Anarcho-Capitalism [Archive]

IcarusAngel

4th March 2007, 00:24

Anarcho-Capitalism is certainly a false ideology that would never work. The word "anarchism" is used as an adjective that merely describes a "type" of capitalism -- a system that exists exactly because of government (protection of property rights, corporate charters, a monetary system, a judicial system to resolve contract disputes, and so on). "Anarcho"-Capitalism thus refers to a system in which large corporate oligarchies, protected by the government or private police, are free to run amok while humans (namely workers) themselves have to no rights unless they hold mass amounts of resources. Anarcho-capitalism is hierarchical, and certainly an "unjust authority" that real anarchists opposed.

Basically all it is is the system we have now, except with corporations etc. protecting the social order, rather than a government. Remember that anarchy is actually derived from Greek words that mean to "oppose authority" etc., not to support it. Real anarchists advocated a cooperative type system without hierarchy that was opposed to anarcho-capitalism.

"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history."
- Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky On Anarchism

"Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason." --Proudhon

See these resources:

Is anarcho-capitalism a type of anarchism? No (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secFcon.html) (From the excellent anarchist-faq).

Anarchism and "Anarcho"-capitalism (http://www.infoshop.org/append1.html)

[url=http://www.spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp000713.txtLibertarianism: Bogus Anarchy[/url]

Kropotkin Has a Posse

4th March 2007, 01:09

They've soiled the anarchist name, really. They also show outright their ignorance by stating that "anarchism" is compatible with an authoritarian economic system.

Anarchism can only be when there's an absence of hierarchy and the tools used to perpetuate it. Capitalism and social inequality in a society without national government would be even more painfull to the human condition than communism with national government has ever been, and that's saying something.

IcarusAngel

4th March 2007, 01:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:09 am
They've soiled the anarchist name, really. They also show outright their ignorance by stating that "anarchism" is compatible with an authoritarian economic system.

It's a "1984" tactic really. If you define all the words to your liking and remove any pretext to ideologies that challenge the fundamentals of your ideology (like anarchism and real socialism does), then you eliminate people's ability effective discuss politics.

It hasn't been so bad with "anarcho"-capitalism because most political scientists etc. still define anarchy as the real anarchy, the socialist variant, and anarcho-capitalism is not that popular, but there is obviously no doubt that the word "Libertarian" has been corrupted by capitalists.

Anarchism can only be when there's an absence of hierarchy and the tools used to perpetuate it. Capitalism and social inequality in a society without national government would be even more painfull to the human condition than communism with national government has ever been, and that's saying something.

Yes, of course. Many real anarchists referred to it as a type of socialism:

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

"It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic." --Joseph A. Labadie

"All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists." (Fischer)

"Is Socialism state-centralization of the economy, or is it any system that levels out the society? From what Ive been reading, it seems that for the early 19th-century intellectual, Sociology was any description of how the society did work, and Socialism was any PREscription about how the society SHOULD work.

By that definition, all anarchists were (and still are) socialists even the so-called Anarcho-Capitalists."--B. K. Marcus

Bakunin and Rocker said similar things as well.

colonelguppy

4th March 2007, 01:58

capitalism needs government like any other system. anarco-capitalism is stupid.

RedCommieBear

4th March 2007, 03:58

A more accurate term for anarcho-capitalism is anarcho-statism. The anarcho-capitalist conception of society inevitably leads to statism in the most barbarian way.

Let's say that suddenly we were thrown into an anarcho-capitalist society. The rich would start right way monopolizing land. Private mercenaries/armed forces would bring havoc upon the landscape, and getting in wars with each other over land and resources. It breaks down into a sort-of neo-fuedalist warlord system. In fact, many self proclaimed anarcho-capitalists don't even claim to be anti-government, and claim that the state will be replaced by "competing governments".

Genosse Kotze

4th March 2007, 04:11

It seems Corporations today are highly dependant on the State. Whenever sombody talks about the erosion of the welfare state, they are only looking at welfare for people--the welfare state for business is always being expanded. Every year we hear about an airline comany filing for bakruptcy and the government bails them out every time! Imagine if the government would save an actual family from going under like that! Also, in a Noam Chomsky lecture, he said that all of the companies in the fortune 500 listing have benifited from government subsidy. I think this anarco-capitalism is still a truly repugnant idea, but a gangster government that gives our money away to private interests is equally horrid. I'm not even going to try and play the 'lesser of two evils' game on this one!

OneBrickOneVoice

4th March 2007, 05:34

Anarcho-capitalism fails right off the bat. While Anarcho-Communism advocates a classless society which would not need a state, Anarcho-capitalism DOES advocate classes, yet no police to protect the bourgiousie from the masses and no government to stop an uprising. In fact, the fact that there would be no social services would make matters worse. What I'm getting at is that in class society, a state is necessary.

Zero

4th March 2007, 09:37

Anarcho-Capitalism:
http://www.turnaroundpro.com/images/head-in-sand.jpg

bloody_capitalist_sham

4th March 2007, 15:06

I thought the East India company was thought to have anarcho-capitalist kinda vibe to it.

Then again, it probably just read it somewhere on revleft :unsure:

EnragÃ©

5th March 2007, 00:07

the VOC was given the monopoly by the dutch state to exploit (later) Indonesia

how's that for anarchocapitalism :P

it eventually became bankrupt and was taken over by the state, who then eventually made Indonesia into a full colony

RedKnight

5th March 2007, 00:35

Seems like Anarcho-capitalism would lead to capitalizm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government

IcarusAngel

5th March 2007, 03:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:34 am
Anarcho-capitalism fails right off the bat. While Anarcho-Communism advocates a classless society which would not need a state, Anarcho-capitalism DOES advocate classes, yet no police to protect the bourgiousie from the masses and no government to stop an uprising. In fact, the fact that there would be no social services would make matters worse. What I'm getting at is that in class society, a state is necessary.
Actually anarcho-capitalists make it clear that they do support "interference" to stop an uprising or to prevent what they consider the "unjust taking of property" of one person from another.

Anarcho-Capitalism is, like most forms of Libertarianism that really began with Ayn Rand, based on self-ownership. You own yourself, you own the property you acquire through the market, and so on, and no one has a "right" to take it away from you. So if I start a business and some hooligans trash up the place or some competing company violates my property rights, the "anarchist police" would be justified in arresting the hooligans and I'd take the guy to court, which in anarcho-capitalism would be separate from the government (unlike in the US where the judicial system interprets the constitution).

So basically, they believe that other corporations will step in for the role of government, but you're right that this is still a system based on hierarchy, and it's kind of like a "caste system," which of course is also anti-anarchy.

They fail because they refuse to justify property as coercion (a people have a lot of property, they have power over other people's will), which it obviously is in most cases, and because they are attempting to attach a political system to a definition. It's quite clear now that in a capitalist system, it's quite easy for a few individuals to acquire land and resources they haven't really worked for, and monopolize it. In fact, a landowner is like a government (that's where the word "landlord" is actually derived from), and so anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than a collection of tiny governments.

I would like to note though that anarcho-capitalists do support some good things. There extreme anti-US government stance makes them oppose US imperialism (anarcho-capitalist journals even publish leftists on occasion) and restrictions against Civil Liberties (if they're done by the government) and so on. So they certainly aren't the worst form of rightist ideology.

In the Anarcho-Capitalst Faq (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm), there are quite a few things that I agree with.

Guerrilla22

5th March 2007, 10:18

Yeah they exist, the libertarian party in the US follows a lot of those ideals and yes they are full of shit.

Honggweilo

5th March 2007, 10:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:35 am
Seems like Anarcho-capitalism would lead to capitalizm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government
Anarcho-capitalism = (laisser-faire) capitalizm :rolleyes:

The only anarcho-capitalist (libertarian) i adore is Trey Parker :ph34r:

colonelguppy

5th March 2007, 15:47

Originally posted by ddxt301+March 05, 2007 05:32 am--> (ddxt301 @ March 05, 2007 05:32 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 12:35 am
Seems like Anarcho-capitalism would lead to capitalizm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government
Anarcho-capitalism = (laisser-faire) capitalizm :rolleyes:

The only anarcho-capitalist (libertarian) i adore is Trey Parker :ph34r: [/b]
you're joking, right?

Vargha Poralli

5th March 2007, 16:20

Originally posted by BCS
I thought the East India company was thought to have anarcho-capitalist kinda vibe to it.

It was Mercantile thing. If mercantile is Anarcho Capitalism then it is .

Zero

5th March 2007, 19:59

The East Indian Trading Company grew up in a feudal world where there was no such thing as "international law", and as they were fluid, they most likely didn't obey laws to the letter. However since they pleased the kings and swindled their money (willingly) so much I doubt they cared all that much.

Sure, it could be an example of Anarcho-Capitalism, but so could stone-age tribalism be an example of Communal living.

Janus

5th March 2007, 22:11

Most anarcho-capitalists oppose monopolies because they believe that it can only come about through government intervention. Thus, I don't think that the Dutch or British East India Company could be considered anarcho-capitalist as both of them were always protected by and helped by their respective governments.

wtfm8lol

5th March 2007, 22:18

Yeah they exist, the libertarian party in the US follows a lot of those ideals and yes they are full of shit.

libertarians advocate minimal government whereas anarcho-capitalists advocate no government. obviously they share some common ground but theyre still very different and so i dont see the point in your post.

Guerrilla22

6th March 2007, 09:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:18 pm

Yeah they exist, the libertarian party in the US follows a lot of those ideals and yes they are full of shit.

libertarians advocate minimal government whereas anarcho-capitalists advocate no government. obviously they share some common ground but theyre still very different and so i dont see the point in your post.
which is what I was getting at, libertarains follow this same sort of idea, regarding non-interference from any government in the market place.

colonelguppy

6th March 2007, 21:45

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+March 06, 2007 04:36 am--> (Guerrilla22 @ March 06, 2007 04:36 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 10:18 pm

Yeah they exist, the libertarian party in the US follows a lot of those ideals and yes they are full of shit.

libertarians advocate minimal government whereas anarcho-capitalists advocate no government. obviously they share some common ground but theyre still very different and so i dont see the point in your post.
which is what I was getting at, libertarains follow this same sort of idea, regarding non-interference from any government in the market place. [/b]
well that's not univiersally true, i would classify myself as one but i still think the government should step in when the benefits of doing so excede the cost.

Jazzratt

6th March 2007, 23:51

"Anarcho"-Capitalism is fucking terrifying. It concentrates all the power into anyone that's enough of a bastard to get ahead in free market. It is in the interest of humanity that any steps towards anything resembling the market envisaged by these fruitloops is violently opposed.

Rosa Provokateur

23rd May 2009, 04:06

Real anarchists advocated a cooperative type system without hierarchy that was opposed to anarcho-capitalism.

Always with the cooperative, what of the individual? All a collective is is many individuals in one place at one time; to ignore their own personal interests is harmful not only to them but to those around them. If they are not free to pursuit their own happiness then who is to decide what they should pursuit.

Havet

23rd May 2009, 13:13

Always with the cooperative, what of the individual? All a collective is is many individuals in one place at one time; to ignore their own personal interests is harmful not only to them but to those around them. If they are not free to pursuit their own happiness then who is to decide what they should pursuit.

Hey, what is wrong with either of them? They can both exist in anarcho-capitalism, so long as they do not enforce both systems into each other.

Their definition of happiness might also be to work toguether with others. hence, they are just as free to pursuit their happiness individually as collectively.

Just as an individual comes to own that which was unowned by mixing his labor with it or using it regularly, a whole community or society can come to own a thing in common by mixing their labor with it collectively, meaning that no individual may appropriate it as his own. This may apply to roads, parks, rivers, and portions of oceans.[/URL]

Example by Roderick Long:

"Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms — not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor — not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned."

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism#cite_note-32"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism#cite_note-Holcombe-31)

Nwoye

23rd May 2009, 16:11

you can't have capitalism (private property) without a state. it is in theory alone a contradiction.

Nwoye

23rd May 2009, 16:13

Example by Roderick Long:

"Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms — not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor — not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned."
i like this example. so tell me, if society as a whole (or a given community) creates something through their labor or general activities, it belongs rightfully to them?

Havet

23rd May 2009, 16:58

i like this example. so tell me, if society as a whole (or a given community) creates something through their labor or general activities, it belongs rightfully to them?

yes! in that specific example, the path belongs to them because it was not only one individual or a group of individuals that jointly created it.

However, the difference between what some communists advocate and what would happen in an ancap society is that there would be both communal and private property.

Robert

23rd May 2009, 17:01

Hayenmill, you have walked into a trap.

Nwoye

23rd May 2009, 19:15

yes! in that specific example, the path belongs to them because it was not only one individual or a group of individuals that jointly created it.
so how can one own land? specifically, how can one benefit from the value of a plot of land? they did not create that value. Rather, society as a whole did.

To illustrate, I'll give you a quote from Henry George's Progress and Poverty:

Take now the same man or another — some hardheaded business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: "Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city — in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will, in ten years, interest be any higher?"
He will tell you, "No!"
"Will the wages of common labor be any higher; will it be easier for a man who has nothing but his labor to make an independent living?"
He will tell you, "No; the wages of common labor will not be any higher; on the contrary, all the chances are that they will be lower; it will not be easier for the mere laborer to make an independent living; the chances are that it will be harder."
"What, then, will be higher?"
"Rent; the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession."
And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon, or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota to the wealth of the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion; but among its public buildings will be an almshouse.
So when you rent out or sell land, you are monopolizing the value of that land right? well where did that value come from? it wasn't from your labor, because you didn't make the land. But rather, it came from society.

As society becomes more complex, as population increases, as technology advances, as local, state and federal government invests in infrastructure, in education, in hospitals, in libraries, in public transportation and highways and airports, land values rise. The individual landowner (residential or commercial) doesn't have to lift a finger!
Why is land in times square valued so highly? Because of society's actions. Because they chose that place as the center of a bustling metropolis, and because it became a dense population center. It's not particularly valuable land in and of itself, but rather what society has done around it has created its value.

According to your logic (which i completely agree with) the benefit of the value of land should be shared by all society.

Stranger Than Paradise

23rd May 2009, 19:22

Havet

23rd May 2009, 19:45

so how can one own land? specifically, how can one benefit from the value of a plot of land? they did not create that value. Rather, society as a whole did.

In that case, the land belongs to the community which went by it everyday. It is they that should decide what to use it for. It was not society as a whole that created, only that group of people. If it were just one guy, which by taking longer time, had achieved the same result alone, then one could say the path belonged to him.

Take now the same man or another — some hardheaded business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: "Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city — in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will, in ten years, interest be any higher?"
He will tell you, "No!"
"Will the wages of common labor be any higher; will it be easier for a man who has nothing but his labor to make an independent living?"
He will tell you, "No; the wages of common labor will not be any higher; on the contrary, all the chances are that they will be lower; it will not be easier for the mere laborer to make an independent living; the chances are that it will be harder."
"What, then, will be higher?"
"Rent; the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession."
And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon, or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota to the wealth of the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion; but among its public buildings will be an almshouse.
So when you rent out or sell land, you are monopolizing the value of that land right? well where did that value come from? it wasn't from your labor, because you didn't make the land. But rather, it came from society.

That which you call the effort of society, the labor society has done, is actually the demand for the land. More people looking for a land in that area raises prices, because there are more people looking for a fixed quantity of land (for various reasons, mainly for the technological improvements you described).

Demand isn't an action, its an emergent property of value judgments and purchases. society isn't doing anything by "setting" demand.

Demand is set by individual actions in how the buy and sell goods.

Why is land in times square valued so highly? Because of society's actions. Because they chose that place as the center of a bustling metropolis, and because it became a dense population center. It's not particularly valuable land in and of itself, but rather what society has done around it has created its value.

According to your logic (which i completely agree with) the benefit of the value of land should be shared by all society.

Answered above. In a way, the benefit of the value of land is shared by all society. More demand raises prices for land, and there will be more people in the city, which in turn will allow more goods to be produced for more people.

Nwoye

23rd May 2009, 20:20

In that case, the land belongs to the community which went by it everyday. It is they that should decide what to use it for. It was not society as a whole that created, only that group of people. If it were just one guy, which by taking longer time, had achieved the same result alone, then one could say the path belonged to him.
okay. but now we're getting into the whole "mixing your labor" argument, one i don't want to get into just cuz it will take hours.

That which you call the effort of society, the labor society has done, is actually the demand for the land. More people looking for a land in that area raises prices, because there are more people looking for a fixed quantity of land (for various reasons, mainly for the technological improvements you described).

Demand isn't an action, its an emergent property of value judgments and purchases. society isn't doing anything by "setting" demand.

Demand is set by individual actions in how the buy and sell goods.
but with a normal commodity, value is added (more or less) through labor. i mold wood into a picnic table or chair, and i subsequently add value to it. because i created some new commodity (and therefore new value) out of my own labor, i get to reap the benefits from that value.

but land doesn't work that way. the value of land is determined externally, in the sense that it doesn't stem from its owner. from wherever that stems, in this case from society as a whole, is who should reap that value.

IcarusAngel

23rd May 2009, 20:50

Always with the cooperative, what of the individual? All a collective is is many individuals in one place at one time; to ignore their own personal interests is harmful not only to them but to those around them. If they are not free to pursuit their own happiness then who is to decide what they should pursuit.

I speak of cooperatives because they are the freest means possible of creating and establishing resources and ideas, much like in science and engineering. They are free for the individual, and they are free for society as a whole.

Capitalism is anti-individual because it tries to enforce a bunch of nonsense upon people that no logical person could agree to, like that I "own" all of an island because I claim I've mixed my resources with it. But why do I get to decide that I've mixed my resources with it? That should be subject to a community. Really, since there are so many people now, all land should be owned in common and the way construction could be done is by having people agree to it democratically. Or even better yet, resources could be constructed according to people's needs. In either system, of course, some people would become so infuriated that they wouldn't want to participate in the community, so they are free to create competitive communities. The point is no one would be able to create "monopolies" on land, except perhaps if it was absolutely needed, as anarchy would prevent the formations of massive hierarchies.

Corporations are also anti-individual because they come into existence through hand-me-downs and massive market manipulations, thus forcing people to have no choices when it comes to products.

In capitalism, the only way for progress to be done, however, is by using these corporations, but free-marketeers actually claim this progress is due to "capitalism" when it isn't - it's due to corporatism, and even fascism created many ideas that people still use without reflecting upon.

You support capitalism because you're anti-individual and believe that you aren't intelligent enough to be running your own life or governing your own resources, and that someone else must do.

May or may not be true, but there is no reason to assume that the majority of the population also needs these corporations to run their lives.

Robert

23rd May 2009, 21:14

But why do I get to decide that I've mixed my resources with it?

I won't try to argue the logic or morality of it, but ...

"The People" collectively have some share of the responsibility if they stand by and let you own this whole island, or 50,000 acres of undeveloped ranchland in west Texas, without protest. Or if they "let you decide" in the first place by failing to limit such exorbitant transactions.

To the extent that the community really needs that land or the petroleum underneath, and if it really wants the responsibilities that go with it, and wouldn't prefer that you "keep" it and continue to pay taxes on it at a rate that they decide, then there is a mechanism for expropriating it for the greater good, called, as you know ... expropriation.

Yes, I know, rich landowners have too many politicians in their pockets, but that's just an argument against unlimited campaign contributions and corruption, which can occur under any system.

New Tet

23rd May 2009, 21:23

In some sense, capitalism is anarchistic. That is, it operates as an individualistic system based on free competition private property and profit. The individual is elevated over the collective and most social issues are subordinated to the advantage of the few. That is why pro-capitalist speech elevates individual rights over those of society.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

23rd May 2009, 21:27

Anarcho-capitalism isn't as rationally bankrupt as we might think. The burden of proof is on us, honestly. Anarcho-capitalism is complete freedom without restricting the ability of individuals to form labor agreements.

Basically, it allows someone to agree to receive a lesser wage because without the doctor, they wouldn't have health care. It's not precisely a rejection of luck egalitarianism. Anarcho-capitalists know rich people don't have a meta-ethical justification for their wealth, necessarily. However, not allowing someone to gain the advantages of their personhood is still undesirable.

