Capitalism and the State.

[Andy Bowden]

Capitalists are against regulations and taxes which can lessen their profits, but support the idea of the state in terms of a check against any forces that could lessen their profits. For example, Capitalists are for lower taxes eg small govt - but supported military takeovers in places like Indonesia when their interest were threatened - authoritarian govt.


Surely therefore, Libertarians are misrepresenting their Capitalist heroes when they say they want to remove the state, and this is a part of Capitalist ideology?

[Publius]

Capitalists are against regulations and taxes which can lessen their profits, but support the idea of the state in terms of a check against any forces that could lessen their profits. For example, Capitalists are for lower taxes eg small govt - but supported military takeovers in places like Indonesia when their interest were threatened - authoritarian govt.


Surely therefore, Libertarians are misrepresenting their Capitalist heroes when they say they want to remove the state, and this is a part of Capitalist ideology?

I don't think you 'get' libertarianism.

We are NOT pro-business, we are anti-government.

I could really care less what big business wants.

Their interests are not mine.

I just want less government and more freedom.

[wm009]

Libertarians are just looking for the freedom to make their own choices. If they want to enjoy big business, than they have the right to do it. If they want to live off the land and smoke pot. They can do that too. Or if they want to create a communist society on a voluntary basis, they can do that aswell.

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 15 2005, 05:48 PM
Capitalists are against regulations and taxes which can lessen their profits, but support the idea of the state in terms of a check against any forces that could lessen their profits. For example, Capitalists are for lower taxes eg small govt - but supported military takeovers in places like Indonesia when their interest were threatened - authoritarian govt.


Pfffff, communists hate governments, but if they were in charge all countries would be purged from capitalists and we would happily live ever after in a world with no scarcity, ralph lauren, 50 cent etc.

Same argument.

[wm009]

Why would you force such a ideology on someone?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:47 PM
I just want less government and more freedom.
To make profits presumably, in which case you may rely on force to protect them?

[wm009]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 15 2005, 10:25 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 15 2005, 10:25 PM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 07:47 PM
I just want less government and more freedom.
To make profits presumably, in which case you may rely on force to protect them? [/b]
Since this idea of profits seems to be the motive for taking away people's rights. Ahhh If businesses are making such huge profits why don't you start your own business.

Here me out.
Let's say the business making 2 billion in profit.
What you could do is use a billion to pay your workers better, and since you're not concerned about profit, the other billion that would goto profits, would be just used from cutting prices. So you run the capitalist pig out of business, and workers get paid more.

Edit:
ahhh and ahh, If a business goes out of business, do you think the workers deserve a share of the debt, blame, lawsuits, etc?

[Publius]

To make profits presumably, in which case you may rely on force to protect them?

Government has a monopoly on (Rightful) force in a libertarian society.

[quincunx5]

Edit:
ahhh and ahh, If a business goes out of business, do you think the workers deserve a share of the debt, blame, lawsuits, etc?


The collectivists on this forum will never tackle this question.

[wm009]

I kind of got that when no one wants to seem to tackle any real life issues.

If the workers are the only driving force, than by the natural flow of the free market, the workers could create their own businesses, run by how the workers want it.

[Freedom Works]

Government has a monopoly on (Rightful) force in a libertarian society.
There could not be "government" in a libertarian society, because the "government" would be initiating force against "taxpayers".

[LSD]

There could not be "government" in a libertarian society

I've never understood that. I get minarchist libertarianism, but I can't even imagine how a capitalist society could function with no government.

How do ensure ...well...anything?

I mean, since capitalism, by definition, is predicated on property rights, without a state apparatus, who enforces them? Who makes sure that people respect the "property" of everyone else?

For that matter, who assures that people don't just up and kill each other?

And how about the "market" itself? How do you fight against fraud and deception if there's no impartial party? How do you stop another Enron or Worldcom from happening? I mean, fuck, they happened with government!

Without some sort of regulatory body, capitalism would tear itself to shreds.

[wm009]

I mean, since capitalism, by definition, is predicated on property rights, without a state apparatus, who enforces them? Who makes sure that people respect the "property" of everyone else?
The people holding the property enforce them.


For that matter, who assures that people don't just up and kill each other?


Society.


And how about the "market" itself? How do you fight against fraud and deception if there's no impartial party?
Through the magical power of boycot. And it's non-violent. Hip hip hooray!


How do you stop another Enron or Worldcom from happening?
Through learning from your mistakes of investing in shit. Next time you'll want to demand some more evidence.


Without some sort of regulatory body, capitalism would tear itself to shreds.
Market regulation is set by the consumer.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 02:23 PM

I mean, since capitalism, by definition, is predicated on property rights, without a state apparatus, who enforces them? Who makes sure that people respect the "property" of everyone else?
The people holding the property enforce them.
:lol: Direct coercive method eh? Hurray, welcome back feudalism; endless war in the streets and absolute chaos... the great new society!



For that matter, who assures that people don't just up and kill each other?

Society.

You mean like a governing institution or state? Maybe the indifferent free libertarians looking out for their own interests? Oh wait, no; they can exploit the situation also, because there is nothing to stop them.



And how about the "market" itself? How do you fight against fraud and deception if there's no impartial party?
Through the magical power of boycot. And it's non-violent. Hip hip hooray!


How do you stop another Enron or Worldcom from happening?
Through learning from your mistakes of investing in shit.

