"Anarcho-capitalism": add a pinch of drivel and nonsense

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm devoting this thread for people interested in pointing out the obvious flaws in "anarcho-"capitalism. The next thread will address a more realistic and educated subject: minarchy. We'll start with the basic problems with neo-feudalism:

1.) Misleading term: Anarchism stands in opposition to all coercive hierarchy - all masters. The Somalian experiment an-caps at anti-state.com champion is a complete disaster; most of the countryside is run by a single state entity. Local jurisdictions have their own governments and the few warlords who contended land and capital with weapons have managed to create little micro-states.

2.) Implausibility of justice: There is no compelling evidence that shows conflicts would be settled through private courts. I could call up my private protection agency and falsely accuse my neighbor of theft. What if he refuses to show up to any court? Seeing as how I live in Texas, I can answer that question: bullets go flying. Even if a matter did reach a court, the lack of financial accountability would inevitably lead to judges being payed off.

3.) Monopolization of force: What if I create my own private protection agency and live according to my rules? The bigger PPA will dominate little ones; oligopolies will form. With such market influence, they'll be able to carry out CIA-like operations without having to worry about major operations.

4.) Concentration of wealth: It's undeniable that state welfare reduces the concentration of wealth. Under "anarcho-"capitalism, the concentration of wealth could become even more aggressive. Let's say I enter the market with my daddy's riches. I buy up a road outside your house and refuse you passage to the house via motor vehicle unless you pay an obnoxious toll. You and everyone else on the street are forced to sell at a very low rate. I buy these houses and sell them at a large profit. I can already see the green!

5.) Poverty and unemployment: Definable poverty prior to the New Deal constituted 56% of the American people. When Pinochet came to power the unemployment and poverty rate doubled - even tripled in some instances. Marx points out that humans are biological creatures. Their primary interest is not philosophical musings about "poverty and unemployment being natural states of a free society." Materialism trumps phony morality.

6.) Lack of artistic entrepreneurs: I think I have some credibility in this field, considering the fact my job entails print design and compilation of novels. Intellectual property, or copyrights, are vital for the survival of artists and small authors. Only under a non-profit system (infosocialism?) could copyrights be eliminated.

7.) No regulation: Supposedly a whole market of private inspectors will arise, but this has never been the case. Even small business try to maximize cost. Why not just create your own inspection agency and fake it?

8.) Baron capitalism: Runaway capitalism has, historically, been very violent. In the one city of Moscow it is believed that a bare minimum of 500 people died through contract killings between 1993 and 1999. Gangs are a rampant problem in all corners of the world - rarely avoiding violence. During the 19th century business owners called for their workers to be shot. In places with no hour restrictions, even small businesses were known to employ people for 10-12 hours a day.


Of course the bourgeois will never support a system like this due to its chaotic groundwork (if there is any groundwork), but I think it's important to show why ancaps are so easily dismissed in conversations.

[apathy maybe]

Not surprisingly, this issue has been discussed a number of times before. I won't bother posting all the links, but if you do a quick search for anarcho-capitalism (and "anarcho"-capitalism) then you'll likely find a few threads.

Yeah, it isn't anarchistic, and it would cause vast amounts of suffering before ending back at a default state position. States form when there is hierarchy, that's the way it is.

[Dejavu]

I'm devoting this thread for people interested in pointing out the obvious flaws in "anarcho-"capitalism. The next thread will address a more realistic and educated subject: minarchy. We'll start with the basic problems with neo-feudalism:
The minarchist position is morally inconsistent. They endorse coercion. They find initiation of violence against another human being both moral and immoral. They claim that coercion of the government in situation X in wrong while in situation Y is right. It cannot be consistent with condemning coercion altogether so the minarchist position against government coercion is very weak and easily refutable. Example of minarchy have failed in the past as demonstrated by the United States while morally failing to address the issue institutionalized slavery.
Neofeudalism literally means "New Feudalism (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Feudalism)" and implies a contemporary rebirth of policies of governance (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Governance) and economy (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Economy) reminiscent of those present in many pre-industrial (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pre-industrial) feudal societies. The concept is one in which government policies are instituted with the effect (deliberate or otherwise) of systematically increasing the wealth (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Wealth) gap (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Income_distribution) between the rich and the poor while increasing the power of the rich and decreasing the power of the poor (also see wealth condensation (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Wealth_condensation)). This effect is considered to be similar to the effects of traditional feudalism. The definition of the term is disputed and can be loosely employed as a pejorative term (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pejorative_term) to attack political (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Political) opponents.
I believe you mistook the definition of neo-feudalism with anarcho-capitalism.
http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Anarcho%20capitalism