John Rawls makes a decent point. If paying doctors more money benefited everyone, because they wouldn't work as hard otherwise, wouldn't work at all otherwise, et cetera, it's not bad. Things in life aren't inherently bad just because they're unequal. We wouldn't be justified in genetically removing the intellect of some people and giving it to the stupid. So why infringe on the positive liberty of someone to make contracts based on their advantages?

There are ways out of this dilemma. It's just not as "easy" as people seem to think. Anarcho-capitalism is popular among academics because it justifies their inequality, for one thing. It's also popular because it's not as logically unsound as we might believe. Most political ideologies are possible. The political system we choose is often a matter of ethics rather than practicality.

Anarcho-capitalism allows individuals to gain advantages over others, and this can create inequalities. Inequalities in wealth allow the enforcement of agendas, and this is probably how the state arose in the first place. Robert Nozick has some legitimate criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. I'm not sure what the responses are to those. I don't spend my days reading anarcho-capitalist literature.

John Rawls' view of Justice as Fairness, and a restricted free market, is one of the greatest ideas I've encountered in political theory. I have suspicions that his support of a free market is unfounded. However, we need to come up with a systematic criticism of why any inequality is unjust, impossible, et cetera, or why complete equality is preferable.

Havet

23rd May 2009, 21:32

okay. but now we're getting into the whole "mixing your labor" argument, one i don't want to get into just cuz it will take hours.

but with a normal commodity, value is added (more or less) through labor. i mold wood into a picnic table or chair, and i subsequently add value to it. because i created some new commodity (and therefore new value) out of my own labor, i get to reap the benefits from that value.

but land doesn't work that way. the value of land is determined externally, in the sense that it doesn't stem from its owner. from wherever that stems, in this case from society as a whole, is who should reap that value.

point being? If land doesn't work that way, then land isn't a normal commodity. One can still add value to the land through labor, by building something on top of it.

in the same way, a rock can increase its value without anyone mixing its labor with it. So long as there is high demand and low supply, people who seek a rock (for example, gold, silver, precious gems, etc) will be willing to pay more and more for it.

To the extent that the community really needs that land or the petroleum underneath, and if it really wants the responsibilities that go with it, and wouldn't prefer that you "keep" it and continue to pay taxes on it at a rate that they decide, then there is a mechanism for expropriating it for the greater good, called, as you know ... expropriation.

again with the "altruistic" arguments...

Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another.

Yet what you propose is that some men sacrifice others in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize someone's property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask the victim to sanction his act.

IcarusAngel

23rd May 2009, 21:34

How are capitalist property relations "individual": they are based on the collective notions that I can sell enough resources to people to come to suceed in the market, and my "market property" is protected by some other collective entity, like a corporations. The burden of proof is thus on the anarcho-capitalist to show that there version of property rights works best for humans, which social science and the empirical evidence of history shows is not true. The whole problem of history is being declaring things to be their "property" and then fighting over them.

Corporations are also collective institutions. In English there are "collective nouns" and it is indeed true that collectives are a group of people exiting in a unit. In corporate philosophy, the individual is "put down" all the time.

True individualism is anti-capitalist.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secG1.html

Havet

23rd May 2009, 21:36

John Rawls' view of Justice as Fairness, and a restricted free market, is one of the greatest ideas I've encountered in political theory. I have suspicions that his support of a free market is unfounded. However, we need to come up with a systematic criticism of why any inequality is unjust, impossible, et cetera, or why complete equality is preferable.

there is a movie about such "perfect society", where everyone will be equal

2081 - Everyone Will Finally Be Equal (http://www.finallyequal.com/trailer.html)

Those who preach inequality keep forgetting there must be someone to enforce that equality, and that the enforcers are not equal precisely for that.

IcarusAngel

23rd May 2009, 21:39

You enforce equality because if you do not enforce it, inequality crops up, which necessitates unnecessary servitude. Even many economists agree that if there is competition, there should be "perfect competition" and that humans should act in their own self-interest so long as that self-interest also takes into account the concerns' of other people.

To argue against equality is to argue for private dictatorships.

Anarcho-Capitalist is merely a perversion of some philosophies of the social sciences.

IcarusAngel

23rd May 2009, 21:50

2081 - Everyone Will Finally Be Equal (http://www.finallyequal.com/trailer.html)

Those who preach inequality keep forgetting there must be someone to enforce that equality, and that the enforcers are not equal precisely for that.

That is based on a Kurt Vonnegut short story which was as much mocking America's percpetion of communism as it was any advocacy for capitalist thinking.

Also, people either oppose inequality in a community or they oppose it because it is an oppressive authority, like capitalism.

Havet

23rd May 2009, 22:41

That is based on a Kurt Vonnegut short story which was as much mocking America's percpetion of communism as it was any advocacy for capitalist thinking.

Also, people either oppose inequality in a community or they oppose it because it is an oppressive authority, like capitalism.

sure, they can stop inequality in their community, as long as everyone in that community agrees. As long as the community doesn't start forcing others outside of the community then fine by me

For those who are too lazy to watch the trailer, here are some main ideas:

Based on the short story Harrison Bergeron by celebrated author Kurt Vonnegut, 2081 depicts a dystopian future in which, thanks to the 212th Amendment to the Constitution and the unceasing vigilance of the United States Handicapper General, everyone is finally equal... The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains. It is a poetic tale of triumph and tragedy about a broken family, a brutal government, and an act of defiance that changes everything

No one is smarter than anyone else

No one is stronger than anyone else

No one is better. Everyone is worse

But in a world where the extraordinary is outlawed, only the outlaws will be extraordinary.

IcarusAngel

23rd May 2009, 22:57

Inequality is a force. That's what you don't understand. When you allow certain people to own massive amounts of property, he will necessary have more "rights" than other individuals, and will have more say in society and the government (which must exist to protect capitalism), and thus he has more power over individuals.

You actually think that the government funded and providing the protection for corporations is "free-market," and that ideas based off of the ideas of people who have existed in all kinds of systems are somehow all the product of some mythical "free-market," which doesn't exist and has never existed.

When early humans did exist, they didn't even work according to anarcho-capitalist principles, which is why so many anthropologists are either left or left-anarchist like the brilliant david graber, which is even more anti-capitalist.

You simply want others controlling your life because you don't think you can do it yourself.

Havet

23rd May 2009, 23:05

You actually think that the government funded and providing the protection for corporations is "free-market," and that ideas based off of the ideas of people who have existed in all kinds of systems are somehow all the product of some mythical "free-market," which doesn't exist and has never existed.

i never said i supported goverment fundings and protections...

You simply want others controlling your life because you don't think you can do it yourself.

I would argue it is otherwise, since you seem to want to restate that every sentence or so.

You're turning the physical nature of reality into an oppressor, so then you can blame it for your own failings. "don't like working? not good at making money? don't have any talents? its not your fault"

life would be fine if you werent forced to work. if you enter the world of work, and you're a failure, you're going to be disatisfied, because you're going to have a shit job and you don't have the ability to get a better one.

but its easier to blame "the system" than to blame yourself

then again, you don't actively blame the universe, instead you project that onto capitalists. since rich capitalists are the ones who have alll the jobs to give, then "its their fault for making you work for food".

This is why for you nature itself is coercion, because you are the victim of the universe, because you have to supply for yourself, follow a specific path, to get food to survive.

IcarusAngel

23rd May 2009, 23:35

LOL. Capitalism is not the way of the universe. You're the one trying to force to accept your absolutist nonsense upon others although I refuse and will continue to refuse it, because you do not understand that to me a landlord or the corporate overlords is, in fact, like a government, but maybe even worse, like a private tyranny such as colonial slave owners.

Take your linux example, for which you cited as an example of the genius of some reason even though you obviously barely know what it is. The reason Linux is not as competitive with MS and so on is because M$ refuses to open up its APIs to developers and show us how their applications are made thus making it more difficult to make software compaitible with each other. Furthermore, they have such a monopoly that they can easily require other companies to develop only for their standards such as Direct X 10 or something which is hellishly hard to implement on other systems. Thus all developers have a vested interest in only developing for microsoft. And it isn't just with apps and games but also with hardware, which must sign contracts with MS to not work with other operating systems. Apple is even worse than MS in some ways.

So, we see how the 'market,' once open and free, comes to be dominated and regulated by the corporations. Even hardward has to go through enormous amounts of corporate regulation to implement something other than an ATX motherboard for example and it's like that in all industries.

This has the effect of making alternatives suck and at the same time weakening the incentive to develop new ideas in the dominant corporations. Even many economists note market failures like these and intellectuals have written about stuff like this, such as the tragedy of the anti-commons.

I'm not saying that nature is oppressive. I'm saying that you trying to claim capitalists have a right to "own it all" just because they "mixed their labor with it." And given the amount of damage it has done to the environment it is clear which system is anti-nature - your system.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 01:17

How come you're an Anarcho-Capitalist? You were on this board long enough without getting restricted. What made you reject the idea of freedom in favour of slavery?

To the contrary, it was in freedoms favor that lead me to the capitalist economic.

I started thinking about my pay-check and the income tax that the State takes out of it; money I earned which I should be free to do as I please with was coerced from me to do God knows what with. Plus they went and took another chunk out for Social Security, in theory for my retirement but in reality for the retirement of others.

Then it hit me: why the hell am I paying for other people who should've been saving money for themselves instead. Why am I being extorted to support someone-elses irresponsibility. The State is shit on its own but then it deprives me of my pay-check? North Carolina just passed a state-wide ban on smoking and their pushing for the same here in Texas, what other property is the State gonna go after.

Fuck that. I want control over my paycheck to keep what I earn, I want to not have to pay for someone if I dont feel like it, and I dont want to have to live in fear of the State confiscating my private property or coercing my ability to use said private property.

FUCK OFF UNCLE SAM! LAISSEZ FAIRE!

gorillafuck

24th May 2009, 01:53

To the contrary, it was in freedoms favor that lead me to the capitalist economic.

I started thinking about my pay-check and the income tax that the State takes out of it; money I earned which I should be free to do as I please with was coerced from me to do God knows what with. Plus they went and took another chunk out for Social Security, in theory for my retirement but in reality for the retirement of others.

Then it hit me: why the hell am I paying for other people who should've been saving money for themselves instead. Why am I being extorted to support someone-elses irresponsibility. The State is shit on its own but then it deprives me of my pay-check? North Carolina just passed a state-wide ban on smoking and their pushing for the same here in Texas, what other property is the State gonna go after.

Fuck that. I want control over my paycheck to keep what I earn, I want to not have to pay for someone if I dont feel like it, and I dont want to have to live in fear of the State confiscating my private property or coercing my ability to use said private property.

FUCK OFF UNCLE SAM! LAISSEZ FAIRE!
You seem to be fine with the idea of hiring private police to protect private property. Though in this is a society many people cannot afford defense and there's nothing to protect them. So they're at the mercy of the ruling class, and therefore the ruling class becomes the state.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 02:02

Capitalism is anti-individual because it tries to enforce a bunch of nonsense upon people that no logical person could agree to, like that I "own" all of an island because I claim I've mixed my resources with it. But why do I get to decide that I've mixed my resources with it? That should be subject to a community. Really, since there are so many people now, all land should be owned in common and the way construction could be done is by having people agree to it democratically. Or even better yet, resources could be constructed according to people's needs. In either system, of course, some people would become so infuriated that they wouldn't want to participate in the community, so they are free to create competitive communities. The point is no one would be able to create "monopolies" on land, except perhaps if it was absolutely needed, as anarchy would prevent the formations of massive hierarchies.

Corporations are also anti-individual because they come into existence through hand-me-downs and massive market manipulations, thus forcing people to have no choices when it comes to products.

In capitalism, the only way for progress to be done, however, is by using these corporations, but free-marketeers actually claim this progress is due to "capitalism" when it isn't - it's due to corporatism, and even fascism created many ideas that people still use without reflecting upon.

You support capitalism because you're anti-individual and believe that you aren't intelligent enough to be running your own life or governing your own resources, and that someone else must do.

May or may not be true, but there is no reason to assume that the majority of the population also needs these corporations to run their lives.

The problem with communalism is that it has this insane idea of democracy, not everything can be democratic because democracy and liberty arent always the same. Example: it would be democratic if the community voted on how marriage is defined such as what happened in California but as we all know, theres no liberty in that if the individual doesnt decide for themself. As to a competitive community, wouldnt that be capitalist? Free market relies on competition does it not.

Bollocks! You dont have to buy the product if you dont like it. Consumerism is fundamentally democratic in that you vote via purchase; if you dont like how business is being done then you're free to give your money to a competitor operating more to your liking.

Partially true but only because the State provides them with so much finance. Eliminate the State and competitive free-market capitalism will thrive. Even today, despite the State, we are free to seek out small-business and independent alternatives if we're un-satisfied with corporate.

I support capitalism because I'm ultra-individual. From each according to his ability, to each according to his deed. Need is relative and no central authority is capable of deciding who needs what, when, and how much for how long. Its much more practical to put value on property, commodity, and labor because they're always desired and exchange can be worked out between the buyer and seller thus free trade.

Agreed.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 02:07

You seem to be fine with the idea of hiring private police to protect private property. Though in this is a society many people cannot afford defense and there's nothing to protect them. So they're at the mercy of the ruling class, and therefore the ruling class becomes the state.

I never said private police although I wouldnt object to the idea entirely; fences for one's land or an alarm for one's home are also available possibilities and lets not rule out the gun. Eliminate government spending and gun-control laws and money will be freed up to where most of the population can buy a fire-arm, thus eliminating defenslessness.

New Tet

24th May 2009, 02:08

How are capitalist property relations "individual"...

Corporations are also collective institutions. In English there are "collective nouns" and it is indeed true that collectives are a group of people exiting in a unit. In corporate philosophy, the individual is "put down" all the time.

True individualism is anti-capitalist.

I disagree. Capitalism is the most individualistic system yet devised; it's based on private property. The existence of corporations does not disprove that, in fact, because under capitalist law corporations are treated as individuals.

And here's another point I omitted from my first intervention in this thread: Capitalism is anarchistic because each capitalist entity is compelled to struggle against the other and because that competition drives them to outproduce the other with devastating results.

Capitalism is anarchy.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 02:11

You're turning the physical nature of reality into an oppressor, so then you can blame it for your own failings. "don't like working? not good at making money? don't have any talents? its not your fault"

life would be fine if you werent forced to work. if you enter the world of work, and you're a failure, you're going to be disatisfied, because you're going to have a shit job and you don't have the ability to get a better one.

but its easier to blame "the system" than to blame yourself

then again, you don't actively blame the universe, instead you project that onto capitalists. since rich capitalists are the ones who have alll the jobs to give, then "its their fault for making you work for food".

This is why for you nature itself is coercion, because you are the victim of the universe, because you have to supply for yourself, follow a specific path, to get food to survive.

Can you say "check-mate"? I think this round goes to hayenmill, bonus points for using a clear and consice argument:cool:

gorillafuck

24th May 2009, 02:25

I never said private police although I wouldnt object to the idea entirely; fences for one's land or an alarm for one's home are also available possibilities and lets not rule out the gun. Eliminate government spending and gun-control laws and money will be freed up to where most of the population can buy a fire-arm, thus eliminating defenslessness.
You think a person with a gun is capable of taking on thugs hired by the the bourgeois that were hired to kill union leaders (it's happened), etc.? Thugs who aren't obliged to obey any laws because the ruling class has the most power?

Or maybe when a poor girl is raped by a wealthy man with power and money on his side, how does she find justice? There would be no state so there are no courts or prisons to convict him with.

mykittyhasaboner

24th May 2009, 02:26

To the contrary, it was in freedoms favor that lead me to the capitalist economic.
Which is exactly where your theory falls flat on its head.

I started thinking about my pay-check and the income tax that the State takes out of it; money I earned which I should be free to do as I please with was coerced from me to do God knows what with. Plus they went and took another chunk out for Social Security, in theory for my retirement but in reality for the retirement of others.

Then it hit me: why the hell am I paying for other people who should've been saving money for themselves instead. Why am I being extorted to support someone-elses irresponsibility. The State is shit on its own but then it deprives me of my pay-check? North Carolina just passed a state-wide ban on smoking and their pushing for the same here in Texas, what other property is the State gonna go after.

Fuck that. I want control over my paycheck to keep what I earn, I want to not have to pay for someone if I dont feel like it, and I dont want to have to live in fear of the State confiscating my private property or coercing my ability to use said private property.Sure fuck that, but why do you want to be earning your living through wage labor? If your like millions of people in the US who live off their paycheck, you know that its probably not enough for your basic neccesities; that is because a 'paycheck' is a wage, and doesn't represent the full value of your labor anyway.

I completely agree on the fact that the US method of state intervention in economic proceedings is fundamentally flawed, in that it is a bourgeois state. However, getting rid of regulation and control isn't going to fix anything at all, in fact it would probably exacerbate the economic crisis and cause massive failure of business cycles to survive with out of course, a state to bail them out. I think its worth pointing out that such regulation was put in place, because of the instability of the capitalist business cycle around the time of the Great Depression. You rant on and on, about how the state does this and the state that and referring to all the negative aspects of it. But what about the massive industrialization and innovation of the American economy and infrastructure, as crude, malicious and as built on exploitation of worker's as it was; with out state intervention, the Reconstruction would have never been achieved, railroads, electrification, etc would not have taken place. It's absolutely correct to note that the American capitalist state (as well as most capitalist states) has out grown its potential for progression, and positive development for worker's struggles; but if it wasn't for past successes and current defensive of won struggles that got you that paycheck. Without the state laying down a minimum wage, 8-hour-work day, worker's compensation, sick days etc, working life would be a hell of a lot worse.

FUCK OFF UNCLE SAM! LAISSEZ FAIRE!Laissez-faire economics isn't to different from Uncle Sam, it is fundamentally based on private ownership of the means of production; there for its difficult for me to accept that restricting the unity of workers in their production and control, and keeping the division of labor nice and divided, that one could possibly pose the question of "is there relative freedom in this society." Of course their isn't, the wealth of a hypothetical 'anarcho-capitalist' society would be privately owned and controlled, hence there is no possible medium for workers, or simply anyone who isn't a wealthy businessperson, to effectively utilize their freedom of consumption and decision making.

In theory, if private ownership of the means of production could go along with solely voluntary association and un-regulation as you say, then how come this type of development (that is the consoldiation of wealth and prodcution in capitalist society) never gone along voluntary lines, in respect to the division of labor?

JimmyJazz

24th May 2009, 02:47

Fuck that. I want control over my paycheck to keep what I earn, I want to not have to pay for someone if I dont feel like it, and I dont want to have to live in fear of the State confiscating my private property or coercing my ability to use said private property.

You should be restricted to Learning, not OI:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Let us now take wage-labour.

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your [capitalists'] property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 02:52

I disagree. Capitalism is the most individualistic system yet devised; it's based on private property. The existence of corporations does not disprove that, in fact, because under capitalist law corporations are treated as individuals.

And here's another point I omitted from my first intervention in this thread: Capitalism is anarchistic because each capitalist entity is compelled to struggle against the other and because that competition drives them to outproduce the other with devastating results.

Capitalism is anarchy.

Firstly New Tet welcome to the forums. Secondly you're a bad-ass for that good of an argument. The one good thing the RCP ever printed was,

"Anarchy of social production is of the essence of capitalism" --http://revcom.us/a/v22/1070-79/1071/planning.htm

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 02:55

You think a person with a gun is capable of taking on thugs hired by the the bourgeois that were hired to kill union leaders (it's happened), etc.? Thugs who aren't obliged to obey any laws because the ruling class has the most power?

Or maybe when a poor girl is raped by a wealthy man with power and money on his side, how does she find justice? There would be no state so there are no courts or prisons to convict him with.

Well if the person is in a union they probably have other union members to back them up and, provided they're all armed, I see no problem.

The same can be said about communism supposing some Party leader where the rapist.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 02:58

You should be restricted to Learning, not OI:

That's all nice on paper but in practice I've yet to see communists that didnt confiscate property.

IcarusAngel

24th May 2009, 03:08

It's pretty clear by now that these guys are just trolls who have nothing better to do at the von Mises forum.

Yes, a corporation (or any collective entity) can be considered as one unit in English, taking a singular verb, and that corporations are considered "people" in capitalism, but they aren't actually people or persons, and they're certainly not individuals.

That's the worst argument I've ever heard.

As for the idea that we should be forced to work, if that's true that's like saying that Jews and political prisoners had to be "forced to work" in Nazi Germany and that this is "natural."

