@Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists: How do you plan to abolish inequality?

[Questionable]

I see free market advocates all the time arguing that they stand for civil rights and liberties, but how do you plan to do such a thing be reinforcing the mode of production rather than abolishing it? Do you deny that social divisions based on race, gender, and sexuality have their roots in the capitalist mood of production? Do you believe the market will work it all out somehow? What's your plan?

Most of the social advances we see today had to be enforced (Though they were brought about by the masses) by a centralized bourgeois government rather than the states and businesses that opposed them. I'm aware that some business owners have supported civil rights but those were for individual reasons, there's really no reason from a systematic perspective (That I can think of) to want to abolish inequality when you can instead make a profit off of it. How will removing all state interference help the cause of civil rights?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Do you deny that social divisions based on race, gender, and sexuality have their roots in the capitalist mood of production? Do you believe the market will work it all out somehow? What's your plan?

fighting for civil rights isn't the same as abolishing inequality. Most, if not all the libertarians or ancaps I've encountered doesn't see it as much of a problem. Some also point out that those countries with the most "free" economy usually have less income inequalities.

[Questionable]

fighting for civil rights isn't the same as abolishing inequality.

The two are often deeply connected, but in that case, how do you do plan on fighting for civil rights?


Most, if not all the libertarians or ancaps I've encountered doesn't see it as much of a problem.

Being bourgeois ideologies, I can't say I'm too terribly surprised that inequality isn't worth their time.


Some also point out that those countries with the most "free" economy usually have less income inequalities.

Do you have any statistics for this that I can look at?

I'm aware that you're not a libertarian but since you're the only person who's answered on their behalf so far I'm asking you these things.

[Zukunftsmusik]

The two are often deeply connected, but in that case, how do you do plan on fighting for civil rights?

They're not deeply connected in the eyes of libertarians etc. I don't know why you're asking me, though. I would just fight for them, I guess? Through working class organisations etc or in the streets if necessary. But I don't think fighting for economic equality within the capitalistic system is fight no. 1.


Do you have any statistics for this that I can look at?

I've been shown the same statistics over and over again by some randian libertarian, but right now I don't have the link, sorry.

[GPDP]

When the fuck has a libertarian or ancap ever advocated the abolition of inequality? It's like asking the Joker what he plans to do to deal with the crime situation in Gotham.

[Sea]

Abolishing inequality in the eyes of the law? By abolishing the law.

But how do they plan to abolish inequality before the market? It's very simple.

They don't.


I've been shown the same statistics over and over again by some randian libertarian, but right now I don't have the link, sorry.
Next time you get that spouted in your face, say that it looks great on the paper but wouldn't work in practice. That should drive 'em mad. :D

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

For a short while I affiliated myself with the Libertarian movement and the idea of income inequality didn't find any relevance until I began drifting left. The folks who I talk with who still subscribe to these views either don't pay them any attention or somehow attribute inequality to regulations and an "unfree market".
These conclusions seem rather absurd. :confused:

[l'Enfermé]

People that post in OI are restricted socialists and non-restricted socialists, with only a very small amount of active anti-socialist posters(there's only one I know of that posts right now, baseballer). There's no point to this thread.

Anyway, the foundation of your question rests on the assumption that anarcho-caps and libertarians "plan to abolish inequality", which they don't.

[Robespierres Neck]

The libertarians/anarcho-capitalists I've talked to don't seem so concerned about abolishing inequality. In fact, the last conversation I had with one, she was telling me about how blacks are genetically unequal to whites, using Africa's government system as an example. I'm sure these viewpoints don't apply to all, but I've seen others defend eugenics and all sorts of other garbage.

[Revolution starts with U]

They don't.

But for rothbarders to claim those "freest economies" that are doing the best are anything they would support is ridiculous. Every single one of them has universal healthcare, education, and other proggressive social services.:rolleyes:

[Jason]

As Martin Luther King claimed, you can't end racial injustice without ending economic injustice. Libertarians and other conservatives under-estimate the role of economic factors in causing racism, assuming minorities can simply "tough it out" and "rise above the situation".