1.) Misleading term: Anarchism stands in opposition to all coercive hierarchy - all masters. The Somalian experiment an-caps at anti-state.com champion is a complete disaster; most of the countryside is run by a single state entity. Local jurisdictions have their own governments and the few warlords who contended land and capital with weapons have managed to create little micro-states. Anarchism means simply 'without archon.' which means 'without ruler'
Archon (Gr. άρχων, pl. άρχοντες) is a Greek (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Greek_language) word that means "ruler" or the like, though it is frequently encountered as the title of some specific public office.
In Ancient Greece and Antiquity Archon was used to refer to institutionalized ( government) or coercive rule.
In the early literary period of ancient Greece (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ancient_Greece) the chief magistrates (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Magistrates) of various Greek city states were called Archon. The term was also used throughout Greek history in a more general sense, ranging from "club leader" to "master of the tables" at syssitia (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Syssitia) to "Roman governor". In Roman terms, archontes ruled by imperium (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Imperium), whereas Basileis (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Basileus) ("Kings (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/King)") had auctoritas (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Auctoritas).
Therefore, anarchy poses no contradiction to free market capitalism since employer/employee relationship is private and is literally a voluntary exchange of services and it is the only rational system for anarchy (I'll explain why more down this post.)


2.) Implausibility of justice: There is no compelling evidence that shows conflicts would be settled through private courts. I could call up my private protection agency and falsely accuse my neighbor of theft. What if he refuses to show up to any court? Seeing as how I live in Texas, I can answer that question: bullets go flying. Even if a matter did reach a court, the lack of financial accountability would inevitably lead to judges being payed off.
The implausibility of justice claim isn't a very sound one. For some evidence on how some private courts have worked in the real world I'll post a couple links.
http://www.privatecourts.com/
http://www.olenn-penza.com/pages/privct2.htm

And one may observe old Icelandic society and law:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

And there was the case of the not so wild west.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

It is hard to produce hard tangible evidence on private law working on a larger scale because its never been given a chance to legally exist since the state claims a monopoly on the relevant courts. Aside from the examples cited in the link I think one can make a moral and logical argument against state monopolization of the law. The moral argument can show a contradiction in state policy. The state maintains that is both morally permissible to counterfeit ( steal) money and at the same time also illegal to do so for private citizens. It exhibits a dual morality which naturally leads to a double standard legal system. The state is allowed to counterfeit money on a whim but will punish any private citizen that does so. The same duality applies to direct theft and murder and kidnapping. Because the state may legislate laws it can do so with based on a flexible interpretation of ethics and morality. What it is implying is that human beings in the state have moral justification for initiating force against other human beings while at the same time making it impermissible to do so for other human beings.
It is implying something that doesn't conform to reality but rests in a contradictory concept. There is nothing intrinsic about the human anatomy that makes one member of the human species greater in the human family than another.
Most anarcho-capitalist argue for an objective standard of morality and ethics but all have not yet come to a universal conclusion ( though there is much progress in the area). It is certainly better to seek objective morality applicable universally to all human beings instead of having a multiple interpretations on what is morally permissible and what is not. One such suggestion about objective morality seeks logical consistency and testing of preferences. The proposition; most people prefer not to have violence initiated against them ( most people prefer not to be stolen from, most people prefer not to be murdered) is probably verifiable through testing. The counter proposition; 'most people would prefer violence initiated against them like murder and stealing' would hold that it is immoral and therefore wrong not to do so which would be absurd and is probably not true of most human beings.


