The Official Anarchism Thread
Offline Since people keep bringing up politics and we keep hijacking threads in the recurring discussions of anarchism, I figured I'd bring it all to one thread and point other people to this thread when they have problems. I don't even remember how many threads got dragged off-topic. I apologize for anyone who's thread that happened to.
If you have questions about anarchism, ask them here and I'll do my best to answer them. If you have objections to anarchism, say them here and I'll do my best to rebut them.
A few common questions/objections that I've seen here.
"Government is necessary."
No it isn't. This seems to be just something people reflexively say without thinking much about it. The government does provide certain services which could aptly be considered "necessary" such as defense, protection, roads, courts, and other things. It is not necessary for government to provide these things. The market can and will offer them if the government is not there. If the government ceased providing those services, (and it does not have to provide those services,) no part of the government would be "necessary" and thus government itself would become unneccessary.
"No anarchist nation has ever succeeded."
I forgot what thread I was in that I got this one. Anarchism literally is "ana-archon", without rulers. Because rulers are ineffective where their rule cannot be enforced, everyplace is anarchy where there is not a police officer or representative of the ruler (or government) present to enforce the ruler's will. Anarchy is not a form of government which a nation has, and happens to be none. Anarchy is the absence of government. An "Anarchist nation" is a contradiction in terms. Also, the amount of success a nation has is proportional to the amount of anarchy within it. That's why the USSR collapsed. That said, there have been successful regions of land which had no effective government. Celtic Ireland, ancient Iceland, early Rhode Island, and the "Wild West" (which by the way actually had lower crime rates than the east coast) are examples. Celtic Ireland was eventually conquered by the British. Not surprising because Britan was a major power at the time. It still took even Britan a long time to do, because no existing power structure was there for them to take over to relay orders.
"Anarchy is chaos."
As I said above, we live our day-to-day lives in anarchy (unless you're a cop or bureaucrat), and those lives are not chaos in the sense "Anarchy" is typically used to illustrate. Anarchy being chaos is contradictory to experience.
"Without government, land ownership is impossible."
No it's not. Land is just like everything else we own. It's just less mobile. We do not need governments to own our clothes, nor our cars. The same applies to land.
"Most people need leaders."
Let them choose their own leaders.
Now, I came to arrive at anarchism (my particular type being market anarchism, or "Anarcho-capitalism") by being a consistent libertarian. Libertarians believe in a moral law of non-aggression: theft, slavery, and murder are wrong. Very few people dispute this for most people. Libertarians differ from most others by applying this moral law to all people. Because the government consists of people, they are not exempt. Theft, slavery, and murder are wrong, even when called tax, law, and war. How libertarian a person is can be measured by how consistently they apply this to government.
Anarchists identify everything that makes the government "the government" as aggressive. Claiming jurisdiction over land they do not own is theft. The courts, consisting of people, cannot aggress against other people, including those in competing court systems (this was just for you, YN5).
Anarchism is not about causing chaos and rampant violence, it's about ending the chaos and rampant violence committed regularly by governments. Anarchists do not believe governments are sacred.
A small portion of anarchists consider themselves "Agorists". I'm part of that small portion. Agorists are free-market anarchists who believe that the solution to the problem of the government is to replace it with non-aggressive alternatives. Because the government is not a big fan of that idea, this just so happens to involve a lot of activity on the black market or gray market.
Agorists have a class-theory somewhat like Marxists (I don't like marxism, I'm not trying to identify with it), but without Marx's overt stupidity. Marx cited the owners of the means of production (capitalists, "borgeoisie") as the oppressive class, Agorists cite the owners of the means of destruction (statists, political class) as the oppressive class. Marx believed the surplus of value created by workers was being stolen by capitalists. Agorists believe the value created by the host population is stolen by the government (called "taxation"). The pattern follows, correcting much marxist idiocy along the way.
Most of the attacks directed at capitalism by the leftists and commies make ten times as much sense if you replace the words "capitalists" with "government", "workers" with "taxpayers", and so on. For example, Capitalism is not creating a powerful elite class that can do as it likes (as MattShizzle pointed out an hour or two ago in another part of the RRS forums). Government is creating a powerful elite class that can do as it likes. It happens to be friends with big business, and so, when not politically posturing and interfering with big business, it tends to be in bed with it behind closed doors. If capitalists are extremely powerful, it's because the government is there for them to take control of. The solution is not to abolish capitalism, but to abolish the government. Leftists ignore this because they have a fetish for big government.
A free market in everything the government presently does would be superior to what we have now. Disjunction between payment and service under government create uneconomic allocation of resources which creates shortages and surpluses, which would be solved by a free market, where you choose how much of what you want. Elimination of competition under government (government has a monopoly military, police force, road ownership, etc) increases costs, decreases quality and quantity produced, creates waste and inefficiency, et cetera, which are all solved on a free market which allows competition.
Example: Would you rather send packages USPS or FedEx? If the government didn't make it illegal for anyone other than USPS to deliver non-urgent letters under $1, do you think you'd rather send mail via USPS or FedEx? Did you know the USPS doesn't meet it's costs from the user fees (stamps and such), so it has to dig into tax money to pay the extra? The USPS is subsidized, so part of it's costs are hidden. Would you rather the USPS just do everything, or should UPS and FedEx be allowed to compete? Other examples of market vs government look a lot like this one. The market is economic anarchism. The government is it's polar opposite.
Are there any more questions about how I think, what I think, why I think what I think, et cetera? I'll just refer people to this thread whenever they ask me about it from here on, so the earlier you ask, the more people will see it.
- Login to post comments
Offline Notice that there is a fundamental difference in those two statements: God exists is a positive statement about the natural world, one that is in principle falsifiable. Government is necessary is an observation based on all successful nations throughout history. You still have not provided empirical evidence that anarchy would work. All you have is an idealistic appeal to "the market will take care of it."
Do you disagree with the idea that anything the government does at present which is in demand, protection, roads, firefighting, etc, could be provided by the market without resorting to taxation?
There are two possibilities for any political or economic subject, the government and the market. Varying degrees of government fall under government.
Every specific statist intervention has been a failure in one or another sense. Democracy, which people seem to have some kind of irrational affection for, and which they believe somehow solves all problems, fails to respect the minority, be it 1% or 49%, while the market, on the other hand, serves the minority.
Hong Kong is one of the freest markets in the world, and look at the wealth they're building there. That's the power of the market. The USSR had one of the most unfree markets in the world, and look what happened there. That's the power of government.
Government and market are in direct opposition by nature.
Statist programs differ in degree, but not in kind or result. All moves toward socialism take us from Hong Kong toward USSR, both in policy and in economic results.
Empirical evidence that anarchy works exists in the day-to-day anarchy we live in. It exists in the market we buy and sell through. A free market is one which has no rulers, one which is anarchic. It is a market without taxes, price controls, regulations, licensing, or other government policies, all of which are detrimental to the market.
If you're looking for a successful society without a government, I'm afraid there isn't much evidence for that. Suppose I was an atheist before Darwin's theory of speciation through evolution. Am I wrong because there is something my opponents can point to and smugly feel victorious (creationism) and I have no such thing which meets their parameters (evolution not being thought up yet)? Suppose Christians had managed to nip evolution in the bud and kill Darwin before he thought up evolution, and nobody else thought it up. Is atheism wrong now that there is something atheism can't explain? No. Nor is anarchism wrong because there isn't some existing society that anarchists can point to and say "This is exactly what we want."
You wave away all criticism by appealing to the naturalistic fallacy (what is economically viable is right), and assure us that the market will take care of everything. Gee, who sounds like a theist now?
The theist is the one that says he knows what is best for everybody. I don't claim that anarchy is best for everybody, I'm fine with you going off and forming your own voluntary "country", as long as it's voluntary. Anarchy is flexible like that. The market is flexible like that. Government is not. Government is the means to the end shared by all people who believe they know what is best for everybody. It's not possible for one person, or one group of people, to know what is best for everyone. People have to decide that for themselves.
The viability of a free market is a good reason to have it. The absence of aggression, by government or otherwise, is another good reason. I argue from either perspective.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Government is necessary is an observation based on all successful nations throughout history.
Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners. --Edward Abbey
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
- Login to post comments
Offline The price would be the exchange-value. Value as you use it seems to be closer to a concept of utility.
Noted.
If you won't buy something because its value (as you put it) is too high, how do you determine its value?
You seem to be using value in two different ways. Could you clarify please?
As can be seen, this theory (often called the Labour Theory of Value -- or LTV for short) does not deny that consumers subjectively evaluate goods and that this evaluation can have a short term effect on price (which determines supply and demand). Many right-"libertarian" and mainstream economists assert that the labour theory of value removes demand from the determination of price. A favourite example is that of the "mud pie" -- if it takes the same labour as an apple pie to make, they ask, surely it has the same value (price)? These assertions are incorrect as the LTV bases itself on supply and demand and seeks to explain the dynamics of prices and so recognises (indeed bases itself on the fact) that individuals make their own decisions based upon their subjective needs (in the words of Proudhon, "utility is the necessary condition for exchange." [System of Economical Contradictions, p. 77]). What the LTV seeks to explain is price (i.e. exchange value) -- and a good can only have an exchange value if others desire it (i.e. has a use value for them and they seek to exchange money or goods for it). Thus the example of the "mud pie" is a classic straw man argument -- the "mud pie" does not have an exchange value as it has no use value to others and is not subject to exchange. In other words, if a commodity cannot be exchanged, it cannot have an exchange value (and so price). As Proudhon argued, "nothing is exchangeable if it be not useful." [Op. Cit., p. 85]
LTV is different than I thought it was. Maybe I was trying to refute some bastardized version of it.
So if you had object A that you value at $10 and object B that you value at $8, and you could buy both, which one would you buy?
It depends. What are the prices? If they're both $9, I'll buy object A, percieving a net gain of $1. If they're $10 and $8, I'll buy neither. If they're both free and I can only get one, I'd get A.
Labor regulates exchange-value.
You mean price? Supply and demand regulate the price. There's a positive correlation between labor and price under normal circumstances, but it's not a direct function of labor.
- Login to post comments
Offline
qbg wrote:If you won't buy something because its value (as you put it) is too high, how do you determine its value?
You seem to be using value in two different ways. Could you clarify please?
Sorry, the latter was meant to ask how you determine the value (as you put it) of the product.
qbg wrote:So if you had object A that you value at $10 and object B that you value at $8, and you could buy both, which one would you buy?
It depends. What are the prices? If they're both $9, I'll buy object A, percieving a net gain of $1. If they're $10 and $8, I'll buy neither. If they're both free and I can only get one, I'd get A.
So you need to know the price to determine which one? If so, lets look at this again:
I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction."
Is that still your position, because to me it looks like you do need to know the price first before you can decide?
Quote:Labor regulates exchange-value.
You mean price? Supply and demand regulate the price. There's a positive correlation between labor and price under normal circumstances, but it's not a direct function of labor.
Yes price. Correct, price is not a direct function of labor. But labor does regulate the price -- it's simple to see. Why would the producer charge less than what the product costs to produce (in most cases)? If there was no barrier to entry in an industry where the price charged is much greater than the cost of producing the product (hence large profit), would you not try to move into that industry (assuming that the industry you are in now makes the move worthwhile)?
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
- Login to post comments
Offline
Hong Kong is one of the freest markets in the world, and look at the wealth they're building there.
Another [very big] quote:
Firstly, like most examples of the wonders of a free market, it is not a democracy, it was a relatively liberal colonial dictatorship run from Britain. But political liberty does not rate highly with many supporters of laissez-faire capitalism (such as right-libertarians, for example). Secondly, the government owns all the land, which is hardly capitalistic, and the state has intervened into the economy many times (for example, in the 1950s, one of the largest public housing schemes in history was launched to house the influx of about 2 million people fleeing Communist China). Thirdly, Hong Kong is a city state and cities have a higher economic growth rate than regions (which are held back by large rural areas). Fourthly, according to an expert in the Asian Tiger economies, "to conclude . . . that Hong Kong is close to a free market economy is misleading." [Robert Wade, Governing the Market, p. 332]Wade notes that:
"Not only is the economy managed from outside the formal institutions of government by the informal coalition of peak private economic organisations [notably the major banks and trading companies, which are closely linked to the life-time expatriates who largely run the government. This provides a "point of concentration" to conduct negotiations in line with an implicit development strategy], but government itself also has available some unusual instruments for influencing industrial activity. It owns all the land. . . It controls rents in part of the public housing market and supplies subsidised public housing to roughly half the population, thereby helping to keep down the cost of labour. And its ability to increase or decrease the flow of immigrants from China also gives it a way of affecting labour costs." [Ibid.]
Wade notes that "its economic growth is a function of its service role in a wider regional economy, as entrepot trader, regional headquarters for multinational companies, and refuge for nervous money." [Op. Cit., p. 331]. In other words, an essential part of its success is that it gets surplus value produced elsewhere in the world. Handling other people's money is a sure-fire way of getting rich (see Henwood's Wall Street to get an idea of the sums involved) and this will have a nice impact on per-capita income figures (as will selling goods produced sweat-shops in dictatorships like China).
Ok, I know you probably won't agree with some parts of it.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
- Login to post comments
Offline I said one of the freest. I didn't say totally free. I was aware that Hong Kong wasn't a perfect example, however it's more visible than pure free markets, which must operate underground and remain difficult to see to avoid being destroyed by government intervention.
- Login to post comments
Offline Zhwazi wrote:
qbg wrote:If you won't buy something because its value (as you put it) is too high, how do you determine its value?
You seem to be using value in two different ways. Could you clarify please?
Sorry, the latter was meant to ask how you determine the value (as you put it) of the product.
Psychic value. There's a value I anticipate to get from it. What I actually get out of it may be more or less than I expect, but a best guess is reliable enough.
Quote:
qbg wrote:So if you had object A that you value at $10 and object B that you value at $8, and you could buy both, which one would you buy?
It depends. What are the prices? If they're both $9, I'll buy object A, percieving a net gain of $1. If they're $10 and $8, I'll buy neither. If they're both free and I can only get one, I'd get A.
So you need to know the price to determine which one? If so, lets look at this again:
Quote:
I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction."
Is that still your position, because to me it looks like you do need to know the price first before you can decide?
First let me put that back into context:
Quote:The first problem in using marginal utility to determine price is that it leads to circular reasoning. Prices are supposed to measure the "marginal utility" of the commodity, yet consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how best to maximise their satisfaction.
I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction."
Looking back I misinterpeted, so I retract that statement.
Marginal utility doesn't set prices. Supply and demand set prices. I don't know what I was thinking when I replied the first time. Now I feel kinda dumb.
Yes price. Correct, price is not a direct function of labor. But labor does regulate the price -- it's simple to see.
Supply and demand set product prices.
Product prices set factor-of-production prices.
If factor-of-production prices exceed product prices, the producer incurs a loss. Production ceases.
The existing supply is allowed to fall, which raises the price until Factor-of-production prices are lower than product prices. Then, production resumes.
This is how the common price range is determined. Obviously factor-of-production prices, including labor, play a major part in setting the normal price under normal (no shortage/surplus) circumstances. I don't contest that.
The LTV as I've understood it prior to this conversation holds that value and price are identical and objective. I believed this because as I understood, Marx used it to justify a claim similar to "Profit is theft because the worker isn't getting all the payment he deserves" That's what I think is a load of pure bullshit which capitalism-haters use as some kind of moral objection to a free market and therefore we need socialism/syndicalism/communism/progressive taxation/whatever.
Why would the producer charge less than what the product costs to produce (in most cases)?
If supply and demand put product prices below cost of production, they lower prices on existing supplies to get rid of them and cease production.
In most cases, they try to avoid this by not producing more than are in demand for the forseeable future.
If there was no barrier to entry in an industry where the price charged is much greater than the cost of producing the product (hence large profit), would you not try to move into that industry (assuming that the industry you are in now makes the move worthwhile)?
Of course.
- Login to post comments
Offline
I believed this because as I understood, Marx used it to justify a claim similar to "Profit is theft because the worker isn't getting all the payment he deserves" That's what I think is a load of pure bullshit which capitalism-haters use as some kind of moral objection to a free market and therefore we need socialism/syndicalism/communism/progressive taxation/whatever.