The libertarians/anarcho-capitalists I've talked to don't seem so concerned about abolishing inequality. In fact, the last conversation I had with one, she was telling me about how blacks are genetically unequal to whites, using Africa's government system as an example. I'm sure these viewpoints don't apply to all, but I've seen others defend eugenics and all sorts of other garbage.


In my experience, people don't do well academically cause they don't care. Your telling me the east-asian attitude about learning isn't a major factor? No, it's just thier natural genetic pre-disposition: I don't think so.

[AlmostAnCap]

'Abolishing' inequality is a fools errand because not everyone is exactly the same; there are inherent differences between individuals. This is what makes it of utmost importance that everyone is treated equally under the law.

However, I am firmly of the belief that state backed land cartels are a key cause of the current socio-economic climate which demonstrates a large amount of inequality. I think there are many ways to combat this, one of which is to collectivise land and thus enforce a system of rents so that the use of land is in effect marketised and becomes more fluid.

It would help spread wealth from already rich areas (which would have high land rents) to poorer areas (whose land rents would be lower) and fuel development in a completely natural way, without the need for government incentives and finance initiatives.

[#FF0000]

'Abolishing' inequality is a fools errand because not everyone is exactly the same; there are inherent differences between individuals.

People being different doesn't justify or mean that social inequality is necessary, though. Just want to point that out.

[AlmostAnCap]

People being different doesn't justify or mean that social inequality is necessary, though. Just want to point that out.

I fail to see how this is at all relevant. People being different is a fairly blatant observation. Treating people as equals (even when they are not) is going to lead to variations in outcome between each individual. This is unavoidable and completely amoral. To assign any sort of social judgement to it is a pointless exercise.

Do you have anything to say about the rest of my post?

[Jimmie Higgins]

'Abolishing' inequality is a fools errand because not everyone is exactly the same;This is a straw-man, because inequality as far as what marxists and (working class) anarchists reference it, is not persional or induvidual "inequality" or "differences" but structural inequality - something that is a natural result of capitalism, it's need to commoditfy everything and eliminate non-market avenues for self-sutainability, and it's pressures leading to the concentration of wealth.

In practice, how this unequal balence is maintained in specific capitalist states also includes inequalities brought about because of sexism and other forms of oppression within capitalist societies.


there are inherent differences between individuals. This is what makes it of utmost importance that everyone is treated equally under the law.The law in bourgoise societies is mearly "might makes right" but then written down. How "lawfully" were contracts made with indegenous people in the Americas?

Equal rights without equal power in society is meaningless. It's mearly cover for an otherwise unequal set-up.


However, I am firmly of the belief that state backed land cartels are a key cause of the current socio-economic climate which demonstrates a large amount of inequality. I think there are many ways to combat this, one of which is to collectivise land and thus enforce a system of rents so that the use of land is in effect marketised and becomes more fluid.What a wonderfully Orwellian use of language: collectivize means privitize in your formulation.


It'd help spread wealth from already rich areas (which would have high land rents) to poorer areas (whose land rents would be lower) and fuel development in a completely natural way, without the need for government incentives and finance initiatives.What "natural" geological event divides up land, creates fences and property lines, creates deeds and rents?

[AlmostAnCap]

This is a straw-man, because inequality as far as what marxists and (working class) anarchists reference it, is not persional or induvidual "inequality" or "differences" but structural inequality - something that is a natural result of capitalism, it's need to commoditfy everything and eliminate non-market avenues for self-sutainability, and it's pressures leading to the concentration of wealth.

I'm a free market advocate, the current capitalist system is completely broken due to vested interest in political circles favouring certain business models and corporations.