For a real natural rights approach, see Rousseau et al. who were not even pro-property, pro-tyranny.

gorillafuck

24th May 2009, 03:17

Well if the person is in a union they probably have other union members to back them up and, provided they're all armed, I see no problem.
Okay, I do see the possibility of the union killing the boss for justice. Though I also see the possibility of the boss just hiring more thugs and defense to protect himself (because he has more money)

Seems you've abandoned your pacifism:lol:

The same can be said about communism supposing some Party leader where the rapist.
I understand what you're saying there, I suppose.

Edit:
*what this guy said*
I'm a communist but even I see flaws in what you said here.

JimmyJazz

24th May 2009, 03:26

That's all nice on paper but in practice I've yet to see communists that didnt confiscate property.

sounds like you didn't even read it on paper brosiah

IcarusAngel

24th May 2009, 03:30

then again, you don't actively blame the universe, instead you project that onto capitalists. since rich capitalists are the ones who have alll the jobs to give, then "its their fault for making you work for food".

This is why for you nature

When a capitalist claims that humans have to work to survive, and because of this associates the average job of say working at McDonald's or a hardware store with the "state of nature," what he's essentially saying is that the capitalist's property is justified because people have to work to survive.

However, he never actually shows capitalism is natural, and if it was so obvious, then why do other natural rights theorists have different opinions than the capitalists?

There are far, far better arguments for capitalism than that it is an extention of nature, which it obviously isn't.

So where the the "flaws" in the argument?

gorillafuck

24th May 2009, 03:38

So where the the "flaws" in the argument?
Here...

As for the idea that we should be forced to work, if that's true that's like saying that Jews and political prisoners had to be "forced to work" in Nazi Germany and that this is "natural."
That's a terrible, terrible analogy.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 03:43

sounds like you didn't even read it on paper brosiah

So basically what you're saying is that buying and selling will be abolished and I wont be working for money. Then why would I bother to go if I'm not being paid?

I'd rather have cash to buy what I want instead of being given only what someone else has determined I need.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 03:50

Okay, I do see the possibility of the union killing the boss for justice. Though I also see the possibility of the boss just hiring more thugs and defense to protect himself (because he has more money)

Seems you've abandoned your pacifism:lol:

I understand what you're saying there, I suppose.

Whatever happened to collective bargaining? Besides the workers are always free to leave for a better employer, it's in the owner's interest to treat his employees well.

You have the RASH to thank for that, ass-holes jumped my boyfriend for passing out libertarian pamphlets.

IcarusAngel

24th May 2009, 03:51

It isn't a terrible analogy because people are forced to work under both capitalism and fascism - the corporations asked Hitler if he could use jews for the labor force and he said yes, much as workers are forced to work for the corporations, which become consolidated:

"In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proporition is the proletariat, the modern working class developed -- a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market."

--Communist manifesto.

"[The bourgeoisie] has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct brutal exploitation."
--Communist manifesto.

Really anarcho-capitalism is even worse than fascism. At least in fascism they had an interest in surviving, in capitalism, everybody becomes a slave of the bourgoisie, and racism is used to increace class divisions and thus to foster competition among them, lowering wages.

Marx was perhaps being a bit over zealous, but I agree with him and Chomsky and other anarchists who've noted pure capitalism would destroy society, which is not good. Only if you could show that capitalism is natural would it be faulty.

Anyway, the natural rights argument is so bad even many Libertarians have come to despise it:
http://www.fsbookco.com/MYTHOFNATURALRIGHTS.html

IcarusAngel

24th May 2009, 03:54

No, it won't stop bullets. It won't keep people from ripping-off your property. It won't even stop the government from putting you in a concentration camp, or executing you. About the only thing a "natural right" will stop is enlightened thinking on the ethics of liberty. Once you've read The Myth of Natural Rights, you'll be able to put those imaginary protectors of freedom back in the museums where they came from.

Libertarian scholars have had a difficult time being taken seriously in intellectual circles. There's a good reason for this. While they have gained recognition and acclaim for their staunch defense of the free market, compelling advocacy of civil liberties and devastating condemnation of interventionism, their stubborn reliance on the ancient myth of natural rights leaves them in philosophical disrepute. The doctrine of natural rights has persisted among libertarians, because there has never been a systematic and thorough critique of all it implies. Until now.

In one compact work, L.A. Rollins shatters the myth of natural rights, while exposing the "bleeding-heart libertarians" that promote it. With careful research and ample documentation, he shows that thinkers like Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Tibor Machan and Samuel Konkin not only violate reason and logic in their defense of natural rights, but also violate the standards they set for themselves.

Come on, Libertarians - knock it off and get real. Logic is not as big as big an enemy as you make it out to be.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 03:58

Really anarcho-capitalism is even worse than fascism.

Bullshit, when was the last time an anarcho-capitalist organized the murder of 6 million or started an international war? Hitler was anti-capitalist and fascism is the worst thing that can happen to a market.

We're not worse than them, we're their enemy.

gorillafuck

24th May 2009, 04:05

Whatever happened to collective bargaining? Besides the workers are always free to leave for a better employer, it's in the owner's interest to treat his employees well.
Actually, they are not always free to leave for a better employer. Some people just cannot afford to leave their job and other jobs may not be open. And without minimum wage those who work two minimum wage jobs to live are in even deeper shit.

And what are you talking about collective bargaining? I was referring to the situation of a union leader being killed, not bargaining with employers.

You have the RASH to thank for that, ass-holes jumped my boyfriend for passing out libertarian pamphlets.
I don't know who they are. That sucks that he got jumped, though:(

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 04:08

IcarusAngel

24th May 2009, 04:12

RASH (left-wing skins) had every right to attack a Libertarian for passing out their racist propaganda. Those kind of groups have made punk their own, it's for left-wingers, not fascists.

Anyway, I agree with Marx that capitalism is a very direct, and brutal exploitation: "a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital.." It's that simple.

This ideology actually has led to millions of deaths: the efforts to privatize the resources in Latin America: 20-30 million.

Sen estimated that the privatizion of resources led to millions of deaths in India.

Black Book of Communism places the number at 100 million who've died by capitalism, and, unlike the authors of the Black Book of Communism, the authors did not renege on their own arguments.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe and other Libertarians have talked about "purging" all communists, homosexuals, leftists, jews, and so on from society. Many Libertarians continue to promote racism, like Hoppe and Rushton, and Murray, and their organizations are funded by the radical right.

If Hoppe's ideology came into fruition it would be worse than Hitler (at least the fascists had self-preservations).

It is in the interests of the working class and all individuals to oppose capitalism vehemently.

IcarusAngel

24th May 2009, 04:13

Read Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz. His chapter What Rights Do We Have? can refute this.

I've already read Boaz. The man is a joke. His book that introduces Libertarianism could be refuted by any first or second year polisci student, such as his bizarre view of the political scale.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 04:15

I don't know who they are. That sucks that he got jumped, though:(

Red and Anarchist Skinheads. They're a gang of anarchists and communists and very aggressive when it comes to street-activism; my boyfriend was passing out pamphlets for the Libertarian Party a few weeks ago and he got jumped on the way to his car. They broke his left-arm and spray-painted a hammer and sickle on his back.

He's better and has a cast now but that plus the incident with my paycheck have basically alienated me from the anti-capitalist segment of radical politics.

The world is a scary place for gay capitalists:unsure:

IcarusAngel

24th May 2009, 04:20

gorillafuck

24th May 2009, 04:24

The world is a scary place for gay capitalists:unsure:
To be honest, someone passing out communist pamphlets would probably be more likely to get jumped than a libertarian.

Though that really does suck that that happened.

They should have stomped him out.
Ya, killing someone for being passing out capitalist pamphlets would surely advance the anti-capitalist cause in a time where anti-capitalists are already looked down upon.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 04:25

RASH (left-wing skins) had every right to attack a Libertarian for passing out their racist propaganda. Those kind of groups have made punk their own, it's for left-wingers, not fascists.

I know this is flaming but fuck you.

If free-speech is dangerous to you then what kind of revolution are you really after?

He was handing out materials on gun-rights http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=115 and I've heard alot of people here, from all spectrums, agree that gun-rights are a must. Unfortunately it took what happend to him for me to see that.

As for punk I'd say its for everybody who doesnt fit into the main-stream. The Ramones, the Sex Pistols, all those guys on the early scene werent political and I prefer that punk wasnt political. Its music, good music with people who enjoy it having fun. Its loud, its fast, it can be confrontational, but in the end is an escape; why kill it by making rules on who can and cant be part of it.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 04:29

They should have stomped him out.

If this story is true (and i'm not sure that it is) then the punks are just defending their community.

In capitalist thinking, the punks would just be defending their property:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

Capitalists take it even further, though. If someone even stumbles upon your property accidentally, Block believes you might be "threatening them" and thus they have a right to shoot you. It's all in that article.

Thanks Icarus, your compassion is over-whelming but I wasnt aware a public side-walk was skinhead property.

As for Block: did it ever occur to you that not all libertarians agree with eachother. We can be as diverse as communists can:tongue_smilie:

IcarusAngel

24th May 2009, 04:30

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 04:33

To be honest, someone passing out communist pamphlets would probably be more likely to get jumped than a libertarian.

Violence is violence but I wouldnt wish it on anybody. I remember one time a kid at my school, just a freshman, got beat up because he was passing out literature from the NSM's Viking Youth Corps. Resiliant though because he went and got a permit and kept on for the rest of the semester.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 04:47

Left-wing punks have made their own communities - they want to get away from corporate propaganda. Hopefully your friend learned his lesson, or he could go start shooting punks, but either way he's an idiot.

And punk has generally been anti-gun: Disarming the Violence is a compiliation of anti-gun material, a thrash band released a song calling for gun control, etc. etc.

Punk is not necessarily communist, I agree, but a hodgepodge of leftist ideologies.

Right. But when Libertarians disagree with each other they show what idiots they are - because they all claim they are absolutely right and no one else can be right, as Libertarians reject democratic decision making (like any totalitarian must).

Block, Hoppe, etc., are honest Libertarians. I'll give them that. Purging all homosexuals, communists, progressives from society is the only way Libertarianism could work, but unfortunately you'd be purging some of the smartest people around.

Shooting people on sight for tresspassing is also normal thinking for a Libertarian.

I mean punk in general; I dont like commies if they're gonna get their kicks beating the shit out of innocent people so let them have their scene.

Hitler was anti-gun too. You disarm the populous and we've got no defense from State opression. Better to be armed and not need it than to need it and not be armed.

Since when? We advocate personal decision making; freedom for the individual against tyranny of the many or tyranny of the few. Libertarians and totalitarians are COMPLETE opposites in every way, shape, and form. Nothing more to it.

How is replicating the holocaust making sure that libertarianism works? Thats like saying in order to make vegetarianism work you've gotta make cows extinct.

Normality is relative.

Jack

24th May 2009, 04:49

Red and Anarchist Skinheads. They're a gang of anarchists and communists and very aggressive when it comes to street-activism; my boyfriend was passing out pamphlets for the Libertarian Party a few weeks ago and he got jumped on the way to his car. They broke his left-arm and spray-painted a hammer and sickle on his back.

I lol'd, hard.

There's no room for reactionaries, scum get what's coming to them.

Verix

24th May 2009, 04:50

Bullshit, when was the last time an anarcho-capitalist organized the murder of 6 million or started an international war? Hitler was anti-capitalist and fascism is the worst thing that can happen to a market.

We're not worse than them, we're their enemy.

Accually hitler got the german captalists on his side by promising to make sure communism never happened in germany. also whats to keep the Medicine companys from flooding there drugs with herion and other additive drugs, meat companys from selling disesed meat, companys paying workers next to nothing , you really sould read the jungle by upton sinclair, it was what got me into socialism in the first place, because all that stuff happened in america in the late 1800s early 1900, and that wasnt even anarcho capitalism, remove any goverment regulation on business and not only do the workers suffer but the consumers too...

Jack

24th May 2009, 04:51

I mean punk in general; I dont like commies if they're gonna get their kicks beating the shit out of innocent people so let them have their scene.

Hitler was anti-gun too. You disarm the populous and we've got no defense from State opression. Better to be armed and not need it than to need it and not be armed.

Since when? We advocate personal decision making; freedom for the individual against tyranny of the many or tyranny of the few. Libertarians and totalitarians are COMPLETE opposites in every way, shape, and form. Nothing more to it.

How is replicating the holocaust making sure that libertarianism works? Thats like saying in order to make vegetarianism work you've gotta make cows extinct.

Normality is relative.

The only difference between pseudo-"libertarians" and statist totalitarians is that statist totalitarians want a monopoly of tyranny, and "libertarians" want to privatize it.

Jack

24th May 2009, 04:54

Accually hitler got the german captalists on his side by promising to make sure communism never happened in germany. also whats to keep the Medicine companys from flooding there drugs with herion and other additive drugs, meat companys from selling disesed meat, companys paying workers next to nothing , you really sould read the jungle by upton sinclair, it was what got me into socialism in the first place, because all that stuff happened in america in the late 1800s early 1900, and that wasnt even anarcho capitalism, remove any goverment regulation on business and not only do the workers suffer but the consumers too...

Don't forget how German capitalists profited off of cheap Jewish labor (see: Schindler's List), and how private enterprises were payed to maintain many concentration camps.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 04:58

I lol'd, hard.

There's no room for reactionaries, scum get what's coming to them.

That's no better than a nazi.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 05:03

Accually hitler got the german captalists on his side by promising to make sure communism never happened in germany. also whats to keep the Medicine companys from flooding there drugs with herion and other additive drugs, meat companys from selling disesed meat, companys paying workers next to nothing , you really sould read the jungle by upton sinclair, it was what got me into socialism in the first place, because all that stuff happened in america in the late 1800s early 1900, and that wasnt even anarcho capitalism, remove any goverment regulation on business and not only do the workers suffer but the consumers too...

The fact that a new Upton Sinclair could come along and report their findings. Sinclair proved that private investigation not only works but is more powerful than that of State law-enforcement. Report and people stop buying the product, thus putting the business out of the market and warning others not to do the same.

Rosa Provokateur

24th May 2009, 05:04

The only difference between pseudo-"libertarians" and statist totalitarians is that statist totalitarians want a monopoly of tyranny, and "libertarians" want to privatize it.

Yeah; what with our support of opening the border, legalizing pot, getting rid of gun-control, and legalizing gay marriage we've gotta be the most oppressive thing since Stalin:rolleyes:

Jack

24th May 2009, 05:11

That's no better than a nazi.

Neither are pseudo-"libertarians". We're not going to let reactionaries spread their bullshit, if it were a fascist we would do the same thing, probably worse. Your boyfriend (btw, since your a Christian and all that bullshit wouldn't being gay mean you are going to hell?) got off easy.

Jack

24th May 2009, 05:12

Verix

24th May 2009, 05:16

Yeah; what with our support of opening the border, legalizing pot, getting rid of gun-control, and legalizing gay marriage we've gotta be the most oppressive thing since Stalin:rolleyes:

All the while supporting companys like wal-mart who expolit workers in china because they only pay them like 5 cents a hour, while beliving that poor people sould starve becuase you want some new flat screen tv, while supporting a health care system that makes 1000s of poor die while the rich get special treatment and first piority so yea your right about that last part..

GracchusBabeuf

24th May 2009, 05:49

Thus we can see the sum total of the gay agenda involves foisting more government on society and more intervention in free enterprise. A libertarian is bound by political principle to oppose all of it. It is not the case that gays are threatened with violence from the State, and even those sodomy statutes that survive are not enforced. The threat to liberty runs exactly in the reverse. It is the gay lobby that is attempting to impose its will on bourgeois America by robbing them of their schools, their taxes, and their rights in order to subsidize a sexual preference. And they wonder why they are disliked by ordinary Americans!
From the "official" anarcho-capitalists (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/tucker8.html).

Every society and its institutions are intolerant of some sort of behavior. Unqualified toleration is not only nonsensical; it is impossible and lethal. A society’s toleration can be either coercive or non-coercive. Since coercion is the exclusive province of the state, the state’s intolerance is necessarily coercive. There is, of course – and there must be – a non-coercive intolerance: society can shun or frown on certain behavior or attitudes that it deems sinful, unjust or in some way inappropriate. Intolerance, whether coercive or non-coercive, always occurs in terms of a society’s or its institutions’ religious premises. A Christian society, for example, coercively refuses the toleration of murder, rape, and theft. To tolerate these acts would be culturally suicidal. A Christian society will, in addition, use non-coercive measures – by means of its families, churches, and other institutions – to express intolerance by frowning on and shunning liars, immoralists, con men, and so on.
More crap (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sandlin5.html)

More gems here. (http://www.google.com/custom?q=homosexuality&btnG=Search&hl=en&cof=L:http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewroc1a.gif;LH:93;LW:500;&domains=lewrockwell.com&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com&sa=2)

They seem as fascist as Nazis.:scared:

JimmyJazz

24th May 2009, 06:17

You know, the socialist (anarchist and Marxist) reply to right-wing Libertarian [sic] and anarcho-capitalist nonsense is really as simple as a single sentence:

"It [the public power] grows stronger, however, in proportion as class antagonisms within the state become more acute."
--Engels, as qtd. by Lenin in State and Revolution

I'm currently reading a book called The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier, and you can clearly see the truth of the above quote demonstrated in the economic history of the old American West. Why was the West so "wild"? Why was the state so weak there? It was because there was as yet no material reason for a strong state that stands above society and separate from it. Wage labor had not taken hold; free contracts were truly free (or at least much freer); economic transactions and property rights were to some degree still genuine community arrangements worked out by the actual people, the actual generation, that had to live under them. People do not naturally have any desire for a state that exists above them and with power over them. Without the economic necessity (irreconcilable class antagonisms), they won't need a state, and they simply won't have a state.

All varieties of revolutionary leftism, including Marxism, hold to a very strongly anti-state theory of the state. In fact, I would say that this is what distinguishes revolutionaries from reformists and liberals, who wish to hand even more power to the state in the process of alleviating some of the worst economic effects of class society. Revolutionaries recognize that the modern centralized state and its various armed goon squads are the political result of class rule just as much as material inequality between people is the economic effect of class rule. Reformists and liberals don't make that crucial extra connection between class rule and political outcomes.

Revolutionary leftism, by definition, always engages in a political attack as well as an economic one. That is, while attacking the power of the idle, exploitative capitalist class, it also (1) attacks the state by such measures as replacing representatives with recallable delegates, strictly limiting the salaries and powers of all public officials, abolishing the standing army, abolishing the police and prisons as such, etc.; and (2) builds a radical critique about the origins of the state (it arises out of irreconcilable class antagonisms in society).

Given how anti-state all varieties of revolutionary socialism are, it's actually odd that right-wing libertarians [sic] have spend little to no time engaging with the Marxist theory of the state. Perhaps this is because the *vast* majority of right-wing libertarians [sic] are complete fakers, have virtually no interest in true and radical liberty, and simply use anti-state rhetoric as a device when what they really seek is nothing more radical than dismantling the reformist liberals' social programs. Their vision is so limited and so not radical, that their only real quarrel is with, and their real enemies are, reformist liberals--not revolutionary socialists, whose thoughts about the state they have absolutely no substantive answer for.

Plagueround

24th May 2009, 06:32

The fact that a new Upton Sinclair could come along and report their findings. Sinclair proved that private investigation not only works but is more powerful than that of State law-enforcement. Report and people stop buying the product, thus putting the business out of the market and warning others not to do the same.

You mean Upton Sinclair the life-long socialist? :lol:

Stranger Than Paradise

24th May 2009, 09:51

I find this thread really hilarious. Green Apostle I don't believe this isn't just a big joke of yours. Can't you see that Capitalism is slavery. It is the domination of society by one class which acts as a dictatorship over the other. 'Anarcho'-Capitalism is the fullest expression of this slavery and domination. I hope you will see the light, but we can only have liberty WITH equality. There is no freedom for all without these two principles being the basis of society.

Havet

24th May 2009, 10:22

Havet

24th May 2009, 10:25

Stranger Than Paradise

24th May 2009, 10:39

The minute you try to enforce equality you are breaking other people's freedom. It cannot be done without harming liberty.

Freedom is established by breaking the power of the bourgeoisie, so yes, we are breaking their freedom to oppress the working class.

Havet

24th May 2009, 10:44

Freedom is established by breaking the power of the bourgeoisie, so yes, we are breaking their freedom to oppress the working class.