Taxes, Profit, Interest, and Rent all extract "surplus value" from the worker. (So when you object to taxes you are objecting to a form of surplus value)...
In other words, the price of all produced goods is greater than the money value represented by the workers' wages (plus raw materials and overheads such as wear and tear on machinery) when those goods were produced. The labour contained in these "surplus-products" is the source of profit, which has to be realised on the market (in practice, of course, the value represented by these surplus-products is distributed throughout all the commodities produced in the form of profit -- the difference between the cost price and the market price). In summary, surplus value is unpaid labour and hence capitalism is based on exploitation. As Proudhon noted, "Products, say economists, are only bought by products. This maxim is property's condemnation. The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief." [Op. Cit., p. 170]
and
Or, to use Bakunin's words, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" and so "concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187] This domination is the source of the surplus, for "wage slavery is not a consequence of exploitation -- exploitation is a consequence of the fact that the sale of labour power entails the worker's subordination. The employment contract creates the capitalist as master; he has the political right to determine how the labour of the worker will be used, and -- consequently -- can engage in exploitation." [Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 149]
and given that there are a class of people who have no choice but to sell their labor power to survive (legally), you arive at exploitation.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
- Login to post comments
Offline For purposes of this post, "Capitalist" refers to an owner of the means of production. And just for the record, I don't particularly like big business or the sale of labor to a capitalist who sells it to a customer, I just think if it's voluntary, nothing is wrong with it.
Taxes, Profit, Interest, and Rent all extract "surplus value" from the worker. (So when you object to taxes you are objecting to a form of surplus value)...
Taxes extract anything from anyone. I object to taxes not because of "surplus value" but because they're paid under threat of violence, they're involuntary.
Profit could be said to extract surplus value from the worker, but I don't see how that's a bad thing.
Interest is a natural occurance arising from people's time prefrences (preferring less now to more later). Again, not a bad thing.
Rent is payment for sale of a good/service. Once again, there's nothing bad about it.
In other words, the price of all produced goods is greater than the money value represented by the workers' wages (plus raw materials and overheads such as wear and tear on machinery) when those goods were produced.
Not true. Some companies sell at a loss.
In summary, surplus value is unpaid labour and hence capitalism is based on exploitation.
I disagree. Labor is paid whatever labor chooses to accept. They value their own time and energy less than the capitalist values it, so the capitalist buys it. If everyone engages in this voluntary, they do so because they believe it to be good for them.
This is what I mean by the LTV being an "objective value" theory. "if V(c)-V(l)>0, then exploitation". Value is subjective, it can't be compared between the laborer [V(l)], the capitalist [V(c)], and the customer, not even by price, which is set by supply and demand. Attempting to apply math to it is absurd because values can't be compared between individuals, only within individuals.
If a surplus value exists for the capitalist, a surplus value also exists for the laborer, who sees the work he does as less valuable than the pay he recieves. When everyone is voluntarily trading, they do so because the believe what they are getting is more valuable than what they are giving up. This means a surplus value exists for everyone.
I don't believe exploitation to be inherently bad. Slavery is bad because slavery is exploitation at gunpoint. Working for a wage is not slavery, as doing work is voluntary. If your goal is to avoid someone making a profit off you, it would be advisable to simply go into work for yourself, buy your own tools of production, and interact directly with your customers.
Or, to use Bakunin's words, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" and so "concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187]
As long as it is voluntary I don't see anything inherently wrong with it. A worker could get himself out of the factory and perform the same job for the customers directly...he would still just be getting paid money to do work like he was before. And while he might be getting paid more money, he also bears the risk involved in lack of predictability. He becomes a smalltime capitalist and simply makes a profit off the sale of his own labor. Is he exploiting himself to do this?
This domination is the source of the surplus, for "wage slavery is not a consequence of exploitation -- exploitation is a consequence of the fact that the sale of labour power entails the worker's subordination. The employment contract creates the capitalist as master; he has the political right to determine how the labour of the worker will be used, and -- consequently -- can engage in exploitation." [Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 149]
As long as it is voluntary, there is nothing inherently wrong with it by my book.
and given that there are a class of people who have no choice but to sell their labor power to survive (legally), you arive at exploitation.
They do have a choice whether or not they want to survive.
Question: If a freelance mechanic repairs someone's car and accepts pay, is there exploitation? Is the mechanic being exploited by selling his time and labor to someone else and becoming a temporary slave? Is he exploiting himself by making a profit off his labor? Is he being exploited by the car's owner who pays him to perform labor? Is he exploiting the car's owner?
Personally, that is the kind of production under capitalism that I prefer, in which most people are entrepreneurial and fewer are paid wages by anyone other than the customer. I'm not gonna force people to do it, and it's not well adapted to some industries, but I see it as better for everyone in most cases.
- Login to post comments
Offline Notice that there is a fundamental difference in those two statements: God exists is a positive statement about the natural world, one that is in principle falsifiable. Government is necessary is an observation based on all successful nations throughout history.
It was not the "governments" that made these "nations" successful.
You still have not provided empirical evidence that anarchy would work.
What are you talking about? It is all around you. Every time you engage in an interaction or a transaction that doesnt involve a forced big brother conrolling it, that is anarchy.
All you have is an idealistic appeal to "the market will take care of it."
And all you have is an idealistic notion that "the government will take care of it"
You wave away all criticism by appealing to the naturalistic fallacy (what is economically viable is right), and assure us that the market will take care of everything. Gee, who sounds like a theist now?
The strongest argument for anarchy is the moral argument. Here is a laymans version of it: "Coercion is wrong, even if the coercers have shiny badges or nice suits or claim to represent the "public interest"."
No gods, no governments.
- Login to post comments
Offline Things that would change under anarchy from government today:
Very little in the things we do. We're going to have to break a few eggs, but we'll get one fine omelet.
People would have no protection under the law, there is no law. This is both good and bad. Having legal recourse is beneficial if some wrong has fallen upon you. At the same time we live in a very litigious society, where you can actually be sued to calling someone names. Think of the amount of money saved by not running a court system.
So, some people are going to settle their disputes with violence that otherwise would not. At the same time, those in a black market would be less prone to violence because without government there is no black market. No more prohibition.
Conglomerates will continue. Some which are held back by government will thrive. Others living off government will falter. Big deal.
Patents ...If you have an idea that you think will make you money, tell it to only a few people, get NDAs with them, and work it in secret. If it can't be done like that, what can I say? Too bad.
NDA's have no value with anarchy. "Too bad" isn't good enough, but it will have to do. The best thing in that case would be annoucing your work loudly. Get your name on it.
Much would change in who we are. Imagine earning double your current income. The average American loses 50% of their income through taxes of one kind or another. Incomes and cost of living would be much smaller. Without taxes there would be no inflation. This can be observed by looking at the inflation rate in the US. There was no inflation at all until 1913.
Freedom to come and go as you please. Ah. Do what you want.
Everything gets better, roads, medicine, radio, Internet. For those with a 56k modem, government mandate caps the speed at 53k, so much for technology.
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
- Login to post comments
Offline The only flaws I find in anarchy are:
1. there is no defined law and order and no punishment for crime. Without some guide murdering somebody for playing their car stereo too loud would be just. Ok, sure, then that person has to face the friends of the other, and they kill, and so on. Democracy is bad. The ultimate example of democracy is a linch mob. What if someone is wrongly accused of a crime? Wihtout due process they have no protection, other than to shoot it out. One against the whole city? People are very quick to judge, it would happen, count on it. In my city I'd be first to go, "the atheist did it."
2. the people aren't active enough. And this is the problem with our Constitutional government. If Canada attacks the United States, for whatever reason, just because it is completely legal to own any weapon you desire doesn't mean that everyone will. Likely only about half would own any of any kind. And of those that do how many are willing to fight? I'd like to think otherwise but the course of history shows that too few are willing to fight for their freedom. The downfall there is those that are willing will lose.
Virtually all of the laws and prohibitions in force today were requested by the people, even if wrongly influenced. "Not in my back yard", and "somebody should do something about this", and "god said" drive almost all legislation. People as a whole don't want freedom.
Don't assume that because it would be stupid to attack an Anarcho-capitalist country it would not happen. Hitler, Mussolini, the old USSR, and a whole host of religious nutcases are examples. Logic is irrelevent for them. Join me or die.