:lol: Funniest explanation ever! If your economy is completely corrupt and has no governing mechanism, just learn from it and invest elsewhere, in the society that is entirelyl based on those principles :rolleyes: Just clap your hands! Use your investment power to change the structure of the economy :lol:
Profit doesn’t motivate altruism; it motivates profit-seeking and so your method to correct corruption creates corruption.


Next time you'll want to demand some more evidence.

No; we need rational explanations and really I don't expect any from an ideological paradox.



Without some sort of regulatory body, capitalism would tear itself to shreds.
Market regulation is set by the consumer.

Ah; so consumers will have even less power over corporate power than now.
What a great step toward individual freedom!

[LSD]

The people holding the property enforce them.

Everyone?

What, with guns and baseball bats? Everyone hunting down their own criminals, shooting trespassers, beating up shoplifters, assaulting petty thieves?

That's not just vigilante justice, that's insane.


Society.

:huh:

You want to try and make that more vague?

Who in "society"? ...and how?

If there's no non-commercial entity, what's to stop the rich from killing their enemies by paying off enough people? If all security is on the market, then all security is on the market. Justice becomes a rich man's luxury.


Through the magical power of boycot.

Wow, talk about a non sequitur!

Yeah, you can boycott a company that you know is being fraudulant but how do you know? Without a body that has the authority to see records and investigate actions, there is no way to identify fraudulant business practices before it is too late.

Ever hear of insider trading?
Ever hear of "pump and dump" schemes?
Ever hear of "junk bonds"?

There are countless ways to "play" the system, without a government, there are millions more.


Through learning from your mistakes of investing in shit. Next time you'll want to demand some more evidence.

Like what?

Ballance sheets? Check.
Account information? Check.
Certification from a respected and trusted accounting firm? Check.

What more could investors have reasonably demanded?

Everyone doesn't have a degree in accounting, and almost no one has the time to investigate everything. In the end, the "market" is supposed to be based on trust, but how can you trust anyone if everything is for sale?


Market regulation is set by the consumer.

Which means what exactly?

How does the "consumer" "regulate" the "market"? How does he make sure that he is not being lied to?

[wm009]

Direct coercive method eh? Hurray, welcome back feudalism; endless war in the streets and absolute chaos... the great new society!

Don't violate me, and you're fine. Simple as that.


You mean like a governing institution or state? Maybe the indifferent free libertarians looking out for their own interests? Oh wait, no; they can exploit the situation also, because there is nothing to stop them.
No state. Since all interaction is voluntary, people may choose to boycot.


Funniest explanation ever! If your economy is completely corrupt and has no governing mechanism, just learn from it and invest elsewhere, in the society that is entirelyl based on those principles Just clap your hands! Use your investment power to change the structure of the economy
Profit doesn’t motivate altruism; it motivates profit-seeking and so your method to correct corruption creates corruption.

It's funny how you define a libertarian society will even use money. A libertarian society and a free market, aren't systems or defined societies. They're just free. If people choose to live together and work for one another and smoke pot all day long they can do that. If people choose to work for shitty wages, they can choose to do that too. It's really hard to answer those questions since they're like asking what the name of a street would be in one of these societies.


No; we need rational explanations and really I don't expect any from an ideological paradox.

The problem you seem to miss is when people enter into a voluntary noncoercive transaction the individual is completely responsible for his choice. If someone chooses to invest their money into a business without demanding evidence or reasonable proof, and they lose their money, I could care less. They were stupid and were not responsible. I have no interest in paying to protect idiots. Just like I have no interest in paying for some smokers cancer treatment. If you want to be a fuckin' moron, fuck up on your own dollars.


Ah; so consumers will have even less power over corporate power than now.
What a great step toward individual freedom!
Consumers have all control over corporations. I think you fail to see the corporations that make profits are the ones that have people on a voluntary noncoercive agreement, paying them. If you want to look at stateless free marketism, check out Somalia's telecom industry.


Everyone?

What, with guns and baseball bats? Everyone hunting down their own criminals, shooting trespassers, beating up shoplifters, assaulting petty thieves?

That's not just vigilante justice, that's insane.

It's black and white eh? Most people are respectful. I suggest you pick up a book on human nature. Something communists have never looked at.


You want to try and make that more vague?

Who in "society"? ...and how?

If there's no non-commercial entity, what's to stop the rich from killing their enemies by paying off enough people? If all security is on the market, then all security is on the market. Justice becomes a rich man's luxury
Simple. Competition.
I think you're implying things like money is god. Now, I don't believe this. But if you believe that, it's going to happen in any sort of ideology. So I won't waste my time.


Wow, talk about a non sequitur!

Yeah, you can boycott a company that you know is being fraudulant but how do you know? Without a body that has the authority to see records and investigate actions, there is no way to identify fraudulant business practices before it is too late.

You think money is god, so I won't get into third party idea.


Ever hear of insider trading?
Ever hear of "pump and dump" schemes?
Ever hear of "junk bonds"?

Don't invest, if you're afraid. If you're not getting the information you want, than don't consent.


Like what?

Ballance sheets? Check.
Account information? Check.
Certification from a respected and trusted accounting firm? Check.

What more could investors have reasonably demanded?

Everyone doesn't have a degree in accounting, and almost no one has the time to investigate everything. In the end, the "market" is supposed to be based on trust, but how can you trust anyone if everything is for sale?

If they don't have a degree, than don't invest. I don't know what an individual should choose to demand so they know a business is sound. How about a third party? But I won't get into that because you think money is god.
It's a voluntary contract, so if they invest knowing the risk, it's their own problem if things go wrong. But if things go right, they can have the profit from the risk.


