Some Good Books and Essays Against Socialism.

[Dejavu]

Vampire Economy - Guenter Reimann (http://www.mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf)
Socialism and International Economic Order - Elizabeth Tamedly (http://www.mises.org/books/socialism-tamedly.pdf)
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism - Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://www.mises.org/books/Socialismcapitalism.pdf)
"The Use of Knowledge in Society" - F.A. Hayek (http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekUseOfKnowledge.html)
"Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" - Ludwig Von Mises (http://www.mises.org/econcalc.asp)
"A Hundred Years of Marxian Socialism" - Ludwig Von Mises (http://www.mises.org/mmmp/mmmp16.asp)
"Karl Marx and the Close of His System" - Eugene von Bohm-Bawerk (http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/bohm/index.htm)
Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics - George Reisman (http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf)
"Intellectuals and Socialism" - F.A. Hayek (http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf)
Calculation and Coordination: Essays on Socialism and Transitional Political Economy - Peter J. Boetkke (http://www.mises.org/etexts/cc.pdf)
Drewnowski's Economic Theory of Socialism - Paul Craig Roberts (http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/WoPEc/data/ucpjpolec42.html)
Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War - Ludwig Von Mises (http://www.mises.org/etexts/og.pdf)

More to come. :D

[RGacky3]

How many of those books are attacks on the Soviet system, or the European Welfare system?

I ask because I don't consider those genuine Socialist systems.

[Demogorgon]

Given your utter lack on knowledge of both socialism and capitalism, I highly doubt you have read any of those.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Consider that most of those book do not stand with our definition. It is mostly fear tactic.

[palotin]

Agreed. Hayek consistently equates socialism with Stalinist collectivism. Standard reactionary move. Define the opposing ideology as something not even an adherent would support then declare it proof that we're all inherently fallen and could never use reason to realize a just and equitable society.

[pusher robot]

Agreed. Hayek consistently equates socialism with Stalinist collectivism. Standard reactionary move. Define the opposing ideology as something not even an adherent would support then declare it proof that we're all inherently fallen and could never use reason to realize a just and equitable society.

Yes, but the members of this forum in particular have absolutely no moral authority to makes this argument, considering they do the exact same thing from the other side, e.g., defining dysfunctional African warlord-states as "capitalist."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yes, but the members of this forum in particular have absolutely no moral authority to makes this argument, considering they do the exact same thing from the other side, e.g., defining dysfunctional African warlord-states as "capitalist."

We're just echoing what capitalists say (http://anti-state.com/)of Somalia.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You know, I have no problem with anti-socialist literature. Hell, I read a good deal of it myself. I think it's incredibly important to look at your own views critically.

That being said, Hoppe is a buffoon.

[Dejavu]

We're just echoing what capitalists say (http://anti-state.com/)of Somalia.

f the expectation was that Somalia would plunge into an abyss of chaos, what is the reality? A number of recent studies address this question, including one by economist Peter Leeson drawing on statistical data from the United Nations Development Project, World Bank, CIA, and World Health Organization. Comparing the last five years under the central government (1985–1990) with the most recent five years of anarchy (2000–2005), Leeson finds these welfare changes:
[LIST]
Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.LIST]Another even more comprehensive study published last year by Benjamin Powell of the Independent Institute, concludes: "We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally … not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."



Somalia's pastoral economy is now stronger than that of either neighboring Kenya or Ethiopia. It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country. Telecommunications have burgeoned in Somalia; a call from a mobile phone is cheaper in Somalia than anywhere else in Africa. A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu.


Hence the most violent years in Somalia were the years following 1991 when the United Nations was physically present, attempting to impose a central government. When the United Nations withdrew in 1995, the expectation of a future central government began to recede, and things began to stabilize. But the United Nations continued it efforts to re-establish a government through a series of some sixteen failed "peace conferences." In 2000 it set up a straw government, the Transitional National Government (TNG). However, not only did the northern Somali clans not recognize the TNG, it was unable to control its intended capital city of Mogadishu. Today a combined "peace-keeping mission" of United States–backed troops from Ethiopia, Somalia's traditional enemy, and Uganda under the aegis of the African Union is in Mogadishu attempting to prop up the TNG and secure its control over the rest of Somalia. Violence soars.


Whats the lesson? Instead of blaming Free Markets or Capitalism, one can see that the U.N. with their pro-socialist agenda is merely interested in Somalia's central government when the people of Somalia do not desire it.
If the U.N. would simply leave government in Somalia to the Somalians and not dangle the carrot of power on the stick which incites violence Somalia would grow.

Anarchy ( or Semi-Anarchy) paired up with Capitalism ( when Somalia was LEFT ALONE) IMPROVED conditions in the country. Lets put the blame where it belongs and thats the pro-socialist U.N.


Jazratt's Edit: Decreased text size to make post more easily readable. Please consider other members of the board when making posts rather than being an absolute prick and writing in gargantuan letters. Thank you.

[RedStarOverChina]

You sure have a selective memory.

In 2006, US-backed Ethiopia invaded Somalia, killing tens of thousands, and displacing more than 1.5 million.

Just another day under capitalism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And thus pusher robot's remark about us senselessly attacking capitalist Africa falls into the abyss, courtesy of Dejavu.


Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years.
Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7Stunning. Somalia's warlords have also been able to cut out their nearest competitors and centralize power through tactics not uncommon for murderous goons. After heated military conflicts, living conditions generally improve. For the Soviet Union and China the increase was much more substantial.


Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.See above. I'd also like to see where this medicine is coming from, and how it's being distributed. I have a feeling you're putting too much faith in some rosy market that does not exist.


Whats the lesson? Instead of blaming Free Markets or Capitalism, one can see that the U.N. with their pro-socialist agenda is merely interested in Somalia's central government when the people of Somalia do not desire it.
If the U.N. would simply leave government in Somalia to the Somalians and not dangle the carrot of power on the stick which incites violence Somalia would grow.

Anarchy ( or Semi-Anarchy) paired up with Capitalism ( when Somalia was LEFT ALONE) IMPROVED conditions in the country. Lets put the blame where it belongs and thats the pro-socialist U.N. Socialist UN? Are you bat crazy? Stop lying to yourself.

[Joby]

Yes, but the members of this forum in particular have absolutely no moral authority to makes this argument, considering they do the exact same thing from the other side, e.g., defining dysfunctional African warlord-states as "capitalist."

Thank's for this comment.

It seems like the logic goes everything bad in the world today is caused by Capitalism, and Communism is the answer. At the same time, if you criticize a Communist experiment well, then, it wasn't really communist.

[Dean]

Yes, but the members of this forum in particular have absolutely no moral authority to makes this argument, considering they do the exact same thing from the other side, e.g., defining dysfunctional African warlord-states as "capitalist."

The difference is that capitalism isn't for anything. If you condemn capitalism, you are condemning an immoral money-making schematic. If you condemn communism, you necessarily indicate condemnation of distinct morals and norms, and if they aren't present, your criticism is irrational.

I haven't seen egregious remarks against capitalism when it wasn't present, only comments which blame capitalism where it is present but not clearly at fault.

[careyprice31]

You know, I have no problem with anti-socialist literature. Hell, I read a good deal of it myself. I think it's incredibly important to look at your own views critically.

.

Same. I agree. Thats why I come to OI a lot. Because I know OI's can teach me about different things as well as Marxists can.

Deja Vu is my good friend, actually, we have some very interesting discussions.

I am not elitist, and I am not cliquish. I make friends with everybody who is nice. (thats one reason the capitalists love me because I dont avoid them like so many of my fellow leftists do. I say hi and I make friends with them.):)

[pusher robot]

The difference is that capitalism isn't for anything. If you condemn capitalism, you are condemning an immoral money-making schematic.

The gulf of misunderstanding would be far less vast if you would make even the slightest effort to understand what other people actually think, even if you disagree, instead of trying to alter reality by imposing your idiosyncratic semantics on them.

[careyprice31]

The gulf of misunderstanding would be far less vast if you would make even the slightest effort to understand what other people actually think, even if you disagree, instead of trying to alter reality by imposing your idiosyncratic semantics on them.

You know that actually makes sense?

In order to understand why you disagree with somethinhg, you have to learn the history of it, and what it is all about, and read about not just the side of opinions you like, but also hear the people who's opinions you dont like. I believe you will never truely understand something, or why you disagree on it, until you know both sides. only then will you get the full story, and only then will you be able to fully understand not only what happened, but also why you think it happened and that is the key to understanding yourself and why u hold the opinions that you do.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thank's for this comment.

It seems like the logic goes everything bad in the world today is caused by Capitalism, and Communism is the answer. At the same time, if you criticize a Communist experiment well, then, it wasn't really communist.

When capitalists admit to Somalia being capitalists, I just feel compelled to agree. Look at the response above. I am not bitter about admitting faults nor do I find communism infallible to criticism, but come on now - we had someone in this very thread come up and defend Somalia!

[Xiao Banfa]

It seems like the logic goes everything bad in the world today is caused by Capitalism, and Communism is the answer. At the same time, if you criticize a Communist experiment well, then, it wasn't really communist.


I don't see it this way. I ask myself, in a scientific way : 'how socialist was/is this country, how democratic was/is this country'.

I attribute the faults to what the answers are to those questions.

Also, sometimes whether it was the correct time to implement socialism.

You can't just treat the many attempts at building socialism as a monolith and, since they largely failed (for one reason or another) as proof that socialism doesn't work.

This logic is essentially dishonest.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hey, at least anarcho-capitalist Somalia experienced a 2.5 year growth in life expectancy after the civil war calmed down. :laugh:

[Green Dragon]

I don't see it this way. I ask myself, in a scientific way : 'how socialist was/is this country, how democratic was/is this country'.

I attribute the faults to what the answers are to those questions.

Also, sometimes whether it was the correct time to implement socialism.

You can't just treat the many attempts at building socialism as a monolith and, since they largely failed (for one reason or another) as proof that socialism doesn't work.

This logic is essentially dishonest.


As the theory keeps failing, what is the basis for continued belief: Science, or faith?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

As the theory keeps failing, what is the basis for continued belief: Science, or faith?


Seeing as how the theory was not implemented on the existing scientific analysis, we shall see. Republicanism was continuously hindered in Europe during the 19th century.

How about you? Pinochet's Chile was a total disaster for the people. The good marketeer provided unemployment levels not seen since the Great Depression, and gave the top 10% over 85% of the country's wealth. This wonderful "near anarcho-capitalist" Somalia that the author of this thread touts looks to me like a utopian paradise. I better set up shop there so that I can get in on the benefits of a free market!

[Xiao Banfa]

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiao Banfa http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1092332#post1092332)
I don't see it this way. I ask myself, in a scientific way : 'how socialist was/is this country, how democratic was/is this country'.

I attribute the faults to what the answers are to those questions.

Also, sometimes whether it was the correct time to implement socialism.

You can't just treat the many attempts at building socialism as a monolith and, since they largely failed (for one reason or another) as proof that socialism doesn't work.

This logic is essentially dishonest.


As the theory keeps failing, what is the basis for continued belief: Science, or faith?


You're not taking circumstances into account at all here. How long has socialism been around for? Roughly a century and a half.

We then saw attempts at building socialism lasting the greater part of the 20th century, which continues in a threadbare way today.

You can't describe that as a period of socialist failure.

Also ask yourself why di it largely fail? That's the point.

My answer was that it was not due to any inherent and terminal ineffiecieny in socialism.

Socialist states succeeded and failed for various different reasons. Historical circumstances dealt crucial death blows.

We can go into this in greater depth, but I'll say that traditional marxist-leninist forms of organisation are obselete if that's what you're getting at.

[Bud Struggle]

The gulf of misunderstanding would be far less vast if you would make even the slightest effort to understand what other people actually think, even if you disagree, instead of trying to alter reality by imposing your idiosyncratic semantics on them.

Damn! Ain't that the truth! :D

Best post I've read on this place.

[Green Dragon]

Seeing as how the theory was not implemented on the existing scientific analysis, we shall see.



Uh huh, it was not implemented according to how YOU think it ought tom have been implemented.


Republicanism was continuously hindered in Europe during the 19th century.
Which is relevent only as a question of "faith." I could point out that Europe was far more stable and far more benign in the 19th century when kings and dukes were the order of the day, than in the 20th when republics took over.




How about you? Pinochet's Chile was a total disaster for the people. The good marketeer provided unemployment levels not seen since the Great Depression, and gave the top 10% over 85% of the country's wealth. This wonderful "near anarcho-capitalist" Somalia that the author of this thread touts looks to me like a utopian paradise. I better set up shop there so that I can get in on the benefits of a free market!




Which is meaningless in terms of socialism. What is the basis to state that socialist Chile would be better than a capitalist one? Faith that socialism is superior? or that you believe your scientific analysis form building socialism is superior (and didn't all those other failed socialists states have its cheerleaders who claimed their scientifc analysis of buikding socialism was correct?).

[Green Dragon]

You're not taking circumstances into account at all here. How long has socialism been around for? Roughly a century and a half.

We then saw attempts at building socialism lasting the greater part of the 20th century, which continues in a threadbare way today.

You can't describe that as a period of socialist failure.


But why not? Today the great rallypoint seems to be Venezuala, which STILL fails the historical analysis test as that country is far less developed than other capitalist state. Will that fact be the excuse when Chavez fails?



Also ask yourself why di it largely fail? That's the point.

My answer was that it was not due to any inherent and terminal ineffiecieny in socialism.


Yes. I have asked that question here many times. Other OIers have done the same. You claim it is not due to any systemic problem in socilaism. Fine. But the common denominator which has united the failures of claimed socialism in Asia, Europe, South America, Affica, the mid east, has been socialism.




We can go into this in greater depth, but I'll say that traditional marxist-leninist forms of organisation are obselete if that's what you're getting at.


yes, but why are they obsolete? was the problem in hiow they tried to build socialism? Or was the problem building socialism?

[Xiao Banfa]

But why not? Today the great rallypoint seems to be Venezuala, which STILL fails the historical analysis test as that country is far less developed than other capitalist state. Will that fact be the excuse when Chavez fails?



It doesn't matter. Venezuelas working class is big enough.



Will that fact be the excuse when Chavez fails?


He has alot of forces aligned against him and he is a buffoon. So I won't be chucking in socialism if that happens?

The most likely thing that will happen is that the whole Chavez thing will result in some kind of south american integration, which will endure.

And maybe greater state control of the economy.

Nothing Chavez is doing currently shows he is really able (or willing) to create anything more than a mixed economy.


You claim it is not due to any systemic problem in socilaism. Fine. But the common denominator which has united the failures of claimed socialism in Asia, Europe, South America, Affica, the mid east, has been socialism.

The 'marxist' states of the twenty-first century developed under the wing and guidance of the Soiviet Union, their mistakes affected all.

They all went ahead with the big no-no's of socialism- forced collectivisation, unnacountable economic planning, carbon copying their own ideology of practice onto other movements.

I mean when you look back, of course it failed. Those states were absolutely besieged by far stronger states. States that had ruling class traditions dating back 300 years.

States that had greater technology, greater growth (capitalism has the capacity to create greater growth than socialist economies, always has and probably wil be the case for the future socialist economies), more mature traditions of everything that makes a country 'great'.

The crude siege socialism that developed in the soviet union from an early stage gave perfect conditions for manipulative and power-hungry leaders to crush all debate and alternative lines within the party.

What better way for the USSR to steam ahead economically and ward of aggression and substerfuge than Stalin?

The democratic mass upheaval in the early days of the USSR gave way to executive rule and war communism as the entente armies from 20 nations invaded the infant state.

The civil war was very close.

The question is not 'Does a publicly owned economy work?', because as anyone who has examined public ownership knows it does.

The question is 'Can a socialist state survive and maintain it's integrity, efficiency and democratic nature?'.

We must make sure the answer to that question is yes, for the sake of humanity.

[Dean]

The gulf of misunderstanding would be far less vast if you would make even the slightest effort to understand what other people actually think, even if you disagree, instead of trying to alter reality by imposing your idiosyncratic semantics on them.

I understand many of the moral arguments for capitalism. When it comes to free-market "libertarians," much of their fundamental arguments are the same as those for communism. The problem is that, morally, they fail in recognizing that "do what you want until it harms someone else" is not feasible for human beings when they are born into a system where they cannot make the choice to be completely self-relient. This maxim is good, and an aspect of communist morals, but not as a singular principle.

The general problem with their logic and mentaltiy is clear. I have spent yaears arguing with some of the most obsessive right - libertarians, and I gave up when I stoped seeing anything new. The basic problem with the capitalist mentality is that, despite all their claims to support immigrant rights and human rights, they care primarily and sometimes exclusively about property rights. It is telling that so many of these people have gotten behind Ron Paul, a xenophobe, simply for his economic policies. This is, again, a philosophy that is not for anything - it is only against state coercion in the economy.

This brings up another problem thaey consistantly refuse to address. The distinction between state and company is a central theme to capitalists, the former being the enemy, and yet they really don't know what the difference is. Some even envision a system where a centralized, privatized police force manages all security - but not a state! Perhaps, they could claim that this is to create competition and a market, but that is not the point for these people. The goal is simple: corporate martial law.

Of course, I'm not pretending that you hold any of these views, but I have read some of Mises's work, and it is very bland, mechanical and the human is treated like an easily understood machine in his writings. If I was debating with him specifically, I would probably read some of his writing, but since I'm not debating him, and I am debating people who may or may not adhere to his philosophies, I will respond to those people's statements specifically.

And as for the arguments I gave about capitalism, if you agree with some of the platforms I criticised, feel free to respond in kind. But if you don't, then don't worry about it. If I posted a list of articles, some of which you were familiar with, and made no arguments myself, I would not be offended or think you were trying to "ignore what I believe" if you criticised them. If you disagree with my definitions (at least I stipulated one without using the term vaguely) then tell me, don't just say that they are my own alone. I was actually inspired to the definition by some points I saw in a documentary about the rise of free-market policy, so it's not completely my own anyways.

[Dejavu]

I understand many of the moral arguments for capitalism. When it comes to free-market "libertarians," much of their fundamental arguments are the same as those for communism. The problem is that, morally, they fail in recognizing that "do what you want until it harms someone else" is not feasible for human beings when they are born into a system where they cannot make the choice to be completely self-relient. This maxim is good, and an aspect of communist morals, but not as a singular principle.And why would you loosely use the term 'libertarian' when referencing real free market advocates? Do you perhaps listen to the conservative rhetoric and develop the opinion that goof balls like Sean Hannity , Rush Limbaugh, and other notable conservatives represent the Free Market? If you bother to study the history of liberalism you will find that laissez fair capitalism and free markets are very much liberal economics. The modern libertarians are the American offshoots of the classical liberals of Europe although they are not in lockstep with all classical liberal views. Hence, the very definition of liberalism has been hijacked by the anti-liberal socialists and real liberals have been thought of closer to modern conservatives.
I question your meaning or motives when you phrase 'completely self reliant.' I hope you're not suggesting that libertarian free market advocates seriously entertain the idea of a sort of 'extremist autarky' down to the individual level. Hopefully you don't think this and if you do I suggest doing some reading on what the free market is all about.
Individualism or individualist anarchism is not autarky ( maybe to a rare few) but certainly not to free market anarchists. We do not reject society.




The general problem with their logic and mentaltiy is clear. I have spent yaears arguing with some of the most obsessive right - libertarians, and I gave up when I stoped seeing anything new. The basic problem with the capitalist mentality is that, despite all their claims to support immigrant rights and human rights, they care primarily and sometimes exclusively about property rights. It is telling that so many of these people have gotten behind Ron Paul, a xenophobe, simply for his economic policies. This is, again, a philosophy that is not for anything - it is only against state coercion in the economy.Well I'm more left-libertarian. I don't fancy much national borders, 'national economies,' protectionism, and take a pro-choice stance on the abortion issue. I believe secession from the State ought to come down to the individual level. Most right-libertarians think much along the same lines except they flirt with nationalism.
The wonderful thing about 'caring for property rights' is that it has nothing to do with race, creed, religion, etc. Most libertarians look at everyone in society as individuals with the same natural rights and not as racial, religious, or gender based beings. The classic rule is do what you want so long as you keep your hands to yourself. Ron Paul is not a xenophobe and using the poor argument that a minority of his supporters might be is a waste of time. I don't agree with ALL of RP's positions as he is a bit more 'Right' than I am but he's spot on with his economic policies. Libertarians do not separate the economy from society. Most libertarians believe , at least those of us that see our roots in true liberalism, that political freedom and economic freedom are inextricable from each other. State control and/or manipulation of the economy often branches out beyond just the economy. True liberal economics can be found among those 'laissez fair radicals.'




This brings up another problem thaey consistantly refuse to address. The distinction between state and company is a central theme to capitalists, the former being the enemy, and yet they really don't know what the difference is. Some even envision a system where a centralized, privatized police force manages all security - but not a state! Perhaps, they could claim that this is to create competition and a market, but that is not the point for these people. The goal is simple: corporate martial law.Uh, I don't know what libertarians or self-proclaimed anarchist capitalists you talked to but this sounds off base to me. I have never heard a libertarian ( free marketer-capitalist type) EVER talk about CENTRALIZATION of even a privatized police force. The reason laissez fair advocates oppose the state is precisely because they hold a legal monopoly on all force and any competition for that force is always put down. Nor would laissez fair advocates EVER talk about using arbitrary force through private armies to 'create competition and create a market.' This is a pretty stupid comment, no offense. The market already exists and competition within it exists as well and has existed since the first ancient markets were formed.
And ' corporate martial law?' Now you're flirting with fascist ideas. Only the State can guarantee unchallenged monopolies through use of monopolized force. Libertarianism, classical liberal economic thought of Free Markets has NOTHING to do with fascism and is , in fact , the antithesis of fascism.


Of course, I'm not pretending that you hold any of these views, but I have read some of Mises work, and it is very bland, mechanical and the human is treated like an easily understood machine in his writings. If I was debating with him specifically, I would probably read some of his writing, but since I'm not debating him, and I am debating people who may or may not adhere to his philosophies, I will respond to those people's statements specifically.Funny, I get a whole different feel from Mises. Mises is a dynamic writer and might be a little hard to grasp for the novice. Economics is just one of the subjects Mises writes extensively about. If you want a fair introduction to what has become known as 'Austrolibertarianism,' often associated with the Misesian and Rothbardian firebrands I suggest starting of with more basic stuff in order to build a foundation of understanding and I can guarantee you'll view Mises in a much more respectable light though you can still obviously disagree with him.
The very comment that you gathered from Mises that ' humans are easily understood machines' is totally NOT Mises and actually the opposite of what Mises is saying.
Mises argues against logical positivism as a basis for understanding human action ( which he grounds as the starting point of any economy). He concludes that humans are ever changing and COMPLEX creatures that constantly change their desires and ends and therefore predicting a future economy with human actors is simply not doable with mathematical equations. This is brilliant insight and is very true in my opinion.
Go read again and look harder this time.


And as for the arguments I gave about capitalism, if you agree with some of the platforms I criticised, feel free to respond in kind. But if you don't, then don't worry about it. If I posted a list of articles, some of which you were familiar with, and made no arguments myself, I would not be offended or think you were trying to "ignore what I believe" if you criticised them. If you disagree with my definitions (at least I stipulated one without using the term vaguely) then tell me, don't just say that they are my own alone. I was actually inspired to the definition by some points I saw in a documentary about the rise of free-market policy, so it's not completely my own anyways.Well, you seem to miss the point on a lot of things if you actually claim to have read the works of people like Mises and Ron Paul. You claim you understand the libertarians yet you imply that they flirt with fascism. You loosely associate the word free market with libertarians when it is understood that the libertarians ( though not unified in all ideology) carry the mantle of the 'old left.' I suggest you study the history of liberalism and when you see that free markets and laissez fair capitalism ARE LEFTIST LIBERAL ECONOMICS.

[Dejavu]

This wonderful "near anarcho-capitalist" Somalia that the author of this thread touts looks to me like a utopian paradise. I better set up shop there so that I can get in on the benefits of a free market!

No no. I showed you actual statistical evidence there. Somalia's violence is almost entirely spurred on by U.N. intervention. Somalians are fine with out a central government and when the U.N. doesn't temp one side or another with money and power Somalia actually functions better than it did before. Also the U.S. is a menacing intervening force as well.
You seem to expect a lot out of Free Markets, more than is rationally expectable. You're still wondering why Somalia isn't a 'utopia' or the most advanced country in the world simply because its gone over to decentralization and markets. Thats an absurd expectation especially since it takes quite a while to advance capital in Somalia to modern standard. BUT AT LEAST SOMALIA WAS GOING IN THAT DIRECTION WHEN SOMALIA WAS LEFT ALONE but you're like a little leech on the process and are quick to agitate against free market capitalism for all of Somalia's woes. Keynes and Marx both tried that and now both of their economic philosophies are being questioned why they don't work like explained. When you understand that the U.N. is a One-World state force screwing up things in Somalia and that its actually not free market capitalism then you will have been endowed with basic tools of knowledge to investigate further.

