head, until you actually argue them in the debate, they're not arguments, and you cannot rely on us to believe that you have these ideas if you don't provide them. So if it's a debate between you and, say, Zombie, then you've definitely lost, by not providing any arguments beyond "it's stupid and somebody else said why so just go and research that or something because I can't be bothered to tell you why you're wrong because it's obvious and also you're all just 'socially retarded white nerds' and that's why you're wrong and everybody knows it so I don't have to explain why." Sorry, but that's not how debates (or, in fact, even discussion) works.

Other posters on this thread have bothered to address the arguments made, demonstrate why they are wrong, and forward a logical counter-argument. Some have had more success at this than others. But at least they tried, rather than just coming in with some pointless ad homming. The former counts as argument, and actually might have some impact in convincing people to change their views, or reevaluate their understanding. The latter does absolutely nothing, never will do anything, and, to be brutally honest, is a woefully immature approach to debate. I suggest that you improve your techniques before engaging in debate again, or at least have the courtesy of saying "okay, I'm sorry, I admit it, I wasn't even trying to engage in the debate, I only came here to make some childish antagonistic joke, and I acknowledge that my behaviour has not provided anything to this conversation."

(The above also applies to you other ad hommers and quasi-trolls. You know who you are. It's clear that at least some of the ancaps in this thread were interested in mature debate, and it is only polite to match that)

[Baseball]

I
t doesn't follow that this work has be dangerous, boring, degrading or any other form of unpleasantness because it needs to be done 'efficiently'.

No, it doesn't.


Our (let's say) agricultural collective has 50 members and produces enough grain to give to another 4 nearby communities (who specialise in making other products, only one of which actually processes the grain to make other things out of). So while 40 members are off tending cucumbers and raising pigs, 10 people decide to take an afternoon getting the grain cut. They could have decided that 9 of them were going to laze about, play charades or paint the roof of the library, while one person went out in the combine, but it's a sunny day and they've got lemonade, so they decide to harvest it the slow way.

You seem to think this is wrong and horrible and the people are stupid and evil because the ultimate consumers of the grain (whether they're the workers in the Morgan Freeman Bicycle Factory, or the bakers of the Friends of Durrutti Bakery) might get it a couple of hours later than they could have done, if someone had been made to do the harvest by themself with a machine.

The point here is that we are not just talking about the Morgan Freeman Bicycle Co. or the Friends of Durutti Bakery. We are talking about all 7 billion people in the world who also must be given the same right and opportunity to work as inefficiently as they choose (of course socialism would define efficiency different than capitalism). Suddenly, we are talking major production problems, distribution of goods problems.


Why should the worker be subject to the whims of the consumer?

Because the purpose of work isn't to keep somebody busy. It is to provide needed wants. Why should the workers "tell" the consumers what they want?


Why should the worker not be in a position to say, if you want the grain faster, cut it yourself, with your Morgan Freman Bicycle or Friends of Durrutti Oven Gloves? It is the worker (in this case, the workers in the Agricultural Collective) who get to say howe the grain is harvested. It's their work, why shouldn't they organise how it's done? I wouldn't expect them to tell the Morgan Freeman Bicycle workers how to make bicycles.

Well, if the way those workers chose to organize their production leads to shortages of their products, or gluts, then yes it does become your business.


To be honest though, I would expect them to listen to reasoned requests. If the Bakery Collective said "for some really good technical reason perhapos involving critical heating times, availability of fuel and whatnot, it would be really helpful if we could have the grain by lunchtime"


One would hope the socialist society does not rely upon prayer to organize its production.

[∞]

Tell me this...why in Fascist third positionist economies has the state and free market always suppressed the unions?

In a third positionist economy you have private companies, the state and unions.
In every implementation with said economies creates a unity between companies and the state which inevitably ignore the union. From this playing field someone can easily see how capitalism is authoritarian by nature. Anarcho Capitalism is the equivalent of Libertarian Feudalism, with the respect that it doesn't exist. Also, if you actually observe different forms of socialism you can observe a change in nature. Whereas socialism looks quite different with a big state and without one, the nature of capitalism remains the same no matter how the government that is in charge.

[Agnapostate]

Ergo his arguments for it are better than yours against it, because you haven't provided any, and seem surprisingly proud of not having provided any.

If I have not provided any arguments in this thread, then other arguments are not "better" than mine, since I have not submitted arguments to be judged and hierarchically ordered in comparison with those of others.