In practice, how this unequal balence is maintained in specific capitalist states also includes inequalities brought about because of sexism and other forms of oppression within capitalist societies.
The very fact you mention 'capitalist state' tells me you misunderstand me completely. The state should exist merely as a mediator and enforcer of voluntary contracts between consenting parties, and as a body to set and collect taxes based on any external costs for a particular economic transaction. The state itself should not be capitalist, collectivist or anything else. It should exist as an economic arbitrator.


The law in bourgoise societies is mearly "might makes right" but then written down. How "lawfully" were contracts made with indegenous people in the Americas?

Equal rights without equal power in society is meaningless. It's mearly cover for an otherwise unequal set-up.

Great straw man there. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have ever found any of this acceptable.


What a wonderfully Orwellian use of language: collectivize means privitize in your formulation.

What "natural" geological event divides up land, creates fences and property lines, creates deeds and rents?
Actually, the collectivisation of land means marketising it. The land cannot ever be owned, simply rented. From everyone else. The use of these land rents then being divided up amongst the whole population as a citizens dividend. Perhaps natural was a poor word to use. Maybe it would be more appropriate to describe the spread of wealth as a result of land rents as organic. Either way the exact terminology does not matter. The fact is I believe it is wrong for any person to claim land as solely there own when the land is not a product of their labour.

I don't understand your knee jerk reaction to privatisation, sure sometimes it leads to adverse effects. But the problem always stems from lack of market competition to the privatised good.

[#FF0000]

I fail to see how this is at all relevant. People being different is a fairly blatant observation. Treating people as equals (even when they are not) is going to lead to variations in outcome between each individual.

You made the jump here, from people being different to meaning people aren't equal. People can be different, with different skills, talents, physical attributes, etc., and equal.


Do you have anything to say about the rest of my post?

Nope.

[AlmostAnCap]

You made the jump here, from people being different to meaning people aren't equal. People can be different, with different skills, talents, physical attributes, etc., and equal.


Exactly, people have different traits and different abilities. They are not equal. My god father for instance is much better at working wood than I am, my housemate is better at maths etc etc We are not equal at these things. It doesn't matter if people are equal or not, saying so either way doesn't change anything. All that matters is that we are treated as equals, speculating about who is equal to whom is pointless.

[#FF0000]

Exactly, people have different traits and different abilities. They are not equal.

Nah, see you're not quite getting it. Saying "different people have different skills and abilities and traits" is different from "they are not equal" in a general sense.

You're right, though, that it is pointless to figure out who is superior, inferior, and equal, but probably not for the reasons you think.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm a free market advocate, the current capitalist system is completely broken due to vested interest in political circles favouring certain business models and corporations.Why is this and if you say "the state" it's a circular argument because then why is the state as it is?

You entire argument boils down to "what should be" vs. "what is" but unfortunately for your view "what is" is the RESULT and development out of what you claim "should be". Capitalism would have been so free if it hadn't been for the massive accumulation created by slavery and enclosures. The crimes of Capitalism or Stalinism for that matter is not because of the "state" in the sense that some bad people abused power for corrupt purposes - this is usually just a side effect of any sort of unaccountable system dedicated to keeping popular demands in check - but because a group of people in society need society to be ordered in a particular way to maintain their way of production in society. The capitalist state is not imposed over the market, it comes out of the needs of a profit-driven market society.


The very fact you mention 'capitalist state' tells me you misunderstand me completely. The state should exist merely as a mediator and enforcer of voluntary contracts between consenting parties, and as a body to set and collect taxes based on any external costs for a particular economic transaction. The state itself should not be capitalist, collectivist or anything else. It should exist as an economic arbitrator. Again "should" is meaningless. The USSR "should" have been a wonderful paradise, but it was a repressive exploitative machine. The question is why and in the case of capitalism and the USSR it was this way because of the classes in charge and what their interests in society were.