Which means what exactly?

How does the "consumer" "regulate" the "market"? How does he make sure that he is not being lied to?
Consumer pays the business. Without the consumer, there is no need for the business. IE. Consumer regulates the business. And it can be verified through a third party. But you believe money is god, so I won't get into that.

But yet again, it's a voluntary contract. If people invest in a product/service knowning the risks, then it's their problem if things go wrong, but if it's great, they can enjoy it.

[LSD]

Most people are respectful.

But what about the ones who aren't? You know, criminals!

Again, do you advocate "vigilante justice" with everyone fighting off percieved criminals on their own?

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say! How would crime be dealt with, specifically? Here's a hypothetical: you're a shop owner, a kid comes in and grabs a pack of cigarettes and runs out without paying, what do you do?


Simple. Competition.

And how does that answer my question?

In case you forgot, it was "If there's no non-commercial entity, what's to stop the rich from killing their enemies by paying off enough people?"

If there are no police, no courts, and no laws, why can't I kill anyone I want to? If I an afford to protect myself, who can touch me?


But if you believe that, it's going to happen in any sort of ideology.

No, only in an ideology that actually has money.

As long as the economic system is predicated on the accumulation of material wealth, then, yeah, people's priorities will be the accumulation of material wealth. It's not about "human nature" it's about economics.

I mean, what are you claiming? That a for-profit corporation won't pursue profit? WHY??

If people need to have money to live, to eat, to have shelter, if the only way that they can get things that they want is to accumulate money, then they will accumulate money. If they're desperate enough or antisocial enough, they'll even do terrible things to accumulate it. That's something that we see every day. Organized crime is as old as crime, do you really think that it would stop if the government went away? If we take away its only opponent?

I mean, how are we even having this conversation? You want to keep private property, keep money, keep the market ...but not have any checks on it? You want to keep capital but remove law?

I'm trying to understand you, but honestly, you're not making any sense here!


How about a third party?

How about it?

We've already seen that commercial third parties are only as trustworthy as the checkbooks of their employers. Moralistic ideals about "human nature" aside, actual history teaches that private corporations seek to make profits ...that's kind of the point.

Just look at what happened with Arthur Anderson. A respected and trusted accounting firm helped perpetrate a major accounting fraud.


I think you're implying things like money is god.

You think money is god

But I won't get into that because you think money is god.

But you believe money is god, so I won't get into that.

What the hell are you talking about? :huh:

Where did I even imply that "money is god"?

[John Train]

wm009, If you don't know dick about anarcho-capitalism you really shouldn't be defending it. If you have so much faith in the free market and anarcho-capitalism at least spend a bit more time studying it's real life applications as outlined by David Friedman or someone else who knows what they're talking about.

[PeacefulRevolution]

Libertarianism does not advocate anarchism in any form. Anarchism is a collectivist idea. Libertarianism advocates a sound money system (i.e. the gold standard, or eliminating national currency altogether), low government interference in private companies, abolishment of the welfare state and the income tax, and ending the current imperialist policies of the United States. In doing this, businesses are able to thrive, and therefore they are able to hire more people at a higher rate. When government becomes uninvolved, the market is able to set an equilibrium price, and more people can live prosperously. The uneducated philosophy of communism is that all must live in near poverty so that there will be no homeless. Yet, there are still homeless in a communist society, because Communism is just Capitalism run by people with no konwledge of the market and consumer demands.Capitalism is based on self-reliance, independence, and freedom.

Libertarians know that the government is absolutely necessary, but should not interfere in the private lives of individuals as long as they are not doing harm to others. They believe in the abolishment of a central bank. How can you say you're against war, and then be for a central bank, which can printless trillions of dollars to feed the war machine? A central bank does nothing but contribute to imperialism and tyranny.

Communism is a philosophical idea, not a sound economic theory. It is the product of a few disgruntled working-class men who have been trapped by their own mistakes and no see no way to advance in society, and therefore feel that everyone should be miserable like them. Libertarianism is the tried-and-true philosophy of true capitalism, which is the best method of providing prosperity for the majority of citizens.

[graffic]

Since this idea of profits seems to be the motive for taking away people's rights. Ahhh If businesses are making such huge profits why don't you start your own business.

Here me out.
Let's say the business making 2 billion in profit.
What you could do is use a billion to pay your workers better, and since you're not concerned about profit, the other billion that would goto profits, would be just used from cutting prices. So you run the capitalist pig out of business, and workers get paid more.


Philanthropy is a good idea, but it doesn't work. Look at the millions of people starving around the world when at the same time there are millions of dollars/pounds/euros stored up, idly sitting in bank accounts preserving "security", status and power for a minority of people.

Transferring power from government to the corporations is just transferring power. It doesn't re-distribute power or give anyone more meaningful "freedom". It gives capitalists freedom to monopolize and tyrannize the majority.

[John_Jordan]

It's threads like this that make me wish I was a great speaker who could convince everybody to just get along. But anyway.


Philanthropy is a good idea, but it doesn't work. Look at the millions of people starving around the world when at the same time there are millions of dollars/pounds/euros stored up, idly sitting in bank accounts preserving "security", status and power for a minority of people.