3.) Monopolization of force: What if I create my own private protection agency and live according to my rules? The bigger PPA will dominate little ones; oligopolies will form. With such market influence, they'll be able to carry out CIA-like operations without having to worry about major operations. Well, at least the statement utterly destroys the case for a state monopoly on force. If one fears and rejects monopoly on force but argues for the validity of a state monopoly on force, then there is a contradiction. There is nothing that makes a human more human than another in reality and thus the concept of a 'state' cannot add anymore legitimacy to a group of humans to dictate over another group of humans and be rational. The free market solution to such a problem conforms best with anarchy. If a group of humans feel they absolutely require the services of an arbiter of disputes , then they will voluntarily provide its services. It is rather absurd to suggest that one needs to be forced into wanting what he already wants.
The second becomes a question of economics. If you wanted to create your own company with its own rules relative to being different with other rules, and if you desired profit , you would only do so if it is profitable. It is likely that consumers will not like something that they prefer to be me more universal so drastically different and therefore are not likely to pay for such services. One may imagine cellphone companies. Different cell-phone companies exist however there is a universality and conformity in their airwaves. An AT&T phone my contact and be connected with a Sprint phone.
The assertion that the private companies will attempt dominate each other would have to mean that they will either try to buy each other out or that they desire a situation of perpetual war far. I believe it would be reasonable to say that PDAs or PPAs would prefer war to peace if it is more profitable and likewise they would prefer peace to war if it was more profitable. The question becomes what is more profitable? Well, understanding the basic tenets of economics would tell us that peace is likely to be a greater incentive. Providing there is no state ( I.e. monopoly force to appeal to), and given the nature of competition, PDAs would try to establish for themselves larger consumer base since more customers result in more fee collection. If customers are to be attracted to a the service the PDA provides and the PDA desires as many customers as possible, then it is likely the PDA will offer its services to ensure the most accessibility and efficiency. If this is true and the PDAs services entails promoting peace, then it is probable that peace will be the outcome.
If the motive is profit, it is likely that continual peace and regular fee collection is more profitable than spending on wars. Unlike the state, the PDAs income flow depends on the confidence that the customers place in them. If the customers desire promotion of peace( a likely reason that demanded the PDAs in the first place) and the PDAs services help promote peace, and the PDAs seek profit, then it is probable that the PDAs will prefer to be at peace and make more money than be at war and spend more money.
The state prefers to be in perpetual war. Since the state monopolizes many things and military is just one of them, the state will have the incentive to justify war so that it may also expand into other areas of society and make the case for more wealth plundering. Because the state plunders wealth through violence, it does not have the capacity to calculate the true costs of war. It may choose more plunder through violence to finance a war. The state does not spend its own wealth, it spends other people's wealth.
If morality and ethics are weighed in here , the free market solution is the obvious choice.


4.) Concentration of wealth: It's undeniable that state welfare reduces the concentration of wealth. Under "anarcho-"capitalism, the concentration of wealth could become even more aggressive. Let's say I enter the market with my daddy's riches. I buy up a road outside your house and refuse you passage to the house via motor vehicle unless you pay an obnoxious toll. You and everyone else on the street are forced to sell at a very low rate. I buy these houses and sell them at a large profit. I can already see the green!It is certainly deniable that state plundering reduces the concentration of wealth. The state does not redistribute the stolen wealth evenly or to even those they claim need it, it merely redirects it to its own special interests like war and subsidizes businesses it protects. The state's welfare programs actually create the incentive for more poverty since in many cases it is more profitable for low-income people to meet the state's prerequisites to obtain welfare and unemployment than actually work or have mother-father families. There is a much evidence to confirm this.
Note: I am not suggesting I agree with every opinion in the links:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19607
http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...stract/21/1/73 (http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/1/73)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-212.html
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/arc...ews/7262.shtml (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/02/12/news/7262.shtml)