So you wouldn't consider a business owner a human with the same "natural rights" as his workers because he owned the factory and employed the workers?

Stranger Than Paradise

24th May 2009, 11:24

So you wouldn't consider a business owner a human with the same "natural rights" as his workers because he owned the factory and employed the workers?

Oh of course, I believe everyone does. But by destroying his power we are establishing a society which reflects this.

Havet

24th May 2009, 11:43

Oh of course, I believe everyone does. But by destroying his power we are establishing a society which reflects this.

The power he has over his factory is the same you have over a personal possession, like a banana. By destroying his power, and by taking your ideas to their logical extreme, you are implying nobody has a right to personal possessions.

Stranger Than Paradise

24th May 2009, 11:56

The power he has over his factory is the same you have over a personal possession, like a banana. By destroying his power, and by taking your ideas to their logical extreme, you are implying nobody has a right to personal possessions.

Ha. A factory is different from a banana. Factories should be owned in common by the community. So that everyone has the freedom to use them. Banana's are not social possesions used to produce. They are private possesions. The right to exploit workers is very different from the right to have a banana.

Havet

24th May 2009, 14:36

Ha. A factory is different from a banana. Factories should be owned in common by the community. So that everyone has the freedom to use them. Banana's are not social possesions used to produce. They are private possesions. The right to exploit workers is very different from the right to have a banana.

how is he exploiting them?

-Is he taking something off them that rightfully belong to them? No, in their contract, they have agreed to receive X dollars by performing Y actions.
-Is he directly or indirectly forcing them to work? No, they can leave at any time and engage in other activities they think are better for them. They have choice. I have already adressed this in other thread: They have choice to live by their own land (which in most poorer countries people have a lot), they have a choice to work until raising enough money to make a worker-managed business, they have a choice to work until they raise enough money to buy +50% of the business owner's factory, they have a choice to create their own communities where they can work without profit.
-Is he using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge? No, like I already said, the workers have agreed to be there by signing the contract. No bother coming with the argument that "oh they don't have a choice, it's either work or starve", well so does the business owner. If he doesn't hire any workers he won't produce, won't make profit and won't be able to make a living and survive as well. If you will, by your terminology, they are both enslaved by one another.
-Is he discriminating? That might happen, and during that time workers who feel they are being discriminated, if the conditions are unbearable and they cannot convince them by reason, should go on strike and demand better impartiality at the cost of lower production.

By the way, i agree bananas are not possessions that can produce. Perhaps it was a bad example. How about a motor, which produces mechanical energy. Would he have a right to that, then?

communard resolution

24th May 2009, 16:16

The Ramones, the Sex Pistols, all those guys on the early scene werent political

http://kanafilmes.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/993352giveemenoughrope.jpg

Nwoye

24th May 2009, 18:21

To the contrary, it was in freedoms favor that lead me to the capitalist economic.

I started thinking about my pay-check and the income tax that the State takes out of it; money I earned which I should be free to do as I please with was coerced from me to do God knows what with. Plus they went and took another chunk out for Social Security, in theory for my retirement but in reality for the retirement of others.

Then it hit me: why the hell am I paying for other people who should've been saving money for themselves instead. Why am I being extorted to support someone-elses irresponsibility. The State is shit on its own but then it deprives me of my pay-check? North Carolina just passed a state-wide ban on smoking and their pushing for the same here in Texas, what other property is the State gonna go after.

Fuck that. I want control over my paycheck to keep what I earn, I want to not have to pay for someone if I dont feel like it, and I dont want to have to live in fear of the State confiscating my private property or coercing my ability to use said private property.

FUCK OFF UNCLE SAM! LAISSEZ FAIRE!
what is the difference between a landlord and a state?

Nwoye

24th May 2009, 18:24

Kassad

24th May 2009, 18:31

I'm pretty confident that Green Apostle has turned into the most two-faced and indecisive member on this forum. I expect no less from Christians, however.

Anyway, I could post a nice long rant for all the children to see, but it isn't necessary. Anarcho-capitalism is refuted by a simple analysis. So say the state has been dissolved and everyone is individually sustaining themselves. Of course, they are under capitalism, where the means of production are owned by someone else. That means that they have to labor for someone else who owns the factories and the businesses. So the person laboring is a worker, whereas the person who owns is, well, an owner.

As we can see, there is now a hierarchy. Someone is above someone else. That means that there is different levels of social status, thus classes. Anarchism, as surreal and idiotic as I believe it is, is regardless, calling for the destruction of hierarchy and social exploitation. Anarcho-capitalism is totally self-defeating and contradictory because it inherently creates a class hierarchy and inevitably, the corporations and the owners that rise out of it will become a new state; different than the traditional republican governments. It will be a state of exploitation that is in control, thus it will become something so much like the current oppressive state that there would literally be no differences.

I feel totally justified in saying that Anarcho-capitalists are not only irrational, but totally decadent and ignorant people. There is no ideology of liberation. There is only the ideology of a state attained by different means; not through the elimination of exploitation however. Anarcho-Capitalism is like trying to put a guitar in a trumpet case. It's totally stupid, irrational and ignorant, as are all the people who support trying to establish it.

Stranger Than Paradise

24th May 2009, 20:32

how is he exploiting them?

-Is he taking something off them that rightfully belong to them? No, in their contract, they have agreed to receive X dollars by performing Y actions.

Yes he is. Because it says he should receive this much money in his contract doesn't mean what he receives is fair. The workers contribute to production, the bosses don't. Yet the bosses claim the fruits of the workers labour.

-Is he directly or indirectly forcing them to work? No, they can leave at any time and engage in other activities they think are better for them. They have choice. I have already adressed this in other thread: They have choice to live by their own land (which in most poorer countries people have a lot), they have a choice to work until raising enough money to make a worker-managed business, they have a choice to work until they raise enough money to buy +50% of the business owner's factory, they have a choice to create their own communities where they can work without profit.

The majority of people have no choice, why would millions of people choose to live in scarcity if they had a choice to live how they wanted?

-Is he using somebody against his will, or without his consent or knowledge? No, like I already said, the workers have agreed to be there by signing the contract. No bother coming with the argument that "oh they don't have a choice, it's either work or starve", well so does the business owner. If he doesn't hire any workers he won't produce, won't make profit and won't be able to make a living and survive as well. If you will, by your terminology, they are both enslaved by one another.

:lol::lol::lol:

By the way, i agree bananas are not possessions that can produce. Perhaps it was a bad example. How about a motor, which produces mechanical energy. Would he have a right to that, then?

I really don't understand the motor example. It depends on its function I suppose.

Jack

24th May 2009, 22:05

"Anarcho" capitalism can best be proven as not being anarchism through epistemeology.

The root of Anarchy is An-Archos, without-rulers (archons). How can you have An-Archy while still having Hier-Archy, because in anarchy there is no archy by definition, it is impossible to have anarchy and hierarchy and still be anarchist.

Havet

24th May 2009, 22:21

Yes he is. Because it says he should receive this much money in his contract doesn't mean what he receives is fair. The workers contribute to production, the bosses don't. Yet the bosses claim the fruits of the workers labour.

That's for the worker to decide. Bosses contribute to production. It is not ONLY workers who produce all labor. Who designed the machines? Who designed the factory? Who discovered the scientific principles which made all those machines and factory not fall appart? Who discovered more efficient ways of producing more with less effort in less time? Was it workers? Or were they discovered by engineers, scientists, architects, industrialists?

Why should the boss employ other people with no benefit for himself? Why should he provide others with the means to live while denying those means to himself? How do you expect a business to exist without profit? Who would make employment possible without capitalists?

Sure you can argue workers can organize themselves and run themselves the factory. That doesn't mean they have a right to steal it from the owner, who bought everything inside and made it possible for others to produce from it.

The majority of people have no choice, why would millions of people choose to live in scarcity if they had a choice to live how they wanted?

Why would you defend people stealing from others simply because they need it? When do needs end?

:lol::lol::lol:

If you want to know what would happen if there were no capitalists and business owners - stand on an empty stretch of soil in a wilderness unexplored by men and ask yourself what manner of survival you would achieve and how long would you last if you refused to think, with no one around you to teach you the motions, or, if you chose to think, how much your mind would be able to discover - ask yourself how many independent conclusions you have reached in the course of your life and how much of your time was spent performing actions you learned from others - ask yourself whether you would be able to discover how to till the soil and grow your food, whether you would be able to invent a wheel, a lever, an induction coil, a generator, an electronic tube - then decide whether men of ability are exploiters who live by the fruit of your labor and rob you of the wealth you produce, and whether you dare to believe you have the power to enslave them.

When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom your spend your time denouncing.

I really don't understand the motor example. It depends on its function I suppose.

the motor can be viewed as a factory. Something enters, something gets out. can the owner of the motor own it, even though he might hire other people to bring him petrol, or another fuel, to make the motor work?

New Tet

25th May 2009, 04:07

what is the difference between a landlord and a state?

The state is the executive committee of the class that includes landlords. IOW, the state is a socio-political institution; the landlord is a category of capitalist.

S.O.I

25th May 2009, 04:52

i see anarcho-capitalism simply as capitalism "without enforcement", that is the cappies with the most cappie controls basically everything.. so the term "anarcho" in this sence is perverted.

JimmyJazz

25th May 2009, 05:55

I have also read some of that book; it provides an interesting example of how protection agencies replaced state justice in many places during early America.

Yeah. The authors obviously aren't socialists (they probably have a sneaking affinity for anarcho-capitalism if anything), but I think their description of it is fair enough to make it worth a read for anyone interested in property rights. At least you can tell they aren't the kind of annoying asshats who would call for privatizing roads and such. Anyway, the book isn't really trying to prove a thesis about private property rights, it just tells a lot of cool stories. Given that I also like anything Western-related that isn't John Wayneified, I'm really enjoying it.

Plagueround

25th May 2009, 06:41

RGacky3

25th May 2009, 08:08

i see anarcho-capitalism simply as capitalism "without enforcement",

Which is an oxymoron and shows that Anarcho-Capitalists don't actually understand Capitalism.

Bosses contribute to production. It is not ONLY workers who produce all labor. Who designed the machines? Who designed the factory? Who discovered the scientific principles which made all those machines and factory not fall appart? Who discovered more efficient ways of producing more with less effort in less time? Was it workers? Or were they discovered by engineers, scientists, architects, industrialists?

Not the bosses, since when were engineers, scientists, architects and so on not workers? Also keep in mind that in modern engineering firms, the actual "engineer" boss, does very little comparative work compared to his underlings that do the bulk of the work and get a fraction of the compensation.

Also, if your theory is correct, your assuming that if today, in every single company, an election was taken as to what the bosses and workers compensations should be, and everyone, the managers, the workers, the boss, had an equal vote, that the boss would get the same compensation he gives himself.

Tell me you believe that.

That doesn't mean they have a right to steal it from the owner, who bought everything inside and made it possible for others to produce from it.

The only reason he bought it was because he had the money to buy it, which most likely (statistically) he did'nt work for, and because he has that money he's part of the ruling class which chooses what is produced for whome, and who works, so because he "allowed" people to work does'nt justify his power.

But I want you to tell me that you believe that if an election was taken in every single company as to what peoples compensation should be the compensation would be the same, as you implied in your post.

JimmyJazz

25th May 2009, 08:26

Many an inventor has died penniless after having their work stolen from big businessmen with volatile contracts and legions of lawyers, yet somehow the an-cap would have you believe these people are the bosses' ally in the fight against all those dirty parasitic workers.

An incredible amount of publicly paid-for inventions end up in private hands as well. Spinoffs from academic research, private research that was funded mainly by public grants, spinoffs from military research and things like the space program.

The anti-cancer drug Taxol, which was created and paid for by the public National Cancer Institute and then completely handed over to Bristol-Meyers Squibb--which now charges $6000 for three injections--comes to mind as a particularly disgusting example.

And federally-funded drug research and pharmaceuticals more generally. There's something truly wrong with a society that allows people to get rich off of cancer patients. But there's something exploitative about a s

Demogorgon

25th May 2009, 09:34

Further when it comes down to it, invention is frequently not associated with capitalists anyway. A great part of innovation comes from publicly funded Universities and research institutions. Further when corporations do do it, they are often being subsidised by Government in order that they minimise the risk.

A market system works by responding to demand and producing accordingly, but there cannot be demand for products that consumers do not yet know exist so businesses have no particular reason to innovate. They will innovate in directions they believe will lead to profit, meaning they will refine already existing products creating more and more advanced versions, but they will rarely take big risks and strike out with entirely new ideas. The computer for instanc ehas been refined by capitalist firms many times, but it was not invented by them or even on their money.

Havet

25th May 2009, 15:47

Honest question: Why do the an-caps always insist that inventors, engineers and the like are not workers? Many an inventor has died penniless after having their work stolen from big businessmen with volatile contracts and legions of lawyers, yet somehow the an-cap would have you believe these people are the bosses' ally in the fight against all those dirty parasitic workers. I imagine they would do even worse with a capitalism with no copyright laws.

I have never seen them insist they are not workers, nor have I ever insisted on that point. I also do not consider workers to be parisitic, nor business owners to be parasitic.Many libertarians actually advocate the elimination of Copyright Laws precisely because they protect big business unfairly.

This is an extremely one sided view of human progress. There were plenty of societies that were developing just fine until capitalists and business owners started showing up. I suppose this is the reason that you usually find ethnocentrism abound with the cappie types. They either don't want people to know or don't want to believe they weren't and aren't needed.

Who said anything about ethnocentrism? I agree there are many societies that managed to live and survive without any concept of reason and logic. You can see how well they did, even before any colonialists arrived. Many societies disappeared when they ran out of human sacrifices.

Not the bosses, since when were engineers, scientists, architects and so on not workers? Also keep in mind that in modern engineering firms, the actual "engineer" boss, does very little comparative work compared to his underlings that do the bulk of the work and get a fraction of the compensation.

Also, if your theory is correct, your assuming that if today, in every single company, an election was taken as to what the bosses and workers compensations should be, and everyone, the managers, the workers, the boss, had an equal vote, that the boss would get the same compensation he gives himself.

Tell me you believe that.

Fine, i'll accept your premise that I have unjustly implied engineers, scientists, etc are not workers as well. Still, that doesn't mean mental labor is less important than physical labor. Business owners themselves do a great amount of work in running the company, managing the assets, finding better more efficient ways of producing, reducing time in tasks, etc.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your election example. You seem to be implying that if they voted equally they would get the same pay they ahve now. What does that matter? They are payed more because there are less men able to do their work. Mental labor is more scarce than physical labor. That doesn't mean what worker's do doesn't require ability, but many times they just learn to perform an action and repeat it in an endless routine, which I think is a very unproductive way of managing workers, because if there was a system, inside the business, where the workers had incentives to add mental labor to their physical labor, then in the end everyone in the business would benefit from everyone's ideas.

The only reason he bought it was because he had the money to buy it, which most likely (statistically) he did'nt work for, and because he has that money he's part of the ruling class which chooses what is produced for whome, and who works, so because he "allowed" people to work does'nt justify his power.

Because you produced a motor doesn't justify your "power" over it? A motor can be viewed as a factory: The business owner "designed" the motor, and hires people to bring them the fuel to create mechanical energy.

Further when it comes down to it, invention is frequently not associated with capitalists anyway. A great part of innovation comes from publicly funded Universities and research institutions. Further when corporations do do it, they are often being subsidised by Government in order that they minimise the risk.

again with the bullshit reasoning: You give government credit for all the good things free enterprise achieved and whenever something that you don't like happens you blame it on the private companies...You just pick and choose from the scenarios that best benefit your arguemnts. I ahve already adressed this with another person who failed to recognize this same error. But I will place the same arguments for you to see:

Free market does not innovate?

Ever heard of Du Pont? (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont)

They are a chemichal company which invented:
-nylon
-teflon
-mylar
-kevlar
-neopren
-lycra

If monopoly is sooooooooooooo efficient, why doesn't government take over the internet? Why not take over google?

truth is, if government took over internet, forums like these, communist forums, would be forbidden by the government, and we would not be discussing this.

All of the important aeronautical work was done by private companies: boeing, de havilland, etc

Your automobile example is a typical fallacy. Because automobiles NOW have a lot of government intervention then than "must" mean they need government intervention, when in fact that argument is not logically consistent.

to give you an example, take safety belts

"
Edward J. Hock invented the safety belt first used by the Ford Motor Company (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company) as standard equipment, while he was on active duty with the military as a flight instructor. In 1955 his idea was accepted by the naval authorities, and Hock was awarded $20.50 for his invention. The original schematic and blueprints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint) shows that he utilized scrap parachute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute) strapping to implement his idea. He was never awarded anything other than the $20.50 award, a letter of recognition, a picture with military "brass", and a newspaper article to his credit.
The three point seat belt (the so-called CIR-Griswold restraint) was patented in 1951 by the Americans Roger W. Griswold and Hugh De Haven.[14] (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-13)
Saab (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab) was the first car manufacturer to introduce seat belts as standard in 1958.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-14) After the Saab GT 750 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_GT750) was introduced at the New York motor show in 1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became commonplace.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-15)
Nils Bohlin (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bohlin) of Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden) invented a particular kind of three point seat belt for Volvo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo), who introduced it in 1959 as standard equipment. Bohlin was granted U.S. Patent 3,043,625 (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=3043625) for the device.
In 1955 Ford (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford) offered for the first time lap belts as an option.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-16) In 1956, largely at the insistence of executive Robert McNamara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara), seat belts were offered for consumer automobiles within the "Lifeguard" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeguard_%28Automobile_safety%29) safety package.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-Johnson-17) The safety device was met with ridicule by others in the industry, but it caught on with the public.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#cite_note-Johnson-17) By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.
In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers."

By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.

and that ONLY In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers.Legislation followed innovation.

Dust Bunnies

25th May 2009, 15:50

I'll put my position on Anarcho-Capitalism simply: you like it? Go live in Somalia for a week and tell me how it is.

Nwoye

25th May 2009, 16:32

The state is the executive committee of the class that includes landlords. IOW, the state is a socio-political institution; the landlord is a category of capitalist.
but both consist of an individual or group of individuals monopolizing the use of force over a geographical area correct?

i mean there's the clear difference that a state is political and represents a population, but they're basically the same thing.

for example, if i owned an entire island out in the middle of the pacific, would it make any difference if i was the landlord or a sovereign state?

Havet

25th May 2009, 16:49

I'll put my position on Anarcho-Capitalism simply: you like it? Go live in Somalia for a week and tell me how it is.

Somalia is NOT an example of anarchism in practice.

Between the warlords, the islamic courts and incursions by ethopia, its far from stateless.

Stranger Than Paradise

25th May 2009, 18:08

Somalia is NOT an example of anarchism in practice.

Between the warlords, the islamic courts and incursions by ethopia, its far from stateless.

Just like Anarcho-Capitalism. A society with social hierarchy will always have a state.

Plagueround

25th May 2009, 18:53

Who said anything about ethnocentrism?

I like how you follow the above line with this one:

I agree there are many societies that managed to live and survive without any concept of reason and logic. You can see how well they did, even before any colonialists arrived. Many societies disappeared when they ran out of human sacrifices.

Scratch a libertarian, find a racist.

Havet

25th May 2009, 20:04

I like how you follow the above line with this one:

Scratch a libertarian, find a racist.

How was what I said racist? Such societies that existed and disappeared could have either "white" people or "brown" people or "yellow" people or "black" people. What does it matter? I was arguing about reason in society, not ethnicity.

Are you perhaps implying that only "white" people were colonialists?You can find a lot of evidence on how other civilizations murdered and enslaved others.

You are trying to create a conflict in order to escape the necessity of thinking and responding to my arguments.

Havet

25th May 2009, 20:07

Just like Anarcho-Capitalism. A society with social hierarchy will always have a state.

a state imposes hierarchy at gunpoint. You can have hierarchies without coercion: family can sometimes act hierarchical, yet you can leave at any time. The same happens with most of the ways corporations are structured. You can also leave whenever you wish.

#FF0000

25th May 2009, 20:37

Stranger Than Paradise

25th May 2009, 20:38

a state imposes hierarchy at gunpoint. You can have hierarchies without coercion: family can sometimes act hierarchical, yet you can leave at any time. The same happens with most of the ways corporations are structured. You can also leave whenever you wish.