PS: Chile ended up economically better off than before even under Pinochet who was at least more relaxed on the economy. Chile is the fastest growing country in S.A. as well and per capita income is actually not that bad. I still hate Pinochet but he wasn't a moron about the economy.

Here's my wager. You grant foreign forces leave Somalia the hell alone ( this includes U.S. forces and all foreigners) and I'll wager anything you want that Somalia would GO FORWARD and prosper beyond like it did before the renewed intervention. Btw, funny that cell phone calls from Somalia are the cheapest in the entire continent of Africa and Somalia produces more food than all its neighbors combined. But you're ridiculous if you suggest the Free Market can instantly change Somalia into a capital rich economically advanced nation. It takes time but going in the right direction is better than the wrong one.

So lets take that wager.

[Dean]

And why would you loosely use the term 'libertarian' when referencing real free market advocates? Do you perhaps listen to the conservative rhetoric and develop the opinion that goof balls like Sean Hannity , Rush Limbaugh, and other notable conservatives represent the Free Market? If you bother to study the history of liberalism you will find that laissez fair capitalism and free markets are very much liberal economics. The modern libertarians are the American offshoots of the classical liberals of Europe although they are not in lockstep with all classical liberal views. Hence, the very definition of liberalism has been hijacked by the anti-liberal socialists and real liberals have been thought of closer to modern conservatives.
I question your meaning or motives when you phrase 'completely self reliant.' I hope you're not suggesting that libertarian free market advocates seriously entertain the idea of a sort of 'extremist autarky' down to the individual level. Hopefully you don't think this and if you do I suggest doing some reading on what the free market is all about.
Individualism or individualist anarchism is not autarky ( maybe to a rare few) but certainly not to free market anarchists. We do not reject society.
Autarky has nothign to do with my argument, I am well aware that liberal economics indicate a free-market approach to portions of the economy, and the idiot commentators you mention have little to do with the rise of free-market fantasy. It was primarily a government movement in the 90s which encouraged this mechanical view of human beings.



Well I'm more left-libertarian. I don't fancy much national borders, 'national economies,' protectionism, and take a pro-choice stance on the abortion issue. I believe secession from the State ought to come down to the individual level. Most right-libertarians think much along the same lines except they flirt with nationalism.

The wonderful thing about 'caring for property rights' is that it has nothing to do with race, creed, religion, etc. Most libertarians look at everyone in society as individuals with the same natural rights and not as racial, religious, or gender based beings. The classic rule is do what you want so long as you keep your hands to yourself. Ron Paul is not a xenophobe and using the poor argument that a minority of his supporters might be is a waste of time.
His anti-immigration stance is a clear indication of xenophobia.


I don't agree with ALL of RP's positions as he is a bit more 'Right' than I am but he's spot on with his economic policies. Libertarians do not separate the economy from society. Most libertarians believe , at least those of us that see our roots in true liberalism, that political freedom and economic freedom are inextricable from each other. State control and/or manipulation of the economy often branches out beyond just the economy. True liberal economics can be found among those 'laissez fair radicals.'
Yes, they do seperate the economy from society (your brand at least), by implying that some thigns out to be nationalized (police for instance) while almost everything else should be private. There is the mroe extremist view, which most libertarians seem to believe in, where the state is nearly nonexistant - it's primary interest to defend property rights. The problem with this property fetishism is that human dignity, freedom and democracy have nothign to do with property rights, and often go against the concept. You have to choose, in each sitautation, if human life and dignity supercedes property rights.




Uh, I don't know what libertarians or self-proclaimed anarchist capitalists you talked to but this sounds off base to me. I have never heard a libertarian ( free marketer-capitalist type) EVER talk about CENTRALIZATION of even a privatized police force. The reason laissez fair advocates oppose the state is precisely because they hold a legal monopoly on all force and any competition for that force is always put down. Nor would laissez fair advocates EVER talk about using arbitrary force through private armies to 'create competition and create a market.' This is a pretty stupid comment, no offense. The market already exists and competition within it exists as well and has existed since the first ancient markets were formed.
Centralization is the natural outcome of a totally unregulated economy. Most libertarians I've spoken to oppose anti-trust laws and many, if not most, support privatized security. I've spoken to a lot of these nuts, and its scary.


And ' corporate martial law?' Now you're flirting with fascist ideas. Only the State can guarantee unchallenged monopolies through use of monopolized force. Libertarianism, classical liberal economic thought of Free Markets has NOTHING to do with fascism and is , in fact , the antithesis of fascism.
No, its not. This is a false dichotomy. Because I feel that communism is an ideally free society, I could say that it is the "antithesis of fascism." But that is just a meaningless appeal to emotion. Strictly speaking, fascism can exist within a caitalist economy and state, but not within a communist society. As for the state, I'll repeat my earlier critique: what is a state? The U.S. owns all of its territory and makes the laws for it. That sounds like a company to me; really, the only distinction here is linguistic convention, and that is hardly a good argument for or agaisnt social and economic policies.


Funny, I get a whole different feel from Mises. Mises is a dynamic writer and might be a little hard to grasp for the novice. Economics is just one of the subjects Mises writes extensively about. If you want a fair introduction to what has become known as 'Austrolibertarianism,' often associated with the Misesian and Rothbardian firebrands I suggest starting of with more basic stuff in order to build a foundation of understanding and I can guarantee you'll view Mises in a much more respectable light though you can still obviously disagree with him.

The very comment that you gathered from Mises that ' humans are easily understood machines' is totally NOT Mises and actually the opposite of what Mises is saying.
Mises argues against logical positivism as a basis for understanding human action ( which he grounds as the starting point of any economy). He concludes that humans are ever changing and COMPLEX creatures that constantly change their desires and ends and therefore predicting a future economy with human actors is simply not doable with mathematical equations. This is brilliant insight and is very true in my opinion.
Go read again and look harder this time.
I don't care to waste my time on such authors concerned primarily with disinterest in the human question and money fetishism, when I could be reading Joseph Fletcher, Noam Chomsky, Erich Fromm, Carl Jung or Paul Tillich. Really, I would rather read something enlightenign and humanistic than something written by a suporter of Pinochet.


Well, you seem to miss the point on a lot of things if you actually claim to have read the works of people like Mises and Ron Paul. You claim you understand the libertarians yet you imply that they flirt with fascism. You loosely associate the word free market with libertarians when it is understood that the libertarians ( though not unified in all ideology) carry the mantle of the 'old left.' I suggest you study the history of liberalism and when you see that free markets and laissez fair capitalism ARE LEFTIST LIBERAL ECONOMICS.
I don't give a damn if this disgusting form of tyranny was once called communism (i.e. Lenin's "war communism"). It's fucking evil. You can't find some quote by a marxist against queer rights and then argue that I should be against them too. In the same vein, it means shit that your so-called liberal economics (which was historically a tendancy much less "free-market" worshipping than the U.S. libertarian movement today) was once called leftist, or that the neocons were originally ex-trots.

Furthermore, don't insinuate that I'm ignorant of liberal economics just because I am discussing a movement which uses the term to justify a wildly dangerous free-market system. Your special little set of ideals may not apply, but that doesn't mean I'm getting the terms wrong. In fact, that's exactly why I didn't use the term 'liberal economics' - I wasn't talking about that.

[Xiao Banfa]

Can any of you pro-capitalist respected jolly citizens respond to my post please.

[Dejavu]

Autarky has nothign to do with my argument, I am well aware that liberal economics indicate a free-market approach to portions of the economy, and the idiot commentators you mention have little to do with the rise of free-market fantasy. It was primarily a government movement in the 90s which encouraged this mechanical view of human beings.So are you trying to suggest that the government promoted free markets?


His anti-immigration stance is a clear indication of xenophobia.Thats not xenophobia and who said anything about immigrants? Immigrants are legal and RP has no problem with them. In fact he's disturbed that all this failed immigration reform had a negative side effect on legal immigrants. It takes far too long for legal immigrants to become citizens. I know it took my family 17 years. Ron Paul's illegal immigration stance is actually quite consistent with the rest of his platform. His main arguments are why the government is spending so much overseas protecting foreign borders while our own borders are wide open? He believes the duty of national defense is actually defense and not military adventures. If the threat exists from terrorism, its a fact that 9/11 hijackers all had expired visas which means they were here illegally and no one even knew about it ( aside from probably govt insiders , but thats a whole different issue.) And illegal immigrants can be a problem on taxpayers. It simply isn't fair that American citizens are forced to pay higher taxes to provide social services for a portion of the population that doesn't put into the system. RP believes the welfare state provides the incentive to stay here for illegals.

I happen to agree with him on some points about it but like I said I'm not a nationalist at all and I don't care much for national borders or 'national economies.' I see more of an advantage from illegal workers but thats me. But it is a sad fact that we profess to have a government and the best national security but we can't even do our own borders right. I think RP points out the irony.

Btw, RP has three pictures of three historical persons in his private office. One of them was an American anarchist and a Jew. The other two were immigrants , one Jew , and one agnostic. RP is a w.a.s.p-y baptist too. lol.


Yes, they do seperate the economy from society (your brand at least), by implying that some thigns out to be nationalized (police for instance) while almost everything else should be private. There is the mroe extremist view, which most libertarians seem to believe in, where the state is nearly nonexistant - it's primary interest to defend property rights. The problem with this property fetishism is that human dignity, freedom and democracy have nothign to do with property rights, and often go against the concept. You have to choose, in each sitautation, if human life and dignity supercedes property rights.Um no, not really. Most libertarians are against nationalization of just about anything. However, some are minarchists and feel minimal government is a necessary evil. I happen to disagree with even that. A leviathan can only grow bigger. The most 'extremist view' is no state at all , not even to 'protect property rights.' Anarchists like Rothbard believed that property rights can be respected in anarchy. Your last comment sounds like an abortion argument and sounds more in the pro-life camp. lol.
Most libertarians believe that the highest respect to human dignity involves respecting each individual's natural rights : life, liberty, and property. Besides, isn't your life considered your property? How can someone be in the wrong for murdering someone if a society doesn't recognize a person's right to their life?


Centralization is the natural outcome of a totally unregulated economy. Most libertarians I've spoken to oppose anti-trust laws and many, if not most, support privatized security. I've spoken to a lot of these nuts, and its scary.Centralization is not the outcome. Centralization can only come from the State since it is the one institution that can claim a full unchallenged monopoly on violence. In fact I would argue the opposite, centralization would come out of socialism because socialism has no way to rationally allocate scarce resources. People would be begin fighting due to shortages and things of that sort which would lead to a demand for central authority to redistribute things 'fairly.' Anti-Trust laws usually don't come from the people at large but from companies that serve the public poorly by loosing in market competition. Anti-Trust usually ends up only punishing the consumer because price controls follow this trend. Can you explain how state security is actually better than non-state security?


No, its not. This is a false dichotomy. Because I feel that communism is an ideally free society, I could say that it is the "antithesis of fascism." But that is just a meaningless appeal to emotion. Strictly speaking, fascism can exist within a caitalist economy and state, but not within a communist society. As for the state, I'll repeat my earlier critique: what is a state? The U.S. owns all of its territory and makes the laws for it. That sounds like a company to me; really, the only distinction here is linguistic convention, and that is hardly a good argument for or agaisnt social and economic policies.Well I believe communism and fascism have a common root. That root is collectivism. Both communism and fascism play on the social order of things and view people as a collective whether it be a particular class ( proletarians, capitalists, etc) or a particular nation or racial group ( Germans , whites , etc.) Individualism is an enemy of both systems.
'Capitalism' and subsequently free markets become demagogued by the roaches in the trenches when they believe State-Bank-Corporatism is a true representation of 'Capitalism.' Usually socialists love to play this up and claim this is real capitalism yet they curiously absolve themselves of any connection to the totalitarian socialist regimes that actually existed and claim it is NOT socialism. lol. Don't even get me started on ' socialist economics' ( its an oxymoron.) lol.


I don't care to waste my time on such authors concerned primarily with disinterest in the human question and money fetishism, when I could be reading Joseph Fletcher, Noam Chomsky, Erich Fromm, Carl Jung or Paul Tillich. Really, I would rather read something enlightenign and humanistic than something written by a suporter of Pinochet.Obviously you never read Human Action (http://www.mises.org/resources/3250) by Mises if you're interested in the 'human question.' If you did , you wouldn't say that so I don't know where you get off spouting you've actually read Mises. Money fetishism? You probably suppose money arose from the State as well?


I don't give a damn if this disgusting form of tyranny was once called communism (i.e. Lenin's "war communism"). It's fucking evil. You can't find some quote by a marxist against queer rights and then argue that I should be against them too. In the same vein, it means shit that your so-called liberal economics (which was historically a tendancy much less "free-market" worshipping than the U.S. libertarian movement today) was once called leftist, or that the neocons were originally ex-trots.Actually the classical liberals were the champions of free markets. I'll admit there has never been a 100% true free market with any government ( there have been isolated stateless cases that ended up rather successful) since government is the antithesis of free market. I suggest reading Bastiat, Menger, Lord Acton, etc. if you really want to get the classical liberal view on markets. And Trotsky did inspire the early neocons.


Furthermore, don't insinuate that I'm ignorant of liberal economics just because I am discussing a movement which uses the term to justify a wildly dangerous free-market system. Your special little set of ideals may not apply, but that doesn't mean I'm getting the terms wrong. In fact, that's exactly why I didn't use the term 'liberal economics' - I wasn't talking about that.You've demonstrated a certain degree if ignorance of ( or refusal to accept) history of liberalism and its role in economics. So if the free market is so 'wildly dangerous' how is the State any better? Economic freedom is the path to political freedom , they are interlinked. Some people feel freedom is indeed a 'dangerous idea.'

[Dejavu]

Can any of you pro-capitalist respected jolly citizens respond to my post please.

Sorry bout that man. I'll take a look and respond soon.

[Dejavu]

The question is not 'Does a publicly owned economy work?Actually that is a very fair question. And the answer is no, it doesn't work and has failed in history in any form of capital rich, modern economy.
My comment on this will be as follows : I want to explain why Austrianism (http://www.mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp) is the ideological foe of Socialism ( be it State or Anarchist Socialism.) Austrians present an argument to socialists that is very difficult to prove wrong. In fact , the Austrian argument cannot be proven wrong empirically because it is based on apriori knowledge.

It often plays out like this. It can be said that most socialists today are fond of utopia. They envision a near perfect society where everyone contributes to the common good. This new society will bring about a 'new socialist man' who doesn't mind taking out the garbage at 4 am. Present socialists often look back at the socialism that has been already tried and distance themselves from the U.S.S.R. and Maoist China claiming that these breeds of socialism were all wrong and do not represent how socialism is 'really' supposed to work. This is a favorite argument used by current 'scientific socialists' who rely on empiricism ( actually not really empiricism but logical positivism) to defend their points.

They view human society and the economy as more of a natural science and believe human action can be easily predictable through a set of mathematical equations. The future 'aggregate' economy can be easily determined this way too as to ensure economic prosperity in the socialist paradise.

Its follows as so :

Stalin's 'equation' for socialism looked something like:

x-y/z = a(b)(c)

Socialist empiricists would say ' alright , this didn't work, it wasn't the right formula so we need to change some variables.' So the new socialist might envision a different socialist society with :

x(y)(z) = a(b-c)

If that new formula for socialism hasn't been tried yet then socialist defenders of it will always dismiss any criticism as not relevant since this new formula for socialism hasn't been tried yet and how could anyone know it won't work without experience?

The Austrian view stems from apriori knowledge which cannot be challenged empirically. Through logical reasoning of economics as a deductive science Austrians can show through reason why any socialist formula will fail. Literally , an infinite amount of socialist experiments can be tried by simply changing variables and if they fail the socialist can simply promote another formula and so on and so forth . This doesn't mean the Austrian position can't be challenged, it just can't be challenged empirically. It can only be challenged through logical reasoning , think ' law of non contradiction.'

The Austrians' claim against socialism is that economic calculation will not be possible in any socialist scenario because socialism lacks private property and a pricing mechanism. Without economic calculation socialists couldn't determine their costs and thus an irrational allocation of resources would ensue that will destroy the prosperity of society at large.

*Note: Most of these criticisms came about relating to a modern economy. Some of the very ancient economies with very limited capital were able to function in a socialist communal manner. In many cases, they were more of a religious society that had a strong collective bond but still existed in very basic society.

Mises argued this point in the 1920s and Hayek did in the 1930s. Because of the rise of the Soviet Union and the fact it stuck around for so many years many thought of Mises as the loser of the debate. The fact that the Soviets launched the first probe into space and became a superpower seemed , at the surface, to prove Mises dead wrong.

But in reality what we saw was a socialist U.S.S.R. along with other socialist states existing within world with capitalism. The Soviets and Chinese ( Chinese during and before Maoism) had terrible calculation problems. Sure, the Soviets launched Sputnik into space but the people in many parts of the U.S.S.R were on food rations because of shortages. Even more amazing is that the U.S.S.R. was the richest country endowed with natural resources and agricultural land, furthermore , they only had to sustain a population half the U.S. population with more than twice as much land. I believe it was Krushchev that said in the U.N. that his Soviet Union will crush all other countries in economic terms but he'll 'spare' capitalist Hong Kong because he needs somewhere to copy prices from. lol.
Anyway , because the U.S.S.R. lasted for so long many considered the socialists the winners of the debate with Austrians that insisted that 'socialist economy' can't last. As we've seen, the socialist states existed like a parasite with the capitalist neighbor borrowing prices and such from capitalist trade. In fact, the only way socialism can survive ( in part only) is to act as a parasite on a capitalist economy. These usually manifest themselves into 'mixed economies.' The U.S. is a good example of this. Socially, there are many government public programs and a high taxation rate but the economy still functions in a capitalistic fashion. However, the State does not believe that private property is the natural right of the individual but rather a State granted privilege which is why the State can tax you for property you already 'own.' Its sorta like renting from the government.
But Mises' argument was looked at differently after the fall of the U.S.S.R. Naturally because of mostly economic reasons. " Turns out , Mises was right." (http://blog.mises.org/archives/002949.asp)

[Xiao Banfa]

Using Hayek to argue against socialism is entirely the wrong tack for this argument.

First of all I don't use a priori arguments in defense of socialism.

I defend the specific achievements of the former red bureaucracies.
I also look at historical conditions which brought them down.
Using one variation of socialism, and skipping over vital surrounding issues of capitalist agression and growth superiority you have opined that a majority state owned ecomony doesn't work.

The Soviet Union was an undemocratic state there was no accountability.
Of course it failed. I think it's amazing that so much was achieved.


In fact, the only way socialism can survive ( in part only) is to act as a parasite on a capitalist economy.


Dead wrong. Profitable state enterprise can and has existed on it's own steam. Infrastructure which capitalist frims have been incapable of creating has been created by the state.

The policies preventing complete social breakdown maintained in the past by varing degrees of Keynesianism was of great benefit to the private economy. Educated healthy workers and all that

BTW, how do you think the employer extracts value from the employee?
That resembles parasitism more than anything else, be honest with yourself.



However, the State does not believe that private property is the natural right of the individual but rather a State granted privilege which is why the State can tax you for property you already 'own.'


You are obviously in agreement that property (in it's economic sense rather than personal house, car, handbag and parmesan cheese sense)is a natural right, and, judging by your minarchist politics the most important one to the detriment of others.

This is the right to be king of the jungle. What is freedom? The freedom of whom to do what?

The freedom to amass power in order to exploit people. The freedom to own unlimited capital and wield power beyond your democratic capacity?

That's freedom I would want my democratically controlled state to repress and eventually eliminate so that my freedom is secure.



Well I'm more left-libertarian.


You're an Anarcho Communist? Hayek wouldn't like that. All that collectivisation. Uggh.

So you're having a joke, sharpening the debating level?

[Xiao Banfa]

I don't care to waste my time on such authors concerned primarily with disinterest in the human question and money fetishism, when I could be reading Joseph Fletcher, Noam Chomsky, Erich Fromm, Carl Jung or Paul Tillich. Really, I would rather read something enlightenign and humanistic than something written by a suporter of Pinochet.

That attitude will get you about as far as the next liberal cafe.

Social Darwinist libertarian/minarchism is a very interesting philosophy; the worship of the inherently irrational (enlightment reason) and socially irresponsible market is something quite extraordinary.

[Self-Owner]

Using Hayek to argue against socialism is entirely the wrong tack for this argument.

First of all I don't use a priori arguments in defense of socialism.

Yeah, I'm relatively sympathetic to Austrianism but I really don't think justifying it a priori is very smart from either a polemical point of view or a philosophical one. If you think of the "axioms" as just really, really well established empirical facts it's more helpful.



BTW, how do you think the employer extracts value from the employee?
That resembles parasitism more than anything else, be honest with yourself.
You may want to learn some economics at some point. In particular, look up marginal theories of value.

But hey, seeing as I'm feeling bored, here's a question for you: if, as you say, employers are exploiting their workers by taking the excess value of their labour, what do you make of the relationship between the modern welfare state (which, don't forget, takes money from those who work and redistributes it to those who are unable to among others)? In what way is this not exploitative?

[Dean]

Thats not xenophobia and who said anything about immigrants?
So, making it hard to immigrate and deeming people illegals, and all this by a state you seem to oppose the very existance of, is acceptable? Or should minarchist governments also have the wildly un-libertarian stipulation that nationalization should be limited to the point that the nation create a wall to keep others out? Others who, contrary to your claims, pay more money in taxes than they see, because at the back-breaking jobs they work at they are usually put on taxed payroll (often with false SSNs) but cannot receive welfare, social security, a slew of legal rights, etc., need to be kept out of our nation?


So are you trying to suggest that the government promoted free markets?

[quote]Btw, RP has three pictures of three historical persons in his private office. One of them was an American anarchist and a Jew. The other two were immigrants , one Jew , and one agnostic. RP is a w.a.s.p-y baptist too. lol.
So? That's like sayign that, if Obama gets elected, the police can't be racist; after all, the commander of the executive branch is black!


Um no, not really. Most libertarians are against nationalization of just about anything. However, some are minarchists and feel minimal government is a necessary evil. I happen to disagree with even that. A leviathan can only grow bigger. The most 'extremist view' is no state at all , not even to 'protect property rights.' Anarchists like Rothbard believed that property rights can be respected in anarchy. Your last comment sounds like an abortion argument and sounds more in the pro-life camp. lol.
Most libertarians believe that the highest respect to human dignity involves respecting each individual's natural rights : life, liberty, and property. Besides, isn't your life considered your property? How can someone be in the wrong for murdering someone if a society doesn't recognize a person's right to their life?
So, you don't support nationalization of anything? So, the police forces are private? In other words, my assessment that your concept of libertarianism is fully anti-state is correct, and your argument that I was "improperly portraying the libertarian position" as such is false?


Centralization is not the outcome. Centralization can only come from the State since it is the one institution that can claim a full unchallenged monopoly on violence.
So companies, under the guise of a libertarian system, cannot provide security? Or is it illegal to have a monopoly in the security industry? Or, and this would be again doubling back on your position, the security forces are publicly ran?


In fact I would argue the opposite, centralization would come out of socialism because socialism has no way to rationally allocate scarce resources.
Does capitalism? It only has a way of allocating resources in a manner which produces capital. If feeding indigents does not help the economy, the ideally rational capitalist economy would be absent of such charity.

Is it irrational to have decentralized control of the economy - a goal of socialism? If only individuals can make rational economic decisions, socialism works. If individuals as a community can rationally make decisions, socialism works. If pluralistic, intensive democratic organizations can make rational economic decisions, socialism works. If only a select few people who seek primarily to maximize profits can make rational decisions, then capitalism works.


People would be begin fighting due to shortages and things of that sort which would lead to a demand for central authority to redistribute things 'fairly.' Anti-Trust laws usually don't come from the people at large but from companies that serve the public poorly by loosing in market competition. Anti-Trust usually ends up only punishing the consumer because price controls follow this trend.
Under what system, exactly? I'd be interested to see a distinct socialist system based on the principles of decentralization and egalitarianism and an argument coherantly explaining why decentralized economies of this sort would result in "fighting," "shortages" and "demand for a central authority." I'd also like to see a proof that, before capitalism emerged as a relevant power, one could show that the profit motive created "rational" decisions.