Money in banks doesn't just "sit there". There is no vault where all the money you've ever put in a bank is there waiting for you. Banks take your money and then use it for things like lending and such. It's why they can afford to pay you crappy interest rates. So money you put in banks is not being idle, it's being used to create more wealth. Of course, almost none of the wealth created is directly for you. That's why you should probably do anything but put your money in a bank.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Too bad libertarians and anarcho capitalists don't support any form of the state. We don't worship the capitalists of today but instead see them as pests. Any capitalist who uses pull within the state is a state capitalist and is subverting the free market. We don't support them and we see them as crony capitalists and we are against them. People on revleft have misrepresented anarcho capitalists as corporation ass kissers. We aren't , we support the free market and if a capitalist uses the government to subvert that free market and to forcefully open markets then we are vehemently opposed to them. The mixed economies of today are disgusting and to say that we support the capitalists who benefit from having a state is dead wrong and pure ignorant.

[graffic]

Money in banks doesn't just "sit there". There is no vault where all the money you've ever put in a bank is there waiting for you. Banks take your money and then use it for things like lending and such. It's why they can afford to pay you crappy interest rates. So money you put in banks is not being idle, it's being used to create more wealth. Of course, almost none of the wealth created is directly for you. That's why you should probably do anything but put your money in a bank.

What I said was a bit generalized. I meant that the huge private fortunes and properties held by individuals are a testament to the failure of philanthropy. The Libertarian argument that charity will provide for the poor is sloppy and separated from reality.

[Nolan]

Too bad libertarians and anarcho capitalists don't support any form of the state. We don't worship the capitalists of today but instead see them as pests. Any capitalist who uses pull within the state is a state capitalist and is subverting the free market. We don't support them and we see them as crony capitalists and we are against them. People on revleft have misrepresented anarcho capitalists as corporation ass kissers. We aren't , we support the free market and if a capitalist uses the government to subvert that free market and to forcefully open markets then we are vehemently opposed to them. The mixed economies of today are disgusting and to say that we support the capitalists who benefit from having a state is dead wrong and pure ignorant.

I see your point.

But the fact is a great deal of libertarians are corporate ass kissers. Take the teabaggers for example, who yell "who is john galt?" whenever they bail out some corporation.

What is a "mixed economy?" That is a meaningless term. Every capitalist economy in history has been "mixed." The state was capitalism's womb.

[Comrade Anarchist]

I see your point.

But the fact is a great deal of libertarians are corporate ass kissers. Take the teabaggers for example, who yell "who is john galt?" whenever they bail out some corporation.

What is a "mixed economy?" That is a meaningless term. Every capitalist economy in history has been "mixed." The state was capitalism's womb.

First off the tea baggers are just racists and neoconservatives hiding behind libertarianism. Most economies in history have been mixed and this mixture has either subverted the free market allowing monopolies to form or the state has so heavily regulated capitalism that it doesn't grow.

[Nolan]

First off the tea baggers are just racists and neoconservatives hiding behind libertarianism. Most economies in history have been mixed and this mixture has either subverted the free market allowing monopolies to form or the state has so heavily regulated capitalism that it doesn't grow.

But you don't get it. There is no free market and never has been. It is just a theoretical concept. "Mixed" is meaningless here. Mixed with what? Find the thread "anarcho-capitalism vs. history of capitalism" or something like that.

[Comrade Anarchist]

But you don't get it. There is no free market and never has been. It is just a theoretical concept. "Mixed" is meaningless here. Mixed with what? Find the thread "anarcho-capitalism vs. history of capitalism" or something like that.

Communism is a concept and has never actually existed so does that belong here? Mixed economies are where a government and capitalism exist hand in hand and they have inevitably collapsed over and over again and have only lasted due to the governments ability to steal money to pay for them to survive.

[Nolan]

Communism is a concept and has never actually existed so does that belong here? Mixed economies are where a government and capitalism exist hand in hand and they have inevitably collapsed over and over again and have only lasted due to the governments ability to steal money to pay for them to survive.

*sigh*

My point is you can't "subvert" something that doesn't even exist. The state was capitalism's womb, and is the whole reason for what success it has. Trust me, without benefits given to corporations and imperialism....

And no, in bourgeois terminology a mixed economy is an economy that supposedly has features of western-style capitalism and "socialism" (meaning state control to them).

[Wolf Larson]

Too bad libertarians and anarcho capitalists don't support any form of the state. We don't worship the capitalists of today but instead see them as pests. Any capitalist who uses pull within the state is a state capitalist and is subverting the free market. We don't support them and we see them as crony capitalists and we are against them. People on revleft have misrepresented anarcho capitalists as corporation ass kissers. We aren't , we support the free market and if a capitalist uses the government to subvert that free market and to forcefully open markets then we are vehemently opposed to them. The mixed economies of today are disgusting and to say that we support the capitalists who benefit from having a state is dead wrong and pure ignorant.

You are lying. You advocate police, courts, military and other state functions. You advocate a privatized state only the wealthy can access in so further subjugating the working class under the invisible iron fist of the market. You cannot have a society of concentrated wealth without a state to protect and legitimize the mechanisms of wealth accumulation. In reality capitalism has always gone hand in hand with the state. Just because you insincere revisionists advocate a private state doesn't mean you don't advocate a state. Property or excluding the masses from equal access to the means of production [capitalism] cannot exist without a state.

[John_Jordan]

You are lying. You advocate police, courts, military and other state functions.

Are you trying to tell me that you don't advocate protection from plunder, murder, rape, etc, nor advocate a way to settle disputes between two people, nor a way to defend against organized aggressors?