Corporations are exactly the sort of social hierarchies that I am saying will develop leading to class systems and states and are enforced. The state works in the interest of one class over another. If we don't agree on what constitutes oppression or slavery and our fundamental idea on morality are completely different then there is no point continuing this argument.

#FF0000

25th May 2009, 20:44

Plagueround

25th May 2009, 21:05

How was what I said racist? Such societies that existed and disappeared could have either "white" people or "brown" people or "yellow" people or "black" people. What does it matter? I was arguing about reason in society, not ethnicity.

Are you perhaps implying that only "white" people were colonialists?You can find a lot of evidence on how other civilizations murdered and enslaved others.

You are trying to create a conflict in order to escape the necessity of thinking and responding to my arguments.

Not at all. I've played this game before with many a person on this forum. There's this idea that is rather prominent amongst libertarians, neo-cons, and (unfortunately) even some communists that because the colonialist model of society that we know and experience today had some positive progress for humanity on the whole, that the way they devastated and destroyed the cultures that occupied the land they took over is in some way justified. Often times, you'll find claims of the previous culture being barbarians, lacking the sophistication and reason of their conquerors. Even people that are otherwise well versed in history fall into the trap of dismissing conquered societies from the perspective of their subjugators. Not only is this usually not true once a person dusts off the eurocentric conception of history and discovers the whole picture, but it is things like manifest destiny, the monroe doctrine, etc. that created this ethnocentric, linear conception of history in the first place, and buying into it is at best ignorant and at worst racist. Given the way your comments were classic stereotypes of aboriginal people, forgive me if I was inclined to think you fall into the second category.

As far as your arguments are concerned, I don't know that I can contribute much more to this than many people have already done, as your "free-thinking" is again something I've dealt with many a time on this forum. It is not a dodge on my part, but you will have to excuse me if I simply don't have the time to reply in depth.

Havet

25th May 2009, 22:08

Not at all. I've played this game before with many a person on this forum. There's this idea that is rather prominent amongst libertarians, neo-cons, and (unfortunately) even some communists that because the colonialist model of society that we know and experience today had some positive progress for humanity on the whole, that the way they devastated and destroyed the cultures that occupied the land they took over is in some way justified. Often times, you'll find claims of the previous culture being barbarians, lacking the sophistication and reason of their conquerors. Even people that are otherwise well versed in history fall into the trap of dismissing conquered societies from the perspective of their subjugators. Not only is this usually not true once a person dusts off the eurocentric conception of history and discovers the whole picture, but it is things like manifest destiny, the monroe doctrine, etc. that created this ethnocentric, linear conception of history in the first place, and buying into it is at best ignorant and at worst racist. Given the way your comments were classic stereotypes of aboriginal people, forgive me if I was inclined to think you fall into the second category.

I am against colonialists forcing original people off their land. This is why i am against the american slaughter of indians in early america, british slaughter of aboriginal people, etc etc. People who lived owned their property, and should not have been forced out of it, whether they used reason or not. I'm pretty sure there was land for everyone, and no need to force indians out of their land.

I'm glad you are able to recognize my stance. I agree, however, that the current model has brought some benefits, but only when it wasn't done at the slaughter, theft or enslavement of others.

RGacky3

26th May 2009, 08:03

People who lived owned their property

The American indians (for the most part) did'nt have the western notion of land ownership, it was a foreign concept. The only way to introduce land ownership, to an area without land ownership is through the threat of violence.

Rosa Provokateur

26th May 2009, 15:10

Neither are pseudo-"libertarians". We're not going to let reactionaries spread their bullshit, if it were a fascist we would do the same thing, probably worse. Your boyfriend (btw, since your a Christian and all that bullshit wouldn't being gay mean you are going to hell?) got off easy.

Who is this "we"? I think you speak only for yourself and the other extremists advocating first-strike violence. If you've got to physically assault other polical ideas it's because yours cant hold water on its own.

As for me being gay and Christian, I've done that dance already and wont do it again. You want an explaination as to how they're compatible, there are several threads on it.

Rosa Provokateur

26th May 2009, 15:12

Sure, you can smoke pot, but you have to work for 12 hours at $4 an hour to pay for it, but heel, at least we're letting you have a joint!

If I choose. There are other options like finding a business that pays more for less hours, or starting my own business, or becoming self-employed.

Rosa Provokateur

26th May 2009, 15:18

All the while supporting companys like wal-mart who expolit workers in china because they only pay them like 5 cents a hour, while beliving that poor people sould starve becuase you want some new flat screen tv, while supporting a health care system that makes 1000s of poor die while the rich get special treatment and first piority so yea your right about that last part..

Wal-Mart? Their products are shit, I'm a Target girl. But hey, the workers paradise of communist China will work it out right.

Who starves from my tv? The satellite worker who installs it or the woman in India who sets me up with my dish network?

Hospitals take alot more people in than the media and politicians would have you think. If you can pay for it then why shouldnt you get better treatment?

Rosa Provokateur

26th May 2009, 15:20

You mean Upton Sinclair the life-long socialist? :lol:

Regardless his personal convictions, yes.

Rosa Provokateur

26th May 2009, 15:22

RGacky3

26th May 2009, 15:27

But hey, the workers paradise of communist China will work it out right.

Who are you arguing against here? Is there anyone here that supports China? Or consideres it even remotely socialist? Most here would consider Norway way more socialistic than China. So who are you talking to here?

Hospitals take alot more people in than the media and politicians would have you think. If you can pay for it then why shouldnt you get better treatment?

Because you've done nothing to deserve better treatment, health care for profit is as immoral as slavery, its a simple degredation of human life.

Who starves from my tv? The satellite worker who installs it or the woman in India who sets me up with my dish network?

The investment put into making TVs for those who can afford it is taking investment away from those who need it, thus is the nature of Capitalism.

If I choose. There are other options like finding a business that pays more for less hours, or starting my own business, or becoming self-employed.

Your an idiot, you don't read peoples posts do you? What is it with Capitalists ignoring rebuttals to their arguments and just restating them.

Who is this "we"? I think you speak only for yourself and the other extremists advocating first-strike violence.

First strike violence? Hmm, does the Mafia goon collecting "protection" money engage in "first strike vilence"?

As for me being gay and Christian, I've done that dance already and wont do it again. You want an explaination as to how they're compatible, there are several threads on it.

Thats cool, can I be a Mexican white supremist too? How about a nativist immigrant? But thats now what this thread is about.

Rosa Provokateur

26th May 2009, 15:42

Who are you arguing against here? Is there anyone here that supports China? Or consideres it even remotely socialist? Most here would consider Norway way more socialistic than China. So who are you talking to here?

Because you've done nothing to deserve better treatment, health care for profit is as immoral as slavery, its a simple degredation of human life.

The investment put into making TVs for those who can afford it is taking investment away from those who need it, thus is the nature of Capitalism.

Your an idiot, you don't read peoples posts do you? What is it with Capitalists ignoring rebuttals to their arguments and just restating them.

First strike violence? Hmm, does the Mafia goon collecting "protection" money engage in "first strike vilence"?

Thats cool, can I be a Mexican white supremist too? How about a nativist immigrant? But thats now what this thread is about.

It's called sarcasm hun and you'd be suprised. I've seen people here defend what China did at Tienenman Square.

Well for starters you've worked for it or atleast used it to give people jobs, provide desired products, kept the economy strong. What do homeless people do? Beg for money and eat up mine through well-fare.

Why invest in them if I dont want to? Thats why we have the Red Cross, Salvation Army, all of whom would be more effectice without State intervention.

No I'm not. If I dont wanna work 12 hours a day for $4 then I dont have to and neither do you. I can do the alternatives I listed or other if I so choose. Anything beats living off the government breast all my life.

The only difference between the State and the Mafia is that the Mafia only takes 10%.

Give this a read because I've done this talk already. http://www.revleft.com/vb/help-t92745/index.html?t=92745

Rosa Provokateur

26th May 2009, 15:47

http://kanafilmes.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/993352giveemenoughrope.jpg

Aside from their first album the Clash suck.

Demogorgon

26th May 2009, 15:59

Somalia is NOT an example of anarchism in practice.

Between the warlords, the islamic courts and incursions by ethopia, its far from stateless.Do you think anarcho-capitalism would be somehow immune from warlords? They are the ones who would rapidly come to rule an anarcho-capitalist society, because in such a society whoever can bring enough force to bare in a given area will be the one who rules it.

In modern capitalism power is vested in a sort of coalition of business owners, Government bureaucrats, the media and elected politicians, how depending on the system will range between fairly representative of the people to barely representative at all. In some countries you can also throw organised crime and the military elite into that mix of power. At any rate obnoxious as this system is, it does have a few things taming it. For one, because one of the centers of power is answerable to the people, it at least has to remain relatively tame. Depending on the system it can range from unrepresentative and weak to fairly representative and strong and in the latter category, the people can get a lot of concessions from capitalism and keep the state relatively tame.

The weaker and less representative the elected aspect of the Government is, the fewer concessions there will be and the more likely to resort to force the state will be. However in all but the worst systems, the principal bearer of force will be at least somewhat answerable to the public through election and will at least somewhat behave itself. Further it will prevent other centers of power not answerable to the public from maintaining such force themselves.

Under anarcho-capitalism however, the coalition that wields power changes and is now made up largely of businesses and warlords, neither of whom will be remotely answerable to the public and both of who will be able to bring to bare as much force as they can afford. The precise nature of this will vary. In some cases businesses will hire warlords to drive out competition and stop workers from getting too uppity, in others warlords will carve out their own little states, keep the population in check with considerable violence and possible religious dogma and allow businesses to operate in their territory in return for taxes.

In neither case is there any capacity whatsoever for the people to prevent this or put a check upon the power of the businesses or warlords.

Stranger Than Paradise

26th May 2009, 16:12

Whos enslaved? I've got a steady pay-check and I'm using Dave Ramsey to get a retirement plan goin:)

So your seriously telling me that those living in extreme poverty in third world countries forced to work 16 hour shifts aren't enslaved?

Havet

26th May 2009, 19:58

Do you think anarcho-capitalism would be somehow immune from warlords? They are the ones who would rapidly come to rule an anarcho-capitalist society, because in such a society whoever can bring enough force to bare in a given area will be the one who rules it.

Perhaps the way i have presented free market anarchism was misleading: It would not appear by a revolution. it would not be instantaneous. And there would be no blood spilled. Basically it would come by businesses appearing and providing the kind of services the government now provides, thus rendering government and the state itself obsolete.

Under anarcho-capitalism however, the coalition that wields power changes and is now made up largely of businesses and warlords, neither of whom will be remotely answerable to the public and both of who will be able to bring to bare as much force as they can afford. The precise nature of this will vary. In some cases businesses will hire warlords to drive out competition and stop workers from getting too uppity, in others warlords will carve out their own little states, keep the population in check with considerable violence and possible religious dogma and allow businesses to operate in their territory in return for taxes.business will not make wealth by ruling the public. Business needs people voluntary consent to make wealth in the first place. I have already explained arguments on why business would likely not engage in such activity you are describing, but I will restate them:

"protection agencies are not territorial sovereigns. An agency which settles its disputes on the battlefield has already lost, however many battles it wins. Battles are expensive - also dangerous for clients whose front yards get turned into free-fire zones. No clients mean no money to pay for the troops."

"Perhaps the best way to see why ancap would be so much more peaceful than our present system is by analogy. Consider our world as it would be if the cost of moving from one country to another were zero. Everyone lives ina housetrailer and speaks the same language. One day, the president of France anounces that because of troubles with neighburing countries, new military taxes are being levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three generals and twenty-seven war correspondants."

"We cannot all live in housetrailers. But, if we buy our protection from a private firm instead of a government, we can buy it from a different firm as soon as we think we can get a better deal. We can change protectors without changing countries."

Another argument: What can prevent them from getting toguether and using that might to set themselves up as government?
In some ultimate sense, nothing can prevent that save a populace possesing arms and willing, if necessary, to use them. That is one reason I am against gun-control legislation.

"We must ask not whether an ancap society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns, but whether it would be safer than our current society.
In our society, the men who must engineer a coup are politicians, military officers, and policement, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe they have the right to push other men around - that is their job. Under ancap the men in control of protection agencies are "selected" by their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled "non-power freaks need not apply"

"If there are only two or three agencies in the entire area now covered by the USA, a conspiracy among them may be practical. If there are 10,000, then when any group starts acting like government, their customers will hire someone else to protect them against their protectors."

I apologize for the fact that I am merely copy/pasting my previous arguments, but I have reason to believe, by the nature of your arguments, that you have not seen these yet. If after seeing them you can come up with a rational argument against it i'll be glad to hear it.

Kassad

26th May 2009, 22:41

trivas7

26th May 2009, 23:23

It's obvious that when you have a hierarchy of elitism, thus the 'corporatocracy' and the bourgeois state it controls, consumers will always receive lower quality products. Higher quality products are available, but when you sell things for profit, as opposed to selling them to meet society's needs, the quality of commodities will always plummet. There was that peanut corporation a few months back that could've spend more money double-checking and sanitizing their peanuts, but instead, they cut corners and there was a Salmonella outbreak. That's not the first time that this has happened. Corporations care about profits, not human needs, and when you put an executive in control, quality will always fall while profits rise. Workers control is the only way to make sure that quality products are promoted.
You would have to show some data for me to believe this. IMO the last forty or so years consumer goods have gone up in quality, not down. Everything from cars to electronics to bottle water tells me that convenience and quality is something that consumers are willing to pay for.

I'll grant you that corporations care more about profit that anything else, but consumers now make more demands on quality (and safety) than ever before.

Kassad

26th May 2009, 23:31

You would have to show some data for me to believe this. IMO the last forty or so years consumer goods have gone up in quality, not down. Everything from cars to electronics to bottle water tells me that convenience and quality is something that consumers are willing to pay for.

I'll grant you that corporations care more about profit that anything else, but consumers now make more demands on quality (and safety) than ever before.

Well, yeah. Corporations have a lot of extra money to spend on technological development after they rob workers of their wages and benefits. Of course, your theory is totally fallacious, as it's ridiculous to assume that development is synonymous with quality. Just because technology is more efficient doesn't mean that quality is necessarily improving, but instead, it's getting a little bit cheaper to produce quality products with efficient technological development. Quality may rise, even significantly at times, but there is no comparison to the rise in quality that would come from proletarian control of the means of production.

You claim that consumers demands are obligating corporations to make better products, but why don't we eliminate the middle-man; eliminate the profit system of exploitation? If workers were in control, there would be no reason to produce sub-par quality products, since workers would be producing the products for themselves, as opposed to for profit.

Demogorgon

27th May 2009, 00:13

Perhaps the way i have presented free market anarchism was misleading: It would not appear by a revolution. it would not be instantaneous. And there would be no blood spilled. Basically it would come by businesses appearing and providing the kind of services the government now provides, thus rendering government and the state itself obsolete.Leaving aside that this is extremely unlikely to ever happen, it does not change the fact that such a society will allow whoever has enough force to bring to bare to use it as they please.

business will not make wealth by ruling the public. Business needs people voluntary consent to make wealth in the first place. No they don't they need people, but it doesn't matter whether they participating "voluntarily" or not. If they can make themselves the only employer in the region and the only supplier of necessary goods they can make plenty of money.

"protection agencies are not territorial sovereigns. An agency which settles its disputes on the battlefield has already lost, however many battles it wins. Battles are expensive - also dangerous for clients whose front yards get turned into free-fire zones. No clients mean no money to pay for the troops."They won't need to fight many battles though, just enough to make it clear that they won't mess around. More likely than not, each "protection agency" (actually a fairly good term as it calls to mind protection rackets which often function in a similar way) will carve out its own little territory and rapidly come to an understanding with their fellows as to whose territory belongs to whom. Violence will flare up whenever there is a disagreement of course, but it will still benefit them in the long run as whoever wins can use the opportunity to prove that they mean business.

You see an equivalent thing with organised crime when they set up their drug dealing businesses or protection schemes or whatever, yes they do fight amongst themselves, but rapidly they come to an understanding to stay out of each others areas. What they don't allow is competition. If somebody tries to deal drugs in their turf or offer "protection" services to their clients and so on, violence follows. Anyone who thought they would try paying someone else for protection will also be made to regret it.

"Perhaps the best way to see why ancap would be so much more peaceful than our present system is by analogy. Consider our world as it would be if the cost of moving from one country to another were zero. Everyone lives ina housetrailer and speaks the same language. One day, the president of France anounces that because of troubles with neighburing countries, new military taxes are being levied and conscription will begin shortly. The next morning the president of France finds himself ruling a peaceful but empty landscape, the population having been reduced to himself, three generals and twenty-seven war correspondants."Of course to make the analogy more accurate, the President of France has to be able to torch the trailers of anyone who moves for not paying for his protection anymore. Which is precisely what protection agencies will do to defecting customers absent anything to stop them, barring other protection agencies who will be up to the same tricks.

Another argument: What can prevent them from getting toguether and using that might to set themselves up as government?
In some ultimate sense, nothing can prevent that save a populace possesing arms and willing, if necessary, to use them. That is one reason I am against gun-control legislation.Guns won't stop that happening. Areas where Warlords really have set up their own mini-states, Afghanistan and Somalia for instance, are absolutely loaded with guns.

"We must ask not whether an ancap society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns, but whether it would be safer than our current society.
In our society, the men who must engineer a coup are politicians, military officers, and policement, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe they have the right to push other men around - that is their job. Under ancap the men in control of protection agencies are "selected" by their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled "non-power freaks need not apply"
We come back to my point about multiple centers of power effectively ruling society in coalition with one another. In our society one of the centers of power-politicians-is answerable to the people. That tames things. Capitalism is not democratic because (normally) only one centre of power is so answerable, whereas in a truly democratic society all centers of power need to be. Nonetheless it certainly beats dictatorships where nobody is answerable to the public. Anarcho-Capitalism is like dictatorship in this sense as no Centre of Power is elected. Hence it has no taming influence.

"[B]If there are only two or three agencies in the entire area now covered by the USA, a conspiracy among them may be practical. If there are 10,000, then when any group starts acting like government, their customers will hire someone else to protect them against their protectors."Geo-political entities like the United States will no longer exist under such a system. Things will get much more local. Only two or three protection agencies in your neighbourhood though? Sounds plausible to me, though my bet is there will only be one. The States carved out won't be that big normally, though they will gradually merge together as "protection agencies" do deals or plain conquer each other, there will surely be plenty of each agency, they just won't compete with one another.

In all of this we have only talked about "protection agencies", which in reality will be a combination of mercenaries and organised crime, but we need to talk about ordinary business too, which will be the other centre of power in anarcho-capitalism. Depending on precise circumstance they will either be paying the protection agencies to bring about favourable circumstances for them-no competitors for instance-or else pay taxes to "protection agencies" acting like warlords making things just like an ordinary state-except no one gets elected!

And of course there will be all kinds of businesses of the kind you don't see much of these days; slave traders will presumably do very well for one. Just kidnap people to down on their luck to afford protection and sell them on to the highest bidder. Maybe make a bit of money on the side to boot by offering a service re-capturing slaves when they escape. I can see that being very popular.

Robert

27th May 2009, 01:06

Whoops, on second thought, I'll just pray that Octobox gets in here to settle this one..

Kassad

27th May 2009, 01:20

Right. And those consumers have a sympathetic ear in the FDA, FAA, FTC, OSHA, EEOC, and many other regulatory agencies http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/F.shtml , manifestly unfriendly to business, and with powers to shut down unsafe workplaces producing unsafe products ... in the USA anyway. (Don't ask me about cigarettes.:lol:)

I don't understand why you would want to overthrow all that on the blind assumption that: "Workers control is the only way to make sure that quality products are promoted."

Because those organizations are part of the capitalist, bourgeois state. Yes, they are progressive and necessary, but it's totally ignorant to infer that I want to 'overthrow' that, when in truth, it is merely the promotion of workers control. Executives shouldn't tell people what is best for them. People and workers should decide what is best for them and corporate entities do not have the people in mind when they are formulating products. They have dollar bills in mind.

Robert

27th May 2009, 02:03

Robert

27th May 2009, 02:10

Kassad

27th May 2009, 02:26

I realize you don't want to decrease worker protection. I just don't understand how you want to maintain worker protection mechanisms and agencies and simultaneously eliminate the state.