Also, I'd like to see what you mean by "rational decisions." Is a rational decision one which benefits humanity, one which benefits your specific value system, one which furthers your ultimate goals, or simply the profit motive? I have always seen the term used by right wing economists to refer to decisions based on the profit motive. In effect, that would mean that "capitalism produces rational economic decision-making" really just means that "a system based on the profit motive produces decisions based on the profit motive." How unique.:rolleyes:


Can you explain how state security is actually better than non-state security?
No, because I'm an anarchist. But, as long as the state exists alongside capitalism, it is probably better that the police force be publically accountable. Actually, it is always best that the police be publically accountable, which is why state - managed police in a capitalist system are also dangerous.


Well I believe communism and fascism have a common root. That root is collectivism. Both communism and fascism play on the social order of things and view people as a collective whether it be a particular class ( proletarians, capitalists, etc) or a particular nation or racial group ( Germans , whites , etc.) Individualism is an enemy of both systems.
Individualism should be accurately described as the goal for human beings to freely become what they potentially are. In such a definition, individualism is acceptable to capitalism and communism. Communism, under what I assume you are referring to (Marxian) is a stateless society which Marx proclaims would allow the individual to be 'judge, jury and executioner' of his own moral capabilities and physical faculties. Under anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, a similar goal is established. The difference is that the marxists look to the human being for the future, whereas capitalists don't look for anythign for the future. The capitalism sense of freedom is so reductivist that human bodies are described as property. I am not property.

Capitalism reduces all things as objects to be manipulated for the interests of capital. This is distinctly anti-individualist, as the authority of money and property rights beomce greater than man. If I own all the land in the world, you live on my land and I have the right to tell you that you cannot eat anything. For all intents and purposes, I own you. The capitalist sense of negative rights sees no problem here. So long as private property is resected, and the starving penniless you doesn't eat anything, all is well. For Marxists, and really any rational person, the human being is much more important than property rights.


Don't even get me started on ' socialist economics' ( its an oxymoron.) lol.
Have you ever read Marx's writings on economics, specifically Capital? It is widely respected among economists, right and left wing. Those who idolize the fre market tend to hate him on principle, though. Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" has a very penetrating and distinctly economic analysis of the Soviet economy under Stalin and Lenin. But, that's not economics?


Obviously you never read Human Action (http://www.mises.org/resources/3250) by Mises if you're interested in the 'human question.' If you did , you wouldn't say that so I don't know where you get off spouting you've actually read Mises. Money fetishism? You probably suppose money arose from the State as well?
Money, as property tokens, arose in its earliest known western form in the use of clay figurines representing property in Sumeria. This was a chruch funtion, and the church was a state-regulated organization at that time and place.


'Capitalism' and subsequently free markets become demagogued by the roaches in the trenches when they believe State-Bank-Corporatism is a true representation of 'Capitalism.' Usually socialists love to play this up and claim this is real capitalism yet they curiously absolve themselves of any connection to the totalitarian socialist regimes that actually existed and claim it is NOT socialism. lol.
Hmmm. sounds familiar. Oh yeah:


Actually the classical liberals were the champions of free markets. I'll admit there has never been a 100% true free market with any government ( there have been isolated stateless cases that ended up rather successful) since government is the antithesis of free market. I suggest reading Bastiat, Menger, Lord Acton, etc. if you really want to get the classical liberal view on markets. And Trotsky did inspire the early neocons.
Trotsky inspired a group of people who found it fashionable to hate the USSR and love the US. These people eventually showed their true colours when communism lost its fashionability. Trotsky's writings can hardly be correlated in any meaningful way with the beliefs and policies of neo-conservatism, so he did not inspire them - he was just their figurehead.


You've demonstrated a certain degree if ignorance of ( or refusal to accept) history of liberalism and its role in economics. So if the free market is so 'wildly dangerous' how is the State any better? Economic freedom is the path to political freedom , they are interlinked. Some people feel freedom is indeed a 'dangerous idea.'
This isn't an argument for the state. You show a distinct ignorance on communism, western philosophies, the history of economics (all you seem to know about is liberal economics, and that poorly), the meaning of xenophobia, the status of immigrant workers, etc...


Actually that is a very fair question. And the answer is no, it doesn't work and has failed in history in any form of capital rich, modern economy.
My comment on this will be as follows : I want to explain why Austrianism is the ideological foe of Socialism ( be it State or Anarchist Socialism.) Austrians present an argument to socialists that is very difficult to prove wrong. In fact , the Austrian argument cannot be proven wrong empirically because it is based on apriori knowledge.
Let's get this straight: you think that you can't disprove this arguent because the knowledge is either "hypothetical" or "obvious"? How convenient; a fancy way of telling me to believe something as truth just because you said so.


It often plays out like this. It can be said that most socialists today are fond of utopia. They envision a near perfect society where everyone contributes to the common good. This new society will bring about a 'new socialist man' who doesn't mind taking out the garbage at 4 am. Present socialists often look back at the socialism that has been already tried and distance themselves from the U.S.S.R. and Maoist China claiming that these breeds of socialism were all wrong and do not represent how socialism is 'really' supposed to work. This is a favorite argument used by current 'scientific socialists' who rely on empiricism ( actually not really empiricism but logical positivism) to defend their points.

They view human society and the economy as more of a natural science and believe human action can be easily predictable through a set of mathematical equations. The future 'aggregate' economy can be easily determined this way too as to ensure economic prosperity in the socialist paradise.
So your argument against socialism is that some specific form of economic theory, which stipulates that human beings can be understood under specific psychological guidelines to understand what the future of a disticnt economic system holds (hmm, "rational actors"?) is falliable to the point that yor argument, which follows, is universally true? Well, lets look at it.




Its follows as so :

Stalin's 'equation' for socialism looked something like:

x-y/z = a(b)(c)
No, it looked like mass terror, the destruction of socialist elements in the Soviet system of the USSR (re: Kronstadt Rebellion), self-proclaimed "state-capitalism," and the cult of personality (somethign Marx and Lenin both strongly opposed).

OR

Society minus capitalists over proletarians equals terror multiplied by centralized power multiplied by propaganda.


Socialist empiricists would say ' alright , this didn't work, it wasn't the right formula so we need to change some variables.' So the new socialist might envision a different socialist society with :

x(y)(z) = a(b-c)
OR

Society times capitalists times proletarians equals terror multiplied by centralized power minus terror multiplied by propaganda.


If that new formula for socialism hasn't been tried yet then socialist defenders of it will always dismiss any criticism as not relevant since this new formula for socialism hasn't been tried yet and how could anyone know it won't work without experience?
Yes, because we all know that a state in the throws of civil and external war, undergoing vast economic change which institutionalizes soem socialist characteristics and a marxist - oriented propaganda campaign not only embodies the entire regimen of socialist and communist ideology, but in fact can be considered the sole measuring stick by which one judges all socialist ideology!


The Austrian view stems from apriori knowledge which cannot be challenged empirically. Through logical reasoning of economics as a deductive science Austrians can show through reason why any socialist formula will fail.
So, by assuming hypotheticals people who live in Austria can prove that socialist "formulae" will fail? Well I can prove by hypotheticals that you are in fact an extraterrestrial. Somehow I doubt many would be convinced.


Literally , an infinite amount of socialist experiments can be tried by simply changing variables and if they fail the socialist can simply promote another formula and so on and so forth . This doesn't mean the Austrian position can't be challenged, it just can't be challenged empirically. It can only be challenged through logical reasoning , think ' law of non contradiction.'
Literally , an infinite amount of market experiments can be tried by simply changing variables and if they fail the capitalist can simply promote another formula and so on and so forth . This doesn't mean the German position can't be challenged, it just can't be challenged empirically. It can only be challenged through logical reasoning , think ' law of non contradiction.'


The Austrians' claim against socialism is that economic calculation will not be possible in any socialist scenario because socialism lacks private property
So if nobody owns a factory himself, but rather a group of 1000 people collectively make decisions on its usage, it is impossible to determine how much output it can create with x number of man-hours?


and a pricing mechanism.
Without comparing products with an arbitrary numerical ruling society can't make rational decisions, like, we need to create X pounds of wheat? So, if I didn't have the great will of money to guide me, I couldn't determine how many tomatoes to plant for me and my neighbors?


Without economic calculation socialists couldn't determine their costs and thus an irrational allocation of resources would ensue that will destroy the prosperity of society at large.
Yes, rationale. That same rationale that can prove that my land is worth more than your ability to survive. Again I request a definition for "rational" which isn't circular when it comes to your economic rationale.


Why don't you wrap your head around this, since you love to talk about states so much: the U.S., China, EU members, etc. are all estates with distinct trusts set up to decide what will be done with the wealth, productive facilities and property, as written up in constitutions, lawbooks, and inheritance. The people who live on these properties pay rent to live there, and are benefitted by their living there with certain freedoms, but also bound by the laws of the estates. Some of the lesses purchase the right to seize, utilize and maintain certain plots of the estates, including a responsibility to pay greater rent to the given estate.

However, some don't like their lessors. They feel that smaller, less regulated organizations which exist within and around these estates should have the right to make the decisions of the estates, on different borders. They claim this right is based on individualism, which stipulates that human beings, not companies or estates should be allowed to make their own decisions. They would prefer a state of things where such organizations manage society, with utmost soverignty over certain sects of the economy. The wishes of their customers and employess only matter insofar as they affect the profitability of the organization, regardless of its role in the individual human's life.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

[Xiao Banfa]

If you think of the "axioms" as just really, really well established empirical facts it's more helpful.


Oh God. This is just demoralising mate.

Which fucking 'axioms'?

Please introduce them to me. I have done so with you.

Now your telling me my argument doesn't depend on a priori arguments but 'axioms'.

Which ones. We live in a polarised, sometimes pluralistic but always globalised world. Certain things that are common knowledge to some are news to others.

The conduct of New Right leaders has been nothing less than disgraceful and gangsterist. This is evident to anyone that has any idea of the press in the last 30 years.

Not to say the press have lined up behind the government in the US always, but you get an idea.

I'm still waiting for this brilliant capitalist attack on the basic premises of my argument. I know you can do it- I've heard it before.

In the name of pluralism and the dialectic, don't let me get away with it.:sleep:

[Self-Owner]

Oh God. This is just demoralising mate.

Which fucking 'axioms'?

Please introduce them to me. I have done so with you.

Now your telling me my argument doesn't depend on a priori arguments but 'axioms'.

In the name of pluralism and the dialectic, don't let me get away with it.:sleep:

Well, if you read my post carefully enough you'll see that I don't think they should be called axioms, because that's quite misleading. But if you want to know some of them, feel free to dispute some of the following:

Humans consciously act towards achieving certain goals

Goods, and time, are scarce

People, all things equal, prefer more of a good to less

People, all things equal, prefer leisure time to working

etc

These are usually taken with a few methodological assumptions which are more contentious, but I think still correct. For instance, the focus on methodological individualism (i.e. all facts about groups can be in theory successfully reduced to truths about individuals) and the idea that it's impossible to meaningfully compare 'utility' between individuals.


So, by assuming hypotheticals people who live in Austria can prove that socialist "formulae" will fail? Well I can prove by hypotheticals that you are in fact an extraterrestrial. Somehow I doubt many would be convinced.

Of course, the premises of Austrianism are true. While any you'd have to come up to 'prove' your point would have to be false, like your conclusion.

[Dejavu]

The Soviet Union was an undemocratic state there was no accountability.
Of course it failed. I think it's amazing that so much was achieved.The emphasis should be on what it didn't achieve. The Soviet Union achieved a mass accumulation weaponry and military might, no one is doubting this. The Soviets also launched the first probe into space, no one is denying that either. But the real focus should be on the costs of those things. By costs I mean what are the alternative uses of the resources that were used in these projects and could they have benefited Soviet citizens better? In the USSR queues in front of shops were a regular occurrence even during the GDP 'boom', because of shortages ( caused by price controls because resources were scarce) and poor allocation of resources. Shortages were also a common problem in Nazi Germany, until the spoils of its WWII conquests became available.


Dead wrong. Profitable state enterprise can and has existed on it's own steam. Infrastructure which capitalist frims have been incapable of creating has been created by the state.
State Enterprise isn't based on profit-loss. The state doesn't produce anything. It gains capital by coercively expropriating it from the private sector ( taxes) and then spends it on whatever the bureaucrats see fit. The question isn't what the private firms would have built or would not have built per say, but the question becomes should they have built these things? Because the State is a bureaucratic enterprise and not a profit-loss enterprise the State would have no way of knowing the true costs of such projects. The State can always replenish its stock of capital by simply extracting it from the private productive sector. Part of the reason private enterprise is 'incapable' of providing ' public utilities' such as the ones you defend from the State is precisely because the State has a monopoly on these things and can coercively prevent competition in that market. Again its not really the State that producing anything, its the capital forcibly extracted from the productive private sector by the State.
Some great accomplishments by the State would be the public infrastructure to protect New Orleans. And then the Fema Camp holdouts that followed. The difference between State and private enterprise is that the State is rewarded for failure.
In the instance of NASA Challenger shuttle explosion, it was a terrible error on the part of government enterprise, the reward for such failure was more funds ( extracted from the productive taxpayers.) Private Enterprise would have taken a loss as punishment for failure which is great for everyone because it either forces the enterprise to be more efficient or get out of the business and quit wasting resources that could have had better alternative uses. The same goes for government run public schooling. When schools are performing poorly they receive more funds as a reward for failure. It utterly crushes the incentive to perform better in which the taxpayer is punished. On 9/11 we had 11 government agencies that were supposed to 'protect' us yet they failed. The result of course was MORE FUNDING for government security by the formation of the Dept of Homeland Security.
Think of the railroads which were subsidized by the State. The State promised more perks for more track of railroad that was laid down. Do you think the railroads had the incentive to make the shortest, fastest, most efficient route from A to B? Of course not, they built extra track that wasn't necessary just for the subsidies. There were some separate cases where private enterprise did build cost efficient straight track from A to B like in St.Paul which was cheaper for customers and hauling freight. The roads are much the same case.








The policies preventing complete social breakdown maintained in the past by varing degrees of Keynesianism was of great benefit to the private economy. Educated healthy workers and all thatOh you've got to be joking. lol. No Keynesian I know of can explain the phenomena of stagflation that resulted as a consequence of their ideas. The idea of a Central Bank with the monopoly on the currency printing away causing inflation and debt just so the government can make things better is most damaging to the working class. This creates a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Education has slumped thanks to public schooling and as I mentioned earlier when public schools perform poorly they receive more funding.


BTW, how do you think the employer extracts value from the employee?
That resembles parasitism more than anything else, be honest with yourself.Employee/Employer is a mutual voluntary contract. The employee extracts payment in the present from the employer not to mention fringe benefits in which employers pay the bulk of health care and in exchange the employee rents his labor energy to the employer so the firm/investors can benefit from future goods though the profitability of future goods is a risk but no risk to laborer getting paid. Lets talk about how the State extracts labor and wages from the employees through Income Tax. That is much more detrimental to the employee. If thats not a parasite I don't know what is.


You are obviously in agreement that property (in it's economic sense rather than personal house, car, handbag and parmesan cheese sense)is a natural right, and, judging by your minarchist politics the most important one to the detriment of others.
I don't see private ownership of capital as detriment. Its a benefit because it makes exchange in the market possible with prices. People can consume what they desire and if more people desire a particular good , more of it is produced taking down the price of such goods. A non-exchange based society , which the market provides , would severely decrease the living standards of everyone in it.


This is the right to be king of the jungle. What is freedom? The freedom of whom to do what?You have a right to be king of your jungle. How is the State managing everything a better alternative? How is that freedom when the State tells you what you're allowed to have and how much?


The freedom to amass power in order to exploit people. The freedom to own unlimited capital and wield power beyond your democratic capacity?Democratic capacity? In a free market the only way you can accumulate more capital is IF you're pleasing other people. If people desire and want the things you produce then you are actually benefiting society and not exploiting it. The market itself is very democratic. Instead of a ballot, each dollar is a vote. The more dollars vote through consumption for your firm, the more successful you'll be. If you produce something which doesn't receive a lot of dollar votes you take a loss and either shape up or go out of business. The State forcibly extracting capital from the private productive sector is forcing votes, thats not very democratic.

That's freedom I would want my democratically controlled state to repress and eventually eliminate so that my freedom is secure.

But you're freedom is then at the whims of the State and the mob ( see Democracy). How is it freedom when 51% can decide for the other 49%?


You're an Anarcho Communist? Hayek wouldn't like that. All that collectivisation. Uggh.

So you're having a joke, sharpening the debating level?Nope, I'm left-libertarian leaning which isn't anarcho-communist. Most L.libertarians I know of are free market advocates but don't care much about national borders , national economies, protectionism, etc.

[Dejavu]

Dean, you reaction is common. You think with more emotion and less logic, this is a typical modern socialist attribute. I've decided to respond to some questions but other comments you made clearly show that you don't know what you're talking about such as you thought I meant Austrian nationals when I spoke of 'Austrians.' lol.

Ah but here it goes:


So, making it hard to immigrate and deeming people illegals, and all this by a state you seem to oppose the very existance of, is acceptable?I was merely understanding the complaint from those opposed to illegal immigration. If national security is certainly an issue then it makes no sense that we have most of our armed forces abroad and don't even bother shoring up our own borders. For reasons of national security undocumented people entering the U.S. can be a big problem. But since I don't support the State or national borders I see no reason for preventing immigration, I think its more beneficial to our economy by contributing to the division of labor to make a successful society. Thats my personal view on it.



Or should minarchist governments also have the wildly un-libertarian stipulation that nationalization should be limited to the point that the nation create a wall to keep others out?A wall is a waste of taxpayer dollars and really won't solve the problem. Its like gun control, you only punish those who abide by the rules.Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the rules and no wall is going to stop them just like no gun law is going to stop them.



Others who, contrary to your claims, pay more money in taxes than they see, because at the back-breaking jobs they work at they are usually put on taxed payroll (often with false SSNs) but cannot receive welfare, social security, a slew of legal rights, etc., need to be kept out of our nation?Well IMO, if they do pay taxes and contribute to the system they should be granted access to the services. Why not? Since I'm anti-statist, citizenship is merely a government creation affirming some kind of personal loyalty to the State. The point from the opponents I was trying to understand was that a lot of illegals are paid under-the-table which does not contribute to the social welfare but they benefit off of it at the expense of others. Of course , I'd eliminate social welfare and taxes so there would be no problem anyway.



So, you don't support nationalization of anything?Yes. I don't support anything being nationalized.


So, the police forces are private? Well, in future anarchy, its unpredictable how activity relating to crime will play out. Perhaps the police forces in a future anarchy would be drastically different than what you envision today, in fact they would be. Its like looking at prisons or any other State institution today, the question isn't exactly how would they function in Anarchy, the question would be would there even be any prisons or perhaps some other alternative?
Empirically we can study data now showing that prisons and the 'war on drugs' have actually spurred on more crime and violence and they have empowered disorganized and organized crime alike. Suppose we eliminated these inefficiencies created by the State and then you would ask what would crime then look like? How would it be handled? Its really unpredictable but based on the condition of things in future Anarchy, a system would arise to deal with it. You can say with great conviction and evidence , the current system unfortunately spurs on more crime than it stops.



In other words, my assessment that your concept of libertarianism is fully anti-state is correct, and your argument that I was "improperly portraying the libertarian position" as such is false?There are different ideologies attached to libertarianism. We both could be right according to our own assessments of libertarianism.



So companies, under the guise of a libertarian system, cannot provide security?Sure they can, companies today hire private security.


Or is it illegal to have a monopoly in the security industry?Today yes. In Anarchy, there is nothing theoretically preventing a natural monopoly over any industry. The question isn't whether monopolies will form or not, the question is can they really be sustained in free market anarchy? Well history has shown us that monopolies almost always sustained by the State ( see public roads, etc) or by the State protecting a favored corporation. The State prevents competition in that market through coercive means. This would vanish and so the shield against competition would vanish too.



It only has a way of allocating resources in a manner which produces capital. If feeding indigents does not help the economy, the ideally rational capitalist economy would be absent of such charity.Well thats not necessarily true.You're assuming all people would be stingy and not give anything for their fellow man. If we look at some recent historical examples, before the 'Great Society era' of Lyndon Johnson kicked in , private donations ( charity) was at an all time high. Poor people saw doctors 4x/year though they couldn't afford it. They merely worked out a private contract with the doctors with a 'pay when you can method.' African-Americans in the 50s and early 60s rose out of poverty by over 30%. When the "Great Society" social welfare kicked in poor people dropped to seeing the doctor once/year, African-American poverty soared again and charity dropped by 3/4s. Many less fortunate people resorted to crime as a result of the war on drugs, they were thrown in prison for petty things, they were corrupted in prison by the violence , overcrowding, and inner prison drug cartel, and then released again with a blemish on their record making it hard for them to find decent jobs which inevitably lead to crime again. This is also related to the police/prison question you asked earlier.
But look at a 'greedy capitalist' like Ron Paul. He was an OBGYN in Texas and had his own little clinic. He didn't accept Medicaid and Medicare. He treated many people without insurance and charged all of his customers a reasonable, affordable fee. On top of that , I heard many interviews from Hispanic families who had Ron Paul deliver their children even when they couldn't afford insurance.


Is it irrational to have decentralized control of the economy - a goal of socialism? The best option is no state control over the economy. Socialism could not provide that. Central Planning doesn't work.


If only individuals can make rational economic decisions, socialism works. If individuals as a community can rationally make decisions, socialism works. If pluralistic, intensive democratic organizations can make rational economic decisions, socialism works. If only a select few people who seek primarily to maximize profits can make rational decisions, then capitalism works.Depends on how you define rational. When humans act purposefully by employing a means to achieve an ends then it is rational in the narrow sense. In order to make better decisions, you have to have some kind of method of economic calculation and this can only come about through monetary means through profit-loss and pricing. Socialism lacks this vital tool of economic calculation and thus they couldn't know if they are making a good decision or not. Capitalism is based on making profit but its also penalized by loss ( the State doesn't worry about loss as it can replenish through coercive extraction of capital from the private sector creating a loss for everyone.)



Also, I'd like to see what you mean by "rational decisions." Is a rational decision one which benefits humanity, one which benefits your specific value system, one which furthers your ultimate goals, or simply the profit motive?Rational decisions that I ( and Mises, and other praxeological thinkers) speak of are narrow in definition and only apply to human actors when they act purposefully. Human action rests on the fundamental action axiom and therefore a conceptual truth. It remains a conceptual truth because it cannot be falsified. You can't coherently deny it because that would require purposeful action on you're part. When humans act purposefully then it is rational in the narrow sense. That doesn't imply that their decisions were moral, good, bad, or whatever. It merely means they acted purposefully.
For example, a murderer acts rationally because he is acting purposefully. If his end is to shoot someone , he's not gonna bring a banana to shoot someone is he? Of course not , he's going to employ a gun as a means. This isn't to say the act of killing someone is necessarily rational, but the purposeful act of doing it is in the narrow sense of rationality.

We all have value scales which are subjective in nature. Because of this we always do a cost-benefit on ends. If the costs seem more than the benefits , its likely we will not seek this end and thus this is how we rank our value scales according to what is more beneficial to us. In order to achieve ends we employ means to obtaining those ends. We expect a certain satisfaction when achieving our ends but we don't know that until we actually reached those ends. I may have $10,000 to spend this summer and I will spend that $10,000 on what I value most on my value scale. I could be debating between buying a new car or taking a vacation to Europe. The one I value more is the one I act on. If I choose to go to Europe I expect the vacation to give me the highest level of satisfaction. I employ means of obtaining that end by purchasing tickets, booking reservations, etc. Now once I experience the European vacation and the benefit of it outweighed my costs ( my costs actually being the car I forgone for the vacation) meaning I derived my expected satisfaction from it or more , then I profit. If the vacation ends up not being all that great and the costs ( the car) outweigh the benefit of my vacation then I suffer a loss. These are psychological loss-profit but the same thing can apply to monetary loss-profit when handling business.

No one can determine our value scales but us.