5.) Poverty and unemployment: Definable poverty prior to the New Deal constituted 56% of the American people. When Pinochet came to power the unemployment and poverty rate doubled - even tripled in some instances. Marx points out that humans are biological creatures. Their primary interest is not philosophical musings about "poverty and unemployment being natural states of a free society." Materialism trumps phony morality.
We also had a Great Depression that was prolonged by pre-New Dealer Hoover and then FDR. A Depression that was caused by the state allowing the Federal Reserve to expand and contract the money supply and distort the interest rates at will. The fact that A. the state had a monopoly on legal tender which it enforced through violence and B. the federal reserve existed with the power to inflate and destroy savings are fundamentally and absolutely opposed to the idea of the free market. FDR eventually did help bring down unemployment by sending too much of the potential work force ( around 1/3) to their speedy deaths in WW2. If someone has a concern about morality and ethics , then it would be likely they would not support this position. Likewise, if a person was unconcerned with the issue of morality and ethics then its likely they would take this position applauding the workings of the state.
Under Allende Chile had an inflation rate of 600%, the state consumed 60% of the the GDP which wasn't very big relative to bigger economies. Chile was approaching a civil war. Average rate of import duties was 100%. Under Pinochet, trade policies abandoned quotas and tariffs were lowered and corruption was reduced , especially to special interest groups. Exports increased above imports. Flat rate value added tax 18%, Tax revenues in Chile became the lowest. Inflation was reduced to 70% which is still very high until 1989 which the central bank was weakened and got down to the single percent areas. Chile experienced a predictable recession in the 80s which was the result of such a dramatic change from a horrible economy before the coup. Chile's free market reforms continued after 1990 and now Chile is a relatively successful country relative to its neighbors. Pinochet was an asswipe no doubt and most of his personal history is written by socialists and sympathizers which are clearly biased about his economic policies but pretty accurate about his violence against opposition. Pinochet could've raised Chile's GDP even much more and that wouldn't change the fact that he was a horrible dictator.
Humans are biological creatures. Marx was correct. Humans are also capable of forming concepts about the real world. Through philosophy we get logic and reason. I'd have to agree that morality doesn't exist in the real world as it is only a concept but that doesn't necessarily make it subjective. Scientific method does not exist in the real world but it doesn't mean its subjective. I mean social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.

I've already discussed a case for objective morality.


6.) Lack of artistic entrepreneurs: I think I have some credibility in this field, considering the fact my job entails print design and compilation of novels. Intellectual property, or copyrights, are vital for the survival of artists and small authors. Only under a non-profit system (infosocialism?) could copyrights be eliminated.
Market Anarchists want to do away with copyrights. The state is the one that legislates copyright laws.


7.) No regulation: Supposedly a whole market of private inspectors will arise, but this has never been the case. Even small business try to maximize cost. Why not just create your own inspection agency and fake it?
You mean no plundering. Sounds good to me. If the people deem it absolutely necessary to have private inspectors, then the people will provide private inspectors. It is absurd to force people to want something they already want.
If the motive for private inspection agencies is profit, and it is profitable to have continued business relative to competition, then it is probable that inspection agencies will want to maintain credibility. All it takes is for one private inspection agency to establish credibility and set the bar. Really, think about it rationally.


8.) Baron capitalism: Runaway capitalism has, historically, been very violent. In the one city of Moscow it is believed that a bare minimum of 500 people died through contract killings between 1993 and 1999. Gangs are a rampant problem in all corners of the world - rarely avoiding violence. During the 19th century business owners called for their workers to be shot. In places with no hour restrictions, even small businesses were known to employ people for 10-12 hours a day. Yes, capitalism was responsible for my bad hair day. Capitalism was responsible for my cat pooping on the floor. If one claimed capitalism to be a Utopian economic system then you would have a case. Yet relative to a few setbacks , the 19th century was relatively prosperous. Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.



Of course the bourgeois will never support a system like this due to its chaotic groundwork (if there is any groundwork),
Well the state profiteers would certainly object, obviously. I think the system makes a better moral , logical , and practical argument than the current one you social democrats support.



but I think it's important to show why ancaps are so easily dismissed in conversations.

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/graphics/w32.hoots.1.gif

So yeah, now how would the 'anarcho'-socialist/communist system handle these problems?
And I'm waiting for the lifeboat questions.:)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I've read better defenses from meritocratic feudalists.


The minarchist position is morally inconsistent. They endorse coercion. They find initiation of violence against another human being both moral and immoral.

Thanks for proving my point. Friedman and Rothbard couldn't come up with an agreement over proper social structure if it developed without the brutal force required for market-oriented capitalism.


Anarchism means simply 'without archon.' which means 'without ruler'
Archon (Gr. άρχων, pl. άρχοντες) is a Greek (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Greek_language) word that means "ruler" or the like, though it is frequently encountered as the title of some specific public office.
In Ancient Greece and Antiquity Archon was used to refer to institutionalized ( government) or coercive rule.
In the early literary period of ancient Greece (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Ancient_Greece) the chief magistrates (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Magistrates) of various Greek city states were called Archon. The term was also used throughout Greek history in a more general sense, ranging from "club leader" to "master of the tables" at syssitia (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Syssitia) to "Roman governor". In Roman terms, archontes ruled by imperium (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Imperium), whereas Basileis (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Basileus) ("Kings (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/King)") had auctoritas (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Auctoritas).
Therefore, anarchy poses no contradiction to free market capitalism since employer/employee relationship is private and is literally a voluntary exchange of services and it is the only rational system for anarchy (I'll explain why more down this post.)