Aren't you going to end up back where you started? What if these small, closely controlled worker syndicates make decisions on divisions of labor that you aren't happy with? What is your recourse? I mean after you visit with the syndicate collectively and you still aren't happy?

So are you making the ridiculous assertion that sanitary and safe working conditions, along with high-quality products, can only exist under capitalism? Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds? It took decades of struggle against corporate executives and bourgeoise elitists to make headway in the struggle for proper wages, workplace equality (for race and gender), sanitary working conditions and proper benefits for workers. These struggles were so difficult because workers aren't in control. Owners, capitalists and executives are in control, thus they are fighting for their interests, not the interests of the workers. Under socialism, which is total workers control, why would the proletariat make decisions and changes that don't benefit them as a whole? Why would workers harm themselves? It's honestly absurd to think that socialism would be bad for workers, when in truth, it is empowering them.

mykittyhasaboner

27th May 2009, 02:45

What does this have to do with anarcho-capitalism Rob? On the question of worker's control and the productivity, as well as quality of goods and economic development; it is quite clear that worker's ownership and control of production and distribution only enhances the productivity as well as the quality of goods, services, and economic development. With a planned economy that has rid itself of private ownership, production is maintained and coordinated according to usage around a common plan; where as a market structures focus primarily on profitabilty (this is completley obvious, of course). Other problems of the market structure in terms of quality and productivity, is the blatant fact that large portions of society remain unemployed under capitalism, and that economic activity goes through regular "boom and bust" cycles that leave incredibly negative effects on economic power in terms of debt, recession, etc.

So in simple theoretical terms, worker's control does infact ensure more productivity and quality, just because of the manner in which production is carried out; the methods of both planned and market economies being as different as they are.

Robert

27th May 2009, 02:45

So are you making the ridiculous assertion that sanitary and safe working conditions, along with high-quality products, can only exist under capitalism?

No, and now you are deliberately misunderstanding me.

They may well exist under any political or economic system you may envisage, from monarchy to anarchy. I am only talking about what I think is your goal of a stateless society. That is what you want, correct?

Well, any kind of control you put on the development and distribution of, say, electrical appliances or truck tires, is presumably going to be as objectionable to you after the revolution as the FTC and OSHA are to you now. I frankly suspect those controls will be worse, but that's neither here nor there.

Robert

27th May 2009, 03:00

What does this have to do with anarcho-capitalism Rob?Beats me. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I was just challenging what I perceive as mutually exclusive goals that Kassad and you (below) seem to be articulating. If this thread is being hijacked, well ... it's HIS fault! (Just kidding, Kassad.)

With a planned economy
There's that word again.

maintained and coordinated according to usage around a common plan

If you're trying to scare the shit out of me, take a bow.

the blatant fact that large portions of society remain unemployed under capitalismAgreed, but I don't see how communism will fix that absent coercion.

economic activity goes through regular "boom and bust" cyclesNo argument.

So in simple theoretical terms, worker's control does infact ensure more productivity and quality, just because of the manner in which production is carried out; the methods of both planned and market economies being as different as they are. [emphasis mine.]

"So"? I don't see that following at all. As far as this "planned" business goes, if it includes significant consumer input, okay, I'll listen. But if you grant me that, we're right back to talking markets again.

mykittyhasaboner

27th May 2009, 03:30

Beats me. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I was just challenging what I perceive as mutually exclusive goals that Kassad and you (below) seem to be articulating. If this thread is being hijacked, well ... it's HIS fault! (Just kidding, Kassad.)
Mutually exclusive in what ways?

There's that word again.
Great observation.

If you're trying to scare the shit out of me, take a bow.
Why/how could I scare the shit out of you?

Agreed, but I don't see how communism will fix that absent coercion.
Err, just like how socialist, planned economies do now and in the past; by guaranteeing employment as a right. If the worker's and peasants own the means of production, and therefore labor for themselves and the rest of society collectively, than the mobilization of labor forces is the least of any problems. You'll find that socialist states that you revile have low unemployment rates.

No argument.
Ditto for this entire post of yours.

[emphasis mine.]

"So"? I don't see that following at all. As far as this "planned" business goes, if it includes significant consumer input, okay, I'll listen. But if you grant me that, we're right back to talking markets again.
What constitutes "significant consumer input"? And how are we talking about markets again, if we are talking about the difference between market and planned economies. That is ultimately what your initial understanding was, that Kassad's as well as my goals are mutually exclusive. Therefore I can only speak of what I think a planned economy should do, in reference to what past and present socialist/revisionist states currently look like, because that is what my goal is, a socialist planned economy.

You will never get to a classless society with out ensuring the rule of the worker's first. How can society be organized along ability, and need if the basic structures of society are not based on giving the majority of society power and ownership of society? Marxists, essentially, desire a classless society; but that simply isn't possible all at once. So really, we can only speak of socialism and how worker's society would expropriate and reorganize society according to their given conditions. So I'm not talking about communism.

Robert

27th May 2009, 13:17

Why/how could I scare the shit out of you? Oh, you know, "planned" this, and "maintained" that, and "coordinated" this.
That passive voice insinuates that somebody is going to be doing the planning and maintaining, and I got a funny feeling you ain't gonna let me in on the "coordinating" team. (Hell, I can't even get out of OI! :laugh:)
But seriously, you said everything except "controlled," and that's inevitable. I know you'll say capitalists control everything now, and in a sense that's true, but if you don't think The People have any voice in what they get and what they don't from capitalists, go talk to the Board of Directors at GM and Chrysler.

than the mobilization of labor forces is the least of any problems.It won't be a problem for you; you'll be on the planning committee in an air conditioned room. I'll be out in the hot sun harvesting beets. (Am I breaking your heart yet?)

That is ultimately what your initial understanding was, that Kassad's as well as my goals are mutually exclusive.
The goals I was referring to were 1) protecting consumers and workers from fraud and danger and 2) eliminating the state that provides those protections. You want a classless, stateless society, or at least I thought that's what commies do.

How can society be organized along ability, and need if the basic structures of society are not based on giving the majority of society power and ownership of society?
You're not going to like my answer, but I would say that this can be better accomplished through civilized, governed competition. You will point to monopolies that make the markets uncivilized, yes, but GM used to be one of the big bad monopolizers. Now they're on their knees. Consumers (workers) helped to bring them down.

Marxists, essentially, desire a classless society

Classless? Does that mean you'll "essentially" let me out of OI now? :lol:

RGacky3

27th May 2009, 15:02

1) protecting consumers and workers from fraud and danger and 2) eliminating the state that provides those protections.

Let me ask you if the State allows and enforces slavery, but makes laws dictating slave owners cannot beat their slaves, are the slaves being protected by the State?

Same thing with Capitalism.

but if you don't think The People have any voice in what they get and what they don't from capitalists,

If by "the people" you mean the "the people with money" then yes, the market is not an equal democracy, its only as equal as the distribution of wealth, which is EXTREMELY unequal. (This is a point that pro-Capitalists have been unable to grapple with for as long as they've been around).

Rosa Provokateur

27th May 2009, 15:20

So your seriously telling me that those living in extreme poverty in third world countries forced to work 16 hour shifts aren't enslaved?

Depends on how the industry they're working in is ran. If the employee is threatened with physical violence, watched at gun-point, forced to shop only at the "company store", or is restricted from quitting at any time they please then they're under slavery as far as business is concerned.

Alot of third-world poverty is due to the State in that it has strong restrictions on free-trade, starting one's own business, and allowing consumers and sellers to work out a price-agreement.

As it is today Western nations throw money at these countries and the governments, who are supposed to give the resources out, instead keep it for themselves. Investment in profitable, job-creating industry is the key to liberating the third world.

trivas7

27th May 2009, 15:24

Quality may rise, even significantly at times, but there is no comparison to the rise in quality that would come from proletarian control of the means of production.

You mean like as happened in the Soviet Union? I'll believe it when I see it.

OTC, I expect the quality of consumer goods to go down in the first world after the revolution, when people wake up to the fact that the junk most people strive to consume is artificially created by the demands of capitalism and adds nothing of value to their lives.

RGacky3

27th May 2009, 15:26

Alot of third-world poverty is due to the State in that it has strong restrictions on free-trade, starting one's own business, and allowing consumers and sellers to work out a price-agreement.

Have any examples of countries like that? For every one example you give, there are many more examples of poor countries that followed the neo-liberal model.

Depends on how the industry they're working in is ran. If the employee is threatened with physical violence, watched at gun-point, forced to shop only at the "company store", or is restricted from quitting at any time they please then they're under slavery as far as business is concerned.

Thats not the case in the vast majority of the cases.

Investment in profitable, job-creating industry is the key to liberating the third world.

Well since the 90s onward its been neo-liberalism neo-liberalism neo-liberalism, hows that workin gout for the third world? Things getting better?

Rosa Provokateur

27th May 2009, 15:33

Of course, but that also assumes that private corporations have the motivation to provide quality products and services. A basic grasp of business and economics would show that if a business spends less, it makes more. Therefore, a corporation is going to do anything it can to cut costs, in the interest of bolstering profits. A corporation like Nike uses sweatshop labor (which is ignored, thanks to free trade and deregulatory economics) to make a pair of shoes for a few cents. They then sell the product to an American consumer for $80. The sweatshop laborer winds up making a dollar or so a day, while Nike winds up making somewhere around $50 or so dollars after manufacturing, shipping and expenses. If a company like Wal-Mart could sell you a high quality chair that would make them $15 after all the money they spend bolstering quality, or they could make $50 selling you a lower quality chair that you will likely have to buy more of due to its low quality, which will they sell?

Well if a quality product is being made then consumers wont waste their money on it. The motivation is success: if they dont succeed in meeting consumer demand they'll go out of business and the money will go to another competitor.

Businesses can do things like cutting advertisement, firing unneccesary positions, etc. Sweat-shops are terrible, I dont think anyone will argue that. The duty is to the consumer who, if he feels that what the business is doing is wrong, can boycott. Sweat labor wont be permanent; corporations have only been able to do it in politically oppressed nations like China, Vietnam, etc. and as the market becomes freer so will the political atmosphere as China has shown.

Now as to cost-cutting this is usually found only in multi-purpose businesses such as Wal-Mart, like you said, who has no real specialization but instead offers a diverse set of products. In a business like Block Buster for example, price-cutting is less probable since they specialize only in movies. This pattern lets in on something that consumers are most usually aware of: quality and price are directly connected. Go to a farmers market and the food will be better but cost more, go to McDonald's and the food will be worse but cost less.

Rosa Provokateur

27th May 2009, 15:41

If by "the people" you mean the "the people with money" then yes, the market is not an equal democracy, its only as equal as the distribution of wealth, which is EXTREMELY unequal. (This is a point that pro-Capitalists have been unable to grapple with for as long as they've been around).

You cant FORCE equality, to do so would be to set a standard of what equality is. We're not all equally beautiful, should we mask attractive people? We're not all equally intelligent, should we prevent intellectuals from studying?

Businesses listen to those WITH something because those with money have something to OFFER where-as those without, dont. Why put effort into something for someone who can offer NOTHING in return. Would you come cook for me just because I cant cook, without expecting payment or compensation for your time and labor? It'd be nice but I think not. The world doesnt work that way.

Rosa Provokateur

27th May 2009, 15:47

Have any examples of countries like that? For every one example you give, there are many more examples of poor countries that followed the neo-liberal model.

Thats not the case in the vast majority of the cases.

Well since the 90s onward its been neo-liberalism neo-liberalism neo-liberalism, hows that workin gout for the third world? Things getting better?

Look at Hong Kong. It works.

RGacky3

27th May 2009, 15:51

Look at Hong Kong. It works.

Ok, NOW, look at every single Latin American country that has followed neo-libralism.

We're not all equally beautiful, should we mask attractive people? We're not all equally intelligent, should we prevent intellectuals from studying?

What does that have to do with anything?

You cant FORCE equality, to do so would be to set a standard of what equality is.

Equal vote, thats democracy, Capitalism is undemocracic, based on this

If by "the people" you mean the "the people with money" then yes, the market is not an equal democracy, its only as equal as the distribution of wealth, which is EXTREMELY unequal. (This is a point that pro-Capitalists have been unable to grapple with for as long as they've been around).

Why put effort into something for someone who can offer NOTHING in return. Would you come cook for me just because I cant cook, without expecting payment or compensation for your time and labor? It'd be nice but I think not. The world doesnt work that way.

Thats why Capitalism does'nt work, because of the power imbalance that leads to the wealth imbalance that leads to even more power imbalance. Thats the way CAPITALISM works, not nessesarily the world.

Demogorgon

27th May 2009, 16:21

Look at Hong Kong. It works.
Let's see;

1) It is not a third world country

2) It is split between neoliberal elements and non neoliberal elements anyway.

3) The Neoliberal Elements have caused monopoly to build up and also maintains a fairly dictatorial style of Government.

4) On the other hand the non neoliberal elements have been pretty successful, there is no private land ownership for instance and there is a fairly big public sector with the likes of Universal healthcare and a reasonable welfare state.

So to conclude, the existence of more social-democratic elements has kept the territory fairly livable whereas the lack of market regulation has allowed monopoly to flourish and helped maintain what is essentially a business run dictatorship.

\Not the best example you could have given.

Nwoye

27th May 2009, 20:14

Look at Hong Kong. It works.
in Hong Kong the government owns all of the land and leases it out strategically so as to keep real estate prices high. that's hardly a free market.

by the way, it has a horrible GINI coefficient (measure of economic equality), and the gap between the rich and poor is widening.

Havet

27th May 2009, 22:39

No they don't they need people, but it doesn't matter whether they participating "voluntarily" or not. If they can make themselves the only employer in the region and the only supplier of necessary goods they can make plenty of money.

If business has no customers it cannot exist. You are working with the hypothesis, which i think is wrong, that competition leads to monopoly. Instead of continuously trying to disprove that (which i have done in other threads), I will simply suggest that IF a firm ever managed to get such a monopoly naturally (that is, without an existance of a government helping it), and if they raise their prices so much to make so much profit, at some point people will just get these necessary goods themselves and work their own lands. If there is a monopoly on food, people will get the seeds and plant them themselves. By doing this it will decrease the demand on the monopoly, and either it will lower drastically its prices, leaving room for competition, or it will collapse.

They won't need to fight many battles though, just enough to make it clear that they won't mess around. More likely than not, each "protection agency" (actually a fairly good term as it calls to mind protection rackets which often function in a similar way) will carve out its own little territory and rapidly come to an understanding with their fellows as to whose territory belongs to whom. Violence will flare up whenever there is a disagreement of course, but it will still benefit them in the long run as whoever wins can use the opportunity to prove that they mean business.

Those who wish to use force in self-defense of their lives, possessions and liberty will have a far increased interest in fighting those who just want to push them around. A man's fight for his survival will give him more strength than a man's fight for the ruling of others, provided the defendants have a considerable amount of weapons. Example:

"Laws are being produced for a market, and that is what the market wants. But market demands are in dollars, not votes. The legality of heroin, for example, will be determined, not by how many are for or against, but by how high a cost each side is willing to bear in order to get its way. People who want to control other people's lives are rarely eager to pay for the privilege; they usually expect to be paid for the "services" they provide for their victims. And those on the receiving end - whether of laws against drugs, laws against pornography, or laws against sex - get a lot more pain out of the oppression than their oppressors get pleasure. They are thus willing to pay a much higher price to be left alone than anyone is willing to pay to push them around. For that reason the laws of an anarcho-capitalist society should be heavily biased towards freedom."

You see an equivalent thing with organised crime when they set up their drug dealing businesses or protection schemes or whatever, yes they do fight amongst themselves, but rapidly they come to an understanding to stay out of each others areas. What they don't allow is competition. If somebody tries to deal drugs in their turf or offer "protection" services to their clients and so on, violence follows. Anyone who thought they would try paying someone else for protection will also be made to regret it.
Of course to make the analogy more accurate, the President of France has to be able to torch the trailers of anyone who moves for not paying for his protection anymore. Which is precisely what protection agencies will do to defecting customers absent anything to stop them, barring other protection agencies who will be up to the same tricks.

Since i do not have a great opinion on that example as of now, I will have to ponder the argument that MAYBE anarcho-capitalism could lead to what we have today under this political system: black markets with violence. However, I also think black markets have violence because there is violence, by the state, for them not to exist. When men are used to go by the means of violence to protect themselves constantly (protecting your marijuana shipment from police), they will at some point hold no values against the use of force and use it indiscriminately.

Guns won't stop that happening. Areas where Warlords really have set up their own mini-states, Afghanistan and Somalia for instance, are absolutely loaded with guns.

and the population there never had the ability to be armed like, for eg, america is.
it is those warlords and their serfs that are the only ones who have guns, therefore they don't leave much resistance to the populace.

We come back to my point about multiple centers of power effectively ruling society in coalition with one another. In our society one of the centers of power-politicians-is answerable to the people. That tames things. Capitalism is not democratic because (normally) only one centre of power is so answerable, whereas in a truly democratic society all centers of power need to be. Nonetheless it certainly beats dictatorships where nobody is answerable to the public. Anarcho-Capitalism is like dictatorship in this sense as no Centre of Power is elected. Hence it has no taming influence.

Why do you think there is need to tame people? If you think most people really are violent, then the only proper response to violence is self-defense with violence. If you set up your own commune under anarcho-capitalism and for some mystical reason a business gets big enough to have a huge military power (which i believe it won't) and who wishes to attack you, you can only answer with force, which i think is VERY justifiable in your case. Hell even I would go help you defend your commune.

Geo-political entities like the United States will no longer exist under such a system. Things will get much more local. Only two or three protection agencies in your neighbourhood though? Sounds plausible to me, though my bet is there will only be one. The States carved out won't be that big normally, though they will gradually merge together as "protection agencies" do deals or plain conquer each other, there will surely be plenty of each agency, they just won't compete with one another.

you are counting that there is a natural trend towards monopoly where in fact there isn't.

it is the existance of brutal repression by government on those who practice those businessnesses that breed more brutality from the business owners and create those cartels. I would recommend you reading the chapter "Monopoly, how to lose your shirt" of the book "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. It has a lot of information on how cartels weren't able to succeed in the late 19th - early 20th century without government intervention. I can quote some if you are interested.

In fact, friedman himself argues that the best historical refutation for the thesis that unregulated laissez-faire leads to monopoly is in a socialist historian Gabriel Kolko's books called "The triumph of Conservatism" and "Railroads and Regulation". He argues that at the end of the 19th century businessmen believed the future was with bigness, with conglomerates and cartels, but were wrong: the organizations they formed to control markets and reduce costs were almost invariably failures, returning lower profits than their smaller competitors, unable to fix prices, and controlling a steadily shrinking share of the market. The regulatory comissions supossedly were formed to restrain monopolistic businessmen. Actually, Kolko argues, they were formed at the request of unsuccessful monopolists to prevent the competition which had frustrated their efforts.

In all of this we have only talked about "protection agencies", which in reality will be a combination of mercenaries and organised crime, but we need to talk about ordinary business too, which will be the other centre of power in anarcho-capitalism. Depending on precise circumstance they will either be paying the protection agencies to bring about favourable circumstances for them-no competitors for instance-or else pay taxes to "protection agencies" acting like warlords making things just like an ordinary state-except no one gets elected!

Nobody will do trade with enterprises if they use force to take our their competitors (which will also use force in return). And if they do use force, but there is still competition, it is the competition which will get most of the customers now.

And of course there will be all kinds of businesses of the kind you don't see much of these days; slave traders will presumably do very well for one. Just kidnap people to down on their luck to afford protection and sell them on to the highest bidder. Maybe make a bit of money on the side to boot by offering a service re-capturing slaves when they escape. I can see that being very popular.

Under a free society the "laws" the courts would abide by would be heavily biased towards freedom.

Demogorgon

27th May 2009, 23:32

If business has no customers it cannot exist. You are working with the hypothesis, which i think is wrong, that competition leads to monopoly. Instead of continuously trying to disprove that (which i have done in other threads), I will simply suggest that IF a firm ever managed to get such a monopoly naturally (that is, without an existance of a government helping it), and if they raise their prices so much to make so much profit, at some point people will just get these necessary goods themselves and work their own lands. If there is a monopoly on food, people will get the seeds and plant them themselves. By doing this it will decrease the demand on the monopoly, and either it will lower drastically its prices, leaving room for competition, or it will collapse.