I have always seen the term used by right wing economists to refer to decisions based on the profit motive. In effect, that would mean that "capitalism produces rational economic decision-making" really just means that "a system based on the profit motive produces decisions based on the profit motive." How unique.Capitalism doesn't always produce good decisions. But the decisions are rational in the sense of acting purposefully ( applying a means to achieve an ends.) An example would be in the 1980s when IBM was the resident computer giant. IBM was so large in that market that critics thought it can never be brought down to size without some kind of government intervention. Of course the critics were wrong. IBM made a real bad decision in the 80s and decided to invest their capital into production of mainframe computers ( you know , those ones that take up entire rooms) and really saw no future market for PCs. Macintosh, which in the 80s , started in a garage , decided to invest what they had into production of PCs because they saw a future market in it. So what happened was predictable, IBM lost 13 billion dollars because consumers preferred PCs and other companies and finally IBM decided to produce PCs. The more PCs were produced the cheaper they got for the consumer. The lesson here is that when I define 'rationality' I don't mean it in terms of good and bad decisions, I mean it as purposeful action. Because IBM sustained a loss on mainframes and lost its claim as the computer giant, IBM knew not to produce more mainframes because of the very profit-loss test I am describing to you.



No, because I'm an anarchist. But, as long as the state exists alongside capitalism, it is probably better that the police force be publically accountable. Actually, it is always best that the police be publically accountable, which is why state - managed police in a capitalist system are also dangerous.

Well I don't want the State or State Capitalism ( Neo-Mercantilism)


Individualism should be accurately described as the goal for human beings to freely become what they potentially are. In such a definition, individualism is acceptable to capitalism and communism. Communism, under what I assume you are referring to (Marxian) is a stateless society which Marx proclaims would allow the individual to be 'judge, jury and executioner' of his own moral capabilities and physical faculties. Under anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, a similar goal is established. The difference is that the marxists look to the human being for the future, whereas capitalists don't look for anythign for the future. The capitalism sense of freedom is so reductivist that human bodies are described as property. I am not property.Division of labor is the sustaining force for prosperity and capitalism accommodates this. Individuals have the incentive to do better and end up in the profession where they are the most productive ( this gets complicated by the State and State supported organizations though.) I'd disagree with you that capitalism isn't future orientated. The 'capitalist' or entrepreneur or investor is always looking toward the future or he simply wouldn't invest into production or come out with innovative ways to cut costs and increase efficiency. Human bodies are property, they are self-property. When you say 'my nose,' 'my eyes,''my ideas,' you are claiming ownership over these things. Your labor is your labor ( i.e. human energy) and no employer owns it but can simply rent it from you if you let him. How can you get mad at someone punching you in your nose if your nose isn't really yours? Hehehe.


Capitalism reduces all things as objects to be manipulated for the interests of capital. This is distinctly anti-individualist, as the authority of money and property rights beomce greater than man. If I own all the land in the world, you live on my land and I have the right to tell you that you cannot eat anything. For all intents and purposes, I own you. The capitalist sense of negative rights sees no problem here. So long as private property is resected, and the starving penniless you doesn't eat anything, all is well. For Marxists, and really any rational person, the human being is much more important than property rights.This is a typical emotional argument. It is exactly property rights that make individualism possible. The only way I can 'own' you is if I force you to live penniless on my property. Of course I can't do that and why would I want to do that? How is it beneficial to me? Why would a store owner want to shoot his patrons in the head?


Have you ever read Marx's writings on economics, specifically Capital? It is widely respected among economists, right and left wing. Those who idolize the fre market tend to hate him on principle, though. Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" has a very penetrating and distinctly economic analysis of the Soviet economy under Stalin and Lenin. But, that's not economics?Actually, Capital is considered a reading classic for historical purposes, not so much economic anymore. Marx's version of the labor theory of value is not really accepted among most of academia but it wasn't just Marx who lost with this idea , some of the classical economists entertained their version of the labor theory of value but their positions on that have been properly dismissed. Reason I say socialism and economics are an oxymoron is because economics refers to allocation of scarce resources relative to alternative costs and it doesn't work in socialism.


Money, as property tokens, arose in its earliest known western form in the use of clay figurines representing property in Sumeria. This was a chruch funtion, and the church was a state-regulated organization at that time and place.So the churches created money? Haha , nice try but try again. How do explain the various commodities Native American tribes used as money? I'll let you keep on trying on this one.


Let's get this straight: you think that you can't disprove this arguent because the knowledge is either "hypothetical" or "obvious"? How convenient; a fancy way of telling me to believe something as truth just because you said so.Because the priori claim is based on logical reasoning, it requires no empirical study. Therefore it stands as a conceptual truth about reality and can only be challenged through logical reasoning.


So if nobody owns a factory himself, but rather a group of 1000 people collectively make decisions on its usage, it is impossible to determine how much output it can create with x number of man-hours?The question I'm asking is not whether or not 1000 people know how to produce something or how to allocate man hours, the question I ask is how do they know whether they should or not. How do they know the costs of such things? The cost being the alternative uses for the factors of production.


Without comparing products with an arbitrary numerical ruling society can't make rational decisions, like, we need to create X pounds of wheat? So, if I didn't have the great will of money to guide me, I couldn't determine how many tomatoes to plant for me and my neighbors?Again, the question is more precisely, should you even make X pounds of wheat in the first place? Are there better alternative ends for channeling all that production? The Soviets ran into this problem and a popular ( and funny) example were the old Soviet chandelier( among many other things). No doubt it was the bureaucrats that wanted these chandeliers and they specified a specific weight quantity. The producers would then get a bonus if they met the weight standard and usually a trip to the gulag if they didn't ( I might be exaggerating there lol.) But what does this do ? It creates a chain of lies. The producers know that if they report a specific weight was met, the commissar would simply demand more weight which can't always be obtainable. So the producers would typically lie to the commissar that they made 'enough' to be satisfactory and pick off a small bonus but not enough to far exceed the quota and be tasked with more work next production cycle. What ended up happening is that the Soviet chandelier makers made these big heavy chandeliers ( the heavier the better to meet the quota) and the bureaucrats would hang them in their houses and they would fall ! They even killed a couple people!
Another example was that many Soviet build homes had very shoddy roofs. Why is this? Because roofing nails were of a particular design and had a lot of variation. The commissar would demand that X kilograms of nails be produced so the producers would make the biggest heaviest nails and what would happen is a shortage of roofing nails and a surplus in useless nails and thus Soviet citizens would be stuck with those shoddy roofs. This is the problem with central planning either by the commune or State.

Plus, the Soviets would have a price fixing system which didn't allow the market to clear surplus and shortages which lead to long lines at the stores. Without a pricing mechanism and adherence to supply & demand, this would be a common occurrence in any socialist society ( see there , apriori logical reasoning :D )

To help you understand better lets use the IBM computer example:

Suppose its the 1980s and people want computers. Lets call mainframes X and lets call PCs Y. Now if everyone was tasked to produce a certain amount of X , how would anyone even know about Y? The cost of X is all the factors in production you put into X that you could've put into Y. Of course, you wouldn't know that.




Why don't you wrap your head around this, since you love to talk about states so much: the U.S., China, EU members, etc. are all estates with distinct trusts set up to decide what will be done with the wealth, productive facilities and property,Its actually the state that has a monopoly in all these countries. Taxation implies you are paying the government for your natural right to your land.












Damn, that was long. Dean, make it shorter next time. Thanks.:scared:

[Dejavu]

Dean, you reaction is common. You think with more emotion and less logic, this is a typical modern socialist attribute. I've decided to respond to some questions but other comments you made clearly show that you don't know what you're talking about such as you thought I meant Austrian nationals when I spoke of 'Austrians.' lol.

Ah but here it goes:


So, making it hard to immigrate and deeming people illegals, and all this by a state you seem to oppose the very existance of, is acceptable?

I was merely understanding the complaint from those opposed to illegal immigration. If national security is certainly an issue then it makes no sense that we have most of our armed forces abroad and don't even bother shoring up our own borders. For reasons of national security undocumented people entering the U.S. can be a big problem. But since I don't support the State or national borders I see no reason for preventing immigration, I think its more beneficial to our economy by contributing to the division of labor to make a successful society. Thats my personal view on it.



Or should minarchist governments also have the wildly un-libertarian stipulation that nationalization should be limited to the point that the nation create a wall to keep others out?

A wall is a waste of taxpayer dollars and really won't solve the problem. Its like gun control, you only punish those who abide by the rules.Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the rules and no wall is going to stop them just like no gun law is going to stop them.



Others who, contrary to your claims, pay more money in taxes than they see, because at the back-breaking jobs they work at they are usually put on taxed payroll (often with false SSNs) but cannot receive welfare, social security, a slew of legal rights, etc., need to be kept out of our nation?

Well IMO, if they do pay taxes and contribute to the system they should be granted access to the services. Why not? Since I'm anti-statist, citizenship is merely a government creation affirming some kind of personal loyalty to the State. The point from the opponents I was trying to understand was that a lot of illegals are paid under-the-table which does not contribute to the social welfare but they benefit off of it at the expense of others. Of course , I'd eliminate social welfare and taxes so there would be no problem anyway.



So, you don't support nationalization of anything?

Yes. I don't support anything being nationalized.


So, the police forces are private?

Well, in future anarchy, its unpredictable how activity relating to crime will play out. Perhaps the police forces in a future anarchy would be drastically different than what you envision today, in fact they would be. Its like looking at prisons or any other State institution today, the question isn't exactly how would they function in Anarchy, the question would be would there even be any prisons or perhaps some other alternative?
Empirically we can study data now showing that prisons and the 'war on drugs' have actually spurred on more crime and violence and they have empowered disorganized and organized crime alike. Suppose we eliminated these inefficiencies created by the State and then you would ask what would crime then look like? How would it be handled? Its really unpredictable but based on the condition of things in future Anarchy, a system would arise to deal with it. You can say with great conviction and evidence , the current system unfortunately spurs on more crime than it stops.



In other words, my assessment that your concept of libertarianism is fully anti-state is correct, and your argument that I was "improperly portraying the libertarian position" as such is false?

There are different ideologies attached to libertarianism. We both could be right according to our own assessments of libertarianism.



So companies, under the guise of a libertarian system, cannot provide security?

Sure they can, companies today hire private security.


Or is it illegal to have a monopoly in the security industry?

Today yes. In Anarchy, there is nothing theoretically preventing a natural monopoly over any industry. The question isn't whether monopolies will form or not, the question is can they really be sustained in free market anarchy? Well history has shown us that monopolies almost always sustained by the State ( see public roads, etc) or by the State protecting a favored corporation. The State prevents competition in that market through coercive means. This would vanish and so the shield against competition would vanish too.



It only has a way of allocating resources in a manner which produces capital. If feeding indigents does not help the economy, the ideally rational capitalist economy would be absent of such charity.

Well thats not necessarily true.You're assuming all people would be stingy and not give anything for their fellow man. If we look at some recent historical examples, before the 'Great Society era' of Lyndon Johnson kicked in , private donations ( charity) was at an all time high. Poor people saw doctors 4x/year though they couldn't afford it. They merely worked out a private contract with the doctors with a 'pay when you can method.' African-Americans in the 50s and early 60s rose out of poverty by over 30%. When the "Great Society" social welfare kicked in poor people dropped to seeing the doctor once/year, African-American poverty soared again and charity dropped by 3/4s. Many less fortunate people resorted to crime as a result of the war on drugs, they were thrown in prison for petty things, they were corrupted in prison by the violence , overcrowding, and inner prison drug cartel, and then released again with a blemish on their record making it hard for them to find decent jobs which inevitably lead to crime again. This is also related to the police/prison question you asked earlier.
But look at a 'greedy capitalist' like Ron Paul. He was an OBGYN in Texas and had his own little clinic. He didn't accept Medicaid and Medicare. He treated many people without insurance and charged all of his customers a reasonable, affordable fee. On top of that , I heard many interviews from Hispanic families who had Ron Paul deliver their children even when they couldn't afford insurance.


Is it irrational to have decentralized control of the economy - a goal of socialism?

The best option is no state control over the economy. Socialism could not provide that. Central Planning doesn't work.


If only individuals can make rational economic decisions, socialism works. If individuals as a community can rationally make decisions, socialism works. If pluralistic, intensive democratic organizations can make rational economic decisions, socialism works. If only a select few people who seek primarily to maximize profits can make rational decisions, then capitalism works.

Depends on how you define rational. When humans act purposefully by employing a means to achieve an ends then it is rational in the narrow sense. In order to make better decisions, you have to have some kind of method of economic calculation and this can only come about through monetary means through profit-loss and pricing. Socialism lacks this vital tool of economic calculation and thus they couldn't know if they are making a good decision or not. Capitalism is based on making profit but its also penalized by loss ( the State doesn't worry about loss as it can replenish through coercive extraction of capital from the private sector creating a loss for everyone.)



Also, I'd like to see what you mean by "rational decisions." Is a rational decision one which benefits humanity, one which benefits your specific value system, one which furthers your ultimate goals, or simply the profit motive?

Rational decisions that I ( and Mises, and other praxeological thinkers) speak of are narrow in definition and only apply to human actors when they act purposefully. Human action rests on the fundamental action axiom and therefore a conceptual truth. It remains a conceptual truth because it cannot be falsified. You can't coherently deny it because that would require purposeful action on you're part. When humans act purposefully then it is rational in the narrow sense. That doesn't imply that their decisions were moral, good, bad, or whatever. It merely means they acted purposefully.
For example, a murderer acts rationally because he is acting purposefully. If his end is to shoot someone , he's not gonna bring a banana to shoot someone is he? Of course not , he's going to employ a gun as a means. This isn't to say the act of killing someone is necessarily rational, but the purposeful act of doing it is in the narrow sense of rationality.

We all have value scales which are subjective in nature. Because of this we always do a cost-benefit on ends. If the costs seem more than the benefits , its likely we will not seek this end and thus this is how we rank our value scales according to what is more beneficial to us. In order to achieve ends we employ means to obtaining those ends. We expect a certain satisfaction when achieving our ends but we don't know that until we actually reached those ends. I may have $10,000 to spend this summer and I will spend that $10,000 on what I value most on my value scale. I could be debating between buying a new car or taking a vacation to Europe. The one I value more is the one I act on. If I choose to go to Europe I expect the vacation to give me the highest level of satisfaction. I employ means of obtaining that end by purchasing tickets, booking reservations, etc. Now once I experience the European vacation and the benefit of it outweighed my costs ( my costs actually being the car I forgone for the vacation) meaning I derived my expected satisfaction from it or more , then I profit. If the vacation ends up not being all that great and the costs ( the car) outweigh the benefit of my vacation then I suffer a loss. These are psychological loss-profit but the same thing can apply to monetary loss-profit when handling business.

No one can determine our value scales but us.


I have always seen the term used by right wing economists to refer to decisions based on the profit motive. In effect, that would mean that "capitalism produces rational economic decision-making" really just means that "a system based on the profit motive produces decisions based on the profit motive." How unique.

Capitalism doesn't always produce good decisions. But the decisions are rational in the sense of acting purposefully ( applying a means to achieve an ends.) An example would be in the 1980s when IBM was the resident computer giant. IBM was so large in that market that critics thought it can never be brought down to size without some kind of government intervention. Of course the critics were wrong. IBM made a real bad decision in the 80s and decided to invest their capital into production of mainframe computers ( you know , those ones that take up entire rooms) and really saw no future market for PCs. Macintosh, which in the 80s , started in a garage , decided to invest what they had into production of PCs because they saw a future market in it. So what happened was predictable, IBM lost 13 billion dollars because consumers preferred PCs and other companies and finally IBM decided to produce PCs. The more PCs were produced the cheaper they got for the consumer. The lesson here is that when I define 'rationality' I don't mean it in terms of good and bad decisions, I mean it as purposeful action. Because IBM sustained a loss on mainframes and lost its claim as the computer giant, IBM knew not to produce more mainframes because of the very profit-loss test I am describing to you.



No, because I'm an anarchist. But, as long as the state exists alongside capitalism, it is probably better that the police force be publically accountable. Actually, it is always best that the police be publically accountable, which is why state - managed police in a capitalist system are also dangerous.

Well I don't want the State or State Capitalism ( Neo-Mercantilism)


Individualism should be accurately described as the goal for human beings to freely become what they potentially are. In such a definition, individualism is acceptable to capitalism and communism. Communism, under what I assume you are referring to (Marxian) is a stateless society which Marx proclaims would allow the individual to be 'judge, jury and executioner' of his own moral capabilities and physical faculties. Under anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, a similar goal is established. The difference is that the marxists look to the human being for the future, whereas capitalists don't look for anythign for the future. The capitalism sense of freedom is so reductivist that human bodies are described as property. I am not property.

Division of labor is the sustaining force for prosperity and capitalism accommodates this. Individuals have the incentive to do better and end up in the profession where they are the most productive ( this gets complicated by the State and State supported organizations though.) I'd disagree with you that capitalism isn't future orientated. The 'capitalist' or entrepreneur or investor is always looking toward the future or he simply wouldn't invest into production or come out with innovative ways to cut costs and increase efficiency. Human bodies are property, they are self-property. When you say 'my nose,' 'my eyes,''my ideas,' you are claiming ownership over these things. Your labor is your labor ( i.e. human energy) and no employer owns it but can simply rent it from you if you let him. How can you get mad at someone punching you in your nose if your nose isn't really yours? Hehehe.


Capitalism reduces all things as objects to be manipulated for the interests of capital. This is distinctly anti-individualist, as the authority of money and property rights beomce greater than man. If I own all the land in the world, you live on my land and I have the right to tell you that you cannot eat anything. For all intents and purposes, I own you. The capitalist sense of negative rights sees no problem here. So long as private property is resected, and the starving penniless you doesn't eat anything, all is well. For Marxists, and really any rational person, the human being is much more important than property rights.

This is a typical emotional argument. It is exactly property rights that make individualism possible. The only way I can 'own' you is if I force you to live penniless on my property. Of course I can't do that and why would I want to do that? How is it beneficial to me? Why would a store owner want to shoot his patrons in the head?


Have you ever read Marx's writings on economics, specifically Capital? It is widely respected among economists, right and left wing. Those who idolize the fre market tend to hate him on principle, though. Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" has a very penetrating and distinctly economic analysis of the Soviet economy under Stalin and Lenin. But, that's not economics?

Actually, Capital is considered a reading classic for historical purposes, not so much economic anymore. Marx's version of the labor theory of value is not really accepted among most of academia but it wasn't just Marx who lost with this idea , some of the classical economists entertained their version of the labor theory of value but their positions on that have been properly dismissed. Reason I say socialism and economics are an oxymoron is because economics refers to allocation of scarce resources relative to alternative costs and it doesn't work in socialism.


Money, as property tokens, arose in its earliest known western form in the use of clay figurines representing property in Sumeria. This was a chruch funtion, and the church was a state-regulated organization at that time and place.

So the churches created money? Haha , nice try but try again. How do explain the various commodities Native American tribes used as money? I'll let you keep on trying on this one.


Let's get this straight: you think that you can't disprove this arguent because the knowledge is either "hypothetical" or "obvious"? How convenient; a fancy way of telling me to believe something as truth just because you said so.

Because the priori claim is based on logical reasoning, it requires no empirical study. Therefore it stands as a conceptual truth about reality and can only be challenged through logical reasoning.


So if nobody owns a factory himself, but rather a group of 1000 people collectively make decisions on its usage, it is impossible to determine how much output it can create with x number of man-hours?

The question I'm asking is not whether or not 1000 people know how to produce something or how to allocate man hours, the question I ask is how do they know whether they should or not. How do they know the costs of such things? The cost being the alternative uses for the factors of production.


Without comparing products with an arbitrary numerical ruling society can't make rational decisions, like, we need to create X pounds of wheat? So, if I didn't have the great will of money to guide me, I couldn't determine how many tomatoes to plant for me and my neighbors?

Again, the question is more precisely, should you even make X pounds of wheat in the first place? Are there better alternative ends for channeling all that production? The Soviets ran into this problem and a popular ( and funny) example were the old Soviet chandelier( among many other things). No doubt it was the bureaucrats that wanted these chandeliers and they specified a specific weight quantity. The producers would then get a bonus if they met the weight standard and usually a trip to the gulag if they didn't ( I might be exaggerating there lol.) But what does this do ? It creates a chain of lies. The producers know that if they report a specific weight was met, the commissar would simply demand more weight which can't always be obtainable. So the producers would typically lie to the commissar that they made 'enough' to be satisfactory and pick off a small bonus but not enough to far exceed the quota and be tasked with more work next production cycle. What ended up happening is that the Soviet chandelier makers made these big heavy chandeliers ( the heavier the better to meet the quota) and the bureaucrats would hang them in their houses and they would fall ! They even killed a couple people!
Another example was that many Soviet build homes had very shoddy roofs. Why is this? Because roofing nails were of a particular design and had a lot of variation. The commissar would demand that X kilograms of nails be produced so the producers would make the biggest heaviest nails and what would happen is a shortage of roofing nails and a surplus in useless nails and thus Soviet citizens would be stuck with those shoddy roofs. This is the problem with central planning either by the commune or State.

Plus, the Soviets would have a price fixing system which didn't allow the market to clear surplus and shortages which lead to long lines at the stores. Without a pricing mechanism and adherence to supply & demand, this would be a common occurrence in any socialist society ( see there , apriori logical reasoning :D )





Why don't you wrap your head around this, since you love to talk about states so much: the U.S., China, EU members, etc. are all estates with distinct trusts set up to decide what will be done with the wealth, productive facilities and property,

Its actually the state that has a monopoly in all these countries. Taxation implies you are paying the government for your natural right to your land.












Damn, that was long. Dean, make it shorter next time. Thanks.:scared:

[Dejavu]

^^^ Ops, delete that guy , I posted twice on accident.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ Ops, delete that guy , I posted twice on accident.

I don't know--your post was well worth reading twice. :thumbup:

[Dejavu]

Any particular comments you have about the posts Tom? By all means I'd love you to chime in. :cool:

[Dean]

Dean, you reaction is common. You think with more emotion and less logic, this is a typical modern socialist attribute. I've decided to respond to some questions but other comments you made clearly show that you don't know what you're talking about such as you thought I meant Austrian nationals when I spoke of 'Austrians.' lol.

No, I didn't I was making fun of the nationalization of a certain ideology; that is why I referred to the conflicts between "Austrian" (capitalist) versus "German" (socialist) ideologies. As for the emotional issue, I'm glad that I am passionate, but that doesn't make me think with "less logic." I could say the same, that you think with "emotion and not logic" because you spend a lot of time defendign a few core points, rahter than attempting to make a penetrating analysis of an issue. This indicates a mindset that you need to defend your ideas, and not think critically abut them - in other words, an emotional rather than logical train of thought. The reason I didn't make this remark before is because I'm not trying to be a dick and use underhanded comments, as you have been.


I was merely understanding the complaint from those opposed to illegal immigration. If national security is certainly an issue then it makes no sense that we have most of our armed forces abroad and don't even bother shoring up our own borders. For reasons of national security undocumented people entering the U.S. can be a big problem. But since I don't support the State or national borders I see no reason for preventing immigration, I think its more beneficial to our economy by contributing to the division of labor to make a successful society. Thats my personal view on it.
So now your argument in support of the xenophobic stance of Ron Paul is that it "can be a big problem." Yet, you oppose any form of regulating these borders? In other words, Paul is wrong? Exactly what problems can arise if we don't build a precious wall attempting to isolate peopel of different nationalities, pray tell?


A wall is a waste of taxpayer dollars and really won't solve the problem. Its like gun control, you only punish those who abide by the rules.Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the rules and no wall is going to stop them just like no gun law is going to stop them.
So its settled. You oppose Ron Paul's xenophobic stances, but don't accept them as xenophobic.



Well IMO, if they do pay taxes and contribute to the system they should be granted access to the services. Why not? Since I'm anti-statist, citizenship is merely a government creation affirming some kind of personal loyalty to the State. The point from the opponents I was trying to understand was that a lot of illegals are paid under-the-table which does not contribute to the social welfare but they benefit off of it at the expense of others. Of course , I'd eliminate social welfare and taxes so there would be no problem anyway.
How could you think that the black market - what Mises once called the free market - hurts people? Do you now support regulation of the economy, and statism?


Yes. I don't support anything being nationalized.
Economic martial law. Great.




Well, in future anarchy, its unpredictable how activity relating to crime will play out. Perhaps the police forces in a future anarchy would be drastically different than what you envision today, in fact they would be. Its like looking at prisons or any other State institution today, the question isn't exactly how would they function in Anarchy, the question would be would there even be any prisons or perhaps some other alternative?
Empirically we can study data now showing that prisons and the 'war on drugs' have actually spurred on more crime and violence and they have empowered disorganized and organized crime alike. Suppose we eliminated these inefficiencies created by the State and then you would ask what would crime then look like? How would it be handled? Its really unpredictable but based on the condition of things in future Anarchy, a system would arise to deal with it. You can say with great conviction and evidence , the current system unfortunately spurs on more crime than it stops.
True. But why should your system, which seeks primarily and solely to create capital, care at all about crime rate? if it creates capital to defend people, then such companies would not want a decrease, but an increase in crime - that's more work for them. Well, that's if the classic liberal idol of profit is the motivator...