[Skooma Addict]

You are lying. You advocate police, courts, military and other state functions. You advocate a privatized state only the wealthy can access in so further subjugating the working class under the invisible iron fist of the market. You cannot have a society of concentrated wealth without a state to protect and legitimize the mechanisms of wealth accumulation. In reality capitalism has always gone hand in hand with the state. Just because you insincere revisionists advocate a private state doesn't mean you don't advocate a state. Property or excluding the masses from equal access to the means of production [capitalism] cannot exist without a state.

What is your definition of a state? Any supplier of "state functions?" You can't just assume that your preferred conception of property must by necessity be adopted in the absence of a state. This cannot be known a priori.

[Comrade Anarchist]

My point is you can't "subvert" something that doesn't even exist. The state was capitalism's womb, and is the whole reason for what success it has. Trust me, without benefits given to corporations and imperialism....


Fee markets do exist even when the state exists, but when a state starts to creep in the free markets just become controlled markets. A free market is where the people choose by purchasing what products exist and what companies make. A free market corrects bad decisions by destroying capitalists who engage in them. Look at the last meltdown, companies bought into the housing bubble for money and lost b/c of the bad business decisions made. The bubble was a creation of the state and keyensian economics and some saw this, like the head of BB&T a randian by the way who used reason and didn't do stupid things and the company is fine. The market tried to correct the problem by destroying these companies and what happened... captain government came in and saved these companies and these companies accepted which subverted the market. The crash in 29 people made bad business decisions and the market corrected itself and the government stepped in and just prolonged the crisis which was only averted thanks to a war.

Capitalism on a worldwide scale is true competition. Things like imperialism are the state's doing. Imperialism is wrong, forcing markets open is wrong, and when this is done capitalists are feeding off the states morsels. When capitalists become to use to this they become state capitalists and that is why i am against all if not the whole economy of today, b/c it relies too much on the state.

Free markets exist and they work and they try to correct the market but they fail because they state steps in changing the landscape. In a world without the state bad business decisions will be next to none b/c there will be no safety net for companies to fall back on when the free market corrects them. You don't have to believe me but the fact remains true that government while government exists crony capitalism will exist both of which are negations of liberty and most be done away with for an anarchist world based on free market principles.

[IcarusAngel]

If I have a choice between corporation A and Corporation B how is that a free-choice? The government is merely contracting out the resources to "private" actors who rely on the government for protection of their property, their resources, their legal rights, and so on.

The idea of turning all power over to the corporations and businesses is absolutely ridiculous and thankfully most people reject your Randian statism.

[Comrade Anarchist]

If I have a choice between corporation A and Corporation B how is that a free-choice? The government is merely contracting out the resources to "private" actors who rely on the government for protection of their property, their resources, their legal rights, and so on.

The idea of turning all power over to the corporations and businesses is absolutely ridiculous and thankfully most people reject your Randian statism.

Companies that rely on the government have no right to exist. The fact that if people have earned something then they deserve it. The power in an ancap society does not go the corporations and big business b/c it goes to the people. The people control what goods are produced and what companies are doing by their purchases and investments. What businesses create better be what the people want or they will fail.

This idea that ancaps are advocating for a corporate state is just stupid. For one we advocate a society where the only authority over the individual is that individual. Next we want a society with a free market meaning competition and the easy ability if one works hard to succeed and to be rewarded for one's success. A state automatically cancels out liberty and if that came about we would rebel against it and not accept it no matter what is at the head.

[IcarusAngel]

It's not "stupid" because giving corporations unlimited property rights will ultimiately mean they will get bigger and bigger and start to monopolize industry. Since they are the only providers of the goods, people have to use what the corporations provide them, since it's nearly impossible to create when the best resources are already in the hands of the private companies.

And of course, corporations get property only by law. Otherwise, people within a corporations could take it over by organizing with other workers. You want the state to exist to prevent the workers from ever taking over business property, so you do want a state.

[John_Jordan]

It's not "stupid" because giving corporations unlimited property rights will ultimiately mean they will get bigger and bigger and start to monopolize industry.

I've seen this before, but I have yet to see how a company could realistically get "bigger and bigger" and "start to monopolize industry" in any meaningful sense, if the state was removed.

It is akin to the statist argument that without the state, any form of Anarchism will devolve into roving bands of looters and plunderers lead by warlords, with a few strong-holds here and there, up until somebody forms a state again.

We know that that's probably not true.

[IcarusAngel]

It's because in your system the state is never actually removed, it's assumed in your "axioms" that private warlords and private governments will protect the property of the corporations. This privatized capital IS A STATE, even by the admission of many Libertarians.

For example, the corporation can charge me rent, issue decrees on what I can and can't do on their property, and so on and so forth. This might vary from corporation to corporation, so it's really a series of states with different rules, but there is always the "universal principle" that you own property only by Libertarian definitions, not by socialist ones.

For example, what happens if people start declaring that all capital is to be in the hands of the workers? You call that a "state" when in fact it relies upon neither a state, nor a universal "axiom."

[John_Jordan]

It's because in your system the state is never actually removed, it's assumed in your "axioms" that private warlords and private governments will protect the property of the corporations. This privatized capital IS A STATE, even by the admission of many Libertarians.

So many things wrong with this paragraph.

I don't have a "system" other than "get rid of the state." I'm cool with whatever follows from that. If capitalism comes crashing down, that's perfectly fine. If it doesn't and some people still like it, that's fine too.