You are presuming people will be free to do so. Such a firm would likely be able to bring sufficient force to bare to ensure people won't dare try to do such.

Those who wish to use force in self-defense of their lives, possessions and liberty will have a far increased interest in fighting those who just want to push them around. A man's fight for his survival will give him more strength than a man's fight for the ruling of others, provided the defendants have a considerable amount of weapons. Whoever has the more force to bring to bare will win. It might be that some communities will exist where ordinary people manage to fight off those who want to t take control over them, but that will not be the case everywhere. Normally it will be warlords with organised private armies who win.

Since i do not have a great opinion on that example as of now, I will have to ponder the argument that MAYBE anarcho-capitalism could lead to what we have today under this political system: black markets with violence. However, I also think black markets have violence because there is violence, by the state, for them not to exist. When men are used to go by the means of violence to protect themselves constantly (protecting your marijuana shipment from police), they will at some point hold no values against the use of force and use it indiscriminately.

Obviously banning something encourages pretty violent individuals to get in on the trade in place of more reputable businessmen, but you will find there are some legal areas where those sort of people thrive too. For some reason in this city the limousine business is like that and respectable businessmen never last long. Under anarcho-capitalism all businesses will quickly become like that as those willing to bring enough force to bare move in on everyone else's territory.

and the population there never had the ability to be armed like, for eg, america is.
it is those warlords and their serfs that are the only ones who have guns, therefore they don't leave much resistance to the populace.

That is nonsense, the population in those countries has easy access to weapons. Hell in Afghanistan there has been so much conflict there that there is probably considerably more weaponry around than there is people.

Why do you think there is need to tame people? If you think most people really are violent, then the only proper response to violence is self-defense with violence. If you set up your own commune under anarcho-capitalism and for some mystical reason a business gets big enough to have a huge military power (which i believe it won't) and who wishes to attack you, you can only answer with force, which i think is VERY justifiable in your case. Hell even I would go help you defend your commune.

I don't think people are naturally violent, but I do think there are people out there willing to resort to violence to get their way. Moreover my point ws that power needs to be tamed, if individuals hold power and are not answerable to the public for it, they will usually start to abuse it.

you are counting that there is a natural trend towards monopoly where in fact there isn't. There is though, there is a tendency for firms to merge and buy each other out as they go for economies of scale (and under capitalism they expand well beyond the optimum point). It could more accurately be called a trend towards oligopoly, but the principal stands.

it is the existance of brutal repression by government on those who practice those businessnesses that breed more brutality from the business owners and create those cartels. I would recommend you reading the chapter "Monopoly, how to lose your shirt" of the book "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. It has a lot of information on how cartels weren't able to succeed in the late 19th - early 20th century without government intervention. I can quote some if you are interested.

In fact, friedman himself argues that the best historical refutation for the thesis that unregulated laissez-faire leads to monopoly is in a socialist historian Gabriel Kolko's books called "The triumph of Conservatism" and "Railroads and Regulation". He argues that at the end of the 19th century businessmen believed the future was with bigness, with conglomerates and cartels, but were wrong: the organizations they formed to control markets and reduce costs were almost invariably failures, returning lower profits than their smaller competitors, unable to fix prices, and controlling a steadily shrinking share of the market. The regulatory comissions supossedly were formed to restrain monopolistic businessmen. Actually, Kolko argues, they were formed at the request of unsuccessful monopolists to prevent the competition which had frustrated their efforts.

I have read stuff by David Friedman and sure he is great at cherry picking his examples, but there are always counter examples. Besides even if he is correct, the reason the Government helped these cartels was because they wanted it and had the influence to make it happen. In an anarcho-capitalist society don't you think such firms would work to create their own State to help them?

Nobody will do trade with enterprises if they use force to take our their competitors (which will also use force in return). And if they do use force, but there is still competition, it is the competition which will get most of the customers now.

What makes you think that? Very rapidly the only people in business will be those willing to use force to push out their rivals as those who don't will soon be driven off by those that do.

Under a free society the "laws" the courts would abide by would be heavily biased towards freedom.
And? Even assuming that is true, that has nothing to do with the fact that there would a thriving slave trade. Slave Owners are hardly going to permit their slaves to sue for freedom.

Let's pretend we live in such a society and I decide to go into the highly profitable slave trading business. I here you are a bit down on your luck and haven't been able to hire the best protection or maybe I am just confident I can outshoot your protection agency should they turn up.

I come at you at night and take you by surprise. Surrounded by heavily armed men you quickly realise the game is up and are captured. I take you back to my place of business where I brand or tattoo you prominently with a serial number so that you are easily identifiable. Maybe I even fit you with a GPS if I want to go hi-tech.

Anyway once you are suitably prepared I take you and the other slaves I have bought or captured along to a slave market where I auction you off for a healthy profit. If the new owner wishes, I offer him a contract whereby I will track you down and recapture or kill you should you try and escape. I go home with a tidy bit of money to log you as sold, you begin your life as a slave to your new master and hope he doesn't have anything too nasty in mind for you.

What is to stop this?

Kassad

28th May 2009, 02:05

You mean like as happened in the Soviet Union? I'll believe it when I see it.

OTC, I expect the quality of consumer goods to go down in the first world after the revolution, when people wake up to the fact that the junk most people strive to consume is artificially created by the demands of capitalism and adds nothing of value to their lives.

Nevermind that fact that the Soviet Union was devastated by war; losing millions of lives during the First World War and especially their massive loss of industrial capacity due to said war. Let's also not forget that the Soviet Union was forced to spend a significant amount on military expenditures which were made necessary by the consistent (and existent once the battles with Germany began) threat of war from imperialist states. It was literally impossible for the Soviet Union to spend all its funds on quality industrial output, but that wasn't a failure of socialism. It was due to imperialist pressure.

Jack

28th May 2009, 02:07

"look at Hong Kong"

In Hong Kong I see a dictatorship where the government owns all the land and "sells" it on 50 year leases, where the poverty rate is at 11%. Taxes can remain low because the defense is payed for by the UK. By 1998, 52% of the population lived in government subsidised housing: http://evil.hardcore.lt/anarchistfaq/secC12.html

Rosa Provokateur

28th May 2009, 15:37

Ok, NOW, look at every single Latin American country that has followed neo-libralism.

What does that have to do with anything?

Equal vote, thats democracy, Capitalism is undemocracic, based on this

Thats why Capitalism does'nt work, because of the power imbalance that leads to the wealth imbalance that leads to even more power imbalance. Thats the way CAPITALISM works, not nessesarily the world.

Get their dictators out of the way and it will flow properly.

You're saying it's not an equal democracy because some have while others have-not. Complete equality is impossible because equality cant be forced; someone will always be superior to someone else in one way or another. What about people who are unequal in happiness? What about people who are unequal in love? Unrelinquished State power is required to enforce the equality idealism and in return we'd all lose our freedom.

So you want people to have a say in what others own and how much they own? It may be democratic but theres no liberty in it, suppose the majority is wrong.

If the world could be a perfect utopia of equalibrium dont you think people would've done it by now?

Rosa Provokateur

28th May 2009, 15:44

Let's see;

1) It is not a third world country

2) It is split between neoliberal elements and non neoliberal elements anyway.

3) The Neoliberal Elements have caused monopoly to build up and also maintains a fairly dictatorial style of Government.

4) On the other hand the non neoliberal elements have been pretty successful, there is no private land ownership for instance and there is a fairly big public sector with the likes of Universal healthcare and a reasonable welfare state.

So to conclude, the existence of more social-democratic elements has kept the territory fairly livable whereas the lack of market regulation has allowed monopoly to flourish and helped maintain what is essentially a business run dictatorship.

\Not the best example you could have given.

The economy there has flourished in the last 50 years due to free-market. Inflation is at 2%, and unemployment is around 4.1% (the fourth straight year of decline).

Imports and exports exceed the gross national product.

Pretty good example if I say so myself. People have jobs and they're getting good pay and good care... almost no thanks to the State:)

Rosa Provokateur

28th May 2009, 15:47

trivas7

28th May 2009, 16:41

Nevermind that fact that the Soviet Union was devastated by war; losing asmillions of lives during the First World War and especially their massive loss of industrial capacity due to said war. Let's also not forget that the Soviet Union was forced to spend a significant amount on military expenditures which were made necessary by the consistent (and existent once the battles with Germany began) threat of war from imperialist states. It was literally impossible for the Soviet Union to spend all its funds on quality industrial output, but that wasn't a failure of socialism. It was due to imperialist pressure.
Agreed. My point is that we have yet to see demonstrated the huge gains in productivity to be realized by socialism. How do you know that Francis Fukuyama is wrong to argue that the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government?

Demogorgon

28th May 2009, 20:15

The economy there has flourished in the last 50 years due to free-market. Inflation is at 2%, and unemployment is around 4.1% (the fourth straight year of decline).

Imports and exports exceed the gross national product.

Pretty good example if I say so myself. People have jobs and they're getting good pay and good care... almost no thanks to the State:)
Given that Sir Donald Tsang has stated the Hong Kong Government is no longer following a non-interventionist economic policy claiming recent benefits as proof of the free market is pretty weak.

Besides, did you read what I wrote? The people in Hong Kong are kept fairly well off by an extensive welfare state. And let's not forget that all land and most housing is Government owned. I don't know what definition of free market you are using, but if Hong Kong fits in then it is a pretty strange one.

Nwoye

28th May 2009, 21:24

True but the market is so good there that basicaly anybody with money can buy real-estate property.
uhhh actually no. the government holds on to land strategically so as to keep real estate prices high and promote speculation. land is actually pretty expensive, and there are large problems with income distribution (gap between rich and poor), which effectively creates a proprietarian class and a working class. because of this the govt has to spend tons of money on public housing.

yeah its not a free market at all.

Jack

29th May 2009, 03:01

"True but the market is so good there that basicaly anybody with money can buy real-estate property."

Yeah, anybody with enough money, which most people don't have.

RGacky3

29th May 2009, 10:07

Get their dictators out of the way and it will flow properly.

What dictators?

You're saying it's not an equal democracy because some have while others have-not. Complete equality is impossible because equality cant be forced; someone will always be superior to someone else in one way or another. What about people who are unequal in happiness? What about people who are unequal in love? Unrelinquished State power is required to enforce the equality idealism and in return we'd all lose our freedom.

When we are talking about economic (aka political) equality, (not the irrelevent stuff your takling about like happiness), it does'nt need to be enforecd, because without property laws (which need to be enforced) essencially everyone has equal rights over everything, thus economic equality (which does'nt mean egalitarian possessions).

However, the inequality that exists under Capitalism, HAS to be enforced, through property laws.

So you want people to have a say in what others own and how much they own? It may be democratic but theres no liberty in it, suppose the majority is wrong.

I'd trust the majority over the 5% percent of the rich and the capitalists. Because right now they are the ones that decide.

If the world could be a perfect utopia of equalibrium dont you think people would've done it by now?

That argument is so stupid, it does'nt deserve a response. Do you know how long slavery existed in the world?

The economy there has flourished in the last 50 years due to free-market. Inflation is at 2%, and unemployment is around 4.1% (the fourth straight year of decline).

Imports and exports exceed the gross national product.

Pretty good example if I say so myself. People have jobs and they're getting good pay and good care... almost no thanks to the Statehttp://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-t57436/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

You can't just ignore facts and restate your opinion, well you can, but its stupid and shows you hav'nt a clue what your talking about.

Rosa Provokateur

30th May 2009, 01:26

Which is exactly where your theory falls flat on its head.

Sure fuck that, but why do you want to be earning your living through wage labor? If your like millions of people in the US who live off their paycheck, you know that its probably not enough for your basic neccesities; that is because a 'paycheck' is a wage, and doesn't represent the full value of your labor anyway.

I completely agree on the fact that the US method of state intervention in economic proceedings is fundamentally flawed, in that it is a bourgeois state. However, getting rid of regulation and control isn't going to fix anything at all, in fact it would probably exacerbate the economic crisis and cause massive failure of business cycles to survive with out of course, a state to bail them out. I think its worth pointing out that such regulation was put in place, because of the instability of the capitalist business cycle around the time of the Great Depression. You rant on and on, about how the state does this and the state that and referring to all the negative aspects of it. But what about the massive industrialization and innovation of the American economy and infrastructure, as crude, malicious and as built on exploitation of worker's as it was; with out state intervention, the Reconstruction would have never been achieved, railroads, electrification, etc would not have taken place. It's absolutely correct to note that the American capitalist state (as well as most capitalist states) has out grown its potential for progression, and positive development for worker's struggles; but if it wasn't for past successes and current defensive of won struggles that got you that paycheck. Without the state laying down a minimum wage, 8-hour-work day, worker's compensation, sick days etc, working life would be a hell of a lot worse.

Laissez-faire economics isn't to different from Uncle Sam, it is fundamentally based on private ownership of the means of production; there for its difficult for me to accept that restricting the unity of workers in their production and control, and keeping the division of labor nice and divided, that one could possibly pose the question of "is there relative freedom in this society." Of course their isn't, the wealth of a hypothetical 'anarcho-capitalist' society would be privately owned and controlled, hence there is no possible medium for workers, or simply anyone who isn't a wealthy businessperson, to effectively utilize their freedom of consumption and decision making.

In theory, if private ownership of the means of production could go along with solely voluntary association and un-regulation as you say, then how come this type of development (that is the consoldiation of wealth and prodcution in capitalist society) never gone along voluntary lines, in respect to the division of labor?

Value is relative; my labor might be worth more to one person and worth less to another so I go where it's valued highest. The problem with minimum-wage is that it assumes that all labor is valued equally and thus all workers should be paid some sort of equal amount when some are better at their job than others and thus should be paid more, giving incentive to work to the best of your ability if not better.

Some businesses should fail. If they're not meeting the consumer demand, if they're not doing a good enough job and providing a good enough product or service in order to remain a serious competitor in their given market... theres no reason for them to exist. When something is doing badly you dont try and fix it by throwing more money at it, you stop supporting it and tell it to get it's shit together or risk extinction. Now by Reconstruction do you mean post-Civil War because if that's the case, the State HAD to do something to fix the mess it made. The 8-hour week, etc. would've been accomplished anyway by the unions so no need for State-involvement; I trust workers to bargain for themselves rather than let Washington do it.

Division of labor isnt a political tool it's an economic one meant to increase production-rate in shorter time. Where workers truly interested in unity they're free to socialize outside the work-place and discuss their grievances and what to do about them. The medium for utilizing freedom is simple: the market. In the market we see no discrimination; it doesnt matter if you're white, black, red, so long as you've got green. By giving money to business that meets one's personal ideas or interests we see democracy, the consumer democratically giving life to the business in hopes that it will do as the consumer wishes.

As a whole it hasnt happend in recent history because of the involvement of big business in politics influencing the passage of bills that put restriction on trade and competition. I'm not sure what you're asking in regards to the division of labor so I cant really give an answer.

Nwoye

30th May 2009, 03:16

Havet

2nd June 2009, 17:05

so supposing the complete privatization and marketization of current governmental services (roads, police, firemen, etc), how do you deal with externalities and their affect on market outcomes. right now, industries where benefits and costs are not clearly internal, and have significant external affects (roads, police, firemen, courts, etc), are mostly publicly funded. meaning everyone pays, and everyone gets benefit. this is because a market would not be abel to deal with these issues efficiently.

for example, imagine privatized fire services. if someones house was on fire, and they couldn't pay to call a private fire department, what would happen? her house would burn down, and it would most likely spread to other houses on the street. it would also mean lots of smoke, and would make the air dangerous for those living in the neighborhood. also, if it's in a highly populated area - the middle of a city - then it could cause severe damage, or could obstruct peoples everyday activities. so we can see that the costs of that person going without a fire service are externalized, and therefore so are the benefits. if she pays for fire service, everyone who lives around her is made better off, and if she doesn't everyone around here is made worse off. and really, everyone would be made better off if their neighbors had access to fire service. so wouldn't the most efficient and desirable option be to make the service public - meaning everyone pays and everyone receives benefit?

here's a better explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities#Examples)

the existence of externalities is pretty much a nail in the coffin of conventional free market economics, and all of the nonsense that goes with it.

Since Green Apostle seems to have converted due to unknown mystical reasons, I will try and answer to that

First I would like to quote David friedman on externalities:

An externality is a net cost or benefit that my action imposes on you. Familiar examples--in addition to the cost of listening to me talk too long in a meeting--are pollution (a negative externality--a cost) and scientific progress as a result of theoretical research (a positive externality--a benefit). Externalities are all around us: When I paint my house or mow my lawn, I confer positive externalities on my neighbors; when you smoke in a restaurant or play loud music in the dorm at 1:00 a.m., you confer negative externalities on yours.

The problem with externalities is that since you, rationally enough, do not take them into account in deciding whether or not to smoke or play the music, you may do so even when the total cost (including the cost to your neighbors) is greater than the total benefit. Similarly, I may fail to mow my lawn this week because the benefit to me is less than the cost, even though the total benefit (including the benefit to my neighbors) is more.

How might one control externalities privately? One (real-world) solution is a proprietary community. A developer builds a housing development and sells the houses with the requirement that the buyer must join the neighborhood association. The neighborhood association either takes care of lawns, painting, and other things that affect the general appearance of the community or requires the owners to do so. A friend of mine who lived in such a community could not change the color of his front door without his neighbors' permission.

This sounds rather like government regulation masquerading as a private contract, but there are two important differences. It is in the private interest of the developer to set up the best possible rules, in order to maximize the price for which he can sell the houses. And nobody is forced to purchase a house and membership from that developer; if the package is not at least as attractive as any alternative, the customer can and will go elsewhere.

There is another private solution that applies to the case where "You" and "I" are not two people but two firms--merger. If a factory and a resort are both on the same lake and the factory's pollution is ruining the resort's business, one solution is for the two firms to join. After the resort buys out the factory, or vice versa, the combined firm will be trying to maximize the combined income. If controlling the factory's effluent increases the resort's income by more than it costs the factory, it will pay the merged firm to control the effluent. The externality is no longer external.

One way of looking at firms is precisely as ways of controlling such problems. one could imagine an economy of tiny firms, perhaps with only one person in each, coordinating their activities through the market. One reason we do not do things that way is that, when many firms are jointly producing a single product, decisions by each one affect all the others. If I am doing a crucial part of the job and make a mistake that delays it for six months, I am imposing large costs on the other firms--which I may not be able to compensate them for. By combining all of us into one firm, that sort of externality is internalized.

The disadvantage of doing it that way is that we introduce a new kind of externality. Now that I am an employee instead of an independent business, the cost of my sleeping on the job is borne by everyone else. So a firm must monitor its employees in ways in which it does not have to monitor other firms. The efficient size of firm is then determined by the balance between problems associated with coordinating a lot of small firms and problems associated with running one large firm.

Another solution to externality problems is the definition and enforcement of property rights in whatever is affected by the externality. It is in one sense a governmental solution, since property rights are defined by courts and legislatures, and in another sense a private solution, since once property rights are defined it is the market and not the government that decides what happens. An example is the case of British trout streams. Trout streams in Britain are private property. Each stream is owned by someone--frequently the local fishing club. An industrial polluter dumping effluent into such a stream is guilty of trespass, just as if he dumped it on someone's lawn. If he believes the stream is more valuable as a place to dump his effluent than as a trout stream, it is up to him to buy it. If he believes (and the fishing club does not) that his effluent will not hurt the trout, he can buy the stream and then--if he is right--rent the fishing rights back to the previous owners.

As this example suggests, what is or is not an externality depends in part on how property rights are defined. When I produce an automobile, I am producing something of value to you. It is not an externality because I can control whether you get it and will refuse to give it to you unless you pay me for it. Some externality problems arise because property rights are not defined when they should be: If land were not property, my fertilizing it or planting a crop would confer positive externalities on whoever later came by and harvested my crop. Under those circumstances, crops would not be planted. Other problems arise because there is no way of defining property rights that does not lead to externalities in one direction or another. If I have to get your permission to play my stereo when you want to sleep, I can no longer impose an externality on you--but your decision to go to sleep when I want to play my stereo imposes an externality on me! If only two people are involved, they may be able to work out an efficient arrangement by mutual negotiation--but air pollution in Los Angeles affects several million people. Just as in the case of producing a public good, the problems of negotiating a unanimous contract become larger the larger the number of people involved.