Sure they can, companies today hire private security.
Which are bound by laws that an executive and congressional branch, controlled in part by republicanism, enact and enforce. What compulsion do they have to not, say, build up propaganda against blacks and subsequently use that fear as justification to make more arrests, and hence more profits. And what if a different security firm has wildly different policies? Is war not inevitable in such a scenario?


Today yes. In Anarchy, there is nothing theoretically preventing a natural monopoly over any industry. The question isn't whether monopolies will form or not, the question is can they really be sustained in free market anarchy? Well history has shown us that monopolies almost always sustained by the State ( see public roads, etc) or by the State protecting a favored corporation. The State prevents competition in that market through coercive means. This would vanish and so the shield against competition would vanish too.
Hmm, but there has always been a state in these scenarios, and the state will always have damn good reason to help prop up such monopolies. Do you really think that the compulsion against monopoly is purely a state thing? Why would a monopoly with great efficiency, huge economci weight and great security to protect its operating information have significant rivalry jsut because the state force is removed? For that matter, why can't a monopoly hire security which actively punishes others for attempting to compete in such a scenario?




Well thats not necessarily true.You're assuming all people would be stingy and not give anything for their fellow man.
No, I'm assumign that people are "rational actors." Capitalism cna only work in such an organization if people all act "rationally" whic hmeans that the only way they would give to charity is if the return was greater according to the pricing system. That rarely, if ever, happens with charities.



If we look at some recent historical examples, before the 'Great Society era' of Lyndon Johnson kicked in , private donations ( charity) was at an all time high. Poor people saw doctors 4x/year though they couldn't afford it. They merely worked out a private contract with the doctors with a 'pay when you can method.'
Ah, debt. The great savior of capitalist economies. Also, it is no wonder charity diminished - people had less need when more controls were enacted on the economy.


African-Americans in the 50s and early 60s rose out of poverty by over 30%. When the "Great Society" social welfare kicked in poor people dropped to seeing the doctor once/year, African-American poverty soared again and charity dropped by 3/4s. Many less fortunate people resorted to crime as a result of the war on drugs, they were thrown in prison for petty things, they were corrupted in prison by the violence , overcrowding, and inner prison drug cartel, and then released again with a blemish on their record making it hard for them to find decent jobs which inevitably lead to crime again. This is also related to the police/prison question you asked earlier.
Yes, the prison and welfae industries. They nmake a lot of money for U.S.corporations, and if they didn't then they would not exist. nearly all reforms agaisnt capitalist oppression result in some manipulation of them to make them profitable.


But look at a 'greedy capitalist' like Ron Paul. He was an OBGYN in Texas and had his own little clinic. He didn't accept Medicaid and Medicare. He treated many people without insurance and charged all of his customers a reasonable, affordable fee. On top of that , I heard many interviews from Hispanic families who had Ron Paul deliver their children even when they couldn't afford insurance.
So, if peopel were too poor to afford insurance, and hence had medicaid, he turned them away. That's great. And I really believ ethat a propagandist like Ron Paul could have never paid someone to lie for him, someone he had seen in person as an authority figure before!


The best option is no state control over the economy. Socialism could not provide that. Central Planning doesn't work.
Socialism promotes decentralized planning. Capitalist organizations, including those you have lauded, have alwas been centrist and economically authoritarian.




Depends on how you define rational. When humans act purposefully by employing a means to achieve an ends then it is rational in the narrow sense. In order to make better decisions, you have to have some kind of method of economic calculation
Obviously


and this can only come about through monetary means through profit-loss and pricing.
So the economic decisions I make to plant 50 tomatoes for me and my 4 neighbors necessitates a monetary system, profiteering, and prices? I find that hard to believe.


Socialism lacks this vital tool of economic calculation and thus they couldn't know if they are making a good decision or not.
And since my decision to plant tomatoes wasn't based on pricing, it was a bad decision, right?


Capitalism is based on making profit but its also penalized by loss ( the State doesn't worry about loss as it can replenish through coercive extraction of capital from the private sector creating a loss for everyone.)
No. Most of our money is loss - in the sense of debt, which drives the economy. We have more debt than money in our economy, and since all positive gains in a monetary sense must coem from the economy, not outside of it, we can never repay this debt. This drives capitalist economies very well, by forcing people to work more. In a universal sense, loss is actually extremely important to capitalism.





Rational decisions that I ( and Mises, and other praxeological thinkers) speak of are narrow in definition and only apply to human actors when they act purposefully. Human action rests on the fundamental action axiom and therefore a conceptual truth. It remains a conceptual truth because it cannot be falsified. You can't coherently deny it because that would require purposeful action on you're part. When humans act purposefully then it is rational in the narrow sense. That doesn't imply that their decisions were moral, good, bad, or whatever. It merely means they acted purposefully.
For example, a murderer acts rationally because he is acting purposefully. If his end is to shoot someone , he's not gonna bring a banana to shoot someone is he? Of course not , he's going to employ a gun as a means. This isn't to say the act of killing someone is necessarily rational, but the purposeful act of doing it is in the narrow sense of rationality.
So what is rational, the entire basis for how humans should act in a free-market system, has nothign to do with what benefits humans. It simply means that human beings must act with a purpose in mind - like genocide. Or imposition of theocracy. Or economic centrism. Sounds to me, again, like an empty and narrow view of what humans are and what thye should be.


We all have value scales which are subjective in nature. Because of this we always do a cost-benefit on ends.
Thsoe two things, the abiltiy to judge thigns based on cause - effect and value, and having a value scale, do not prove either one. I can think that appes are greater than oranges and not understand that trading an orange for
an apple is good for me, especially if I am very possessive.

If the costs seem more than the benefits , its likely we will not seek this end and thus this is how we rank our value scales according to what is more beneficial to us. In order to achieve ends we employ means to obtaining those ends. We expect a certain satisfaction when achieving our ends but we don't know that until we actually reached those ends. I may have $10,000 to spend this summer and I will spend that $10,000 on what I value most on my value scale. I could be debating between buying a new car or taking a vacation to Europe. The one I value more is the one I act on. If I choose to go to Europe I expect the vacation to give me the highest level of satisfaction. I employ means of obtaining that end by purchasing tickets, booking reservations, etc. Now once I experience the European vacation and the benefit of it outweighed my costs ( my costs actually being the car I forgone for the vacation) meaning I derived my expected satisfaction from it or more , then I profit. If the vacation ends up not being all that great and the costs ( the car) outweigh the benefit of my vacation then I suffer a loss. These are psychological loss-profit but the same thing can apply to monetary loss-profit when handling business.
You just described how people think in a capitalist society, with some flaws. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with what human beings are, and it certainly makes the concept of having money as a decision - maker appear very bad for human beings.


No one can determine our value scales but us.



Capitalism doesn't always produce good decisions. But the decisions are rational in the sense of acting purposefully ( applying a means to achieve an ends.) An example would be in the 1980s when IBM was the resident computer giant. IBM was so large in that market that critics thought it can never be brought down to size without some kind of government intervention. Of course the critics were wrong. IBM made a real bad decision in the 80s and decided to invest their capital into production of mainframe computers ( you know , those ones that take up entire rooms) and really saw no future market for PCs. Macintosh, which in the 80s , started in a garage , decided to invest what they had into production of PCs because they saw a future market in it. So what happened was predictable, IBM lost 13 billion dollars because consumers preferred PCs and other companies and finally IBM decided to produce PCs. The more PCs were produced the cheaper they got for the consumer. The lesson here is that when I define 'rationality' I don't mean it in terms of good and bad decisions, I mean it as purposeful action. Because IBM sustained a loss on mainframes and lost its claim as the computer giant, IBM knew not to produce more mainframes because of the very profit-loss test I am describing to you.
So capitalism is not really a good thing, but because it is "purpose driven" it is somehow desirable. I am surprised you can evan say this yourself.


This is a typical emotional argument. It is exactly property rights that make individualism possible. The only way I can 'own' you is if I force you to live penniless on my property. Of course I can't do that and why would I want to do that? How is it beneficial to me? Why would a store owner want to shoot his patrons in the head?
Because then he can take all th emoney they brought with them. And if I owned all property you had access to, I could indeed force you to live penniless on my property.




Actually, Capital is considered a reading classic for historical purposes, not so much economic anymore. Marx's version of the labor theory of value is not really accepted among most of academia but it wasn't just Marx who lost with this idea , some of the classical economists entertained their version of the labor theory of value but their positions on that have been properly dismissed. Reason I say socialism and economics are an oxymoron is because economics refers to allocation of scarce resources relative to alternative costs and it doesn't work in socialism.
And I guess these are all a priori to be trusted, as well.




So the churches created money? Haha , nice try but try again. How do explain the various commodities Native American tribes used as money? I'll let you keep on trying on this one.
I explain them by stating that there is no known history of natives using such currency which predates the Sumerian evidence. This doesn't mena that sumerians used it first, as I pointed out already, but the rise of money can't be traced to state or private enterprise certainly. We know, however, that early forms were based on token systems created by churches and "states."




Because the priori claim is based on logical reasoning, it requires no empirical study. Therefore it stands as a conceptual truth about reality and can only be challenged through logical reasoning.
No, its not. It is based on inductive logic, which means that no proof is indicated, only a hyopthetical which precedes the argument. In fact, if you even have to say that something your theory is based on is a priori you are opening yourself to severe logical fallacies.



The question I'm asking is not whether or not 1000 people know how to produce something or how to allocate man hours, the question I ask is how do they know whether they should or not. How do they know the costs of such things? The cost being the alternative uses for the factors of production.
And how does the CEO understand the machinery? he doesn't professionals help him. Why can't professionals be utilized in socialist economies?


Again, the question is more precisely, should you even make X pounds of wheat in the first place?
I guess the logic of human needs is lost in capitalist economics.


Its actually the state that has a monopoly in all these countries. Taxation implies you are paying the government for your natural right to your land.
Natural right? How is that? Wehn you buy land, you know that the estate has eminent domain over it. Just as my landlord had eminent domain over my apartment. How is the state any differnt from a trust which owns and polices a large swath of property?


Damn, that was long. Dean, make it shorter next time. Thanks.:scared:
I'm surprised I responded to so much of it. When I noticed how little different content you had in this post, I started cutting out large portions of it and ignorign it. The soviet attacks, for example, considering my response to the earlier ones you conveniently ignored...

[Dejavu]

No, I didn't I was making fun of the nationalization of a certain ideology; that is why I referred to the conflicts between "Austrian" (capitalist) versus "German" (socialist) ideologies.Well then, I stand corrected. Austrian economics certainly doesn't refer to the political nation state known as Austria. Austrian economics derived its name from its founder , Carl Menger, who was an Austrian journalist/economist.


Yet, you oppose any form of regulating these borders?Yes, I oppose regulating the borders.


In other words, Paul is wrong?About the borders, yes. This is my opinion.


Exactly what problems can arise if we don't build a precious wall attempting to isolate peopel of different nationalities, pray tell?I think a wall will create more problems. Its a waste of money which is a burden to taxpayers. Furthermore, it won't work. Like gun laws, people determined to obtain guns illegally or scale the wall illegally will do it anyway , law or no law. Again, a 12ft wall only requires a 14ft ladder.


So its settled. You oppose Ron Paul's xenophobic stances, but don't accept them as xenophobic.I disagree with Ron Paul on the borders, strong national defense, and abortion. I don't think they are xenophobic positions. Thats correct. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist (minarchist) and adheres to the document very closely. He believes in national sovereignty and thus I can understand his position on this but I don't necessarily agree with it.


How could you think that the black market - what Mises once called the free market - hurts people?I praise the black market. In areas hit by shortages and extreme scarcity the black market always provided an outlet for salvation. Of course, in a society where the State doesn't regulate the market, the black market would be obsolete.


Do you now support regulation of the economy, and statism?No.


True. But why should your system, which seeks primarily and solely to create capital, care at all about crime rate?I don't know of many enterprises that actively seek to lose revenue because of crime ( vandalizing, extortion, etc). Crime affects commerce negatively which is detrimental to all. Very few would seek the benefits of it. I think you're still thinking in terms of how the State rewards failure. With the State, if crime increases, police departments are funded more. Without the state, if a security agency exists and crime increases, obviously that security agency isn't performing well so it would stand to lose instead of profit. People would demand a better security agency.


What compulsion do they have to not, say, build up propaganda against blacks and subsequently use that fear as justification to make more arrests, and hence more profits.But this is what the State does isn't it? LAPD? Technically nothing can stop them from doing this but how is this worse than what the State already does? With a corrupt state police, blacks really have no choice but to live under this because there is no alternative to state force since it holds a monopoly on violence which is coercively enforced. In Anarchy, there is no state police so bad practice doesn't earn more funding, it is penalized because it loses the confidence of society.


And what if a different security firm has wildly different policies?So what? If the first firm was that bad, I'd praise an opposite policy from another. With the State, there is nothing to challenge the bad policemen.


Is war not inevitable in such a scenario?Theoretically no. But the question is, is it likely? I mean look we have States today and we're at war so I don't know how the State is a better alternative. The State can spend as much as it wants on war production without loss penalty. It merely extracts these things coercively from the productive private sector which becomes a loss to the people but the people can't do anything about it. War has a tremendous price, just look at how much it costs manufacturing weaponry. A single nuclear warhead costs 500 mil for example. Do firms really want risk that much loss just for more destruction? The State doesn't care because its not affected by loss. The scenario doesn't seem likely but is theoretically possible just like tomorrow half the world's population can commit suicide. Its possible but not likely.


Also, it is no wonder charity diminished - people had less need when more controls were enacted on the economy.But the truth of the matter is that people have more need now than before. Poverty levels after the social programs skyrocketed to record highs. Charity is down because its no longer charity, its involuntary payment to the State by the private sector instead of voluntary direct payment to those in need.


Socialism promotes decentralized planning.Socialism promotes a free market then? Hehehe. Careful there.:laugh:


So the economic decisions I make to plant 50 tomatoes for me and my 4 neighbors necessitates a monetary system, profiteering, and prices?I don't know if you bothered to read my note in one of my earlier posts. The type of economy your describing is a very basic economy where you can get away without calculation ( not entirely but its not as important.) Your just talking about an economy with you and four other people. It is possible what you're saying but not realistic in the real industrialized world. The modern economy requires tomatoes for millions of people not just four which means a substantial increase in production which requires more land, labor, and capital and therefore calculation. You have to know your costs. On top of that you would be competing with other markets that require similar resources.

But even this basic economy of 5 actors, you and four neighbors, there has to be a reason you're growing 50 tomatoes and not just five. You want a surplus in order to sustain more people. Now had you grown only 5 tomatoes, those tomatoes become much more valuable to you because the marginal utility of five is far greater than 50. Anything can happen, the future is unpredictable, you could have bad weather or a poor harvest diminishing 90% of your production, it happens, then what do you do?




And since my decision to plant tomatoes wasn't based on pricing, it was a bad decision, right?No, read above. There is a difference between a very basic economy of 50 tomatoes and 5 neighbors and an industrialized economy of millions of people.


In a universal sense, loss is actually extremely important to capitalism.Agreed. Loss, like profit, is an indicator of what and what not to produce and how much to produce. In other words, it allows you to economize.


I can think that appes are greater than oranges and not understand that trading an orange for
an apple is good for me, especially if I am very possessive. It only means that you value the expected utility of the apple greater than the orange. Of course your not going to trade. Trade implies a double inequality of wants. Your only gonna trade of you value what the other person has greater than what you currently posses and vice versa. If he only has oranges and you value apples more , there will be no trade. Apples are your subjective preference over oranges.


So capitalism is not really a good thing, but because it is "purpose driven" it is somehow desirable.Human action defines people acting purposefully. We purposefully act to satisfy lack of utility in our condition we have in the present in exchange for expected satisfaction of a better condition in the future , these are means to ends. If we lived in a post scarcity world where we had no wants , then we wouldn't take action , we'd have no purpose to improve our present condition. We might act to sustain our present post scarcity condition though. But goods as means are finite and we will economize these things until scarcity ceases to exist.


Because then he can take all th emoney they brought with them. And if I owned all property you had access to, I could indeed force you to live penniless on my property.Again, why would someone do that? If you rent property to someone, you expect payment. If they have nothing to pay, its a loss to you. Its like opening Wal*Mart with no cash registers. Why are you going to go through the trouble of providing goods to people when you don't expect to profit from them?


I explain them by stating that there is no known history of natives using such currency which predates the Sumerian evidence. This doesn't mena that sumerians used it first, as I pointed out already, but the rise of money can't be traced to state or private enterprise certainly. We know, however, that early forms were based on token systems created by churches and "states."But the Native Americans had no formal connection ( if any connection at all) to the Sumerians yet they still had money. Money isn't just printed paper or coins. Money can be any commodity. But this is funny, I love watching try to tackle the issue of where money came from. Keep trying. :laugh:


In fact, if you even have to say that something your theory is based on is a priori you are opening yourself to severe logical fallacies.The priori is a conceptual truth. Human action rests upon the action axiom which states that humans act purposefully by employing scarce means to achieve desired ends. I don't see how you can coherently deny it when denying it constitutes a purposeful action. The concept can only be disproved with logical reasoning. A priori claim of socialist calculation doesn't stand up to logical deduction therefore the premise is wrong because it can't exist in reality along with the opposite claim. It is a contradiction which means one premise is wrong, in this case calculation within Socialism is the wrong premise.


And how does the CEO understand the machinery?he doesn't professionals help him. Agreed.


Why can't professionals be utilized in socialist economies?They can. Soviets employed some of the greatest scientists in the world. I never denied that talented labor doesn't exist within socialist societies. You totally missed the point of what I was saying. I believe even within socialism there exists a division of labor capable of producing almost anything just like in a capitalist society. My argument is that there is no way to calculate the real costs of undertaking various projects of production within socialism. Its not a question of can socialist scientists construct a space probe , the question is should the socialist scientists construct a space probe?


Natural right? How is that?How is it not that?


Just as my landlord had eminent domain over my apartment. How is the state any differnt from a trust which owns and polices a large swath of property?The State goes unchallenged and only a trust protected by the State can go unchallenged. This would in imply that one trust owns everything, that is the State. :laugh:

[Dejavu]

No, read above. There is a difference between a very basic economy of 50 tomatoes and 5 neighbors and an industrialized economy of millions of people.

Actually, I had to quote myself because theres another approach I want to take though I like my original approach also. But this time I want to actually address the issue of 'anarcho-communism' as relates to Dean's question.

Dean asked whats the problem if he produces 50 tomatoes, for himself and four of his neighbors and my question would be is this even relevant in communism?

The an-communists claim that personal property is still allowed such as cars, houses, clothes, and things that would be considered in the market sense as consumer goods but NOT capital goods.
Capital goods would be owned by the public. So how does Dean having to give his tomatoes fall into this paradigm? Are not tomatoes consumer goods? What requires him to give his tomatoes in the first place, even in communism?

I thought an-communism required public ownership over capital goods meaning that instead of Dean producing 50 tomatoes for everyone he doesn't have to. The tomato farm is considered a capital good as well as all the equipment associated with producing tomatoes. So I would figure Dean merely cannot deny access to others for the equipment necessary to grow tomatoes. Way I see it , Dean would merely use part of the communal farm to grow the tomatoes he needs and it'd be available to the other four neighbors to do the same thing.

Because if Dean literally gives away 80% of his tomato production to the others who didn't even produce the tomatoes, they would be exploiting him. Plus the tomatoes are a consumer and not capital good and can be considered Dean's personal property. No, they have access to the capital necessary to make their own tomatoes. But there is a problem with this of course. What if Dean is the only skilled farmer? It kinda throws an ax at the whole notion of division of labor.

Are then the tomatoes Dean produces on the communal farm not his either? Is then personal property also forbidden in an-communism? Would living conditions then encompass a communal home with alloted space for tenets? Would cars just be parked at the town square with open doors and keys in the ignition for anyone to use? Is there or is there not personal property? Are they only capital goods?

So then I know what the communist is going to say... well Dejavu, thats simple to answer! Dean can make the tomatoes and trade them for another commodity of equal value based on labor time. So say neighbor B is a shoemaker and wants X amount of Dean's tomatoes. Then that would require Dean to want a Y amount of Neighbor B's shoes. But what if Dean is fine on shoes and doesn't require Y amount of shoes or any shoes at all?
Since an-communist wish to ban money, a system of barter would take its place. Say Dean wants Z amount of meat for X amount of tomatoes. So then he has to find a tomato wanting meat producer , good luck !

What you end up with is surpluses and shortages of goods. Or is it that the communist society only truly believes in public ownership of capital goods. In that case society isn't obligated to share consumer goods, it just has to provide access for people to the capital to make their own clothes, food, cars, etc. :laugh:

Or is it that there is no personal ownership period and that all consumer goods must be redistributed. So which authoritarian force exploits people for their production?:laugh:

Redistribution in an industrial modern economy requires central planning. How do you communist get around this?;)

[RGacky3]

Dajavu, I got a question for you.

Do you support simple land ownership, i.e. a guy says, from here to here is mine, and anything that grows on it is mine too?

If you do why? and how would that be protected

[Green Dragon]

The 'marxist' states of the twenty-first century developed under the wing and guidance of the Soiviet Union, their mistakes affected all.


And to what extent was the USSR's mistales "mistakes" as opposed to the logical result of the application of flawed theories?



They all went ahead with the big no-no's of socialism- forced collectivisation, unnacountable economic planning, carbon copying their own ideology of practice onto other movements.


The problem here is that the Lennin's of the USSR no longer had the luxury of sitting back and penning some critiue or other of capitalism and perhaps skectching out an alternative. They actually had to do it.



I mean when you look back, of course it failed. Those states were absolutely besieged by far stronger states. States that had ruling class traditions dating back 300 years.


The USSR was built upon Russia, which was a fairly old state. Yet it failed as well.



States that had greater technology, greater growth (capitalism has the capacity to create greater growth than socialist economies, always has and probably wil be the case for the future socialist economies), more mature traditions of everything that makes a country 'great'.


So does not this mean that socialism there failed because capitalism is always better?



The crude siege socialism that developed in the soviet union from an early stage gave perfect conditions for manipulative and power-hungry leaders to crush all debate and alternative lines within the party.


But does not socialism approach the problem that they will be constantly harried, threatened and attempted to be crushed by the capitalists? Nothing that happened in the USSR in the early days ougtht be seen as a surprise, or to be unexpected, to a socialist. Why blame the capitalist for socialisms inability to develop systems to prevent the emergence of "power hungry leaders?"
Socialism seems to assumes that they will be under "siege" from the capitalist from day one.



What better way for the USSR to steam ahead economically and ward of aggression and substerfuge than Stalin?


And to ward off competing views of socialism and communism.





The question is 'Can a socialist state survive and maintain it's integrity, efficiency and democratic nature?'.

We must make sure the answer to that question is yes, for the sake of humanity.
[/QUOTE]

Aside from the "End Days" paranoia, it is a fair question for a socialist to ask.
You are ceretainly not the first to ask it.
But nobody has ever seemed to be able to answer. Why?

[Bud Struggle]

Any particular comments you have about the posts Tom? By all means I'd love you to chime in. I've been trying to reply to this for two days--:ohmy: I am no economist--the only invisible hand that I have ever had use for was to unfasten dates bras in college. :lol:






I was merely understanding the complaint from those opposed to illegal immigration. If national security is certainly an issue then it makes no sense that we have most of our armed forces abroad and don't even bother shoring up our own borders. For reasons of national security undocumented people entering the U.S. can be a big problem. But since I don't support the State or national borders I see no reason for preventing immigration, I think its more beneficial to our economy by contributing to the division of labor to make a successful society. Thats my personal view on it.

Well, I support national boarders. It does two things, first it defines markets. It sets up limits to where products could be successfully marketed and distributed. It also sets up workforces. It tells you who can do what in which area. Where does education need to be developed and to what extent in what areas?



A wall is a waste of taxpayer dollars and really won't solve the problem. Its like gun control, you only punish those who abide by the rules.Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the rules and no wall is going to stop them just like no gun law is going to stop them.

Agreed.