And your version of the "state" is also absurd on another level because what you describe is more or less what we have. Capitalist parlementary states seperate government power from economic power in order to allow some public participation, to a degree, but the genious of it is that the base of power in society (production, privitly owned) as well as the fundamental basis of actual state power (the military) are untouchable by popular demands (at least within the confines of the system).

Saying the state should be neutral while also ensuring capitalist relations remain intact, is contradictory -- it's not neutral, it's a "capitalist state" a dictatorship of the capitalist class.


Great straw man there. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I have ever found any of this acceptable.You don't have to philosophically agree with "might makes right" but this is how every power has ever operated. I am not trying to say what you believe, I'm trying to say how the world works from a historical perspective rather than the perspective of ideas.

The victors write the rules - then they write the history so it seems like "virtue" not direct force or economic compulsion cause things to happen as they did.


Actually, the collectivisation of land means marketising it. The land cannot ever be owned, simply rented. From everyone else. The use of these land rents then being divided up amongst the whole population as a citizens dividend. Perhaps natural was a poor word to use. Maybe it would be more appropriate to describe the spread of wealth as a result of land rents as organic. Either way the exact terminology does not matter. The fact is I believe it is wrong for any person to claim land as solely there own when the land is not a product of their labour.Ok, well I'm still not sure what you mean concretely. Do you mean nationalizing the land and then the government acts as the landloard but just puts the revenue from induvidual rents back into a general fund? Or do you mean something else?

How do you see this being accomplished? Are you talking about farming land or all real estate? If the latter is the case, then the same problems we have today will more or less be there, the market will just have been closed off from one area and those with control of capital will still have control over large parts of society through that since there are still costs to productive equipment etc that wage workers do not have economic acess to. And it doesn't do anything about the fundamental problem of capitalism which is the exploitation of labor which always behooves the capitalist class to need to control the population in order to maintain that explotive relationship.


I don't understand your knee jerk reaction to privatisation, sure sometimes it leads to adverse effects. But the problem always stems from lack of market competition to the privatised good.Privitization and nationalization are essentially neither here nor there in the abstract when it comes to capitalist/ruling class initiated privitization/nationalization. In specific contexts it does mean something - if mass protests had forced the government to nationalize banks rather than bailing them out, then that means something different than if Hugo Chavez nationalizes some company in order to help the local Venesuelan bourgeoise compete against US capital. But privitization generally means taking commons and putting it into the market (which often results in indigenous people or other semi-autonomous people being pushed out or forced to begin to sell their labor to capitalists because independant non-market alternatives have been closed off) or in places where that process has been completed, and more often in a modern context, privitization means turning the general funds (taxes or institutions created through taxation - as well as reform programs won through working class or oppressed people's struggles) over to privite capital - it's wealth redistribution by capitalists for the interests of capitalists.

[Czcibor]

As Martin Luther King claimed, you can't end racial injustice without ending economic injustice. Libertarians and other conservatives under-estimate the role of economic factors in causing racism, assuming minorities can simply "tough it out" and "rise above the situation".


AFAIK: The explanation on areas of libertarianism is I think the following: Let's say I hate some group.

If I shape influence policies through voting system, I can decide that I want them to be prosecuted. It wouldn't cost me anything, to vote so.

However, let's say that such person comes to me as prospective client, I can:
a) deny such person service and lose money;
b) hide my pride and prejudice and earn money.

In such case as long as my greed is stronger than my hate, then actually I would discriminate no-one. No altruism was required to combat discrimination, what's clearly a strong side.

I think that there could be pointed out minorities that like Jews or Asians that can thrive in western societies in spite of not being fully accepted. So at least hypothetically there was a chance.

[helot]

AFAIK: The explanation on areas of libertarianism is I think the following: Let's say I hate some group.

If I shape influence policies through voting system, I can decide that I want them to be prosecuted. It wouldn't cost me anything, to vote so.

However, let's say that such person comes to me as prospective client, I can:
a) deny such person service and lose money;
b) hide my pride and prejudice and earn money.