3. Assuming there is any sort of police and justice system, if privatived it would never likely be neutral. Religion, race, gender, and such would most certainly place bias into it. This is not to say that a government system would not be the same.
4. Certain things will not work well privatized. Roadways for example. Libertarians are all in favor of tollways, it's a user fee, pay for what you use. Perfect, except when government runs it, efficiency and all that. But every road? the street in my neighborhood leading to my house? It was there before I moved in. And it's old. Insuring that these things are paid for properly is difficult if not impossible. And getting from point a to b, there's one road and you aren't allowed to use it. They're all private. Private roads would be on private property. Or can we set aside land for public use with no ownership, including government? Great. Until somebody decides to claim it.
Not that a federal highway system is any better, don't get the wrong idea. And naturally roads would be cheaper and last longer. But if we're going to share them there needs to be a method of sharing the cost. Add again people's prejudices. Government roads at the city or county level perhaps?
Otherwise I'm all for it.
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
- Login to post comments
Offline Marx used it to justify a claim similar to "Profit is theft because the worker isn't getting all the payment he deserves" That's what I think is a load of pure bullshit which capitalism-haters use as some kind of moral objection to a free market and therefore we need socialism/syndicalism/communism/progressive taxation/whatever.
Right on. People, please do not let wealth envy or disgust for greed cloud your judgement. In the United States the wealthy are the most penalized. They became so through wealth envy. Government knew they could get away with it. But those wealthy host huge portions of the workforce and represent the bulk of the cashflow. Penalizing them at all, along with the rest is bad for the economy.
Don't hate Bill Gates because he's wealthy, admire him, try to learn. Don't buy his products if you don't like them.
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
- Login to post comments
Offline People would have no protection under the law, there is no law.
Not in the sense we know it today. There would be property law. Meaning, I own my land, I set the rules, the "law" for my land. If you break the rules, get off my land or you're considered an intruder, basically. You could have courts in anarchy. Stateless courts existed in Celtic Ireland. It would obviously work very differently from what we have today, but I kinda outlined the system I envision in a post on my blog. Before you have to ask, a murder investigation would go the same way, except it would be the life insurance company trying to make sure the guy paid the full cost of your policy, so if you take out a life insurance policy for $1 million, the killer would have some massive repayment due. So take out a really big policy. 
NDA's have no value with anarchy.
Yes they do. If the NDA reads "Person A agrees not to reveal X. If person A reveals X, he consents to enforcement by person B up to the limit of $100,000", or something like that, you're B and they're A, if they try to sue, just show that contract to the court.
Without taxes there would be no inflation. This can be observed by looking at the inflation rate in the US. There was no inflation at all until 1913.
Taxes do not cause inflation.
Until relatively recently, the word "inflation" referred to an increase the money supply. It was generally recognized that such an increase in the money supply also increased prices. If you know basic economics, you know how supply, demand, and price are related. As the supply goes up, the price comes down. As the money supply increases, the value of each monetary unit goes down.
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Ever since, the government has been printing money, which increases the money supply, which decreases the value of money.
Really, the total value of all dollars remains constant in a stagnant economy. So doubling the money supply halves the value of each unit of money.
- Login to post comments
Offline Let me add one thing to Zhwazi's list at the beginning. One major problem with government, particularly today is market influence.
When political leaders have investment interests in foreign currency or oil, how could they ever truly be impartial in matters of foreign policy? Or if they have vested interest in the market?
Here's one, the new federal minimum wage. It affects every State and US territory, except for Samoa. Del Monte has a factory there, representing almost all of the island's work force. Del Monte headquarters is in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco.
Former press secretary Fleischer has dual citizenship. Suppose he's neutral?
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
- Login to post comments
Offline The only flaws I find in anarchy are:
1. there is no defined law and order and no punishment for crime.
Addressed in my previous post in this thread.
2. the people aren't active enough.
The American Revolution was fought by a tiny minority, and to my knowledge, didn't even have majority support. As for Canada invading, it wouldn't be pretty for the Canadian leadership. I think that most people would have protection agencies, and I think many of those agencies would give people policy discounts for owning guns, because that would make the task of defending people far easier.
Don't assume that because it would be stupid to attack an Anarcho-capitalist country it would not happen.
It wouldn't be stupid, it would be damn-near impossible. One of the things invaders do is hijack the existing state apparatus and use the existing government's resources against it's own people. Anarchocapitalism would have no such power structure to take over. And in an anarchocapitalist society, governments wouldn't be reguarded as a "necessary evil" (obviously, as they'd been getting along without it, they couldn't call it necessary), just an evil. It wouldn't be easy to get people to obey the commands with all these conditions combined, and the PDAs to deal with.
3. Assuming there is any sort of police and justice system, if privatived it would never likely be neutral.
Courts which were not neutral would not recieve customers.
4. Certain things will not work well privatized. Roadways for example.
Not all Libertarians support tollroads. I believe the highways would become tollroads, but I think for the road leading into your neighborhood would be jointly owned by the neighbors.
- Login to post comments
Offline Not all Libertarians support tollroads. I believe the highways would become tollroads, but I think for the road leading into your neighborhood would be jointly owned by the neighbors.
The ones I know that don't like toll roads are because they are run by the government, they've not really visited the idea of a private toll road.
I'm sure the road into my neighborhood would be owned jointly by the neighbors. The question is on how to fairly pay for it. I use the road a lot more than the widow next door.
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
- Login to post comments
Offline The ones I know that don't like toll roads are because they are run by the government, they've not really visited the idea of a private toll road.
I'm sure the road into my neighborhood would be owned jointly by the neighbors. The question is on how to fairly pay for it. I use the road a lot more than the widow next door.
It would probably be a hybrid payment system: a flat rate, with a fee-per-use charged after a certain # of road uses in X amount of time. Similar to a cellphone bill where you pay X dollars per month plus X amount for minutes used above a given threshold.
No gods, no governments.
- Login to post comments
Offline Until relatively recently, the word "inflation" referred to an increase the money supply. It was generally recognized that such an increase in the money supply also increased prices. If you know basic economics, you know how supply, demand, and price are related. As the supply goes up, the price comes down. As the money supply increases, the value of each monetary unit goes down.In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Ever since, the government has been printing money, which increases the money supply, which decreases the value of money.
Really, the total value of all dollars remains constant in a stagnant economy. So doubling the money supply halves the value of each unit of money.
First a problem: You are ignoring credit. And because the amount of credit is determined from the economy's performance, the money supply will change with the economy.
Another thing is that inflation increases profits (by devaluing labor). I would doubt that this has nothing to do with the source(s) of inflation.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi there. I'm new to this site but would like post a few general replies to Zhwazi's "official" anarchism, and a summary or what his world would be like if implemented. I'll try to be as polite as possible. I've read through the entire thread, and find it on the whole apalling. But keep in mind I'm an Anarchist, or for the purposes of this thread an "Anarcho-sydicalist", "marxist", "anarchosocialist", "idiot", "moron", etc.
Tiberian and others sufficiently blew holes in a society where "anarchy" combines with huge private ownership, property, and capitalism. There will be people with huge amounts of resources oppressing large sections of people who don't. This isn't a problem for Zhwazi, evolution will kill off all the poor and who cares? Its their fault for being poor in the first place. So lets see how free this society will be both on from the viewpoint of the oppressor and the oppressed. Oppressor: those with land, Oppressed: those without.
Oppressed: Ok, lets assume I'm a poor slob too stupid and without the genetic superiority inherent in the wealthy. Something happens to me and I can't make a rent payment, I'm out on the street. I can't move without being arrested (at best) by any number of courts and "protection agencies". Every speck of land is privately owned, and very likely riddled with mines to keep people like me OUT. Each privately owned parcel of land has its own rules and regulations that are impossible to keep track of, and the owner of the land ends up owning your very LIFE if you do not follow them. I could end up being his property by anything from stealing some food, to stepping accidentily on his property, to looking at him wrong, to wearing a purple shirt. Its his land, his rules. Let's assume that somehow I avoid being maimed, killed, or arrested and manage to immediately find a job. Of course in such desperation the employer sets the terms. I'll be doing manual labor on his property for the cost of food and board, set on his terms and bought from him. Anything I screw up, anytime I can't work because of the rain or anything else, hey I still live there and eat don't I? I'm in debt, and will work there for the rest of my life. I could "quit" and go where? On someone elses property who can instantly enslave me for trespassing?