Well IMO, if they do pay taxes and contribute to the system they should be granted access to the services. Why not? Since I'm anti-statist, citizenship is merely a government creation affirming some kind of personal loyalty to the State. The point from the opponents I was trying to understand was that a lot of illegals are paid under-the-table which does not contribute to the social welfare but they benefit off of it at the expense of others. Of course , I'd eliminate social welfare and taxes so there would be no problem anyway.

Illegals are a prolem. I'm not aganst them--but they cause a problem for the Blacks and low wage scale Americans that would get higher wages from the scarsity of workforce is Illegals were not available. They drive down wages to minimum levels. They also work harder for the wages they earn than their American counterparts. They are als anti-Union, they fear even giving their names.

While they are good for me as a business owner, they do harm to the lower strata of the working population.


Yes. I don't support anything being nationalized.

Yup.


Well, in future anarchy, its unpredictable how activity relating to crime will play out. Perhaps the police forces in a future anarchy would be drastically different than what you envision today, in fact they would be. Its like looking at prisons or any other State institution today, the question isn't exactly how would they function in Anarchy, the question would be would there even be any prisons or perhaps some other alternative?

There won't be any anarchy. It's too unstable. Anarchy looks like Bagdad before the surge. Various gangs of armed thugs vying for power until a Furher takes over. People need to believe --in a god, a leader or a system. They don't react well on their own.



Empirically we can study data now showing that prisons and the 'war on drugs' have actually spurred on more crime and violence and they have empowered disorganized and organized crime alike. Suppose we eliminated these inefficiencies created by the State and then you would ask what would crime then look like? How would it be handled? Its really unpredictable but based on the condition of things in future Anarchy, a system would arise to deal with it. You can say with great conviction and evidence , the current system unfortunately spurs on more crime than it stops.

No doubt about it, the war on drugs if bigger business for the government than the drug lords. I am completely aganst drugs for moral and ethical reasons, but those are personal choices and everybody has to make those for themselves. It's not the government's job.



Today yes. In Anarchy, there is nothing theoretically preventing a natural monopoly over any industry. The question isn't whether monopolies will form or not, the question is can they really be sustained in free market anarchy? Well history has shown us that monopolies almost always sustained by the State ( see public roads, etc) or by the State protecting a favored corporation. The State prevents competition in that market through coercive means. This would vanish and so the shield against competition would vanish too. You have to be careful here. Monopolies do occur--and they can be very destructive. Standard Oil is a good example. But for the most part, the state is too intrusive into thing it feels it "owns" like defense.




Well thats not necessarily true.You're assuming all people would be stingy and not give anything for their fellow man. If we look at some recent historical examples, before the 'Great Society era' of Lyndon Johnson kicked in , private donations ( charity) was at an all time high. Poor people saw doctors 4x/year though they couldn't afford it. They merely worked out a private contract with the doctors with a 'pay when you can method.' African-Americans in the 50s and early 60s rose out of poverty by over 30%. When the "Great Society" social welfare kicked in poor people dropped to seeing the doctor once/year, African-American poverty soared again and charity dropped by 3/4s. Many less fortunate people resorted to crime as a result of the war on drugs, they were thrown in prison for petty things, they were corrupted in prison by the violence , overcrowding, and inner prison drug cartel, and then released again with a blemish on their record making it hard for them to find decent jobs which inevitably lead to crime again. This is also related to the police/prison question you asked earlier.
But look at a 'greedy capitalist' like Ron Paul. He was an OBGYN in Texas and had his own little clinic. He didn't accept Medicaid and Medicare. He treated many people without insurance and charged all of his customers a reasonable, affordable fee. On top of that , I heard many interviews from Hispanic families who had Ron Paul deliver their children even when they couldn't afford insurance.

Muchly agreeing again with you.



The best option is no state control over the economy. Socialism could not provide that. Central Planning doesn't work.

Yup.




Depends on how you define rational. When humans act purposefully by employing a means to achieve an ends then it is rational in the narrow sense. In order to make better decisions, you have to have some kind of method of economic calculation and this can only come about through monetary means through profit-loss and pricing. Socialism lacks this vital tool of economic calculation and thus they couldn't know if they are making a good decision or not. Capitalism is based on making profit but its also penalized by loss ( the State doesn't worry about loss as it can replenish through coercive extraction of capital from the private sector creating a loss for everyone.)

This almost deserves a thread of it's own. How we define "rational" is a conviluted question. Do we center on what works best for the most people (unititarianism) or what the intended use of a thing is (Aristotlianism) or a number of other ideas in between--really gives us our understanding of the world. For a system like Communism to work we all have to settle down and AGREE on what is rational. And that's an idea that's not in the works. As for being a really workable system--Capitalism is the best hands down. If I want a Bentley--I have to work for it, I have to give back the Value of Bentley to the Economy in order to get the money to buy the car. I's a pretty simple equasion and for me it seem to work.



All I can do for now. :(:lol:

Thanks DV and good post!










Damn, that was long. Dean, make it shorter next time. Thanks.:scared:[/quote]

[Dejavu]

Actually, I had to quote myself because theres another approach I want to take though I like my original approach also. But this time I want to actually address the issue of 'anarcho-communism' as relates to Dean's question.

Dean asked whats the problem if he produces 50 tomatoes, for himself and four of his neighbors and my question would be is this even relevant in communism?

The an-communists claim that personal property is still allowed such as cars, houses, clothes, and things that would be considered in the market sense as consumer goods but NOT capital goods.
Capital goods would be owned by the public. So how does Dean having to give his tomatoes fall into this paradigm? Are not tomatoes consumer goods? What requires him to give his tomatoes in the first place, even in communism?

I thought an-communism required public ownership over capital goods meaning that instead of Dean producing 50 tomatoes for everyone he doesn't have to. The tomato farm is considered a capital good as well as all the equipment associated with producing tomatoes. So I would figure Dean merely cannot deny access to others for the equipment necessary to grow tomatoes. Way I see it , Dean would merely use part of the communal farm to grow the tomatoes he needs and it'd be available to the other four neighbors to do the same thing.

Because if Dean literally gives away 80% of his tomato production to the others who didn't even produce the tomatoes, they would be exploiting him. Plus the tomatoes are a consumer and not capital good and can be considered Dean's personal property. No, they have access to the capital necessary to make their own tomatoes. But there is a problem with this of course. What if Dean is the only skilled farmer? It kinda throws an ax at the whole notion of division of labor.

Are then the tomatoes Dean produces on the communal farm not his either? Is then personal property also forbidden in an-communism? Would living conditions then encompass a communal home with alloted space for tenets? Would cars just be parked at the town square with open doors and keys in the ignition for anyone to use? Is there or is there not personal property? Are they only capital goods?

So then I know what the communist is going to say... well Dejavu, thats simple to answer! Dean can make the tomatoes and trade them for another commodity of equal value based on labor time. So say neighbor B is a shoemaker and wants X amount of Dean's tomatoes. Then that would require Dean to want a Y amount of Neighbor B's shoes. But what if Dean is fine on shoes and doesn't require Y amount of shoes or any shoes at all?
Since an-communist wish to ban money, a system of barter would take its place. Say Dean wants Z amount of meat for X amount of tomatoes. So then he has to find a tomato wanting meat producer , good luck !

What you end up with is surpluses and shortages of goods. Or is it that the communist society only truly believes in public ownership of capital goods. In that case society isn't obligated to share consumer goods, it just has to provide access for people to the capital to make their own clothes, food, cars, etc. :laugh:

Or is it that there is no personal ownership period and that all consumer goods must be redistributed. So which authoritarian force exploits people for their production?:laugh:

Redistribution in an industrial modern economy requires central planning. How do you communist get around this?;)



Damn, I hate to quote myself again but I just read over this last post of mine and I feel its my duty to be intellectually honest and correct a couple errors I made here. It was late last night, this additional point came as a result and it was kinda spur of the moment. After discussing this issue today with a very intelligent libertarian friend of mine I have come to see I have made two important mistakes in this last post.

My point still stands but actually now its more sound. Anyway, without further ado, here's my two errors:

1. I assumed the worst. Dean could have just as well voluntarily shared his tomatoes. I cannot assume what Dean's actions would be in that situation and its perfectly reasonable for him to voluntarily share even if it yields no 'economic profit.' That was vulgar on my part and I apologize :D
Had I not addressed this I believe it would've been contradictory on my part since I constantly emphasize that the future cannot be predicted with some 'scientific formula' in a market with human actors.

2. I made a fatal mistake with consumer goods and capital goods. As someone wiser than me pointed out. There is nothing intrinsic about a a commodity which makes it a capital or consumer good. The use and value of a commodity is subjective and therefore it is our very own minds which determine what exactly constitutes a capital good and consumer good. Indeed, depending on the owner and her desired end, a tomato can be a consumer good ( i.e. eat it) or a capital good ( maybe you want to make ketchup.)

So I apologize for my wrong assertions:cool:
However, this actually makes the situation harder to explain for the communists, socialists, and so-called anarchists of these brands. Communism/Socialism requires public ownership over capital goods yet what is intrinsic about an object that actually makes it a capital good? How can this distinction exist outside the individual's mind? It blurs the line between what exactly is a capital good and what is not. So how does the concept of personal property stack up with public ownership and how is it NOT a contradiction?

So the question becomes harder. :(
Sorry about that guys. ;)

By the way TomK, thanks for you're reply. I really gotta go right now but I'll get back to your comments tomorrow.

Dean , why are you restricted?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The Soviets also launched the first probe into space, no one is denying that either. But the real focus should be on the costs of those things. By costs I mean what are the alternative uses of the resources that were used in these projects and could they have benefited Soviet citizens better? In the USSR queues in front of shops were a regular occurrence even during the GDP 'boom', because of shortages ( caused by price controls because resources were scarce) and poor allocation of resources. Shortages were also a common problem in Nazi Germany, until the spoils of its WWII conquests became available.Actually your interpretation of events is not accurate with historical fact. Queues were only commonplace during World War 2 and the economic slumps that occurred after Brezhnev and Gorbachev's market reforms. Even the United States had to employ rations during WW2. What everyone should ask, regardless of where they stand in the debate, is why the problems associated with central-planning occur. I would argue centralization of information is the largest issue. Workers and consumers were absent of state-planning (except in Yugoslavia, which, coincidentally, often outpaced capitalist markets). This made sense in the beginning since the majority of Russians were illiterate peasants who only knew how to use the plow, but an industrialized economy is just too much for a small group of intellectuals to handle.

Indeed in the '70s Soviet planners realized this problem and started to embark on a campaign to use computers as a method of communication. Unfortunately, since there were three different departments working on home computers without input from each other, the results were often inefficient and incompatible. This is a stark contrast to the 50s when it was predicted that within ten years the Soviet Union would catch up to American computing technology. Traditional planning methods continued to dominate the scene right up until the collapse of the USSR. I would also note something of little interest to market-minded individuals: In the United States, during the 70s and early 80s, computers actually flourished not due to profit motive influence, but rather a gift economy of ideas.


The state doesn't produce anything.Incorrect. The Public Works Administration, when it existed, helped construct roads, dams, and power facilities. You're thinking of contemporary capitalist examples where the state acts as a giant service-sector corporation, run like Burger King or some other generic conglomerate.

Because the State is a bureaucratic enterprise and not a profit-loss enterprise the State would have no way of knowing the true costs of such projects. The State can always replenish its stock of capital by simply extracting it from the private productive sector. Part of the reason private enterprise is 'incapable' of providing ' public utilities' such as the ones you defend from the State is precisely because the State has a monopoly on these things and can coercively prevent competition in that market.No law that I'm aware of prevents you from hiring your own security, or firefighters, or garbage service, or private school. You're confusing public goods with state bureaucracy. Few complain about their local services like trash, recycling, animal control, police, paramedics, firefighters, utilities, and mail (truck delivery) anymore than they do about not getting ketchup when they asked for it. Indeed having these institutions privatized would be a mess and inefficient in terms of cost and resource allocation: instead of five dirty trash trucks going around in their respected regions, there would be twenty. And they would all be doing the same exact job, only advertised as "better" - even though the entrepreneurs would be raking in money from the workers' salaries and cutting corners at the consumers expense. Of course this is the idealized version. In reality there would be an oligopoly of five or six trash services that would be performing the exact same function - only more centralized.

Please don't compare the DMV with a democratic, decentralized alternative. :glare:

Monopolies of force will always exist, right down to the idealized vision of anarcho-capitalist economics where I have complete control over my business. Privatization at a certain point becomes detrimental to the entire system. If I buy out a road twenty years after its developed, do I get to refuse access to your home if you don't pay me a fee? What if I make the fee absurdly high like $5,000 and you're forced to sell your house below market value? I then buy five houses and rent them out for $. I can already see the millions. :drool:


Some great accomplishments by the State would be the public infrastructure to protect New Orleans. And then the Fema Camp holdouts that followed. The difference between State and private enterprise is that the State is rewarded for failure.Please enlighten me on how the market would have been a better system of preventing the terrific mistake. Building the levies would have cost a piss load of money and there is no profit to be made from it. Again your criticisms fall on centralized government institutions. Their structuring is no different than corporations - other than the fact corporations aren't completely immune to competition (yet).

You have a right to be king of your jungle. How is the State managing everything a better alternative? How is that freedom when the State tells you what you're allowed to have and how much?Cute. How does one go about acquiring a jungle? Does it not belong to the aborigines who first used the bark for homes, or do property rights only extend as far back as it is convenient? Do I just go out there and claim land as my own? Why do you have more rights to your unused piece of the front yard than me? As far as I know, it's only because the state reinforces your "right." I guess you could have private protection agency, but then we go back to the jungle debate. If two competitors have disagreements over property rights, which one wins? Probably the one carrying the most guns, especially when the other agency is independently-based.


But you're freedom is then at the whims of the State and the mob ( see Democracy). How is it freedom when 51% can decide for the other 49%?Who said anything about a 50+1 majority? Direct democracies and constitutions are not dichotomies; you can have a clear majority of 60-70%. On the other side of the scale you can have consensual democracy in small work environments.


I don't see private ownership of capital as detriment. Its a benefit because it makes exchange in the market possible with prices. People can consume what they desire and if more people desire a particular good , more of it is produced taking down the price of such goods. A non-exchange based society , which the market provides , would severely decrease the living standards of everyone in it.Define "exchange." The black gift economy on the internet is living. More illegal downloads occur every month than in the history of itunes. For every major-brand software out there, five free ones exist. Some may not be able to compete against the copyright material, but that has more to do with the influx of workers into a field of profit than capitalism.


Democratic capacity? In a free market the only way you can accumulate more capital is IF you're pleasing other people. If people desire and want the things you produce then you are actually benefiting society and not exploiting it. The market itself is very democratic. Instead of a ballot, each dollar is a vote. The more dollars vote through consumption for your firm, the more successful you'll be. If you produce something which doesn't receive a lot of dollar votes you take a loss and either shape up or go out of business. The State forcibly extracting capital from the private productive sector is forcing votes, thats not very democratic.

Incorrect. A good number of children, wives, and even husbands acquire capital through kinship. Furthermore, it's not a matter of pleasing another person - it's the impression at sale. Health inspectors are resourceful tools of the government who make sure the food you put in your mouth wasn't fried alongside the guts of roasted cockroaches, and honestly - judging by the quality of service at fast food places - I think we need more regulation. Especially without external regulation, the medicine you buy may just be sugar, or the shoes may be worn down in 3 months (usually the case unless you buy shoes overpriced by a factor of 10), or the house may have foundation problems. Greatest product doesn't always win out (heck, just look at Microsoft). An independent mom-and-pop shop who provides costumers with a better atmosphere than most retail chains, with the same taste and less fat could easily flop just because of the economy of size. Your position does not take into consideration the fact success and failure eventually lead to enterprises that dominate the market. Many people hate Walmart, but when you're having to save up pennies to afford rent, it's not a matter of philosophical musing - you're in Walmart buying your groceries.

For these reasons your comparing money to democracy is a joke.

[Green Dragon]

What everyone should ask, regardless of where they stand in the debate, is why the problems associated with central-planning occur. I would argue centralization of information is the largest issue.



Indeed in the '70s Soviet planners realized this problem and started to embark on a campaign to use computers as a method of communication. Unfortunately, since there were three different departments working on home computers without input from each other, the results were often inefficient and incompatible

The issue is not the METHOD by which information is communicated, but the nature of the information transmitted. Transmitting nonsense faster and better does not make the information less nonsensical.



I would also note something of little interest to market-minded individuals: In the United States, during the 70s and early 80s, computers actually flourished not due to profit motive influence, but rather a gift economy of ideas.


I would say this is false. People may have been interested in purchasing computers for entertainment, or because it made the job easier. But people wanted the computer because, in some manner, they benefitted from having it. The value of the computer to them was greater than the cost.

[Dejavu]

Actually your interpretation of events is not accurate with historical fact. Queues were only commonplace during World War 2 and the economic slumps that occurred after Brezhnev and Gorbachev's market reforms. Even the United States had to employ rations during WW2. What everyone should ask, regardless of where they stand in the debate, is why the problems associated with central-planning occur. I would argue centralization of information is the largest issue. Workers and consumers were absent of state-planning (except in Yugoslavia, which, coincidentally, often outpaced capitalist markets). This made sense in the beginning since the majority of Russians were illiterate peasants who only knew how to use the plow, but an industrialized economy is just too much for a small group of intellectuals to handle.

Actually queues were commonplace in the Soviet Union throughout most of its existence. The Soviets had no realiable pricing mechanism and thus ended up with shortages of needed goods and surpluses of junk. In 1964, in Russia's largest republic alone, deliveries of 257 factories had to be suspended because their goods were not bought. As a result of the consumer's stiffening standards and an increased inclination to complain, $3 billion worth of unsellable junk accumulated in Soviet inventories. You name one decade in Soviet history where a portion of its population was not starving or didn't have to wait in line for basic needs ( Warsaw Pact countries included.)

The problem with the central planning was at its core, it simply doesn't work in a large industralized economy. No single person or board can possibly know what is going on everywhere at the same time. It cannot know what real costs are. It has no way of measuring the extent of waste. It has no real way of knowing how inefficient any particular plant is, or how inefficient the whole system is. It has no way of knowing just what goods consumers would want if they were produced and made available at their real costs. So the system leads to wastes, stoppages, and breakdowns at innumerable points. And some of these become obvious even to the most casual observer. In the summer of 1961, for example, a party of American newspapermen made an 8,000-mile conducted tour of the Soviet Union. They told of visiting collective farms where seventeen men did the work of two; of seeing scores of buildings unfinished "for want of the proverbial nail"; of traveling in a land virtually without roads.

In the same year even Premier Khrushchev complained that as of January 1 there were many millions of square feet of completed factory space that could not be used because the machinery required for them just wasn't available, while at the same time in other parts of the country there were the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of machinery of various kinds standing idle because the factories and mines for which this machine was designed were not yet ready.

Gorby's reforms were anti-free market, nice try. Gorbachev, perhaps imitating the Brazilian failure, similarly decided to combat the "ruble overhang" by suddenly withdrawing large-ruble notes from circulation and rendering most of them worthless. This severe and sudden 33 percent monetary deflation was accompanied by a promise to stamp out the "black market," i.e. the market, which had until then been the only Soviet institution working and keeping the Soviet people from mass starvation.

But the black marketeers had long since gotten out of rubles and into dollars and gold, so that Gorby's meat ax fell largely on the average Soviet citizen, who had managed to work hard and save from his meager earnings. The only slightly redeeming feature of this act is that at least it was not done in the name of privatization and the free market; instead, it was part and parcel of Gorbachev's recent shift back to statism and central control.

Yugoslavia was no wonderland, trust me I was from there. Yugoslavia hit three record depressions in its short history and never recovered from the third one thanks to central planners. Yugoslavia borrowed millions from the U.S. and other Western countries to sustain its sluggish growth. Of course this put the country in debt which it cannot recover from by the time the 80s came around. It did not outpace capitalist markets since a large chunk of Yugoslavia's working force moved out of the country as guest workers and brought back moola from Western markets. However , in retrospect, Yugoslavia's economy faired better than many other communist countries mainly because of funding by the West.

In 1945 Yugoslavia was accepted as a charter member of the International Monetary Fund. By Dec. 16, 1992, when Yugoslavia was unceremoniously given the boot by the IMF, the wily boys in Belgrade had made hash out of the bumbling bureaucrats in Washington. Perhaps that explains why the fantastic tale about Yugoslavia's monetary mischief remains untold.

Yugoslavia got off to a fast start in its race with the IMF. By the mid-1950s, it had created the world's most complicated multiple exchange-rate system. That Rube Goldberg setup imposed some 200 exchange rates for different traded products and was administered under a licensed trading system. With an abundant supply of IMF advice, oversight and credits, things deteriorated. From 1971 to 1991, the year Yugoslavia broke apart, its annualized inflation rate was 76%; only Zaire and Brazil had higher inflation.


Incorrect. The Public Works Administration, when it existed, helped construct roads, dams, and power facilities. You're thinking of contemporary capitalist examples where the state acts as a giant service-sector corporation, run like Burger King or some other generic conglomerate.

As if the market could not provide these utilities on its own. Sounds Keynesian, only the sound wisdom of the State bureaucrats can create these things. I highly recommend to you Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. I was pointing out that the State does not procure capital through market processes like the private sector. It forcibly extracts these things from the private sector and embarks upon its own projects the bureaucrats see fit. The only difference with today as opposed to a few decades ago was that the government back then levied more direct taxes instead of using inflation as a funding scheme.


Indeed having these institutions privatized would be a mess and inefficient in terms of cost and resource allocation:

Now you're talking about Pareto efficiency. There are logical fallacies in that. One logical problem is that even if market production fails to reach the theoretical ideal of Pareto efficiency, there is no guarantee that government production will be more efficient than private production. If Pareto efficiency is used as the benchmark for success, then government can fail to allocate resources efficiently in the same way that markets can. Thus, one would have to compare market versus government production by evaluating the real-world institutions in each case, rather than comparing the theoretical efficiency of Pareto optimality with the real-world performance of markets.

A second issue is the problem of revealed preference. If the market fails to get a true measure of revealed preference for public goods , can the government expect to do any better? Revealed preferences exist in the private provision of public goods as well. Take issue of public goods by examining the market for television broadcasts. If the broadcasts were financed by tax revenues , produced by the government , and distributed free of charge to viewers , then the government would have no way of telling which broadcasts are more valuable to its viewers. But if markets distributed the broadcasts, then producers could use market indicators if viewers paid for each viewing ( as they do with motion pictures) , or if advertisers paid and wanted their advertising to be shown with broadcasts that appealed to their consumers.

If public goods are sold on the market like movie tickets , then some inefficiency would result from the exclusion of individuals who valued teh good , but by less than the market price. This inefficiency would have to be weighed against the efficiencies generated by the market's revealed-preference mechanisms. The advantages are much broader than just indicating what type of motion picture is most valuable to viewers. Innovations in markets, whether regarding locations, product types, or potential new markets, are best seen by those who work in those markets, and who have the potential to profit from innovations.

Another obvious problem with producing public goods through tax-financed public-sector production is that the tax system imposes an excess burden on the economy. The excess burden of taxation includes those costs of the tax system over and above the revenues collected, such as the disincentives caused by taxes, and the administrative and compliance costs that the tax system produces. At the very least, any inefficiencies of private-sector production would have to be weighed against the inefficiencies produced from using the tax system to raise revenue; yet the excess burden resulting from public finance is rarely mentioned when the public-goods argument is used to justify public-sector production.

Another characteristic of publicness is nonexcludability. A good is non excludable if it is prohibitively costly to keep people from consuming the good after it has been produced. The problem with nonexcludable goods is that if consumers cannot be excluded from consuming them, they will free ride and consume without paying , again resulting in underproduction of the good. ( Think congested highways which simply means there is not enough.) Think in contrast to the market, premium cable channels. They are scrambled to exclude non-paying customers. The premium channels could be extended at no additional costs( distributive costs) to all viewers who have cable, but the costs of exclusion are low enough that the cable company can extend the premium channels only to those who pay. Private-produced goods are excludable which can apply to roads which are typically congested to cut the congestion but to also create the incentive to build more roads as needed. These incentives generated by the market actually improve resource allocation when compared to government production meaning there cannot be no presumption that public production is more efficient than private production for public goods , exclusive and nonexclusive.



instead of five dirty trash trucks going around in their respected regions, there would be twenty. And they would all be doing the same exact job, only advertised as "better" - even though the entrepreneurs would be raking in money from the workers' salaries and cutting corners at the consumers expense. Of course this is the idealized version. In reality there would be an oligopoly of five or six trash services that would be performing the exact same function - only more centralized.