The bourgeoisie act as rulers under you preferred system of obliteration. Wage slavery still exists; people are compelled to give away their labor for cheap subsistence based on preferred lifestyle and class origins. I'm indifferent to your attempt to interpret the Greek meaning of the word, being a Latin fan myself, but you don't seem to realize that the origins of the word anarchism lie in the 19th century. Like libertarian, it was used by socialists before the petty-bourgeoisie adopted exploitation of the worker without any consequences as their cause.


And one may observe old Icelandic society and law:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

I've seen this attempt to place some credibility to anarcho-capitalism before. Unfortunately, the system was very much cooperative, and over time it just led to a state run entirely by the rich:
http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secF9.html

Somalia and Iceland are out. Anything else? Pinochet's Argentina maybe? :laugh:


http://www.privatecourts.com/
http://www.olenn-penza.com/pages/privct2.htm

You're taking two obscure websites in need of hired graphic designers and trying to say that this shows private courts could function? Do you have no sense? Under the current status of law you would only go into a private court with both parties agreeing on the conditions. Without a true, public court system, murderers and rapists could easily just ignore you. Furthermore, there is no proof that backdoor deals haven't been made.



And there was the case of the not so wild west.

Small exploration parties made up of families does not constitute proof for anything. While we're on the subject, the "wild west" still had law enforcement. All the 50s Westerns depicting the sheriff and his boys getting in a scuffle with black-hatted gunmen aren't complete fabrications. Why do you reject one myth and then accept another one?

This looks like a push attempt on your part. The "Wild West" was not necessarily as violent as Hollywood likes to portray, but without federal intervention there did exist major problems. Cattle-town residents lived in constant fear of bandits and gangs. Even the good guys were known to be ruff fellows who didn't shy away from ending a fight with a bullet to the head. Even finance was a wreck due to the scattered banks and currencies (drilling yet another hole in your anarcho-capitalist utopia). Trade consisted of bartering. You were practically stuck in your city until the 1890s when centralized banking returned and law became more mainstream.

The funny thing is, the old West is just another point in favor of socialism. Westerners cooperated. Rules, laws, and regulations were enforced on the local population regardless if they dis/agreed.


It is hard to produce hard tangible evidence on private law working on a larger scale

It's called gang etiquette, and it's shitty.


The moral argument can show a contradiction in state policy.

Morality means nothing to any logical-thinking person.


What it is implying is that human beings in the state have moral justification for initiating force against other human beings while at the same time making it impermissible to do so for other human beings.

The state and public policy are not interrelated subjects. It is also very conceiting to say that freedom takes priority over liberty. Anarcho-capitalism is contradictory. You allow intrusion of one's liberty by another person under the pretense of there not being force.


Well, at least the statement utterly destroys the case for a state monopoly on force.

Actually, it indicates that your system inevitably leads to the same thing you hate, only worse: a monopolization of force without democracy. Republicanism comes through the form of necessary payments.


There is nothing that makes a human more human than another in reality

Irrelevant drivel. Also a wrong technicality. If someone has more body mass, that's technically more human.


The state maintains that is both morally permissible to counterfeit ( steal) money and at the same time also illegal to do so for private citizens.

You continuously bash the state in the presence of a real anarchist with the impression I'm going to get what - enlightened? Offended? :confused:


Well, understanding the basic tenets of economics would tell us that peace is likely to be a greater incentive.

War can be very profitable if you take out the small firms who don't stand a chance. Cooperation between large firms isn't something I'd be proud about: the idea of Apple and Microsoft forming cartels under a mutual agreement that they'll prevent any possible competitor scares the bejesus out of me.


The state does not redistribute the stolen wealth evenly or to even those they claim need it, it merely redirects it to its own special interests like war and subsidizes businesses it protects.

Mostly right. The bourgeoisie have always enjoyed a tax system that benefits them; however, they made large concessions during the New Deal so that wealth concentration wasn't as bad - which created the largest period of economic growth and enjoyment in human history.