One way of looking at this is to say that all public-good/externality problems are really transaction-cost problems. If bargaining were costless, then the problems leading to inefficiency could always be solved. As long as there was some change that would produce net benefits, someone could put together a deal that would divide up the gain in such a way as to benefit all concerned. This argument has a name--it is called the Coase Theorem (after economist Ronald Coase). Looked at in this way, the interesting question is always "What are the transaction costs that prevent the efficient outcome from being reached?"

Just because something is currently publicly funded doesn't mean a market couldn't provide it better. Many times it is repressive action of government themselves that forbid competition with them. One of the most famous examples is the US mail monopoly

"The American Letter Mail Company was started by Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner) in 1844, competing with the legal monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly) of the United States Post Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Post_Office) (USPO) (now the USPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service)) in violation of the Private Express Statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes). It succeeded in delivering mail for lower prices, but the U.S. Government challenged Spooner with legal measures, eventually forcing him to cease operations in 1851"

There are already many examples of privatized fire departments. However, you might eb confusing the idea of "privatized" with the idea of "profit-seeking". Current privatized fire departments are all voluntary associations, that don't tax people whom they represent, nor trade services directly by means of money. People just gathered voluntarily and decided to provide that service by asking for private donations of people, and by asking for people to volunteer whenever there is an emergency.

The problem with everyone paying and everyone receiving the benefit is that some who will never use the service will have to pay for it as well. In the case you presented, the person who (assuming) created the fire in her property, is allowing the fire to spread, therefore if the fire brings damages to anybody else's property, the owner is liable for it.

However, suppose the person was not in her house and the fire started at random, spreading at will. In that case, the neighbours could contact the fire departments to protect them as soon as the fire reached their house, and someone would contact the initial owner to notify her if she wished to pay for the services of the fire occuring in her house.

Nwoye

2nd June 2009, 20:51

Since Green Apostle seems to have converted due to unknown mystical reasons, I will try and answer to that
yeah that was... strange.

First I would like to quote David friedman on externalities:
alright. i'll go through and give my thoughts on parts of his argument.

There is another private solution that applies to the case where "You" and "I" are not two people but two firms--merger. If a factory and a resort are both on the same lake and the factory's pollution is ruining the resort's business, one solution is for the two firms to join. After the resort buys out the factory, or vice versa, the combined firm will be trying to maximize the combined income. If controlling the factory's effluent increases the resort's income by more than it costs the factory, it will pay the merged firm to control the effluent. The externality is no longer external.I really, really don't see that happening. For various reasons, the thought that companies would just merge - after probably going through a legal battle - is slim to none.

also,

Just as in the case of producing a public good, the problems of negotiating a unanimous contract become larger the larger the number of people involved.exactly. we're talking about externalities that affect regional economies and city-wide populations - not just loud music.

One way of looking at this is to say that all public-good/externality problems are really transaction-cost problems. If bargaining were costless, then the problems leading to inefficiency could always be solved. As long as there was some change that would produce net benefits, someone could put together a deal that would divide up the gain in such a way as to benefit all concerned. This argument has a name--it is called the Coase Theorem (after economist Ronald Coase). Looked at in this way, the interesting question is always "What are the transaction costs that prevent the efficient outcome from being reached?"Well Friedman brings up the obvious problem with this. The Coase Theorem ignores the possibility of there being transaction costs in the bargaining process. It also doesn't apply to more complex matters, such as healthcare or insurance.

Consider privatized roads. If roads become privately owned, then I assume their owners would charge some toll correct? Even if it's very small it is an extra fee nonetheless. In this case, there would naturally be a downturn in people who took that road? I mean your basic supply and demand says that if the price goes up, demand shifts to meet it. In this case, less people take that road, or less people go that way into town. Businesses located on that road, or located where one must take that road to get to them, would naturally lose revenue.

So would it not result in more economic activity and generally more economic prosperity to have the road made public?

Just because something is currently publicly funded doesn't mean a market couldn't provide it better. Many times it is repressive action of government themselves that forbid competition with them. One of the most famous examples is the US mail monopoly

"The American Letter Mail Company was started by Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner) in 1844, competing with the legal monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly) of the United States Post Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Post_Office) (USPO) (now the USPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service)) in violation of the Private Express Statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes). It succeeded in delivering mail for lower prices, but the U.S. Government challenged Spooner with legal measures, eventually forcing him to cease operations in 1851"yeah that's fucked up. you won't get an argument from me here.

There are already many examples of privatized fire departments. However, you might eb confusing the idea of "privatized" with the idea of "profit-seeking". Current privatized fire departments are all voluntary associations, that don't tax people whom they represent, nor trade services directly by means of money. People just gathered voluntarily and decided to provide that service by asking for private donations of people, and by asking for people to volunteer whenever there is an emergency.well that effectively makes them a public good. i assume they would answer all fire calls right? well then for all intents and purposes they're not private, or at least not part of a market.

but your point is taken.

The problem with everyone paying and everyone receiving the benefit is that some who will never use the service will have to pay for it as well. In the case you presented, the person who (assuming) created the fire in her property, is allowing the fire to spread, therefore if the fire brings damages to anybody else's property, the owner is liable for it.well I think this is a problem with some current public goods (museums, community centers, etc), but with more fundamental public goods (roads, courts, police forces, firemen) i think the benefit is shared fairly evenly among society. I would say that even though I rarely come in contact with them, I benefit from having a public police force.

and in my example i was assuming the fire was accidental.

However, suppose the person was not in her house and the fire started at random, spreading at will. In that case, the neighbours could contact the fire departments to protect them as soon as the fire reached their house, and someone would contact the initial owner to notify her if she wished to pay for the services of the fire occuring in her house.Well here are more problems with Coase Theorem. It assumes people would act rationally, and would call the fire department (and that neighbors were home), and that there are no substantial transaction costs in obtaining the fire department's services.

Havet

3rd June 2009, 14:22

I really, really don't see that happening. For various reasons, the thought that companies would just merge - after probably going through a legal battle - is slim to none.

Well that's the point isn't it? There wouldn't such a big legal battle as now is required by the state today. Since they would have an interest in joining, they would do it as quick as possible. But it's just an option they can consider. Merging also brings more problems: more workers to manage, more resources to manage, less effectiveness due to size increase.

exactly. we're talking about externalities that affect regional economies and city-wide populations - not just loud music.

Well Friedman brings up the obvious problem with this. The Coase Theorem ignores the possibility of there being transaction costs in the bargaining process. It also doesn't apply to more complex matters, such as healthcare or insurance.

out of curiosity, why doesn't it apply to more complex matters, such as healthcare or insurance? Because there are transaction costs in the bargaining process?

Consider privatized roads. If roads become privately owned, then I assume their owners would charge some toll correct?

Well not exactly. Depends on who built the road. There doesn't need to be tolls for it to be profitable. The owners can just pay for it through advertising, the kind of "necessary evil" this forum also runs on (lol).

There could also be in the interest of a community to pay and maintain the roads that access their community for free, so anyone could use it, with the benefit of attracting more people to that community for whatever reason.

Even if it's very small it is an extra fee nonetheless. In this case, there would naturally be a downturn in people who took that road? I mean your basic supply and demand says that if the price goes up, demand shifts to meet it. In this case, less people take that road, or less people go that way into town. Businesses located on that road, or located where one must take that road to get to them, would naturally lose revenue.

Yeah, less people take the road, businesses or towns on that toll road get less people, less customers, make less money and conclude - or go bankrupt - that it is the toll prices that are driving customers away. Therefore, to make money, they need to consider another process, like i mentioned above, maybe paying the road with ads or in case of a community who a priori says whoever wants to live there must pay a fee, could pay for that road to be maintained. Even individuals by voluntary association can decide to make a road and charge nothing to the users if they believe it brings them more benefits in doing that.

So would it not result in more economic activity and generally more economic prosperity to have the road made public?

Like i said, someone has to pay for the maintenance of the road. Either you tax, like today, or people voluntarily associate to cover the costs because it brings them more benefits or other voluntary ways. The important point I think both of us should recognize is that we don't need a state or a government taxing people to pay for many services, because people will naturally associate themselves to provide those services, since they are useful.

In this sense, in a voluntary society branded anarcho-capitalist, people would be likely to provide roads without tolling, since when faced with alternatives to reach a town, someone will prefer by the cheapest method.
And if there are no cheapest methods, or road tollers have a "monopoly in land" so that nobody can go anywhere without paying a fee (assuming that monopoly could ever occur AND those road owners had gotten the land legitimately), enough people could still get anough land and make a community where inside everyone could be free to move around.

but your point is taken.

Well they are a part of a market, because they trade services, just not in the manner most people are accustomed to when dealing with fire departments. Then again, it's all a matter of semantics.

well I think this is a problem with some current public goods (museums, community centers, etc), but with more fundamental public goods (roads, courts, police forces, firemen) i think the benefit is shared fairly evenly among society. I would say that even though I rarely come in contact with them, I benefit from having a public police force.

I also agree the simple existance of a public police force around you might detract some criminals of engaging with force. But so does an armed population. In a free society, you could also benefit from "public police forces" in the same way you beenfit from one today when going to a mall that has private security, because it is likely most people would be organized in communities which would have some way of defense businesses would pay for. In the case of an armed population, it would be the same as going to an NRA convention, which is why there aren't any cases of mass shotouts there.

Well here are more problems with Coase Theorem. It assumes people would act rationally, and would call the fire department (and that neighbors were home), and that there are no substantial transaction costs in obtaining the fire department's services.

Well it can assume people act rationally, but its plain common sense to protect your property and life from a fire or natural disaster. If the neighbours weren't home, and it could be proved the fire was started due to negligence of the 1st victim of fire, that victim now owed the cost of repairing the harm done to the neighbours.

Like i said, there can be no substancial transaction costs when contacting some fire department's services: in the case of voluntary fire departments. .

Nwoye

4th June 2009, 01:01

Well that's the point isn't it? There wouldn't such a big legal battle as now is required by the state today. Since they would have an interest in joining, they would do it as quick as possible. But it's just an option they can consider. Merging also brings more problems: more workers to manage, more resources to manage, less effectiveness due to size increase.
I think merging brings a ton of problems. And why would it necessarily be in their best interest? I mean couldn't the factory just ignore the resort, or hire a private defense team to protect them from aggression? If there were no legal ramifications then they don't really have to acknowledge their wrongdoing.

but we're getting off track here. this isn't really that important in the grand scheme of the actual debate.

out of curiosity, why doesn't it apply to more complex matters, such as healthcare or insurance? Because there are transaction costs in the bargaining process?well that, and because the very nature of the businesses fall prey to external effects (and imperfect information). for example, people driving poorly and getting into car crashes force costs on other people at the insurance company. or people who use tanning beds getting skin cancer and rising health insurance (or care) costs. Since insurance aren't aware of these behaviours beforehand (most of the time) they can't account for it in the price charged. So the best driver in the universe pays the same as the guy who drives with his knees while eating taco bell.

The owners can just pay for it through advertising, the kind of "necessary evil" this forum also runs on (lol). yeah i saw your sig. that's pretty funny.

There could also be in the interest of a community to pay and maintain the roads that access their community for free, so anyone could use it, with the benefit of attracting more people to that community for whatever reason.effectively making it a public good.

Yeah, less people take the road, businesses or towns on that toll road get less people, less customers, make less money and conclude - or go bankrupt - that it is the toll prices that are driving customers away. Therefore, to make money, they need to consider another process, like i mentioned above, maybe paying the road with ads or in case of a community who a priori says whoever wants to live there must pay a fee, could pay for that road to be maintained. just addressing your last comment here - how is that any different than a state taxing someone?

The important point I think both of us should recognize is that we don't need a state or a government taxing people to pay for many services, because people will naturally associate themselves to provide those services, since they are useful.I think the distinction should be made between a state as a purely administrative entity which protects and serves the interests of its constituents and a state as the centralized, authoritarian, object of class rule that it is today.

I also agree the simple existance of a public police force around you might detract some criminals of engaging with force. But so does an armed population. In a free society, you could also benefit from "public police forces" in the same way you beenfit from one today when going to a mall that has private security, because it is likely most people would be organized in communities which would have some way of defense businesses would pay for. In the case of an armed population, it would be the same as going to an NRA convention, which is why there aren't any cases of mass shotouts there.two things: i don't think simply "an armed population" prevents crime. I'm certainly no advocate of gun control, but thinking that just giving everyone guns would end crime is kind of silly.

also, if a community - a large one - decided to pool their money and pay a regular fee to maintain a police force that kept their area safe, how would that not be a state?

Havet

4th June 2009, 09:51

I think merging brings a ton of problems. And why would it necessarily be in their best interest? I mean couldn't the factory just ignore the resort, or hire a private defense team to protect them from aggression? If there were no legal ramifications then they don't really have to acknowledge their wrongdoing.

it wouldnt necessarily be in their best interest, it woulde of course depend on the situation

well that, and because the very nature of the businesses fall prey to external effects (and imperfect information). for example, people driving poorly and getting into car crashes force costs on other people at the insurance company. or people who use tanning beds getting skin cancer and rising health insurance (or care) costs. Since insurance aren't aware of these behaviours beforehand (most of the time) they can't account for it in the price charged. So the best driver in the universe pays the same as the guy who drives with his knees while eating taco bell.

people driving poorly and making accidents will now owe the victims the damage they caused, and the time they have lost getting better (if there was a physical injury).

just addressing your last comment here - how is that any different than a state taxing someone?

Well, the community would not be like a country, and would not try to enforce the taxes outside of it. However, i think the biggest attack one could make on ancap was that those communities could grow to the size of current countries and effectively one would have nowhere to go to not be taxed. however, just because that can happen, doesn't mean people should stop fighting for freedom.

two things: i don't think simply "an armed population" prevents crime. I'm certainly no advocate of gun control, but thinking that just giving everyone guns would end crime is kind of silly.

it can be silly, but it works in many cases. i didn't plan on giving anyone guns, but people would be free to buy them.

also, if a community - a large one - decided to pool their money and pay a regular fee to maintain a police force that kept their area safe, how would that not be a state?

like i said, communities could grow that much, voluntarily, and we could end up in the same situation today, althought that doesn't restrain my hopes of improving society, especially as long as i can make better ones voluntarily (competition).

Nwoye

4th June 2009, 19:15

Well, the community would not be like a country, and would not try to enforce the taxes outside of it. However, i think the biggest attack one could make on ancap was that those communities could grow to the size of current countries and effectively one would have nowhere to go to not be taxed. however, just because that can happen, doesn't mean people should stop fighting for freedom.See this is my biggest problem with Anarchism, or anarchists (although, it's not really a problem, just an observation). Most of the solutions they propose closely resemble a state, or at least a small government. The difference, is that it is a small, decentralized state, which has lost its political nature and has become purely a defense agency. I mean, you said you would support a community uniting under a single defense agency and providing protection in the form of a police service. That's a state. Now it's a totally legitimate state - one formed in the interests of the people it represents, and one which actually promotes liberty and security rather than harms it - but it's a state nonetheless.

Now, what if that state decided a public volunteer fire service was legitimate? Or if public roads, or public courts were legitimate? I mean what if all the members of the community decided (democratically) to provide every person in the country with healthcare? What if they decided democratically for every member to pay a regular fee for the upkeep of the public services?

like i said, communities could grow that much, voluntarily, and we could end up in the same situation today, althought that doesn't restrain my hopes of improving society, especially as long as i can make better ones voluntarily (competition).I think this is the correct attitude. In my opinion, the goal should be to reduce the state to a purely administrative entity, which is run on a face to face basis between its constituents. However, I don't have a problem with the state using force to protect those it represents.

Havet

4th June 2009, 22:26

See this is my biggest problem with Anarchism, or anarchists (although, it's not really a problem, just an observation). Most of the solutions they propose closely resemble a state, or at least a small government. The difference, is that it is a small, decentralized state, which has lost its political nature and has become purely a defense agency. I mean, you said you would support a community uniting under a single defense agency and providing protection in the form of a police service. That's a state. Now it's a totally legitimate state - one formed in the interests of the people it represents, and one which actually promotes liberty and security rather than harms it - but it's a state nonetheless.

I think the problem here comes with the definition of state, which i define as an agency of legitimized coercion.

government is distinguished from legitimate nongovernmental groups which may serve some of the same functions by the fact that it is coercive. For instance, governments build roads. So, occasionally, do private individuals. But the private individuals must buy the land at a price satisfactory to the seller. The government can, and does, set a price at which the owner is forced to sell.

If the institutions which replace government perform their functions without coercion, they are not governments. If they occasionally act coercively but, when they do so, their actions are not regarded as legitimate, they are still not governments.

Now, what if that state decided a public volunteer fire service was legitimate? Or if public roads, or public courts were legitimate? I mean what if all the members of the community decided (democratically) to provide every person in the country with healthcare? What if they decided democratically for every member to pay a regular fee for the upkeep of the public services? Well, like I said before, the problem is that some will always end up paying for what they will never use, or might end up paying more because others can't afford it. Now i have nothing against people volunteering to help, but I have something against them being forced to help. Now if someone were to use the argument that they only stay in the country/state jurisdiction/community because they want and they are free to leave, then we go exactly to the same situation we are now.

If there was a possibility for most of the so called "taxes" to be voluntary, in the sense that those who wished to use a government services would be the ones that would have to pay, it would essentially be the same as private organizations. However, the problem is that the structure itself under which those programs are made have to count that some members of society are willing to bear a greater cost than others. I don't know, the whole argument that if we don't like the current state then we should just leave sounds pretty unbased . The same argument was raised in an ancap FAQ:

Why don't you just leave?

One could simply turn this around, and ask, "Why doesn't the State just leave?" The "love it or leave it" bromide begs the underlying question, who is entitled to occupy this space. Perhaps a hardcore statist would simply assume that the government rightfully owns everything, but anarcho-capitalists reject that assumption, given the State's history of conquest and plunder. We believe rightful property comes from homesteading and voluntary exchange, not conquest. A good anarcho-capitalist response may be, "The State doesn't rightfully own this property; people do." however, that argument somehow still doesn't convince me. There must be a better justification than that.

I think this is the correct attitude. In my opinion, the goal should be to reduce the state to a purely administrative entity, which is run on a face to face basis between its constituents. However, I don't have a problem with the state using force to protect those it represents.I agree with that as well, for the time being. My ultimate goal is to achieve a society where the great majority of interactions are voluntary and non-coercive.

Nwoye

5th June 2009, 00:24

I think the problem here comes with the definition of state, which i define as an agency of legitimized coercion.

government is distinguished from legitimate nongovernmental groups which may serve some of the same functions by the fact that it is coercive. For instance, governments build roads. So, occasionally, do private individuals. But the private individuals must buy the land at a price satisfactory to the seller. The government can, and does, set a price at which the owner is forced to sell.

If the institutions which replace government perform their functions without coercion, they are not governments. If they occasionally act coercively but, when they do so, their actions are not regarded as legitimate, they are still not governments.
A state is the monopolization of force over a geographical area, and a government is a body within a state which has the authority to enforce laws and regulations. A community united under a single defense agency is a state, and if they decide to enforce more specific laws and regulations (no smoking, no speeding, ect) then they're a government.

Well, like I said before, the problem is that some will always end up paying for what they will never use, or might end up paying more because others can't afford it.just like externalities. ;)

Now i have nothing against people volunteering to help, but I have something against them being forced to help. Now if someone were to use the argument that they only stay in the country/state jurisdiction/community because they want and they are free to leave, then we go exactly to the same situation we are now. i understand that.

however, suppose the community united under a single defense agency. How would they avoid the free rider problem? Obviously the whole community benefits from such a transaction, so shouldn't everyone pay?

If there was a possibility for most of the so called "taxes" to be voluntary, in the sense that those who wished to use a government services would be the ones that would have to pay, it would essentially be the same as private organizations. However, the problem is that the structure itself under which those programs are made have to count that some members of society are willing to bear a greater cost than others. I don't know, the whole argument that if we don't like the current state then we should just leave sounds pretty unbased . The same argument was raised in an ancap FAQ:
however, that argument somehow still doesn't convince me. There must be a better justification than that.I think if you accept the possibility of a state arising naturally, then you could support taxes as both a means of upkeep and avoiding the free rider problem.

I agree with that as well, for the time being. My ultimate goal is to achieve a society where the great majority of interactions are voluntary and non-coercive.I think this can be done within the confines of a state.