Saying "well, somebody else has already done it so I don't have to" doesn't make your argument better, not least because it doesn't actually address the opponents' arguments.

There is no question of making my argument "better," since I didn't submit an argument that could be subject to increase or decrease in quality.


You could at least do us (or, more precisely, the ancaps) the honour of trudging through the FAQ to find and copy-paste those bits that actually reply to the arguments made, rather than just resorting to a load of ad homs that do nothing but make you look like a numpty.

I'm a tad too yank'd up to know what a "numpty" is, mate, but I suspect that it's derogatory in certain contexts. So, since you feel comfortable using terms that are derogatory in certain contexts, you will undoubtedly understand why I would want to relieve tension on the forum by making humorous observations about the nature of pseudo-anarchists. Copying and pasting the arguments of others would not constitute an advancement of my own arguments, and would not satisfy those very criteria.


So until you provide a single argument to this discussion other than ad homming, my accusation stands: Zombie's arguments are better than yours, because he has provided sensible and mature arguments, backed up some form of logical evaluation, and you have provided nothing but ad homs and baseless dismissals.

Your accusation does not totter, let alone stand, since I did not make any arguments, and had no intention of making arguments in this thread, since I've been making arguments against pseudo-anarchism for years and repeatedly go through the same cyclical processes. So, since I did not make any arguments in this thread, you have no basis for determining that his arguments are better than mine, since you presumably have no exposure to or understanding of my arguments.


In fact, have you even addressed one single argument made by any ancap on this thread? Not that I've seen.

That is correct, which is why it was inexplicable that you'd attempt to rank my arguments in a stratified order. How could you, when you are unfamiliar with my arguments?


Irrespective of whether or not you have better ideas floating around in your head, until you actually argue them in the debate, they're not arguments, and you cannot rely on us to believe that you have these ideas if you don't provide them.

The possessive pronoun "us" implies multiple persons, which seems inappropriate, unless your account is controlled by multiple people. I have argued my ideas in debate, therefore making them arguments according to your criteria, an example of which would be this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?213234-Economic-Calculation-The-Austrians-Failure) on the RonPaulForums.


So if it's a debate between you and, say, Zombie,

It isn't.


then you've definitely lost,

I haven't, since it isn't a debate.


by not providing any arguments beyond "it's stupid and somebody else said why so just go and research that or something because I can't be bothered to tell you why you're wrong because it's obvious and also you're all just 'socially retarded white nerds' and that's why you're wrong and everybody knows it so I don't have to explain why."

That isn't an argument or a pretension of one.


Sorry, but that's not how debates (or, in fact, even discussion) works.

This is partially an affirmation of my own sentiments, though discussion can work in such a way, when an individual wishes to lighten the mood of a discussion through humor, for instance. Debate is distinct from discussion in that sense.


Other posters on this thread have bothered to address the arguments made, demonstrate why they are wrong, and forward a logical counter-argument. Some have had more success at this than others.But at least they tried, rather than just coming in with some pointless ad homming.

Good for them.


The former counts as argument, and actually might have some impact in convincing people to change their views, or reevaluate their understanding. The latter does absolutely nothing, never will do anything, and, to be brutally honest, is a woefully immature approach to debate.

Not only would argumentum ad hominem statements be a "woefully immature approach to debate," they would be logically fallacious. Accordingly, I do not employ them when I am seeking to enter into or engage in a debate.


I suggest that you improve your techniques before engaging in debate again,

The phrase "engaging in debate again" implies that I was engaging in debate initially, which I was not. The fact that I did not quote any other poster, for example, should have been indicative of this, aside from the fact that I did not advance an argument to be attacked or refuted.


or at least have the courtesy of saying "okay, I'm sorry, I admit it, I wasn't even trying to engage in the debate, I only came here to make some childish antagonistic joke, and I acknowledge that my behaviour has not provided anything to this conversation."

Apology would indicate remorse on my part, and would therefore be inappropriate.


(The above also applies to you other ad hommers and quasi-trolls. You know who you are. It's clear that at least some of the ancaps in this thread were interested in mature debate, and it is only polite to match that)

If your objections to argumentum ad hominem logical fallacies are at all motivated by your aversion to personal attacks, it seems inconsistent and hypocritical to use descriptive labels such as "ad hommers" and "quasi-trolls" to refer to other posters on the forum. Why even bother with references to "quasi-trolls," in any event? Call someone a troll or don't, rather than beating around the bush.