If the motive is profit, it is likely that continual peace and regular fee collection is more profitable than spending on wars. Unlike the state, the PDAs income flow depends on the confidence that the customers place in them. If the customers desire promotion of peace( a likely reason that demanded the PDAs in the first place) and the PDAs services help promote peace, and the PDAs seek profit, then it is probable that the PDAs will prefer to be at peace and make more money than be at war and spend more money.

I've already pointed out that it is no problem for a large firm like Microsoft or Blackwater to take out a competitor; however, to go on with the point, you're assuming every person acts rationally. Joe Dirt could inherit a large PDA and use the manpower to attack people. There is no evidence people would suddenly throw down their arms if Joe Dirt promised a pay raise. "Doublethink" exists in the business world, too. People become convinced their company is the best ever, that they've always loved it - even if they were only recently hired.


The counter proposition; 'most people would prefer violence initiated against them like murder and stealing' would hold that it is immoral and therefore wrong not to do so which would be absurd and is probably not true of most human beings.

Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche killed the "morality" debate. Of course most people prefer to not have violence initiated against them; however, there is a significant group of people who would love to hurt others for whatever reason - and we're only talking about those perceived to be medically sane.


and then FDR

Bogus. Conservatives and libertarians alike want to make this claim in order to provide credentials to their own shitty policies, but all evidence draws a different picture. Under FDR and the New Deal recovery/growth was stupendous - it was faster than the growth achieved during the 20s, and in fact continued right through the 70s. Had it not been for the period recession in 1937, it would have only taken 5 years (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Gdp20-40.jpg)to fully recover. Regardless, by 1939/early 1940 the economy reached its 1929 levels.


A Depression that was caused by the state allowing the Federal Reserve to expand and contract the money supply and distort the interest rates at will.

Another bogus claim. Economists and historians alike agree that faulty credit led to the Stock Market crash - something that would have been preventable had more regulation been in place.


If someone has a concern about morality and ethics , then it would be likely they would not support this position.

Social welfare =/= war market.

The New Deal curbed unemployment before (http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/Unemployment_300g15.gif) WW2.


Market Anarchists want to do away with copyrights. The state is the one that legislates copyright laws.

If you have any care for artisans, copyrights will not be abolished until a profit system is abolished with it. I've personally had to deal with people taking my contracted author's work.


Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.

Oh, right. You think forests, time, and numbers don't exist. Gotchya.


Now rationalize that with your socialism

Okay. One individual owns all the land and resources, claiming he has a right to it. Two other individuals are having to become his workers just to use some of these resources. This is exploitive.

Done.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I thought of some more flaws to add:

1.) Children would have no guaranteed protection against mental, physical, and sexual abuse. If someone creates their own private protection agency, that person would not be compelled to treat their children justly.

2.) Property disputes would be rampant. Who decides where property goes - to the wife? The children? Parents? What is a natural way

3.) Roads and sidewalks would be disastrous. Apparently the answer to this is that companies will fit the bill to have roads lead to their organization. [

4.) Safety concerns would rabidly increase. No standardized stop lights. No standardized road signs. No standardized food regulation.

[Baconator]

I thought of some more flaws to add:

1.) Children would have no guaranteed protection against mental, physical, and sexual abuse. If someone creates their own private protection agency, that person would not be compelled to treat their children justly.

2.) Property disputes would be rampant. Who decides where property goes - to the wife? The children? Parents? What is a natural way

3.) Roads and sidewalks would be disastrous. Apparently the answer to this is that companies will fit the bill to have roads lead to their organization. [

4.) Safety concerns would rabidly increase. No standardized stop lights. No standardized road signs. No standardized food regulation.


1) Is a state the only institution that may protect children from mental, physical, and sexual abuse? Why are you making the assumption that the mere existence of a private protection agency would follow with child abuse? Please explain your reasoning to me. Do mental, physical, and sexual abuse exist in state controlled society? How does anarcho-socialism seek to remedy these problems?

2) How can you posit with absolute certainty that property disputes would be rampant with out actual proof? Do you feel the state resolves property issues justly? Can you clarify what you mean by who decides where property goes? How does anarcho-socialism tackle such a problem?

3) You're positing something as an absolute certainty without actually having proof. Irrational fear but I'd like to see your solid logical reasoning to show the proposition is valid. Companies/people providing funds for roads and thoroughfares could be one of many solutions. Do you feel force is required for this? And of course, what is the anarcho-socialist recommendation for this?