Oppressor: Now lets assume I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist, but someone with the brains and genetic makeup required to be wealthy. Not amazingly so, I'm not the biggest fish in the pond (or the biggest dolphin-man hybrid) but I've got some land, a few slaves, a protection agency that has that has some heavy machine guns. I manufacture something on my own land, and my slaves do the work. I'd like to pay them, but everyone uses slaves and they are so easy to come by; my product would fail in the marketplace if I paid them extra money beyond food and rent. Some people like Tiberian don't agree with my anarchist lifestyle, so I have my land properly fortified with mines, guards, bombs, and tripwires. Never mind the roaming masses that decide to reject slavery. I even take my turn every day manning the machine guns to keep people out, I'm not big enough to lay around and do nothing yet. However there are people below me, the slaves, the guards, people who would love to have my slice of the dream, so I'm constantly on my guard and am forced to be ruthless with dissenters, because if not they will sense weakness and my orders will not be followed. This is my land and I expect my orders to be followed. I'm also constantly on edge about bigger fish coming in and stealing what I have, after all they have more money, better more favorable courts, higher tech weapons...I have to pay tribute to these larger fish to keep them out.
Both, opppressed and oppressors, have rulers and lack freedom. Doesn't sound like anarchy to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline Not just that, but........the entire concept of capitalism is in direct conflict with anarchy. Unlike possession, ownership is a subjective concept that can only exist with government or mass popular support. If I decided that I wanted to own the moon, I'd have to get the governments of the world to recognize that title. A truely anarchist society couldn't and wouldn't respect such a claim. That also goes for any unreasonable claim to any property here on earth. Without that recognition and the support of the government, the owner is left to possess the claim by any means nessessary. Private security, private armies, and sure land mines would be very effective.
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
- Login to post comments
Offline I have questions for libertarian supporters. Do not consider this a criticizm in any way, I'm merely seeking clarification on an issue I have never seen clarified(which does not mean it has not been, just that I've not seen it).
How would a libertarian society defend itself against a dictatorship(merely an example, democracy or monarchy or other government forms applicable in context)? How would a libertarian society prevent a dictatorship(etc) from arising within it?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi there. I'm new to this site but would like post a few general replies to Zhwazi's "official" anarchism, and a summary or what his world would be like if implemented.
<snip>
Strawman. You do not automatically own everyone who crosses onto your land. People will not landmine their property. There is no genetic magic that makes someone rich. Anarchocapitalists use "anarchy" in the sense of "no government", with a government being a geographic monopoly claiming territory other than it's rightfully owned land and usually selling retributive justice at monopoly prices.
There are two kinds of freedom. Pure freedom and liberty. Usually when I use the word freedom I mean liberty, but let me differentiate here, since you seem to not get it.
Pure freedom = do whatever you want.
Liberty = Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others.
Liberty is not pure freedom. You seem to believe that any lack of pure freedom negates any 'anarchy'. Anarchy and the limits of liberty are compatible.
There's some fundamental element of libertarianism you just don't seem to get, I can't tell which. You might be thinking class warfare to the point that you're blind to something you should be seeing. Like maybe that just because people can do something doesn't mean they will, or the idea of self-ownership and individual sovereignty.
- Login to post comments
Offline Not just that, but........the entire concept of capitalism is in direct conflict with anarchy. Unlike possession, ownership is a subjective concept that can only exist with government or mass popular support. If I decided that I wanted to own the moon, I'd have to get the governments of the world to recognize that title. A truely anarchist society couldn't and wouldn't respect such a claim. That also goes for any unreasonable claim to any property here on earth. Without that recognition and the support of the government, the owner is left to possess the claim by any means nessessary. Private security, private armies, and sure land mines would be very effective.
Bad example. Original ownership comes from removing something from the commons. The ocean, the moon, the sun, these are all parts of the commons, they're unowned. If you want to own them, you have to remove them from the common state. Land is originally owned by being fenced in or cultivated or something like that, the same principle could apply on the ocean (put a fence around a small patch in the middle of the atlantic and you own that patch), the moon, asteroids, etc. You don't have to get a government to support it.
Ownership is subjective, yes. As I see it there are two classes, those with ownership and those without. If you do not respect others' ownership of property, you forfiet any obligation of others to respect your ownership of property, including yourself. Lets call someone with ownership a "person" and someone without it an "animal". If one man owns something, and no others respect it, then the one man still owns it, but being only one man with no others who respect ownership, he can obligate nobody to not act in this way, any more than you have a right to life which can't be deprived by a pack of wolves, that would be stupid. The concept and the ownership still exist even without majority support. The majority are simply animals. Ownership only obligates a person, not an animal, so if there is a very small pool of owners, there is just a very small pool of people who respect each others' rights to property, it doesn't make it nonexistant.
The "X is not really anarchy" arguement isn't going to fly with me. Most forms of anarchism contend that all other forms are not really anarchy. I could say that anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism are not true anarchy for any number of reasons. The arguement is too stupid and irrelevant to be worth the effort.
- Login to post comments
Offline How would a libertarian society defend itself against a dictatorship(merely an example, democracy or monarchy or other government forms applicable in context)? How would a libertarian society prevent a dictatorship(etc) from arising within it?
Well first of all, you could actually have a dictatorship, democracy, monarchy, whatever, and still have anarchy, as long as they aren't trying to force their will on others. The best way to sustain it would be to only be dictatorial, democratic, monarchic, etc. over people who wanted a leader or wanted democracy. Then nobody would have any reason to oppose it. Three neighbors could, for example, be one self-governor, one who lets themself be controlled by a democratic process involving others who agree to democratic rule, and one who obeys the Queen of England, they can all coexist if they don't try to force the others to do as they do. The self-governor has no more right to force the democrat or the subject to self-govern than the subject has to force the democrat or self-governor to obey the Queen.
When people try to force others into democracy or monarchy, then we have a problem. Not only does it lead to violent retaliation, it also tarnishes the image of the democracy or monarchy and makes people resent it. The Protection Agencies would have a lot to gain by stopping a group of violent democrats or subjects, like for example, all of their customers. Even competing companies would cooperate to protect their customers from such a violent monopoly.
- Login to post comments
Offline Strawman. You do not automatically own everyone who crosses onto your land. People will not landmine their property. There is no genetic magic that makes someone rich.
This statement directly contradicts others you made earlier in the thread. I will dig them up for you if you request it.
Anarchocapitalists use "anarchy" in the sense of "no government"
At the beginning of the thread you defined "anarchism" correctly as meaning "no rulers". That is not the same as "no government". I realize its a fine line, but its an important distinction. You could have a completely democratic government where all laws and decisions are made by a vote, and there is no one person in charge.
There are two kinds of freedom. Pure freedom and liberty. Usually when I use the word freedom I mean liberty, but let me differentiate here, since you seem to not get it.
Pure freedom = do whatever you want.
Liberty = Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others.
Liberty is not pure freedom. You seem to believe that any lack of pure freedom negates any 'anarchy'. Anarchy and the limits of liberty are compatible.
I still don't get it...you advocate owning a person's life and body if they break any laws you invent on your own property. I don't see the line being drawn between "libery" and "freedom", it's drawn with your society on one side and liberty AND freedom far away on the other.
There's some fundamental element of libertarianism you just don't seem to get, I can't tell which. You might be thinking class warfare to the point that you're blind to something you should be seeing. Like maybe that just because people can do something doesn't mean they will, or the idea of self-ownership and individual sovereignty.
You are right. The fundamental element of libertarianism I don't get is your (IMHO) irrational advocation of property rights. Why exactly are people allowed to own as much land, water, or air as they can build a fence around? I realize that it is engrained in our society from birth that this is how we divide the world, and would love to hear a rational argument in favor of property rights. I fear, however, its just an automatic belief instilled in people growing up in a capitalist world. After all, we all need land to stand on. We all need water to drink. We all need air to breath. What exactly gives you the right to take these away from people?