[Ilyich]

"Anarcho"-capitalists do not seem to understand that under capitalism, the state is simply a tool used by the bosses to oppress the workers. It exists only to further the goals of capitalism. Capitalism without a state, would hardly be any different from our current system except "anarcho"-capitalism would be more naked than capitalism.

[palotin]

I selected the third option in the poll. That said, I do think that anarcho-capitalism 'makes sense', if by that you mean has an identifiable train of logic that can be followed to foreseeable results. If consciously embraced in full, it ultimately resolves itself in some form of what is popularly called Social Darwinism. This is somewhat ironic, because it also rejects society, as a legitimate subject of political concern and as an entity that partakes of some objective existence outside the minds of men. To the extent they are fully cognizant of what I take to be the nearly self-evident implications of their ideology, I have no problem grouping anarcho-capitalists into the same camp as fascists. They are the enemies of humanity itself.

[Misanthrope]

With no state, who enforces property rights?

Hired thugs, i.e. a privatized state. All in all, anarcho-capitalism is market worship. It's a blind faith. I've argued with too many of these ancaps and "libertarians". There is no use talking to them because they will always resort back to there made up axioms and bullshit theories.

[palotin]

There is a less than covert racism throughout the work of many anarcho-capitalists. Look at Rothbard's support for Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.

[ZombieRothbard]

Tell me this...why in Fascist third positionist economies has the state and free market always suppressed the unions?

In a third positionist economy you have private companies, the state and unions.
In every implementation with said economies creates a unity between companies and the state which inevitably ignore the union. From this playing field someone can easily see how capitalism is authoritarian by nature. Anarcho Capitalism is the equivalent of Libertarian Feudalism, with the respect that it doesn't exist. Also, if you actually observe different forms of socialism you can observe a change in nature. Whereas socialism looks quite different with a big state and without one, the nature of capitalism remains the same no matter how the government that is in charge.

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't support the elimination of the union, rather it supports a grass roots form of unionizing that doesn't require the state to use coercive violence on its behalf.

[ZombieRothbard]

Your accusation does not totter, let alone stand, since I did not make any arguments, and had no intention of making arguments in this thread, since I've been making arguments against pseudo-anarchism for years and repeatedly go through the same cyclical processes. So, since I did not make any arguments in this thread, you have no basis for determining that his arguments are better than mine, since you presumably have no exposure to or understanding of my arguments.

I believe anarcho-capitalism to be anarchistic, under my own definition of anarchism. However the fact that you don't believe it is anarchistic doesn't bother me, simply because in the end it is totally semantic. If I was an anarcho-capitalist purely because I wanted to be an anarchist, it might be a worthy point to argue. However I support anarcho-capitalism because I believe it to be the most effective and humanitarian social and economic system. I would much rather debate the merits of that, than debate whether or not it is actually anarchism or not.

[ZombieRothbard]

There is a less than covert racism throughout the work of many anarcho-capitalists. Look at Rothbard's support for Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.

Rothbard held many social views I don't agree with. If you read his core works and treatises however, you will discover that he completely separated his personal cultural views from his actual theory. This lack of overlap between the two basically shows that there is no connection between libertarianism and social conservatism, beyond the preferences of the individual. I personally happen to be far more culturally liberal than Rothbard, yet me and Rothbard would agree on almost all aspects of economic and social policy. That is the purpose of libertarianism, to allow different peoples of different cultural backgrounds to live together in peace.

[ZombieRothbard]

Something like Somalia in the nineties is the only thinkable consequence of "anarcho-capitalism" I can imagine.

Somalia actually improved after the collapse of their state in 91. Obviously there was civil war immediately following the collapse, but that is to be expected by an immediate and catastrophic collapse of a state. There is necessarily going to be a power vacuum. No rational ancap would argue that the state should just vanish tomorrow.

[ZombieRothbard]

They aren't. I simply haven't expressed my arguments against "anarcho-capitalism" because there is not a need, as that mythology has essentially been definitively buried by the writers of the FAQ, with no response from these pseudo-anarchists.

From what I see there has been a response. But even if there was no response, it wouldn't really definitively prove anything. Perhaps anarcho-capitalists are too busy with other things? Maybe nobody finds the criticisms stinging enough to warrant a response?