I don't know what you're talking about with "axioms" and private warlords and private governments. Certainly An-caps don't talk about private governments or private warlords.

And Libertarians (if you mean it in the average American way) are not An-Caps, so it really doesn't matter what they say.


For example, the corporation can charge me rent, issue decrees on what I can and can't do on their property, and so on and so forth. This might vary from corporation to corporation, so it's really a series of states with different rules, but there is always the "universal principle" that you own property only by Libertarian definitions, not by socialist ones.

This seems unfeasible to me. The only way this would work is if upon the collapse of the state, the former country was utterly swarmed with An-caps. Not just any An-caps, but selfish An-caps who only like Anarcho-Capitalism and so refuse to give any land for anything else. And even then, you'd have to assume they all disagreed with the idea of owning land through labour, which they don't all do. It's just radically unlikely considering the simple fact that there are not more An-caps than there are Anarchists whom use "socialist" definitions of property.


For example, what happens if people start declaring that all capital is to be in the hands of the workers? You call that a "state" when in fact it relies upon neither a state, nor a universal "axiom."


Please don't act like you know my views. I don't call that a state, and I still don't know what you're talking about with the word "axiom".

[RGacky3]

I've seen this before, but I have yet to see how a company could realistically get "bigger and bigger" and "start to monopolize industry" in any meaningful sense, if the state was removed.

It is akin to the statist argument that without the state, any form of Anarchism will devolve into roving bands of looters and plunderers lead by warlords, with a few strong-holds here and there, up until somebody forms a state again.

We know that that's probably not true.

If private property is still enforced. Then its easy, its easier to make money if you already have a lot of money, then when you have made MORE money, its easier to make even more, in relation to everyone else. Thats the nature of the free market. The more money you have, the more of the market you control, the more of the market you control, the more money you can make, thus the cycle. Now is that formula 100%? No, is it generally the case? Yes, is it enough the case to assume than an unprotected private property enforced society would degenerate into ologarchies and tyrannies? Most definately.


The power in an ancap society does not go the corporations and big business b/c it goes to the people WITH THE MOST MONEY (Who tend to also be big buisinessmen). The people WITH THE MOST MONEY (Who tend to also be big buisinessmen) control what goods are produced and what companies are doing by their purchases and investments.

I just fixed that for you.

[Wolf Larson]

What is your definition of a state? Any supplier of "state functions?" You can't just assume that your preferred conception of property must by necessity be adopted in the absence of a state. This cannot be known a priori.

Quite the pseudo intellectual semantics game. The state is the police, the military, the courts, the functions meant to attain, legitimize and enforce private property/a hierarchical social structure. Concentrated wealth [property/inequality] cannot exist without state functions which is why you advocate a private state. The masses of people cannot be excluded from having equal access to the means of life without FORCE. The state is force. You don't advocate anarchism you advocate authority, force, exclusion, inequality, theft, fraud and trickery. You advocate capitalism and capitalism cannot exist without a state which is why actual anarchists call you anarcho statists.

[John_Jordan]

If private property is still enforced. Then its easy, its easier to make money if you already have a lot of money, then when you have made MORE money, its easier to make even more, in relation to everyone else. Thats the nature of the free market.

Not according to anybody who studies economics it's not.


The more money you have, the more of the market you control, the more of the market you control, the more money you can make, thus the cycle. Now is that formula 100%? No, is it generally the case? Yes, is it enough the case to assume than an unprotected private property enforced society would degenerate into ologarchies and tyrannies? Most definately.

Because your basic assumption is flawed, everything that follows is flawed as well. It is not the case that it is easier to make money if you have a lot of money, all the time. While it may be easier to make money if you have a lot of money to a certain point, it does not continue forever. One can not reasonably expect to just gain money all the time, with it getting easier and easier.

[Comrade Anarchist]

It's not "stupid" because giving corporations unlimited property rights will ultimiately mean they will get bigger and bigger and start to monopolize industry. Since they are the only providers of the goods, people have to use what the corporations provide them, since it's nearly impossible to create when the best resources are already in the hands of the private companies.

And of course, corporations get property only by law. Otherwise, people within a corporations could take it over by organizing with other workers. You want the state to exist to prevent the workers from ever taking over business property, so you do want a state.

Holy fuck have you read one of my posts. No i dont want a state. Property is something that must be earned. You have to work for it. If i own a house, the day after the revolution it won't become the property of a corporation but will instead stay my property. Property is the right of the individual. If a corporation owns it then it has to have purchased it from a previous owner, it doesn't just magically all go to the corporations. If a company is already making a product and they are doing well then it would be stupid to try to get in on that market, so you go into a different market.

Workers work for a company voluntarily. How come next to nobody realizes that. If you don't want to work for a company then don't. Any good worker would realize that forcefully taking from somebody is wrong. In my belief unions are from a past age and have devolved into organizations seeking power over people. The whole idea that without the state society would collapse is stupid. We can see that a state is unnecessary if everyone is self governing. If workers think they are not being paid enough and they have a legitimate then they can create an organization to get that wage and once they do disband. Today unions almost serve no purpose. Workers are selling their labor in the free market and they do this voluntarily no state is needed. Corporations that rely on governments to protect them are corporations who are doing something wrong and they only need the law to protect them from the free market.

In a self governing, free market society, corporations and any individual gain property by trading currency for that property, nowhere in there does it say that the government needs to swing in and negotiate. All negotiations should be made between buyers and sellers, workers and employers, and so on, not by laws and government.