- Login to post comments
Offline Zhwazi wrote:Strawman. You do not automatically own everyone who crosses onto your land. People will not landmine their property. There is no genetic magic that makes someone rich.
This statement directly contradicts others you made earlier in the thread. I will dig them up for you if you request it.
I went and found it. And I said it wouldn't be expensive to mine a yard with tannerite. Now, tannerite is a homemade low explosive used for making shooting targets. You'd put it in a little baggie and shoot at the baggie. When the baggie explodes, you know you've hit the target. The point in "mining" a yard with tannerite (I don't believe I ever talked about actual pressure-sensitive landmines) is that if someone isn't respecting your property rights, such explosions as would result from shooting the tannerite bags in the same yard as the offender is in would certainly scare them off or convince them not to return, and while it could certainly do some damage, ideally you don't want to kill them as badly as you want them to keep out. Such "mining" does not blow your leg off if you step onto property other than your own. If you did that, you'd probably have your pants sued off.
At the beginning of the thread you defined "anarchism" correctly as meaning "no rulers". That is not the same as "no government". I realize its a fine line, but its an important distinction. You could have a completely democratic government where all laws and decisions are made by a vote, and there is no one person in charge.
What's the practical difference to me whether I am being ruled by 1000 tyrants 1 mile away or 1 tyrant 1000 miles away?
I still don't get it...you advocate owning a person's life and body if they break any laws you invent on your own property. I don't see the line being drawn between "libery" and "freedom", it's drawn with your society on one side and liberty AND freedom far away on the other.
If someone is not respecting your *ownership* of that property is what I mean. For example, you can come on my property and stand in my yard and I couldn't deprive you of ownership of yourself (i.e. rightfully shoot you) until you didn't respect my will with my property, or you were doing overt damage to my property. If it's my will that you stay off my lawn then I'd at least have to tell you to get off the lawn before actually using any violence (although a threat would be perfectly just). If I just start shooting at you because you're cutting a corner on the sidewalk or something, then I'm in the wrong.
If you do not respect my property rights, then I am not obligated to respect yours. If you are on my lawn, you are not necessarily disrespecting my property rights. If you come to the knowledge that I don't want you there and you stay anyways, then you are disrespecting my property rights. If you are causing actual damage to my property (i.e. using a rototiller on my beautiful suburban lawn), then you are disrespecting my property rights.
You are right. The fundamental element of libertarianism I don't get is your (IMHO) irrational advocation of property rights.
All rights are property rights. The only reason it's wrong for me to enslave you is because you have exclusive rightful ownership of your body and I don't, and I'm depriving you of a property right in yourself if I enslave you. You own your life. You have exclusive rightful absolute irresponsible control over it. You own your liberty. You have exclusive rightful absolute irresponsible control over it. You own the product of your liberty, that being your property. If I build a factory, I owned the liberty and the body which built it, should I not have the same rights over the property I make? And in order to get such property it is necessary to claim parts of the natural world around us. We cannot make things that solve our wants and needs if we can't grapple with the world around us.
In a world where there was no such thing as scarcity, ownership would be absurd. If everything was infinitely abundant, omnipresent, and uniform and of infinite quality, then there'd be absolutely no use for ownership whatsoever. But we live in a world where our wants are unlimited and our means are limited. If we're going to get anything we want, we have to be able to control resources. If we can't control the resources we need, we're not going to be able to satisfy our wants. If we can't own things beyond possession, we can't make the investments in the future that need to be made.
Why exactly are people allowed to own as much land, water, or air as they can build a fence around?
Well why not?
I realize that it is engrained in our society from birth that this is how we divide the world, and would love to hear a rational argument in favor of property rights. I fear, however, its just an automatic belief instilled in people growing up in a capitalist world.
It is very convenient for me that I don't have to prove it to everybody, certainly. Since most people assume it, it makes my job easier. But if it's challenged, I try to be able to prove it.
After all, we all need land to stand on. We all need water to drink. We all need air to breath. What exactly gives you the right to take these away from people?
You don't need land to stand on. I'm personally very interested in the seasteading concept, which would make the idea that you need land to stand on outdated. We all do need water to drink, yet we get this by trade, it's no arguement for abolishing ownership of water. We all need food to eat, would this not mean that nobody should be allowed to own food to the exclusion of others? And yes, we need air to breathe, but it's not as if the air is something that can just be claimed. What am I going to do, claim a cubic mile of air that's 2 miles up? Is it worth the effort to claim? No, of course not. But the principle of being able to own air is a good one. What would we do if we could not own air after we start hollowing out asteroids to live in? We'll need air to pressurize them, if we can't own air to the exclusion of anyone else, we can't rightfully take the air away. If I could claim a cubic mile of air and seal it off from the outside, if I suck all the air out and sell it to space colonies, I'm not violating anybody's rights. I'm not taking air away from people.
- Login to post comments
Offline I went and found it. And I said it wouldn't be expensive to mine a yard with tannerite. Now, tannerite is a homemade low explosive... Such "mining" does not blow your leg off if you step onto property other than your own. If you did that, you'd probably have your pants sued off.
All that this means is you happen to be a nicer landlord than others. You use low grade explosives to scare people, others use medium or high grade to take people out...its a grey scale that would shift depending on the individual and the circumstances. And why couldn't I sue you for using low grade explosives on me? Why couldn't I sue you for not letting me walk on your property? I can go ahead and tell you your answer, because you "own the land". Anyone stepping on your land forfeits their property (their lives) to you, so they can't sue you for anything, even blowing their legs off with a landmine. I can't find the specific quote in the post, but I believe you said something along the lines of "each man makes his own laws in regards to his property". Let me know if you agree with that statement or not, since I can't find the quote.
You attempted to answer the mining question, but let me point out to you the two much more significant statements I hoped you would address:
If you don't respect others, you lose your status of "person" and become "unowned property". If that happens, no courts that anyone pays attention to will hear a complaint by unowned property. If you can demonstrate that they were attacking you, you can demonstrate that they give up "person" status and become property, and you can do whatever you want with your own property.
and
No no no...people convicted would have been found to violate someone else's ownership (read as "rights", and they'd thus have their ownership of themselves revoked.
and
If you're found to not respect ownership, you lose your right to ownership. Including ownership of yourself. If you don't own yourself, you're unowned property and anyone can do whatever they want to you because your rights are revoked
and about the rich:
The rich are rich because they think differently and better than the lower and middle classes. You don't think like them.
Those quotes were the ones I was referring to, in addition to the one about mining. Now back to your most recent post:
What's the practical difference to me whether I am being ruled by 1000 tyrants 1 mile away or 1 tyrant 1000 miles away?
One's a community of your neighbors, each getting a say in how society will be run. The other is a dictatorship or one person enforcing anything he wants on you.
If someone is not respecting your *ownership* of that property is what I mean. For example, you can come on my property and stand in my yard and I couldn't deprive you of ownership of yourself (i.e. rightfully shoot you) until you didn't respect my will with my property
What if your "will with your property" was that noone step on it? I admit alot of people, because of their compassion for humanity, would not go so far. But some would. Especially if you were a company looking for some free labor to compete in the marketplace.
If it's my will that you stay off my lawn then I'd at least have to tell you to get off the lawn before actually using any violence (although a threat would be perfectly just).
Why exactly would you have to tell me to leave? What government or court imposed this regulation on you?
If I just start shooting at you because you're cutting a corner on the sidewalk or something, then I'm in the wrong.
Others might not think they are in the wrong. Besides, who owns the sidewalk again?
If you do not respect my property rights, then I am not obligated to respect yours. If you are on my lawn, you are not necessarily disrespecting my property rights. If you come to the knowledge that I don't want you there and you stay anyways, then you are disrespecting my property rights.
OK, so we've determined you're slightly nicer than the landlord next door, you let me cut across your property. What if Ive been wandering through private property for two days, and fall asleep on your lawn? You tell me to move and I dont.
All rights are property rights. The only reason it's wrong for me to enslave you is because you have exclusive rightful ownership of your body and I don't, and I'm depriving you of a property right in yourself if I enslave you. You own your life. You have exclusive rightful absolute irresponsible control over it. You own your liberty. You have exclusive rightful absolute irresponsible control over it. You own the product of your liberty, that being your property.