Actually, you're showing lack of understanding in basic supply & demand law here. It appears that you assume that only the wisdom of government can figure out efficient resource allocation but as my comment above showed, the government really has no way in measuring revealed preference. If we pawned this off to the market only , so what if there were more than 5 garbage trucks handling a region? The increased supply of garbage trucks decreases the price of that utility relative to demand which is more beneficial to the consumer because A. lower price of garbage services. B. more trucks sharing the load of the service increasing productivity. You may only have to wait 1 day instead of two ( or whatever) for your garbage to be taken. If consumers' demand decreases as a result of too much garbage trucks then the price of service drops dramatically and the market can measure this through profit and loss. I.e. a company with 10 trucks makes revenue from only 5 and looses it through the remaining five then the 5 remaining trucks are taken out of play and reallocated to some better use ( maybe another company buys them and converts them into something else). Thus the profit-loss test assures greater efficiency and sustained efficiencies relative to consumers' ever changing preferences and demand. The extra garbage workers and capital are no longer needed due to diminishing returns as they are bad allocation of productive factors because of efficiency relative to consumer demand which is a good thing in the long run. Then you complain about an oligopoly but how is this any different from the monopoly coercively maintained by the government? Again, the government has no losses to consider because 'debt is good' but private companies are subject to losses. If they overcharge consumers then they worry about decreased demand ( even in the elasticity which can be a loss relative to the increased prices) and they have to worry about their suppliers of course. A loss in business is imputed back to the suppliers who worry about their revenues as well. Besides, its not like garbage truck services is the only channel of garbage disposal that the market can generate but it is the only thing the State can use since it has no other alternative because it doesn't play by market rules.

Imagine if we had a State managed PC producer that produced X amount of PCs compared to many more market producers producing their own X amount of PCs. The supply drops , prices go up.


Please don't compare the DMV with a democratic, decentralized alternative.

There would be no DMV in a Free Market , it has no use unless consumers believed some private style DMV institution was needed. Consumers, and not bureaucrats, decide. A more efficient allocation of resources is a result of course.


Monopolies of force will always exist, right down to the idealized vision of anarcho-capitalist economics where I have complete control over my business. Privatization at a certain point becomes detrimental to the entire system. If I buy out a road twenty years after its developed, do I get to refuse access to your home if you don't pay me a fee? What if I make the fee absurdly high like $5,000 and you're forced to sell your house below market value? I then buy five houses and rent them out for $. I can already see the millions.

The only coercive monopolies in existence are those by the State and/or subsidized BY THE STATE. This is a poor argument against the free market as the State clearly already runs on this institution.
As for the road, think about it this way. You'd have had to buy the road for some reason or another, typically you'd expect to make business from that road. Ask some New Yorkers who wait very long to get home on the crowded roads. Many of them would gladly pay some kind of fee if it means even 30% to 50% off of their wait time. Time to certain individuals is also a commodity of value. In California, I prepaid a card to use for a private highway that cut right through the mountains and took 1/2 hour off my trip home. Sure it was a nominal extra expense but the time improvement was well worth it. The public roads, as usual, were built subsidized. The more road you build , the more subsidies you get so building a straight shot road from A to B didn't really have any incentive behind it, not for public-production. A private builder actually had plenty of room to cut right through the mountain and build a more straight efficient road from work to my house. Not everyone uses it because they don't wanna pay the fee but the upshot of that is that there isn't really any traffic and its a smooth ride home plus the road is constantly maintained.
Now if you made the fee THAT HIGH $5,000, it is theoretically possible but unlikely. Then you'd have virtually no users on the road and therefore no revenue which would just be a burden to you just costing you more and more to just have it. Its like opening a store and charging 100x as much for products, do you think anyone would buy from you? Do you think your suppliers would see any profit in that business? Thats shooting yourself in the foot syndrome and its unlikely that most humans ( businessmen or not) would act that way. Thats a straw man you're creating now.
And not all An-Caps believe that no common property can be shared. In fact the logical concept of common property is emerging in An-Cap theory. Now I can admit that An-Capitalism is still a theory in progress and has some internal disputes, just as certain communist theories. When An-Caps think of common property we do not consider this 'collective ownership.' There are common grounds such as thoroughfares, rivers, oceans, etc which all people use on a regular basis. The very fact that these properties are held in common actually boosts commercial factors for private property owners or it merely provides easy accessibility. Its like a downtown area of a particular town that has all the main shops. It isn't necessarily the private owners of the shop that give the common thoroughfares their value but it is the traffic of people on these thoroughfares which use it everyday. There is no explicit ownership of any particular individual on these common grounds but rather its a common usage. There are cases in An-Cap theory where these places can be privatized such as if they are not being used anymore of if they are poorly maintained ( though it wouldn't be in the interest of the common nor the businessmen that rely on them) that the people will actually demand someone maintain these things better. Thats a separate issue that I don't have time to elaborate fully on right now.


But we'll split the scenario and assume a capitalist buys out five houses and then rents them for revenue. Well the houses he bought were obviously loosing equity because the people that had them before couldn't keep up with payment. If the capitalist overcharges rent, his market shrinks so thats not a wise business decision, then he's stuck with maintaining five houses with no revenue from those houses. If his intent IS to rent, how is that a bad thing since five families will get homes and the capitalist is taking it upon himself to take care of the landlord costs of those properties?Many people out there prefer rent over purchase because of certain advantages that rent offers, its really up to the individual and that individual's situation on how she evaluates her costs.


Please enlighten me on how the market would have been a better system of preventing the terrific mistake. Building the levies would have cost a piss load of money and there is no profit to be made from it. Again your criticisms fall on centralized government institutions. Their structuring is no different than corporations - other than the fact corporations aren't completely immune to competition (yet).

Well simple. First of all ,we see how the government failed so it stands to reason that an alternative is better. Don't forget , New Orleans' population boom was a result of government subsidies that, in effect, put more people in danger without protection. Had the market been able to handle this from the getgo, the market probably would have not invested a lot into New Orleans since the founding of the city. For one , New Orleans sits in a cereal bowl and is below sea level in a region prone to hurricanes. From the onset its a terrible location for a city, at least the market would have seen it this way. But if we backtrack to the founding of N.O. and take government out of the equation ( French or American), and people wanted to move there anyway then they do so at their own risk. Given the relevant population at the time , this would've spurred on a market for home insurance and protection from natural disaster, of course ,at a price. It creates tremendous costs to build these things efficiently and the early residents would have known that through the prices. Thus , settling in N.O. would come at a price as it should because of the relevant danger associated with living there. IF enough people were willing to pay and take the risk , then the market would have generated protection for the city but if it was not worth the price, not many people would expand N.O. in the first place. It was government that went in there , built crappy levees, and assured the inhabitants that it was safe when in fact it wasn't. This naturally created an expansion of the population of the city putting more people in danger because the citizens ( or government for that fact) was not aware of the real costs of expanding the city and putting millions in danger. The result was that many more people suffered. The market would have constructed more efficient defenses IF the demand was there. The prices for the costs of investing into that protection would have been clear as day and would've attracted only those willing to pay to N.O. The result would've been that the city would not have expanded in size and population as people would've been driven away from the prices and a lot less people would've suffered. The market cannot be blamed for people taking the risk to live in a dangerous area but the State can be blamed for giving people false security.

As far as corporations go , only those that are subsidized by govt and the State itself is, in effect , immune to real costs ( losses for bad business) and competition with coercive enforcement. The free market eliminates the safety net of the State for bad corporations and makes them fair game in the market. No power from the State can forbid competition and if corporations tried to do that themselves they would be subject to consumers' and suppliers dissatisfaction which leads to loss and demand for better service.



Cute. How does one go about acquiring a jungle? Does it not belong to the aborigines who first used the bark for homes, or do property rights only extend as far back as it is convenient? Do I just go out there and claim land as my own? Why do you have more rights to your unused piece of the front yard than me? As far as I know, it's only because the state reinforces your "right." I guess you could have private protection agency, but then we go back to the jungle debate. If two competitors have disagreements over property rights, which one wins? Probably the one carrying the most guns, especially when the other agency is independently-based.


The appropriation of property is an issue in An-Cap theory and libertarian theory that still has many details to work out, that is open knowledge. I happen to find the Lockean homesteading theory the most enticing and the one that makes the most common sense. Most libertarians follow some version of the Lockean theory. Simply put, Locke said that private ownership is appropriated when an agent 'mixes' his labor with the land. For instance if you find an unused plot of land and decide to make a farm out of it then it is yours. Its not as if a person traveling the wilderness can simply eyeball a plot of land and claim it as his own without making the land part of his prosperity, that requires him to put into it his own human energy and transform the land into something that is part of his life. Locke also stipulates a proviso which basically says that enough of the resource of the land has to be available for people in common. There are different interpretations of Locke's proviso but I don't think it hinders his general principle of homesteading property rights. As Nozick explained, it means that if an agent transforms the land into something productive , he comes to own it. Since the land was transformed into something productive as opposed to before when it was far less productive , it has has , along with the agent, the capacity to benefit society to a greater extent because of the agent's transformation of it. Any compensation for appropriating the land is paid only to the extent that what the land was worth before to everyone in common as opposed to the value of it now because of the agent's transformation of it. I'll get into this a lot more in a separate topic if you wish.

However , just to add a couple things. One, the appropriation of land from natives was wrong. Especially if the natives transformed that land first into something that makes it part of their well-being. Compensation is warranted in my opinion but only insofar as just compensation which would have to be some type of monetary compensation today. If the land was forcefully taken some 300 years ago, the original owners are now dead and the land cannot be directly given back plus it has a link with the 'new owners' in its capacity to the well being of the new owners. Plus linage isn't always easy to trace back to which native family held exactly what plot of land ( be it a tepee or something of the sort.) The only just thing can be monetary compensation to the descendants today.

The concept of property rights has a solid foundation in my opinion. Not because some physical science can affirm it, but because the alternative is either not doable or simply negates an individual's right to her own self-ownership. Libertarians base the concept of ownership on the self-ownership axiom, that being full self ownership over your own body and actions. That no arbitrary force can make you do an action against you're will nor do you require permission to perform even a simple action with yourself such as raising your hand when you see fit.

By the very nature of our self ownership we appropriate things outside of ourselves to ensure our well being. This can be something as basic as consuming an apple which is something external but your body appropriates certain aspects of the apple and adds it to itself. Part of the matter that makes up your arm is derived externally through food consumption and therefore it is reasonable to think that you assume ownership of those external factors to increase your own well-being. Libertarians view this as analogous with external properties that we appropriate when we 'mix' our energy with these things and make them part of our well being. Furthermore , trade , which arose spontaneously in human history, implies a switch of title of ownership between goods. If we cannot own anything, we cannot trade and prosper.

The concept of self-ownership and in the broader sense ownership of property that is part of your well being is affirmed by the fact that there can be no reasonable alternative.Because there are only two other real alternatives. One being collective ownership, which means everyone owns quotal share of everyone else and everything on earth. Implying that property must be owned collectively implies that you yourself have to be owned collectively. Simply because of the mere fact that you use things external to yourself to increase your well being , be it food or external property. The matter that makes up you is derived through appropriation of external properties and thus if we held the collectivization principle , it would mean that each person owned one six billionth of everyone else and everything they have. This would mean that you do not have the individual freedom to even raise your hand without the approval of everyone else , six billion in all. Obviously this is not feasible or even realistic.

The second alternative is equally grim. A certain class of people, call them ' class A,' have the right to own another class, 'class B.' This implies that, while class A deserves the rights of being human, class B is in reality subhuman and, therefore, deserves no such rights. But since they are indeed human beings , this option contradicts itself in denying natural human rights to one set of humans. Moreover, allowing class A to own class B means that the former is allowed to exploit and, therefore, to live parasitically at the expense of the latter; but, as economics can tell us , this parasitism itself violates the basic economic requirement for human survival, production and exchange. This is why feudalism and slavery were either abolished or just phased out in favor of liberalism.

In the case of two protection agencies representing their respective clients, It would be in the best interest of the agencies to settle the dispute peacefully. Going to war or violence does create an unnecessary cost especially if both agencies can profit greater by reserving their resources and collecting protection payment as usual. The broken window fallacy is dangerous to private enterprise as opposed to state enterprise which doesn't care about the costs.


Who said anything about a 50+1 majority? Direct democracies and constitutions are not dichotomies; you can have a clear majority of 60-70%. On the other side of the scale you can have consensual democracy in small work environments.

Democracy, in any form, still adds up to majority tyranny. This is why democracy can't work in a place like Iraq. You have a 60% Shia majority which makes Sunnis and Kurds minorities in their own country. The majority gets the deciding voice and not everyone.


Define "exchange." The black gift economy on the internet is living. More illegal downloads occur every month than in the history of itunes. For every major-brand software out there, five free ones exist. Some may not be able to compete against the copyright material, but that has more to do with the influx of workers into a field of profit than capitalism.

But this is another expansion of the market when you really think about it. With technology the conditions of this market changed but it doesn't exclude it from being a market. Most private artists found it actually more beneficial to get that 'free publicity' on the internet and this really helps grassroots artist make an impression and its a good thing since consumers like it. The intake of profits has shifted more to live concerts in the case of bands. The internet provides free publicity and gives people the opportunity to hear music that probably otherwise wouldn't have been heard and then when a band that becomes popular with listeners goes on tour the bands usually have more record sellouts now than previously. The extra publicity also increases the chances of advertisement revenues. I'm personally against copyright laws. I praise the net in this way for performing as the closest thing we have to a free market.


Incorrect. A good number of children, wives, and even husbands acquire capital through kinship. Furthermore, it's not a matter of pleasing another person - it's the impression at sale. Health inspectors are resourceful tools of the government who make sure the food you put in your mouth wasn't fried alongside the guts of roasted cockroaches, and honestly - judging by the quality of service at fast food places - I think we need more regulation. Especially without external regulation, the medicine you buy may just be sugar, or the shoes may be worn down in 3 months (usually the case unless you buy shoes overpriced by a factor of 10), or the house may have foundation problems. Greatest product doesn't always win out (heck, just look at Microsoft). An independent mom-and-pop shop who provides costumers with a better atmosphere than most retail chains, with the same taste and less fat could easily flop just because of the economy of size. Your position does not take into consideration the fact success and failure eventually lead to enterprises that dominate the market. Many people hate Walmart, but when you're having to save up pennies to afford rent, it's not a matter of philosophical musing - you're in Walmart buying your groceries.

Well, a private home can function in a socialist manner. Indeed families do share capital at home but this is ridiculous to apply to the industrialized economy with billions of actors and finite resources. And I think its equally ridiculous to claim that only good food can be government OKed food. As a matter of fact, there are many sources showing that people became more sick off FDA food ( preservatives and what not) more so than natural dairy products. Furthermore, its rather ridiculous to assume an enterprise would shoot themselves in the foot by giving food to people that quite literally kills them. Or what is the incentive to have a bad reputation? If I need medicine and I buy a product from a firm and it does nothing except leave a bad taste in my mouth, many other consumers like myself will see its inability as a means to achieve our ends and we will not value and therefore purchase the things. The only alternative is that it actually works which means its satisfies our wants. Furthermore , the companies will see looses generated to indicate that no one wants their stuff. Lets not forget how deeply involved the FDA is with the organized drug wars. If we had a true free market , I wouldn't mind at all if certain enterprises did better than others, in the free market I can know because the merit was deserved because of the superior service to consumers over the enterprise that couldn't do as good of a job.
And please explain how its more beneficial to ma-pop shops ( small business) with the State? Explain how they have to pay a myriad of fees and taxes just to get their small business running. How is this superior to the free market?



For these reasons your comparing money to democracy is a joke.

But not with Wal*Mart, many people supposedly hate Wal*Mart but they vote for its continued future with every dollar they spend there. That is a fact of life and its ridiculous to assume Wal*Mart is the only retailer out there.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

As if the market could not provide these utilities on its own. Sounds Keynesian, only the sound wisdom of the State bureaucrats can create these things. I highly recommend to you Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. I was pointing out that the State does not procure capital through market processes like the private sector. It forcibly extracts these things from the private sector and embarks upon its own projects the bureaucrats see fit. The only difference with today as opposed to a few decades ago was that the government back then levied more direct taxes instead of using inflation as a funding scheme.I was merely commenting on the fact you made a rash generalization. The government has successfully performed projects without the use of contract work, which in turn created wealth. In most actual markets there exists strict oligopolies of two or three providers with over 80-90% of the consumers who could, theoretically, provide for the construction of dams and highways - but it wouldn't work, especially in a scenario you're envisioning where everything is a private entity. These expenses would do more than pinch the pocketbooks of private enterprises, and I haven't met that many corporations who would willingly sacrifice a good share of growth for something that won't bring in revenue. How exactly does a private entity gain capital from constructing a dam? I know we could have tolls on every road (delightful), but heavy infrastructure usually can't be turned into profits.

I'm just curious: have you ever seen an unplanned city? India is where it's at - no standardized traffic laws, sprawling huts and buildings, food older than gym socks - you may love it. I've read probably a dozen different speculations about the purified version of anarcho-capitalism on anti-state.com, but their accounts of some future quasi-utopia do not match up with present reality. Food establishments, for example, are usually caught within a relatively short amount of time for hiding terrible health conditions due to state intervention. Yes, money could be made by people acting as private health inspectors, but it doesn't take a pessimist to see the inherit. problems: paying off the inspectors, not even having a regular check-up, making your own inspection team/seal of approval. I don't want to research the health inspection company every time I see a new food establishment pops up.


Actually queues were commonplace in the Soviet Union throughout most of its existence. The Soviets had no realiable pricing mechanism and thus ended up with shortages of needed goods and surpluses of junk. In 1964, in Russia's largest republic alone, deliveries of 257 factories had to be suspended because their goods were not bought. As a result of the consumer's stiffening standards and an increased inclination to complain, $3 billion worth of unsellable junk accumulated in Soviet inventories. You name one decade in Soviet history where a portion of its population was not starving or didn't have to wait in line for basic needs ( Warsaw Pact countries included.)
This argument basically amounts to words between the both of us over a policy neither of us support; however, I have talked with Russians alive during the Stalin period and they did not have problems with queues after 1946 on most goods - until 1964 (as you cited) when Brezhnev took power and reorganized the Soviet economy to accommodate profit motive. Soviet agriculture consistently faced problems, but the food output dramatically increased from 1928 to 1952. By the early 50s, Stalin and the Politburo had managed to reduce the number of deaths in the gulags down to less than 1% through better food allocation and medical treatment. According to Diamond and Davis, food production in the USSR only constituted about 57% of that found in the United States. Although admittedly a problem when faced with soaring bread prices, food yields consistently improved by a minimum of two digits throughout each five year plan. I'm using the same source here: between 1950 and 1963, the amount of area devoted towards sown fields grew by 49%. After this period Soviet planners decided to concentrate on investment levels and material inputs. Soviet outputs were thus greater than those in Italy, despite the clear discrepancy between Soviet and Mediterranean climates.

The problem with the central planning was at its core, it simply doesn't work in a large industralized economy. No single person or board can possibly know what is going on everywhere at the same time. It cannot know what real costs are. It has no way of measuring the extent of waste.You'll hear no disagreements on my end. Past a certain point central planning becomes a burden. That is why an economy based off of participatory decision-making, with workers and consumers being the focal point of production rather than planners or corporate executives is advocated by most users here. However, I'm a little amused by the subject of waste whenever a capitalist (advocate) brings the subject to my attention. The United States has some of the most relaxed regulation methods in the world, and it shows - our economy is run on wasteful consumer products that just suck up energy (computers, cars, televisions). I can also tell you from my personal experiences working at a grocery store that indeed profit motive leads to waste. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041122/foodwaste.html



But not with Wal*Mart, many people supposedly hate Wal*Mart but they vote for its continued future with every dollar they spend there. That is a fact of life and its ridiculous to assume Wal*Mart is the only retailer out there.There you go again misusing the word "vote" in an attempt to paint capitalism as something it's not. When the average American's wages are sinking due to voodoo economics, every penny matters. It's not a matter of hate or love - it's getting food on your table. As the market dilemma worsen in the oncoming months, there will be a lot more WalMart shoppers - out of necessity.


Well, a private home can function in a socialist manner. Indeed families do share capital at home but this is ridiculous to apply to the industrialized economy with billions of actors and finite resources. And I think its equally ridiculous to claim that only good food can be government OKed food. As a matter of fact, there are many sources showing that people became more sick off FDA food ( preservatives and what not) more so than natural dairy products. Furthermore, its rather ridiculous to assume an enterprise would shoot themselves in the foot by giving food to people that quite literally kills them. Or what is the incentive to have a bad reputation? If I need medicine and I buy a product from a firm and it does nothing except leave a bad taste in my mouth, many other consumers like myself will see its inability as a means to achieve our ends and we will not value and therefore purchase the things. The only alternative is that it actually works which means its satisfies our wants. Furthermore , the companies will see looses generated to indicate that no one wants their stuff. Lets not forget how deeply involved the FDA is with the organized drug wars. If we had a true free market , I wouldn't mind at all if certain enterprises did better than others, in the free market I can know because the merit was deserved because of the superior service to consumers over the enterprise that couldn't do as good of a job.
And please explain how its more beneficial to ma-pop shops ( small business) with the State? Explain how they have to pay a myriad of fees and taxes just to get their small business running. How is this superior to the free market?I am to assume you know nothing of how large enterprises operate then. Corporations are made aware of possible lawsuits but only act if the costs associated with settling out of court are less than continuing production. Example: McDonalds knew about hundreds of cases where its scolding coffee left physical damage, but the company didn't move until legal force was enacted: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm. According to you, McDonalds, the largest fast food retailer in the world, should have experienced a mass reduction in its consumer base. Instead the company used its money to start a campaign against the woman who filed the lawsuit and covered up its tracks. I can only imagine what brilliant misinformation companies would pass off without the general population breathing down politicians' necks - and without having to show up to court.

You point to the FDA, which is a bureaucratic institution run by the bourgeoisie, as if I am to defend it.

I don't know what you're talking about in reference to fees on small business owners. Sole proprietorships and general partnerships are not taxed anymore than you or I. The Small Business Association assists upstart entrepreneurs through finance and networking. Except for tax abatements, which larger companies are often excluded from due to their established merits, Subway and Jimmy's Subs enjoy the same level of sales tax. Fees only ruin a small business owner when he or she is breaking an ordinance. Are you honestly going to debate the merit of fire marshals? The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire#The_consequence) fire should change your mind.


But this is another expansion of the market when you really think about it. With technology the conditions of this market changed but it doesn't exclude it from being a market. Most private artists found it actually more beneficial to get that 'free publicity' on the internet and this really helps grassroots artist make an impression and its a good thing since consumers like it. The intake of profits has shifted more to live concerts in the case of bands. The internet provides free publicity and gives people the opportunity to hear music that probably otherwise wouldn't have been heard and then when a band that becomes popular with listeners goes on tour the bands usually have more record sellouts now than previously. The extra publicity also increases the chances of advertisement revenues. I'm personally against copyright laws. I praise the net in this way for performing as the closest thing we have to a free market.Calling a gift economy an extension of the market is outrageous. Established bands make most of their money through merchandising. The only exceptions I'm aware of are platinum artists who get payed periodically. The trend has been for record labels to pay their stars a bigger percentage of CD sales to get them passionate about piracy. Your position stands to defend the people already in power.

Opposing copyright laws as a capitalist makes no sense. If music is the product of my labor, I should be able to dictate where it's being bought and sold, no? According to a die-hard capitalist contracts are to be upheld - regardless if I'm a single-mother in a financial pinch and I sign away my life to slavery just for some bucks. Furthermore, ridding the market of copyrights without concentrating all intellectual property into the state (infosocialism) would be detrimental to authors and artisans who often rely on royalties. Publishers could take JK Rowling's work and pass it off without giving her a dime.


Democracy, in any form, still adds up to majority tyranny. This is why democracy can't work in a place like Iraq. You have a 60% Shia majority which makes Sunnis and Kurds minorities in their own country. The majority gets the deciding voice and not everyone.By your standards a 99% majority vote is still tyranny whereas barbarism and getting screwed over by private protection agencies (maybe literally?) isn't. When your neighbor is blasting his music so loud that you can't sleep until 5 in the morning, just remember - it's his private property! It's freedom.

Associating with another person automatically makes you an equal to that individual. If you have a problem with 65% of the community approving a new building complex next to your house, we communists have no problem with you getting up and leaving our community. Form your own neighborhood, if you must. Just don't expect us to sit idle if you're going to create a civilization based off of sex, wage, or chattel slavery.