In such case as long as my greed is stronger than my hate, then actually I would discriminate no-one. No altruism was required to combat discrimination, what's clearly a strong side.

I think that there could be pointed out minorities that like Jews or Asians that can thrive in western societies in spite of not being fully accepted. So at least hypothetically there was a chance.

Except within the context of systemic racial discrimination it could easily harm profits to accept clients from that specific population. The whole "well a desire for profit would mean X or Y oppressed group will have access to produce from Z" is overly simplistic as the general population that endorses the added oppression could resent that they're allowed to frequent that establishment etc.

[Czcibor]

Except within the context of systemic racial discrimination it could easily harm profits to accept clients from that specific population. The whole "well a desire for profit would mean X or Y oppressed group will have access to produce from Z" is overly simplistic as the general population that endorses the added oppression could resent that they're allowed to frequent that establishment etc.May you show some example, where it could be profitable nowadays? I mean the only case which I can imagine, would be to have a pub for neo-nazis. In such case not allowing racial minorities would indeed be reasonable for business perspective. In all other cases (retail, banking services, hairdresser, legal advisory, whatever...) it would be automatically harmful for the proprietor.

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't you guys get it... it was ONLY because of government segregation that private segregation even happened...

nah, this guy probably believes no private segregation even happened.

[Czcibor]

Don't you guys get it... it was ONLY because of government segregation that private segregation even happened...

nah, this guy probably believes no private segregation even happened.
Technical question:
a) you really didn't understand my point (the key ideas are: nowadays and discriminating someone is against your own interest on free market)?
b) you just use a straw man fallacy for rhetoric reasons?

[Marxaveli]

May you show some example, where it could be profitable nowadays? I mean the only case which I can imagine, would be to have a pub for neo-nazis. In such case not allowing racial minorities would indeed be reasonable for business perspective. In all other cases (retail, banking services, hairdresser, legal advisory, whatever...) it would be automatically harmful for the proprietor.

Empirical statistics have shown that whites WITH a criminal record still have a higher chance for employment (after the application process) than minorities WITHOUT one. White are also paid more on the dollar, and more likely to be promoted to higher positions. Being black in America is the same thing as being a criminal in the eyes of many employers. It isn't profitable to be openly racist anymore, but it is a necessary division of labor to both protect private capital and the tradition of white privilege that has existed since the 1600's. Which is why we have symbolic racism now instead of slavery or Jim Crow. It is no coincidence that white males still occupy the bulk of all the top positions in society (and please don't even think about using the Obama argument - it is played out, and moreover, it is irrelevant in the big picture of things to begin with). It is also no coincidence that minority communities are policed more than white communities, and that the blacks make up a majority of the incarcerated population in America. These are not random arbitrary concepts that exist independent of our social organization, they are objective phenomena of capitalist social relations that result from the structural forces of its history.

[Skyhilist]

Their plan to abolish inequality is that they don't plan to abolish inequality, otherwise they wouldn't be capitalists.

[Czcibor]

Empirical statistics have shown that whites WITH a criminal record still have a higher chance for employment (after the application process) than minorities WITHOUT one.
May you link the statistics that you mentioned? (without being able to see numbers and methodology I can neither agree nor disagree)


White are also paid more on the dollar, and more likely to be promoted to higher positions. Being black in America is the same thing as being a criminal in the eyes of many employers. Two terms here:
-irrational believes (punished by market);
-rational simplification - there is simply in US higher crime rate among blacks, than among whites, so such assumption can be in tiny fraction reasonable


It isn't profitable to be openly racist anymore, but it is a necessary division of labor to both protect private capital and the tradition of white privilege that has existed since the 1600's. Which is why we have symbolic racism now instead of slavery or Jim Crow. May you express term "symbolic racism" in plain words, that can be understandable non-native speaker?