4) Ay yay yay. More assumptions. Why are you certain that traffic lights, road signs, and safe food products wouldn't be provided for without a state? Perhaps better solutions for those things will emerge, can you say with absolute certainty that it is impossible for that to be the case? Is it reasonable to pretend that even though the state provides lights, signs, and food regulation, that traffic accidents and food poisoning are not quite common? What is in the anarcho-socialist solution box for such problems?

GeneCosta, you guessed it. Its DJ. I would like to ask you if you have Skype or some voice chat program. I would love to debate with you one on one if at all possible. I promise respect and confidentiality.:D I thought we can record it and then post up the recording on the forums here as it might be constructive to many people here. Actually I would like to extend that invitation to anyone here that would like to have a live and recorded respectable debate.

Sound tempting? Give me a shout :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

2) How can you posit with absolute certainty that property disputes would be rampant with out actual proof? Do you feel the state resolves property issues justly? Can you clarify what you mean by who decides where property goes? How does anarcho-socialism tackle such a problem?

Property disputes are already rampant within an organized system of laws, especially in divorce disputes. The private protection agency could utilize it's claims court and physical personnel, but that's assuming one of the partners doesn't break from the company entirely. I do not believe in a state, as I'm sure you've observed. Under left-anarchism (technocracy) it's "rule of things, not people."


1) Is a state the only institution that may protect children from mental, physical, and sexual abuse?

Did I say as much?


hy are you making the assumption that the mere existence of a private protection agency would follow with child abuse?

Again, I did no such thing. I am curious about how children are taken into account through all of this.


hy are you certain that traffic lights, road signs, and safe food products wouldn't be provided for without a state?

Actually, if you just read what I wrote, I said standardized, not non-existent.


Perhaps better solutions for those things will emerge, can you say with absolute certainty that it is impossible for that to be the case?

Nothing is certain. For example, there is a good possibility something better than capitalism will emerge. :laugh:


What is in the anarcho-socialist solution box for such problems?

Federations. Associations. Non-competition. A work force that is held directly responsible to the people. Everything you wouldn't find under anarcho-feudalism.


3) You're positing something as an absolute certainty without actually having proof.

Iraq is a good example. :lol:


And of course, what is the anarcho-socialist recommendation for this?


Same as two spaces above.


Irrational fear but I'd like to see your solid logical reasoning to show the proposition is valid. Companies/people providing funds for roads and thoroughfares could be one of many solutions.

Wonderful. Toll roads everywhere you go. And even more freeriders! I guess small businesses are going to have an even harder time when they're having to construct roads.

[Dean]

It is nothing more than corporate martial law. Unappealing.

[Baconator]

Property disputes are already rampant within an organized system of laws, especially in divorce disputes. The private protection agency could utilize it's claims court and physical personnel, but that's assuming one of the partners doesn't break from the company entirely. I do not believe in a state, as I'm sure you've observed. Under left-anarchism (technocracy) it's "rule of things, not people."

Right. I agree with most of this. Sometimes I question your defense of the state but I understand its because you prefer a state rather than market anarchism. Its to fight my claims. :laugh:
Please explain this 'left' anarchism a bit more and how your technocracy model addresses some of these problems in detail. Explain what you mean by rule of 'things' and not people. Does this actually imply a ruler of sorts as opposed to the standard no-ruler definition of anarchy?



I am curious about how children are taken into account through all of this.

Rest assured they would be. :D


Nothing is certain. For example, there is a good possibility something better than capitalism will emerge.

Agreed. I believe if we lived in free society we would increase the possibility of the emergence of something better. If something comes around that works better than the free market I'm all for it. I think increased efficiency is always better for the people.



Federations. Associations. Non-competition. A work force that is held directly responsible to the people. Everything you wouldn't find under anarcho-feudalism.

So competition is bad? Gotcha. How is this 'Federation' held responsible to the people? Oh , and what is anarcho-feudalism? Never heard of it.


Iraq is a good example.

???


Wonderful. Toll roads everywhere you go. And even more freeriders! I guess small businesses are going to have an even harder time when they're having to construct roads.

Why are you making the assumption of toll roads everywhere? Is this for certain going to be the case? Can you show me your chain of reasoning for arriving at this conclusion for claiming it as a certain outcome? Also, isn't it the case that we pay tolls for roads even now through taxes?


Are you up to debating on voice chat?