I don't own my life and my body, I AM my life and my body. It is me. I cant leave it and get another one. Other than that, this statement of yours is noble in its own way but anyone of your courts with a different interest could make a decision otherwise. In fact, you've already said under certain conditions these rights would be void in your society anyway
And in order to get such property it is necessary to claim parts of the natural world around us. We cannot make things that solve our wants and needs if we can't grapple with the world around us.
In a world where there was no such thing as scarcity, ownership would be absurd. If everything was infinitely abundant, omnipresent, and uniform and of infinite quality, then there'd be absolutely no use for ownership whatsoever.
On the contrary, the exact opposite is true. If resources were unlimited, everyone could own as much as they want and your society would have very few problems. The problem is finite resources, that EVERYONE needs to survive and to have a decent life. Why should one person be allowed to own all of the resources and deny them to the rest of the population? Or 2 people? Or 10, 100...
Why exactly are people allowed to own as much land, water, or air as they can build a fence around?Well why not?
Because they would be killing off mass numbers of people who need land, water, and air to survive.
It is very convenient for me that I don't have to prove it to everybody, certainly. Since most people assume it, it makes my job easier. But if it's challenged, I try to be able to prove it.
You don't need land to stand on. I'm personally very interested in the seasteading concept, which would make the idea that you need land to stand on outdated.
Until all the sea is claimed as property, then where do you go?
We all do need water to drink, yet we get this by trade, it's no arguement for abolishing ownership of water. We all need food to eat, would this not mean that nobody should be allowed to own food to the exclusion of others?
Unless you have nothing to trade because all the resources are owned by someone else. Water and food are heavily subsidized to keep them affordable to people in the USA. If you still can't find water or food, you can always wait until it rains or dig through the trash for food. Except in this world, the rain and trash is also owned and you are stealing, thus giving up yourself up to slavery.
And yes, we need air to breathe, but it's not as if the air is something that can just be claimed. What am I going to do, claim a cubic mile of air that's 2 miles up?
If I could claim a cubic mile of air and seal it off from the outside, if I suck all the air out and sell it to space colonies, I'm not violating anybody's rights. I'm not taking air away from people.
Except for all those people still on Earth.
The basic problem is that as long as there are people with no resources, and others who own all the resources, those with no resources will never be content to sit back and let you charge them for the land they stand on, the water they drink, or the air they breathe. I would like you to imagine that you had not eaten in a couple weeks, and had not drunk any water in several days...would you not be desperate enough to violate someone's property to kepp yourself alive? And if you are caught you are reduced to a slave. The only way anarchy would be viable is if everyone had equal access to resources and thus had no good reason to attack their neighbor.
- Login to post comments
It is clear you wish to have a free market. Is there any specific free market economy you want or do you just want a free market economy?
Earlier you stated your disagreement with the LTV. Why do you disagree with it?
What about monopolies on basic utilities? Having two companies putting down separate power and water lines would not be good.
Are abundances good?
How stable would the economy be and why?
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
A free market in which anything material can be owned.
I believe it is false. It fails to explain various phenomena of value. Value is subjective, and the LTV requires value to be objective. Classical economists used the LTV because they had no better explanation, leftist economists use the LTV because it justifies a hatred of an "exploiting" capitalist class which owns the means of production. Some explanations of the LTV I've read have insisted that market value, utility value, and actual value are different, but I don't believe any third type of value exists.
It might not be economical, but only the market could decide. If I have a generator, would you believe it to be inefficient for me to transmit power to my neighbors when an existing power grid exists? If they are buying it, they obviously like mine better...such as in many cities where brownouts may be common, and during the NY blackout it would have been very economical. There is nothing inherently "not good" about it. The same if I have a well and the city's water shuts down. In those cases, boil water orders are given.
Surpluses? No, because the resources which created the surplus would be better used in sectors of the economy with shortages.
Business cycles are caused by inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. It gives a false sense of propserity, and lowers interest rates. When investors and capitalists are acting as if the economy is accelerating (as they believe due to the additional money), and the consumers who only see rising prices are spending as they normally would, a disparity forms. When this disparity finally hits, we end up with a market crash. Inflation occurs mostly with fiat currencies (in which the government can simply print additional money and spend it). Fiat currencies exist because governments create them. If not for government mandate of fiat currencies, people would use hard currencies which do not inflate, like gold or silver (or gold and silver notes). There are economics lectures at Mises.org that can explain this better than I can, so if you'd like a more complete explanation, you can find one there.
The anarchism discussion itself got a bit out of hand for me, but I'll gladly bite into this:
What do you mean 'specific free market economy'?
A free market is a market without any outside regulation, anything other then that is obviously not free.
Because value is subjective by definition.
You cant make me buy something for more then I think it's worth.
I can't force you to sell something for less then you think it's worth.
The amount of labour put into producing it irrelevant.
Can you explain why?
I don't see any problems with this.
A free market would be a mode of exchange. This is not enough to describe an economy; you also need a mode of production. So assuming there are several different modes of production that can go with a free market, there are several different free market economies.
Under the LTV there is an exchange-value (which may not not be equal to its labor-value). This would be the value of the object on the market. The labor-value exists to give the object an objective basis for the subjective exchange-value. The labor-value regulates the exchange-value of the object.
Think about this: how are prices determined in the STV?
Its a waste of resources and a waste of space in the ground.
--------
What about privatization? I suppose you disagree with this powerpoint
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Damn, these are getting long.
If the means I believe brought about anarchy were what brought it about, people would remain anarchists because anarchism is true.
The other defensive types would kill the few aggressive types.
Democracy has to be enforced because it is false.
And what stops me from fighting when the government isn't there to force me not to? Where morality exists, laws are unnecessary. Where no morality exists, laws are unenforcable.
No. I deny that this would keep happening when people do not accept leadership.
There is no power to "grab" because there is no desire of the people to be rules. Power wouldn't be there to be grabbed, it would have to be created, and you'd have a hard time creating it.
I said "THE PEOPLE" as in the majority of the people supported the creation of government. Don't take shit out of context. It's not necessarily true that the majority of the people supported the creation of government when it was created.
Because they didn't know any better. Becuase the church kept telling people "You need the state! These guys are god/appointed by god/somehow related to god! Obey them or you go to hell when you die!" for hundreds of years. Everywhere atheistic they're leftists and have a fetish for government.
You only understand what I think of anarchy when I bring it up. I believe I already live the vast majority of my life in anarchy.
Only if government violence doesn't constitute peace. And that's arbitrary. You don't even realize how much implicit and overt violence the government uses, so your definition is arbitrary.
That's not true. I don't, I know a lot of people that don't obey the law when the government isn't around. I know a lot of people that break the law right in front of police and nothing happens because the police don't know what the law is. I break what most people think is the law all the time in front of other people, hundreds of people, and nobody calls the cops on me.
Price is set by supply and demand. Demand goes up, prices go up.
It's going to help them allocate resources and determine who to go help first.
No, PAs will be in greater supply and less demand (people can supply the service themselves). This lowers the price.
Mercenaries can serve one at a time. A PA can be retained by a lot of people at once.
If there's only enough for very few people, the people that aren't doing as much good for everyone might as well not be the ones getting protected. If you can't afford the protection, protect yourself, if you can't protect yourself, darwin will show you a lesson.
Anarchy - Ana archon - Without rulers. There would be no geographic monopoly on force, and there would be no ruler of that geographic monopoly on force, so there would be no government and no rulers. It's anarchy.
Stop doing that jump-to-stupid-uninformed-conclusions thing. No, he goes and gets the other court to overturn the decision. If the first court wants it's decision respected, it'll have to take the other court to a third court, and that decision would be made binding on both courts, then action can be taken.
Both have interest in having the matter resolved in their own favor. If both choose the same arbiter, the decision would be made obligatory on both by contract. How do you forsee them not resolving the matter?
No no no...people convicted would have been found to violate someone else's ownership (read as "rights"), and they'd thus have their ownership of themselves revoked.
The rules are set by the person you supposedly wronged.
The rules are set by the person you've supposedly wronged.
They don't need any. If you're found to not respect ownership, you lose your right to ownership. Including ownership of yourself. If you don't own yourself, you're unowned property and anyone can do whatever they want to you because your rights are revoked.