[ZombieRothbard]

Anarcho-capitalism is basically a Social Darwinist hell-hole. If you are "less able", then you would be mercilessly brushed aside by the iron logic of the Market. Anarcho-capitalism is to genuine anarchism what national socialism is to genuine socialism. The fascist scums in this thread should fuck off and go to hell.

Actually, as so many people in this thread have demonstrated, there is a deep rooted caring and compassion for the poor in our society. People are willing to throw heaps of campaign contributions to politicians to fix the issues like poverty. Basically what anarcho-capitalism advocates, is cutting out the political middle men who are typically thieves and liars anyways. Instead of donating all those millions of dollars to political campaigns each year, people would just donate it directly to the people who need it.

[ZombieRothbard]

I'm not sure there's any point in anarcho-capitalism. I mean I'm sure there are other ways of telling people you're an unlikeable pompous asshole with the basic humanity of a rabid baboon. That is the aim of it, right? It's not an actual thing that people think is it?

Perhaps your understanding of it leads you to believe it would result in income inequality and poverty, but the espousers of such a system like myself do not believe that at all. Your insinuation here is that anarcho-capitalists are inhuman based on their advocating of markets.

I could just as easily say the same about socialists of all stripes. I personally believe socialism and collectivism have lead to the worlds largest wars, the destruction and impoverishment of the third world, and the destruction of the environment. Yet even though I believe you and many of this forum to be some of the most fierce supporters of this inhuman system of destruction and coercion, I don't believe any of you to be evil or bad people for it. On the contrary, I believe you all to be well intentioned. I think the majority of you here have nothing but love in your hearts, and I respect that. I just disagree with your solution to the problems.

[Agnapostate]

However I support anarcho-capitalism because I believe it to be the most effective and humanitarian social and economic system.

That's what matters.


From what I see there has been a response. But even if there was no response, it wouldn't really definitively prove anything. Perhaps anarcho-capitalists are too busy with other things? Maybe nobody finds the criticisms stinging enough to warrant a response?

There have been responses to some aspects of this material that have themselves been responded to in turn with no further response, as far as I can determine, but the eccentricity of this pseudo-anarchism (not to make any comment as to its potential functionality; simply pointing out its current unpopularity), means that its proponents operate a primarily Web-based movement, so it does seem reasonable that they would be able to reply to online criticisms.

The term "anarcho-capitalist" is nonsensical entirely aside from the incompatibility of anarchism and capitalism; with the adjective "anarcho" modifying the noun "capitalist," the implication is that "anarcho-capitalists" are capitalists in the anarchist economy, which presumably everyone can agree that they are not.

[ZombieRothbard]

What I fundamantally don't understand about 'anarcho-capitalism' is this: do they think control of the means of production gives you power in society? If they do, how come they are allowed to retain the means of production, but we're not allowed to socialise it? How are they allowed a power over us, that we're not allowed to have over them?

Conversely, if control doesn't grant power, what's the problem with the means of production being socialised?

I don't think any anarcho-capitalists would force you to conform to their system. You would be free to create a socialized commune or collective or whatever you desire, so long as you do not attempt to enforce your system on others. It is true you may be forced to trade with free marketeers, but this shouldn't be any different than being forced to interact with people you aren't exactly favorable with on a daily basis. If you didn't particularly like black people, you wouldn't think the solution would be to force them out of society at gunpoint would you? That would be absurd. Instead you would preach tolerance, and likely education. The same applies here, it makes no sense to attempt to force free marketeers out of society at gunpoint when they are not harming you. If you believe that their beliefs are barbaric, you should intend on educating them in the error of their ways, not forced conformity. That is the same as intolerance is it not?

[ZombieRothbard]

That's what matters.



There have been responses to some aspects of this material that have themselves been responded to in turn with no further response, as far as I can determine, but the eccentricity of this pseudo-anarchism (not to make any comment as to its potential functionality; simply pointing out its current unpopularity), means that its proponents operate a primarily Web-based movement, so it does seem reasonable that they would be able to reply to online criticisms.

The term "anarcho-capitalist" is nonsensical entirely aside from the incompatibility of anarchism and capitalism; with the adjective "anarcho" modifying the noun "capitalist," the implication is that "anarcho-capitalists" are capitalists in the anarchist economy, which presumably everyone can agree that they are not.

Actually the movement isn't entirely web based. The Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/) has garnered a lot of support from libertarians across the country, including anarcho-capitalists. Some sub-movements to come out of the Free State Project are Free Keene (http://freekeene.com/) and Free Grafton (http://freegrafton.com/), which are mostly ancap.