[John_Jordan]

Workers work for a company voluntarily. How come next to nobody realizes that. If you don't want to work for a company then don't. Any good worker would realize that forcefully taking from somebody is wrong. In my belief unions are from a past age and have devolved into organizations seeking power over people. The whole idea that without the state society would collapse is stupid. We can see that a state is unnecessary if everyone is self governing. If workers think they are not being paid enough and they have a legitimate then they can create an organization to get that wage and once they do disband. Today unions almost serve no purpose. Workers are selling their labor in the free market and they do this voluntarily no state is needed. Corporations that rely on governments to protect them are corporations who are doing something wrong and they only need the law to protect them from the free market.

I take issue with this. Going by your rules, if conditions were bad enough that employees organized, they would create was is essentially a "union". Once they got what they wanted, there is no reason why they would disband. In fact, it would probably be in some people's best interest to forever remain a part of said union. Said union would end up working like a company in its own right, selling collective labour and making sure that the workers are happy.

Or do you say this wouldn't happen? And if not, why not?

[Comrade Anarchist]

I take issue with this. Going by your rules, if conditions were bad enough that employees organized, they would create was is essentially a "union". Once they got what they wanted, there is no reason why they would disband. In fact, it would probably be in some people's best interest to forever remain a part of said union. Said union would end up working like a company in its own right, selling collective labour and making sure that the workers are happy.

Or do you say this wouldn't happen? And if not, why not?

I see what your saying. Let me change my position. If workers feel as if they are being oppressed they can try to organize and then the employer can fire them and hire someone who will work under those conditions. If no one will willingly work then he will go out of business or he can change it and keep the workers that he has. If workers legitimately feel oppressed then they can quit. That position seems harsher but the best.

[Demogorgon]

In a self governing, free market society, corporations and any individual gain property by trading currency for that property, nowhere in there does it say that the government needs to swing in and negotiate. All negotiations should be made between buyers and sellers, workers and employers, and so on, not by laws and government.
Who determines who owns what?

[IcarusAngel]

Holy fuck have you read one of my posts.[SIC]

Yes. And you are advocating statism. Who protects the "property"? The government does.

You basically want the government to contract out "property" to private corporations and individuals, so everybody else has to work for them. The state exists to manage the affairs of these capitalists. What you call for is statism of the worst variety.

Also, what you wrote is not a sentence.


No i dont want a state.[SIC]

Yes, you want a capitalist state.

Also, what you wrote is not a sentence.


Property is something that must be earned. You have to work for it.

How do you "earn" property? Why should everybody in the community be forced to accept your definition of property? Why can't people use resources in a cooperative fashion, and when it's noticed that a method is invalid, force the cooperative to change its production methods?


If i own a house, the day after the revolution it won't become the property of a corporation but will instead stay my property.

What manufacturing resources do you own? What "revolution" are you talking about? Who is going to carry out your "revolution."

You're not even forming coherent ideas.



Property is the right of the individual.

How is it the right of an individual to declare property "his" at the inclusion of everybody else? That is the basis of tyranny, not freedom.

Personal privacy is the right of the individual; if you declare acres of property yours with no reason, you're interfering with my right to even exist, since people need at least some land to survive.

Thus, everybody owns property, and it should be determined the best way to give everybody enough property that they need to live on.

And if property is a "right," that means everybody has a right to some property.

If a corporation owns it then it has to have purchased it from a previous owner, it doesn't just magically all go to the corporations. If a company is already making a product and they are doing well then it would be stupid to try to get in on that market, so you go into a different market. [/quote]



Workers work for a company voluntarily. How come next to nobody realizes that. [SIC]

Most people hate their jobs and would rather be doing something else. That clearly indicates most people don't "voluntarily" work for corporations, but rather they have no other choices, since corporations came to power by privatizing resources and preventing access to the resources humans need to survive.


If you don't want to work for a company then don't.[SIC]

You have to work job x in order to get resource y because resources are consolidated in capitalism. You only have the choice to starve to death or be forced to work for some corporation.

That is slavery, not freedom. Even the modern state gives us more freedom than your version of statism.


Any good worker would realize that forcefully taking from somebody is wrong.

Yes, that is why they should oppose capitalism, because workers do not receive fair wages for their work and their labor. They should instead own the capital collectively, and distribute it to every member as such.


In my belief unions are from a past age and have devolved into organizations seeking power over people. The whole idea that without the state society would collapse is stupid. We can see that a state is unnecessary if everyone is self governing.

Capitalism would collapse without a state. I don't care about your opinion on "unions."


If workers think they are not being paid enough and they have a legitimate then they can create an organization to get that wage and once they do disband. Today unions almost serve no purpose. Workers are selling their labor in the free market and they do this voluntarily no state is needed. Corporations that rely on governments to protect them are corporations who are doing something wrong and they only need the law to protect them from the free market.

Thar's unfair to the unions because corporations have all the legal and automatic rights in your system, and workers have none.


In a self governing, free market society, corporations and any individual gain property by trading currency for that property, nowhere in there does it say that the government needs to swing in and negotiate.

The government protects the currency and the property. Only the government could protect your version of "rights," otherwise other private corporations would have to do it, which is the same thing as a government since they are enforcing a very limited set of rights, like private property.

You basically want to tell everybody how to live, and how they can control resources, instead of allowing people themselves to determine these things through democracy and freedom.