It is no coincidence that white males still occupy the bulk of all the top positions in society (and please don't even think about using the Obama argument - it is played out, and moreover, it is irrelevant in the big picture of things to begin with). It's not a coincidence - its merely an inertia. (family role models, cultural aspirations, money) In the same way in India Sikhs are overrepresented in military. Reason? In times of British colonization as part of divide et impera were recruited for army on mass scale, so over 60 years of independence they still serve in army more often than it should be expected from their share in society.


It is also no coincidence that minority communities are policed more than white communities, and that the blacks make up a majority of the incarcerated population in America. Isn't more crime commit a more reasonable explanation?
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/cvus/single_offender_victimizations694.cfm
(data gathered not from sentences, but from declarations of victims)



These are not random arbitrary concepts that exist independent of our social organization, they are objective phenomena of capitalist social relations that result from the structural forces of its history. So they do not exist in (real world) communist / socialist society? (assuming that such societies exist in real world and are not pure utopia)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Two terms here:
-irrational believes (punished by market);
-rational simplification - there is simply in US higher crime rate among blacks, than among whites, so such assumption can be in tiny fraction reasonableRacism is not always irrational when it comes to the market and has often been employed to supress wages or divide workforces; more recently, racist rehtoric and myths have been used to push cuts to social spending and "entitlements".

As for the second point, this is half true and half not. The first thing is that violent crime is generally segregated and people are universally more likely to be victims of crimes committed by people of the same ethnic background and more or less social status as well. It's true that there are higher reported rates of violent crime in poor black communities (as in poor white communities where whites victimize whites, native americans to native americans and so on), but there are also higher black victimization rates, so crime is more or less segregated. Then this being a "reasonable" rational for white assumptions about black criminality doesn't fit with actual experience.

What it does say, is that many white people (as well as people in general) have accepted this notion that black males are likely to be criminals, an assumption that comes largely from political arguments in society and representations in the news and entertainment media. But then that gets us back to the initial point: why are these ideas prevelent and often pushed from politicians and media figures?

The half true part comes in when we look at incarceration rates, which are undoubtedly higher for blacks. But this is largely due not to violent crime, but to drug offences. However when we look at drug use and selling in the US, that too is largely segregated and drug use rates are highest among whites: therfore more white sell drugs!

Furthermore, the "war on drugs" and a ramping up of convinctions and arrests, happened while most people in the US did not consider drug use or crime to be more imporatant than other issues, even crime-related issues. These policies began at the federal level years before crack and then the "crack epidemic" which then did convince many people to support the "war on drugs".

So again, it beggs the question, what is going on at the fundamental level where from the top of society Ronald "Government is the Problem" Regan use the federal government to superceede local law-enforcement to being a massive campaign that increased the size of prisons by a huge percentage at a time when most people did not consider drugs a problem? Why did Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton then massivly increase apon that and created even more strict sentancing that disproportianately hit poor and black people even as violent crime rates were rapidly declining?

There is no "reasonable" conclusion other than at the higest levels in our society there is an interest in demonizing black people and justifying the state of urban poor black people as their own fault, their own "unwillingness" to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". This goes for Obama who while trying to privitize public education and presiding over a recession that hit blacks harder than any other group in society, blames black fathers watching sports for lack of black kids going to college or getting well paying jobs.

Racism is a big ideological component of the "free-market" neoliberal project. It goes deeper than that, but we can start there.

[Unapologetic]

>Minarchists say the state is necessary to protect private property rights from roving gangs of mercenaries.
>Anarcho-Capitalists say the market will protect private property through roving gangs of mercenaries.

[freehobo]

When the fuck has a libertarian or ancap ever advocated the abolition of inequality? It's like asking the Joker what he plans to do to deal with the crime situation in Gotham.

Exactly. I'm a Libertarian and I believe that inequality is not only inevitable given that we are a competitive species, and in competitions there are winners and losers, but also desirable because competition is the fuel for innovation.