There is also the Free State Initiative (http://freestateinitiative.org/) and Seasteading (http://seasteading.org/), which are supported by a combination of objectivists and ancaps.

There are also numerous side projects such as the Motorhome Diaries (http://motorhomediaries.com/), which was made up of ancaps and mincaps traveling the country talking to fellow activists across the states.

There are also things like Cop Block (http://www.copblock.org), which demand accountability from law enforcement personnell (Cop Block is almost exclusively ancap).

Adam Kokesh also just got a show on RussiaToday called Adam vs, The Man. Adam Kokesh is an ancap that most recently made national news with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI) act of civil disobedience. They are planning another dance for Sunday that has had over 1000 people pledging to go and dance at the Jefferson Memorial (last I checked, like a week ago).

There is a lot more I could link, but the point is, it isn't just an internet movement.

[Agnapostate]

Actually the movement isn't entirely web based.

Nor did I say it was. I stated that pseudo-anarchism was primarily Web-based.

[ZombieRothbard]

Nor did I say it was. I stated that pseudo-anarchism was primarily Web-based.

Anarcho-capitalism is the pseudo anarchism you were referring to correct? I just linked examples of real world activism.

[Agnapostate]

Anarcho-capitalism is the pseudo anarchism you were referring to correct? I just linked examples of real world activism.

I stated that the pseudo-anarchist movement was primarily Internet-based, not entirely Internet-based, so the links supported the strawman fallacy of "the movement isn't entirely web based." The evidence cited in favor of that statement also conflated the pseudo-anarchist and pseudo-libertarian ideologies, despite the fact that there is an important distinction in that pseudo-libertarianism has gained the veneer of mainstream respectability and protects orthodox neoclassical economic policy with pro-"liberty" rhetoric, as opposed to the more hardcore Austrianism of pseudo-anarchists. If there was a potential for implementation of "minarchist" pseudo-libertarianism or pseudeo-anarchism, it would not be supported by the likes of the Koch brothers and other capitalists that enjoy being shielded by this rhetorical front, given the destabilization of the capitalist economy that it would cause. The real question is whether this instability would bring about the establishment of fascism or socialism, as explored in this thread (http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/138374-socialism-fascism.html).

[ZombieRothbard]

I stated that the pseudo-anarchist movement was primarily Internet-based, not entirely Internet-based, so the links supported the strawman fallacy of "the movement isn't entirely web based." The evidence cited in favor of that statement also conflated the pseudo-anarchist and pseudo-libertarian ideologies, despite the fact that there is an important distinction in that pseudo-libertarianism has gained the veneer of mainstream respectability and protects orthodox neoclassical economic policy with pro-"liberty" rhetoric, as opposed to the more hardcore Austrianism of pseudo-anarchists. If there was a potential for implementation of "minarchist" pseudo-libertarianism or pseudeo-anarchism, it would not be supported by the likes of the Koch brothers and other capitalists that enjoy being shielded by this rhetorical front, given the destabilization of the capitalist economy that it would cause. The real question is whether this instability would bring about the establishment of fascism or socialism, as explored in this thread (http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/138374-socialism-fascism.html).

Despite your correct criticism of my useage of the word "entirely", I would still take issue with the idea that it is even primarily web based.

[Agnapostate]

Despite your correct criticism of my useage of the word "entirely", I would still take issue with the idea that it is even primarily web based.

Then adapt your arguments and evidence to support that stance instead.

[ZombieRothbard]

Then adapt your arguments and evidence to support that stance instead.

It is a bit irrelevent, but I think what I already posted shows that the internet is more of a tool used for real world activism than it is a place for ancaps to just discuss theory.

[Kiev Communard]

I personally believe socialism and collectivism have lead to the worlds largest wars, the destruction and impoverishment of the third world, and the destruction of the environment.

Uhm-m-m... Actually it was capitalist states and transnational corporations that were (and are) responsible for all of these things. "The destruction and impoverishment of the third world" were effected by mercantilist capitalist empires of the 16th to 18th centuries, with laissez-faire capitalist nations of the 19th century finally solidifying the Third World's subordinate position. "The world's largest wars" (you must have meant two World Wars) were both started and predominantly waged by capitalist regimes (if only you do not subscribe to "Hitler was a socialist" nonsense), and "the destruction of environment" was likewise predominantly caused by capitalist profitability imperatives. There is nothing here that could be attributed to socialist ideology.