You want autonomy. I want liberty. That necessitates both positive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty) and negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty) aspects of it.



The appropriation of property is an issue in An-Cap theory and libertarian theory that still has many details to work out, that is open knowledge. I happen to find the Lockean homesteading theory the most enticing and the one that makes the most common sense. Most libertarians follow some version of the Lockean theory. Simply put, Locke said that private ownership is appropriated when an agent 'mixes' his labor with the land. For instance if you find an unused plot of land and decide to make a farm out of it then it is yours. Its not as if a person traveling the wilderness can simply eyeball a plot of land and claim it as his own without making the land part of his prosperity, that requires him to put into it his own human energy and transform the land into something that is part of his life. Locke also stipulates a proviso which basically says that enough of the resource of the land has to be available for people in common. There are different interpretations of Locke's proviso but I don't think it hinders his general principle of homesteading property rights. As Nozick explained, it means that if an agent transforms the land into something productive , he comes to own it. Since the land was transformed into something productive as opposed to before when it was far less productive , it has has , along with the agent, the capacity to benefit society to a greater extent because of the agent's transformation of it. Any compensation for appropriating the land is paid only to the extent that what the land was worth before to everyone in common as opposed to the value of it now because of the agent's transformation of it. I'll get into this a lot more in a separate topic if you wish.Locke (and most classical liberals for that matter) was closer to a Georgist than right-libertarian capitalist. Your political leanings are all very well-rehearsed but you avoided my original question. Why do you have rights over your lawn then? The only remotely plausible argument is mowing the lawn, but I hope you're not going to tell me I own property just by cutting some grass. The fact there is so much disagreement between anarcho-capitalists over a simple, but very important part of their theory scares the bejeesus out of me. If the state folds and two separate protection agencies have a scuffle over what constitutes proper land appropriation, there's going to be bloodshed. And once the town is ridden of heterodox protection agencies, the winner essentially becomes a microcosm of the former state.


Gorby's reforms were anti-free market:laugh: The pill, Alice?


, nice try. Gorbachev, perhaps imitating the Brazilian failure, similarly decided to combat the "ruble overhang" by suddenly withdrawing large-ruble notes from circulation and rendering most of them worthless. This severe and sudden 33 percent monetary deflation was accompanied by a promise to stamp out the "black market," i.e. the market, which had until then been the only Soviet institution working and keeping the Soviet people from mass starvation.
Wrong again. Perestroika allowed for state enterprises to base their wage structuring on similar models to capitalist production, whereas previously wages were set like home values. The Law on Cooperatives legalized private enterprises for the first time since NEP. I would hardly say Gorby was working against market forces.

[Dejavu]

I was merely commenting on the fact you made a rash generalization. The government has successfully performed projects without the use of contract work, which in turn created wealth. In most actual markets there exists strict oligopolies of two or three providers with over 80-90% of the consumers who could, theoretically, provide for the construction of dams and highways - but it wouldn't work, especially in a scenario you're envisioning where everything is a private entity. These expenses would do more than pinch the pocketbooks of private enterprises, and I haven't met that many corporations who would willingly sacrifice a good share of growth for something that won't bring in revenue. How exactly does a private entity gain capital from constructing a dam? I know we could have tolls on every road (delightful), but heavy infrastructure usually can't be turned into profits.Your making the same mistake you did in your last post. You're assuming that only the State can provide services such as common transportation and common utilities. You neglect an important fact. What good is a business if consumers don't have common, easy access to that business? How would it be in the best interest of business A if business A sets up shop that is unaccessible? In fact , in many towns of the old West, thoroughfares will built by local communities without some elaborate state project because common access meant more business. If people have access to business A , then business B, business C , and so on will prop up their businesses in the areas with common access, this is how a marketplace develops, these were typical in decentralized commercial towns in Europe and the old West. So common access does bring MORE revenue to business and there is an incentive there to provide that access. And its rather presumptuous not to think that businesses ( usually a group of businesses-corporations) will split the costs of maintaining the roads but that wouldn't mean toll booths unless it was a highway of sorts. The maintenance of the thoroughfares would be covered with the purchases of goods from the marketplace. Aside from that , it seems to be in every individual's best interest to keep those roads in good shape if it plays an important role in their prosperity (i.e. access to the marketplace or other places to benefit them.) In fact this is how a lot of small towns started. It would start with a few farmers, they would set up a marketplace to sell their goods, people would go to the marketplace to purchase the goods. The natural inclination is accessibility to marketplace through constructing roads. Other businesses such as banks, tailor shops, wood shops, etc, would set up shop near the original farmer's market, more customers come, roads are made to be more accessible because of the increased influx of commerce. It is in the market's best interest to provide and maintain access to the goods or else it would be a waste altogether because of the restricted accessibility for potential consumers.
The difference of course is government subsidized road building vs market road building. Well, the market has an advantage over the State as far as efficiency goes. First off , the market won't waste as much resources constructing the roads because the market will always gravitate toward the position of economizing through profit-loss. The market answers the question, should something be built here or can these resources be allocated better somewhere else? The State has no concept of true costs. The market is far more likely to build a straight, accessible road, from A to B and only make C road IF NECESSARY. ( This is evident by the State subsidized railroads which offered more goodies to manufactures that would build more railroad track, thus we got loopy track that wasn't a straight shot from A to B) Some private RRs managed to form in the northern regions of the US that were more efficient than public funded RRs. As far as the State 'creating wealth,' lol, thats absurd. But expected from someone who readily defends the State and cannot think beyond the box. What you neglect to point out, again, is the potential wealth the State prevented. The construction of public works requires resources to be diverted in the market for production of the public work. The real costs are then what projects those resources could've been used on in the market. Of course you never see that because you don't give it a chance to come to fruition but you can actually physically see what the State is creating and the jobs its giving to the builders. If the State wanted to fund a bridge, the state still can't answer the question should the bridge have been built in the first place? The State doesn't create wealth it merely diverts the market and directs it through central planning and therefore it could not possibly know the true costs because all the production factors it coercively extracted from the productive private sector could've been used on something else. Theres no telling what wealth could've been created with the use of those resources. Let me give you an example of the State's plan to construct roads and railroads in the 19th century. The State funded itself the best way it knew how, it wasn't mass inflation yet , nor was it much borrowing or direct taxes since American people still had brains back then, it was through protectionist tariffs. Through the tariffs it received the loot to fund infrastructure how it saw fit. Now think for a second, how much wealth did those tariffs actually destroy? Well empirically we can't know since the wealth never had a chance to be generated but we can deduce through logical reasoning some of the effects. America was a rich exporter of agricultural goods back then and an importer of a whole array of goods. The tariffs would lower the supply of traded goods therefore supplying our partners with less income and thus less stuff would be exported here. The reduction in the supply of goods meant higher prices and less production in a whole host of industries. South Carolina actually revolted against the unjust tariffs. So we ended up diverting these production factors into subsidized RR building. Well what good did that do? It did some good but RRs were phased out in America faster than any other country. First of all, we had unnecessarily longer track prolonging transportation ( more track, more subsidy) and thankfully the government wasn't utterly statist back then and allowed other industry to flourish relatively freely. Thus we built all this track, and the aviation and automobile industries hit with an enormous impact shifting the demand for transportation preferences. So are we gonna blame the market for the over expansion of RR track? In fact today, we still subsidize Amtrack, a miserably bad company that the market wouldn't think twice about shutting down, only the State keeps it around.


I'm just curious: have you ever seen an unplanned city? India is where it's at - no standardized traffic laws, sprawling huts and buildings, food older than gym socks - you may love it. I've read probably a dozen different speculations about the purified version of anarcho-capitalism on anti-state.com, but their accounts of some future quasi-utopia do not match up with present reality. Food establishments, for example, are usually caught within a relatively short amount of time for hiding terrible health conditions due to state intervention. Yes, money could be made by people acting as private health inspectors, but it doesn't take a pessimist to see the inherit. problems: paying off the inspectors, not even having a regular check-up, making your own inspection team/seal of approval. I don't want to research the health inspection company every time I see a new food establishment pops up. Well, I've been to Mumbai, India and I didn't see any shortage of police on the roads. You're assuming that the market could not weed out bad food or things hazardous to your health. As if consumers will willingly keep on eating poison lol. The only way they would digest poison like cigarettes, coca cola, alcohol, is if they get some measure of satisfaction out of it. Obviously were talking about food with ebola or something that would make you instantly sick and probably not bring most people satisfaction. What is the assumption that consumers will keep on purchasing infected food and not pick an alternative? How is it that only the state can handle this? Its usually the USDA and FDA that set the food requirements by mandating more preservatives ( they themselves more detrimental to health) be put into the foods. Of course when the government makes a decision , people have no other alternative. The likelyhood of food inspectors comming about in an open market is slim in my opinion simply because bad food would not be desirable to consumers. Its like calling AIDS a 'good' and thinking some how consumers will continue to buy food that has the HIV virus. Bad companies such as these go out of business simply because consumers have an alternative. But like I said , when the government mandates something ,there is really no alternative.

Health cases:

http://www.mises.org/story/1805
http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/poisonwateroped.html
http://www.scionofzion.com/poisonfood.htm
http://www.swans.com/library/art12/jeb155.html

^^ Just to link a few. And what makes you think the FDA(or any government agency) can't be bribed the proposed private health inspectors? The problem is of course that the State is the only law in town so there are no alternatives.

Unplanned cities? The settling of the American West was unplanned, unregulated, and free of virtually all the paternalism growing up everywhere in the Western world.But, the true settlement of the West was not dependent on the soldier with the rifle, but on the blacksmith, the school teacher, and the saloon owner. The federal soldiers could have murdered every Indian between the Mississippi and the Pacific but in the end, it is not armies that settle frontiers. Private citizens build the towns, dig the sewers, and ship the goods that make a decent life possible. Entire industries grew up around getting people to their destinations, and serving them once they got there. Markets for scouts, guides, equipment, guidebooks, and teamsters were all readily supplied by enthusiastic entrepreneurs. While government surveyors like Charles Fremont promoted and helped map the West, the actual settling was always done by men and women looking to make a better living in a new land. In other words, civilization was brought to the West by private citizens, private entrepreneurs, and private law enforcement. Ultimately, the greatest threat to the opponents of liberty when discussing the American West, is that if the Frontier can be shown to be a civil and civilized society, this offers a powerful example of a self-sufficient society existing apart from the increasingly overbearing machinery of government growing daily in the cities of the East and in Europe. Venice, Genoa, Florence, and Milan were centers of wealth accumulation not only from trade but also profitable industries in textiles, glassware, iron, and other goods. Crucial to the liberty and prosperity of these cities were the decentralization of power within them and the competing centers of power outside them that could be played against each other. With state confiscation constrained, standards of living steadily improved and populations steadily rose. As the great medievalist Robert Lopez put it, at its peak in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, Italian commercial power, "stretched as far as England, South Russia, the oases of the Sahara Desert, India and China. It was the greatest economic empire that the world had ever known."
Its not that the cities were necessarily 'unplanned' but rather they were not centrally planned by the State with codes, zoning laws, etc. Individual entrepreneurs planned together in a decentralized manner how things would work. In many of the city 'states' commerce was key and merchants , like the markets they participate in, became focal in making cities prosperous. There was always 'just enough' of the things you needed to prosper. Its only when the State assumes central authority do things get obscured and mismanaged and are no longer free.


This argument basically amounts to words between the both of us over a policy neither of us support; however, I have talked with Russians alive during the Stalin period and they did not have problems with queues after 1946 on most goods - until 1964 (as you cited) when Brezhnev took power and reorganized the Soviet economy to accommodate profit motive. Soviet agriculture consistently faced problems, but the food output dramatically increased from 1928 to 1952. By the early 50s, Stalin and the Politburo had managed to reduce the number of deaths in the gulags down to less than 1% through better food allocation and medical treatment. According to Diamond and Davis, food production in the USSR only constituted about 57% of that found in the United States. Although admittedly a problem when faced with soaring bread prices, food yields consistently improved by a minimum of two digits throughout each five year plan. I'm using the same source here: between 1950 and 1963, the amount of area devoted towards sown fields grew by 49%. After this period Soviet planners decided to concentrate on investment levels and material inputs. Soviet outputs were thus greater than those in Italy, despite the clear discrepancy between Soviet and Mediterranean climates. Literally tens of millions of the most productive farmers were slaughtered by the Russian and Chinese Communist regimes, and the remainder were forced off their private lands and onto cooperative or state farms, where their productivity plummeted, and foods production gravely declined. The new burgeoning State apparatus flourished on the backs of the peasantry, by levying heavy taxes and by forcing peasants to sell grain to the State at far below market price. The artificially cheap food was then used to subsidize foods supplies for the urban population which formed the major base of support for the new bureaucratic class. , leaders of the old Soviet Union were obsessed with the belief that enormous economies of scale could be realized in agriculture. Production therefore was concentrated on 26,000 huge publicly owned farms. So-called state farms averaged 42,730 acres, while collective farms usually encompassed 16,300 acres. These monsters occupied 97 percent of Russia's farm land space, while 38 million private garden-type plots were on the remaining 3 percent. At least 500 workers were usually found on these farms, along with huge tractors and other equipment adapted only to very large-scale operations. Their commitment to size went far beyond large scale agribusiness in this country. Production was by their standards highly capital intensive. Although accounting for a small share of cultivated area, private plots produced a substantial share of the country's meat, milk, eggs, and vegetables. Although never more than 4 percent of the arable land in the USSR, private plots consistently produced roughly a quarter to a third of agricultural produce. Private plots were among many attempts made to restructure Soviet farming. However, the weak worker incentives and managerial autonomy, which were the crux of the problem, were not addressed. Former Soviet agriculture was exceedingly inefficient, producing far less corn, minor crops and vegetables than we do with similar resources. In wheat production outputs were comparable to those in the U.S. With this crop, they achieved 83 percent of the production possible with the land and capital available. Output suffered not only from the excessive size of the production unit and equipment but from contamination of much available land. Farming was also beset by upstream and downstream failures with 25 to 30 percent of crops lost through improper storage.


There you go again misusing the word "vote" in an attempt to paint capitalism as something it's not. When the average American's wages are sinking due to voodoo economics, every penny matters. It's not a matter of hate or love - it's getting food on your table. As the market dilemma worsen in the oncoming months, there will be a lot more WalMart shoppers - out of necessity. 'Describe 'voodoo' economics? Is this something you'll most certainly blame the 'free' market on and defend 'Statism' with. The artificially created boom/bust by the Fed results in diminishing in savings with interest rate cuts and then injects new money+credit into economy ( usually at the behest of the State and state interests) which inflates the currency while debasing it at the same time restricting workers' wages from honest money. I love how statists call this a 'market dilemma' as if it is some bust that the market created on its own and totally absolve the State/Central Bank of any guilt. lol. I say thank God for a place like Wal*Mart, heres a place offering people things they need at affordable prices while their currency keeps on getting debased by 'market inefficiencies' ( Yeah right! Another problem created by the State/Central Bank.) Think of the State apparatus like Sauron's Ring in Lord of the Rings. People think they can wield the power of the Ring to bring about good but it is inherently evil.


I am to assume you know nothing of how large enterprises operate then. Corporations are made aware of possible lawsuits but only act if the costs associated with settling out of court are less than continuing production. Example: McDonalds knew about hundreds of cases where its scolding coffee left physical damage, but the company didn't move until legal force was enacted: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm. According to you, McDonalds, the largest fast food retailer in the world, should have experienced a mass reduction in its consumer base. Instead the company used its money to start a campaign against the woman who filed the lawsuit and covered up its tracks. I can only imagine what brilliant misinformation companies would pass off without the general population breathing down politicians' necks - and without having to show up to court.No it means simply this. McDonald's is valued by far more consumers than it is scorned. Millions of people STILL drive everyday through the drive thru for their coffee and have been doing so in the past and will likely do so in the future. A few hundred spill coffee on themselves, coffee is hot, I've spilled non-McDonald's coffee as well on myself and it hurt. However, MILLIONS of consumers DO NOT spill coffee on themselves and are just fine. Again if the coffee was such a hazard, then millions wouldn't want it. I think it goes to show the careless handling of a select few as opposed to millions. And now you blame McDonald's for trying to save their reputation when a lawsuit was brought against them in the first place? The problem is the politicians don't listen to the people. The politicians have a monopolistic power of State behind them. They are immune to the regular penalties regular citizens would face and serve those special interest groups. I'm not trying to absolve corporations of guilt by hiring lobbyists but thats only possible because the lobbyists have a COERCIVE STATE to appeal to. You rid society of the State, you rid the corporations of this incentive to appeal to a coercive institution with a monopoly on violence. I'm just trying to get you to see how this cycle works.


You point to the FDA, which is a bureaucratic institution run by the bourgeoisie, as if I am to defend it.Oh right , now the FDA is the bad guy...lets call it bourgeoisie now. lol. I notice thats what you socialists do when you want to disassociate yourselves from socialist institutions. Yet here you are defending the statist position of government inspectors.


I don't know what you're talking about in reference to fees on small business owners. Sole proprietorships and general partnerships are not taxed anymore than you or I. The Small Business Association assists upstart entrepreneurs through finance and networking. Except for tax abatements, which larger companies are often excluded from due to their established merits, Subway and Jimmy's Subs enjoy the same level of sales tax. Fees only ruin a small business owner when he or she is breaking an ordinance. Are you honestly going to debate the merit of fire marshals? The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire should change your mind. Well for one, small business is hurt much more than big business by government intervention. An increase in the minimum wage will unfairly and disproportionately harm small businesses that, unlike large firms, cannot absorb the additional costs imposed by mandated higher minimum wages. Dynamic small businesses are responsible for a relatively large part of employment. If they cannot afford these higher labor costs, they will fail and go out of business, and workers will lose jobs. Ergo, a hike in the minimum wage cannot be justified. Secondly, the great bulk of statistics is gathered by government coercion. This not only means that they are products of unwelcome activities; it also means that the true cost of these statistics to the American public is much greater than the mere amount of tax money spent by the government agencies. Private industry, and the private consumer, must bear the burdensome costs of record keeping, filing, and the like, that these statistics demand. Not only that; these fixed costs impose a relatively great burden on small business firms, which are ill equipped to handle the mountains of red tape. Hence, these seemingly innocent statistics cripple small business enterprise and help to rigidify the American business system. A Hoover Commission task force found, for example, that:

No one knows how much it costs American industry to compile the statistics that the Government demands. The chemical industry alone reports that each year it spends $8,850,000 to supply statistical reports demanded by three departments of the Government. The utility industry spends $32,000,000 a year in preparing reports for Government agencies…

All industrial users of peanuts must report their consumption to the Department of Agriculture… Upon the intervention of the Task Force, the Department of Agriculture agreed that henceforth only those that consume more than ten thousand pounds a year need report…

If small alterations are made in two reports, the Task Force says one industry alone can save $800,000 a year in statistical reporting.

Many employees of private industry are occupied with the collection of Government statistics. This is especially burdensome to small businesses. A small hardware store owner in Ohio estimated that 29 per cent of his time is absorbed in filling out such reports. Not infrequently people dealing with the Government have to keep several sets of books to fit the diverse and dissimilar requirements of Federal agencies.

Favored large corporations by the State get certain subsidies which damages small business the most. . If you want to get non-institutional funding for your small business you are prohibited from soliciting general public, you are forbidden from taking money from non-qualified investors who are not your family, and the allowed number of investors is limited. All in the name of protecting stupid from themselves.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-laws-regulations/business-regulations/

^^^ Just look at this myriad of regulations and fees.




Calling a gift economy an extension of the market is outrageous. Established bands make most of their money through merchandising. The only exceptions I'm aware of are platinum artists who get payed periodically. The trend has been for record labels to pay their stars a bigger percentage of CD sales to get them passionate about piracy. Your position stands to defend the people already in power.And merchandise is ONLY cds or dvd's? Lol, merchandise can shirts , cups, or whatever the market supplies relative to peoples' demands. I do view internet piracy as another extension , or rather, shift in the market. Most artists make their money off tours and concerts now. The function of music merchandise has shifted into 'free publicity' basically. This is great for new up coming artists that would usually be in debt by paying to market their music and reputation. The artists still make money through endorsements, commercials, and live concerts. Its merely a shift in the market. Plus, gift economies on a large scale simply ain't workable. Gift economies, like a families, can only function on that small scale.


Opposing copyright laws as a capitalist makes no sense. If music is the product of my labor, I should be able to dictate where it's being bought and sold, no? According to a die-hard capitalist contracts are to be upheld - regardless if I'm a single-mother in a financial pinch and I sign away my life to slavery just for some bucks. Furthermore, ridding the market of copyrights without concentrating all intellectual property into the state (infosocialism) would be detrimental to authors and artisans who often rely on royalties. Publishers could take JK Rowling's work and pass it off without giving her a dime.Music is not actually your property once you throw it out there. The value of the music isn't derived from your labor but rather the subjective value that others place on it. This should be all to apparent with what popular music is downloaded. I make a case against intellectual property, copyright laws, and don't consider those to be part of the free market. Music is like reputation. Do you own your reputation? Well the value of your reputation is determined large in part by others and this is a natural 'public good' if you wish. Consider technology. When the first caveman discovered fire, was it his and only his? No, of course not, as soon as other people figured it out it became a good of the common.



By your standards a 99% majority vote is still tyranny whereas barbarism and getting screwed over by private protection agencies (maybe literally?) isn't. When your neighbor is blasting his music so loud that you can't sleep until 5 in the morning, just remember - it's his private property! It's freedom.So I go ask him to turn it down, hey it usually works. I don't call big brother. Guess what? I'm not the only neighbor here. We can do other non violent protests against his annoying behavior to where he feels exclusion. It works more effective than calling the po po.:scared: Simply we can return the favor , all the neighbors that are annoyed with him until he gets the point. Plus, you really can't make a case for why private agencies would be actually worse than the State. I haven't heard one yet.



Associating with another person automatically makes you an equal to that individual. If you have a problem with 65% of the community approving a new building complex next to your house, we communists have no problem with you getting up and leaving our community. Form your own neighborhood, if you must. Just don't expect us to sit idle if you're going to create a civilization based off of sex, wage, or chattel slavery.Well I could say the same about the buggers that want to make their own little commune in their little area. In Anarchy, I can't stop a commune from forming but I can kindly reject to be part of it and forbid my property from being incorporated into it. And I wouldn't have a problem with a new building popping up next to my house so long as its not on my property, go for it.



You want autonomy. I want liberty. That necessitates both positive and negative aspects of it. I believe liberty is the freedom of self-ownership, the ability to be your own ruler without anyone ruling you. I don't know how you can promote liberty but scorn private property. Doesn't make any sense man.


Locke (and most classical liberals for that matter) was closer to a Georgist than right-libertarian capitalist. Your political leanings are all very well-rehearsed but you avoided my original question. Why do you have rights over your lawn then? The only remotely plausible argument is mowing the lawn, but I hope you're not going to tell me I own property just by cutting some grass. The fact there is so much disagreement between anarcho-capitalists over a simple, but very important part of their theory scares the bejeesus out of me. If the state folds and two separate protection agencies have a scuffle over what constitutes proper land appropriation, there's going to be bloodshed. And once the town is ridden of heterodox protection agencies, the winner essentially becomes a microcosm of the former state.Yeah except thats a load of bull-crappie.:laugh: First off , I'm left-libertarian, I don't flirt with nationalism and don't believe in State borders. My lawn? Sure I mowed it ( but I maintain it too, duh!) , I might build a fence around it , I might put a sign on it , I might decide to make a garden out of it, I might decide to use it for another smaller version of my house and rent it out, I might not make it a lawn but grounds for a pool instead, I might go dance naked on it , any problems? As for the rest of your comment, again you haven't proven how the State being one, large, sole monopolistic , violent , coercive, unrivaled 'protection' agency are better than weaker ones that actually have to spend their own money to produce the weaponry equal to the state and must procure the funds on a voluntary basis. Plus theres more than one.
An-Capitalism is more developed than An-Communism in my opinion and at least shows how a modern economy would actually work in its system. The tinkering of ideas among An-Caps are mostly those of libertarian ethics ( but at least most care about ethics right or why the discussion?). Should everything be privatized or does common property naturally emerge as part of the market? ( I happen to believe the latter that we can have common property and its important) but this is probably the most debated issue. Its certainly more advanced than the imaginary post-scarcity world of An-communism where nobody doesn't have to really do any work and super duper machines make everything with super-abundant resources. Minus well advocate the Garden of Eden then. lol.