You capitalist-statists HATE people, because people generally do not want pure free-markets and pure-capitalism, because they know how detrimental it is to society and they realize that capitalist "property" is exploitative and often comes at the expense of the public. The government has spent millions of dollars of tax payer money cleaning up corporate environmental waste, for example.

The free-market also isn't even as efficient as University or scientific research or other "group like" projects where resources are controlled democratically.


All negotiations should be made between buyers and sellers, workers and employers, and so on, not by laws and government.

All "negotiations" should be made by people working in a democratic and cooperative fashion, not under the auspices of oppressive laws and "free-markets" that you and other statists require.

[IcarusAngel]

I see what your saying. Let me change my position. If workers feel as if they are being oppressed they can try to organize and then the employer can fire them and hire someone who will work under those conditions. If no one will willingly work then he will go out of business or he can change it and keep the workers that he has. If workers legitimately feel oppressed then they can quit. That position seems harsher but the best.

Oh, so only you and John Jordan get to determine what workers can and cannot do based on your flippant opinions and illogical Misean axioms?

Ridiculous. No one wants to live under the tyranny of either one of you.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, you want a capitalist state.

Also, what you wrote is not a sentence.

AnCaps don't support a state. Shouldn't be that hard to grasp really.



How do you "earn" property? Why should everybody in the community be forced to accept your definition of property? Why can't people use resources in a cooperative fashion, and when it's noticed that a method is invalid, force the cooperative to change its production methods?

Should everybody in a community be forced to accept your definition of property? Should a community that overwhelmingly supports private property be forced to use resources in a cooperative fashion?



The government protects the currency and the property. Only the government could protect your version of "rights," otherwise other private corporations would have to do it, which is the same thing as a government since they are enforcing a very limited set of rights, like private property.

Not the same thing as a government. By the way who will enforce your conception of property in your ideal society?


Oh, so only you and John Jordan get to determine what workers can and cannot do based on your flippant opinions and illogical Misean axioms?

Ridiculous. No one wants to live under the tyranny of either one of you.


Again you show that you don't know what axioms Mises held to be valid.

[RGacky3]

AnCaps don't support a state. Shouldn't be that hard to grasp really.

What they don't want is a state thats accountable to the people equaly, they have no problem with institutions with ALL the powers of a state, only difference being they are in private hands.


Should everybody in a community be forced to accept your definition of property? Should a community that overwhelmingly supports private property be forced to use resources in a cooperative fashion?

No, but without a state, I guarantee you capitalist property would'nt be accepted.


Not the same thing as a government. By the way who will enforce your conception of property in your ideal society?


If the outcome for the people is the same, its the same.

[IcarusAngel]

AnCaps don't support a state. Shouldn't be that hard to grasp really.

Anarcho-capitalists support legal monopolies of land from private corporations. Most people would consider that a state except anarcho-capitalists.


Should everybody in a community be forced to accept your definition of property? Should a community that overwhelmingly supports private property be forced to use resources in a cooperative fashion?

No, I would allow communities to determine how property should be owned.

However, if they attempted to implement capitalism obviously they would end up with a state since capitalism requires a state to function.



Not the same thing as a government. By the way who will enforce your conception of property in your ideal society?


Again you show that you don't know what axioms Mises held to be valid.

Any assumption or unproven statement mises made is merely taken as an axiom by Mises' followers.

[Skooma Addict]

Anarcho-capitalists support legal monopolies of land from private corporations. Most people would consider that a state except anarcho-capitalists.AnCaps don't support monopolies.


No, I would allow communities to determine how property should be owned.

However, if they attempted to implement capitalism obviously they would end up with a state since capitalism requires a state to function.Alright, I think each community should get to decide as well. Capitalism does not require a state to function. It requires a functioning market. But this can exist in the absence of a government.


Any assumption or unproven statement mises made is merely taken as an axiom by Mises' followers.
Well, no. You must be unaware that many of Mises' followers and students disagreed with him on many issues.

[John_Jordan]

Oh, so only you and John Jordan get to determine what workers can and cannot do based on your flippant opinions and illogical Misean axioms?

Ridiculous. No one wants to live under the tyranny of either one of you.

What the heck are you talking about?

My involvement was simply an issue with how things should work given the an-cap rules that Olaf works under. It was not a suggestion that such was the only thing workers could ever do.



No, but without a state, I guarantee you capitalist property would'nt be accepted.

How can you possibly guarantee that? Such a guarantee is quite ridiculous. How do I know this? Because An-caps exist. It is thus quite clear that without a state, some people are going to accept "capitalist property".

And if you were right? Then what's the big deal? If you are correct, then An-caps agree with you on a fundamental issue, but are just confused on what would be done after the state is gone.


If the outcome for the people is the same, its the same.

Would you agree then that the arctic and a refrigerator are the same, because they have the same affect on a glass of water?

[RGacky3]

Would you agree then that the arctic and a refrigerator are the same, because they have the same affect on a glass of water?

TO the glass of water yes.

BUt thats a rediculous example, if your a tennant and a worker, and all the area where you live is owned by a Capitalist and your workplace, you essencially live in a Stalinist dictatorship. As far as the people are concerned its the same, unless you can show otherwise.


How can you possibly guarantee that? Such a guarantee is quite ridiculous. How do I know this? Because An-caps exist. It is thus quite clear that without a state, some people are going to accept "capitalist property".

I can guarantee that because its logical to conclude that no one would willingly deprive themself of something they need.