Their jurisdiction is not geographical. It's over whoever brings cases to them. A court in China could hear a case from Argentina for all I care.
No, the government's employees...and those employees would just be hired by different people if the government wasn't there.
Buy a machinegun and fill your walls with concrete and mine your front yard. You'd be able to do all that for $2000 in anarchy and never need a PA again.
They don't think stupid like you've been doing. Find someone that owns $10 million in assets or more and get them to come here and talk. The rich are rich because they think differently and better than the lower and middle classes. You don't think like them.
No. Because they can't control the government. It would just become the same thing your malevolent rich guy is.
Those don't work. What check or balance exists outside the government that wouldn't conspire with the government to increase it's power?
And how do you stop the government from becoming tyrannical? These mythical "checks and balances" don't exist except in fiction.
Not "whatever they want", but whatever they want that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If someone has the right to do something and the government prohibits it, the government is violating their rights, and becomes the criminal.
Somalians don't have to live with that fear, and somalia has been governmentless for 15 years. Only a small portion is so violent, most somalians feel safe without carrying guns around.
Look at Somalia in the present. The government was torn down by the somalians. The UN had to go in and try to set up a democracy, and they just tore that one right down also. Attempts to set up a government are seen by somalians as attempts by some other group to control them.
Reread what I said and find a way to misconstrue my words to mean that.
Logic is driving me to anarchy. The state has so many internal and institutional contradictions.
Anarchy is a place without rulers. At present, I have no rulers. Demonstrate to the contrary.
They'll always sell. You just have to offer them enough money. I won't be a whore for $100, but for millions of dollars, I'd certainly consider it. They'll sell it.
Do you want the house or do you want a patch of scorched grass? If you'll limit your attack to no bombing, do you have any guarantee of success? Can you afford to have your rights revoked by all courts?
They can't fit it in their resturaunt.
Security is a feeling. Protection is what you mean. And your protection might not save you from a hunter with a remington 700 and a good scope.
You keep not knowing but thinking you do and showing your ignorance. If you don't know ask. As I said, if nothing else, it's more polite.
And you're the one thinking you can just hire a private army and do whatever you want. You're deluded.
If I'm prepared for you, you won't be getting very far on my property. It's not expensive to mine a front yard with tannerite and buy enough ammo to destroy almost anything.
They didn't caputure it, they defended it. They realize it's much easier to defend and collect payment from the locals voluntarily than it is to attack and extract it the hard way. And it's not necessarily true that they have a commander or are being paid. I'll defend my house from an intruder, I'd join with my neighbors to defend my neighborhood from invasion, that doesn't mean me and my troops would own my neighborhood and rule it by force and claim it as territory, it means after successful defense, I'd go home.
Yes there will be. What'll stop people from making money?
Find an instance of a rich businessman taking over a country and imposing a government.
I don't know what percentage. Do you? I'd defend myself from you, even if I'm not defending anyone else in the process. As soon as an opportunity arose to break free, I would.
They can be creative. Guerillas are pretty good at it.
If you're paying the mercenary $75,000 a year, your expenses go up even more. Now it's less profitable and less sustainable.
It happens all the time, just not to the entire government at once.
They can do that if they want...they can't form a government which claims territory other than what the voluntary participants own, otherwise it's aggressive. My objection to government is that it's involuntary. This is the source of all the problems of government. If you could make one that's completely voluntary, great! I have no objection to that, as long as it doesn't force me to participate.
No, but I like improvised weaponry. You can make shit for so damn cheap...
Because I don't want to. I'll defend to the death, but not offend.
Statism is about as logically consistent as the Bible. Government protects yet steals taxes? Government is defensive yet aggressive? I should make a list of statist idiocy and try to get it refuted.
Ad hominem.
Because civilians generally see government as a legitemate protector and not as an aggressive force robbing them at gunpoint.
Hitler was an authority. He started wars. Historical evidence is plenty.
They're not conquering it. They're defending it from your attack.
It's precisely why they can live in peace in anarchy (in case you forget, this is in refrence to my comment that they are greedy selfish and egocentric). I'm selfish, I like my stuff. That's why I don't want you taking it. I want your stuff, but I don't want you taking my stuff or hurting me (I'm selfish). You are also selfish, so you would hurt me if I hurt you. I don't want to get hurt, so I won't hurt you. But I want your stuff. So I do something for you that I value little that you value greatly and you give me some of your stuff. That's peaceful free trade.
They can trade for more valuable stuff then.
So you admit that governments are aggressive?
How do you know I could steal their use? How do you know I'm not somehow paying for them?
Always? For all time? New York City was ruled by gangs hundreds of years ago?
E. Coli is a bacterium. If you boil it, it dies.
The government isn't making it cozy or secure.
Were the roads privately owned?
This could happen with private roads also.
Anything with scarcity and demand has a profit motive attached.
Why not?
If left without competition as a private enterprise, I agree, but if there is competition they couldn't afford to be corrupt.
Whichever mode people decide to employ.
But labor does not necessarily increase exchange value. I agree that in many cases it will do so, but the existence of unexplained exceptions that do not embrace an alternative theory (the explanation you offered embraced subjective theory) make the theory invalid. If it doesn't apply to all relevant instances, then it's false, something else must be true.
Supply and demand.
You said it was "not good"...this is your personal opinion. Economic calculation is impossible with only one person making the decisions because no individual has sufficient knowledge to plan an economy. While in your opinion it might seem wasteful, if someone else demands an alternative and is willing to pay for all necessary infrastructure, it's not wasteful, as it is meeting someone's demand who demands it so much.
It doesn't seem to contradict what I advocate, it's addressing the ACCC, an Australian government agency. From the ACCC's website at www.accc.gov.au
"The ACCC promotes competition and fair trade in the market place to benefit consumers, business and the community. It also regulates national infrastructure services. Its primary responsibility is to ensure that individuals and businesses comply with the Commonwealth competition, fair trading and consumer protection laws.
The ACCC is the only national agency dealing generally with competition matters and the only agency with responsibility for enforcing the Trade Practices Act and the state/territory application legislation."
This "Trade Practices Act" is the application of force to have a market do what it would not naturally do. If the ACCC does anything, it does so by force, and distorts to market to meet what it percieves as a correct economic theory. I am opposed to this. I believe in free markets.
Government agency's economists rarely subscribe to the school of economics which I believe to be valid, the Austrian school. Other schools of economics are fascistic or socialistic in some way or another. Schools employed by governments are necessarily either fascistic or socialistic. I'm opposed to all of those.
I don't know what school of economics the ACCC applies...the most popular is Keynesian economics (Keynes was a fascist), which has myraid stupid beliefs such as the inversely proportional unemployment/inflation phillip's curve, and some of those probably caused the absurdities cited in the powerpoint. It seems to me that the ACCC is there to enforce competition where it deems necessary and create monopolies where it deems necessary. I believe the amount of competition in a market should be decided by the free market, not by government fiat.
In short, I don't believe the powerpoint addresses what I believe.
Have an example of a relevant instance when it doesn't apply?
Lets just be lazy and quote:
...But I doubt you would agree given the source.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Perhaps we should distinguish here, as this seems to be a point of confusion:
Value = Maximum amount I would pay for something
Price = Actual selling price of item on market
Value is subjective.
Price is objective and determined by supply and demand.
If I value something more than the price, I buy it.
If I value something less than the price, I won't buy it.
Anything which is made not relevant due to being an expansion upon a rebutted statement is omitted.
Wine is not made more valuable than grape juice by the effort put into it. Mudpies are not made more valuable by the labor put into them. If the LTV were true, and the value of a thing increased according to the amount of money put into it, these couldn't happen.
I contest the claim that "consumers need to know the price first in order to evaluate how to best maximize their satisfaction." I can judge the value of a thing without looking at it's price. You can ask me what I would buy it for, and I could give you a price I would pay based on how much I value it.
All value can be determined subjectively. It has to be. Value differs from person to person. If eggs are being sold for $1 a dozen, the fact that some people buy those eggs and others don't illustrates that some people think those eggs are worth more than one dollar and others believe they are worth less than one dollar. For example, if I don't have a refridgerator (or any room in it), and I couldn't sell them (who'd want to buy eggs from someone more questionable than a store? It is food after all,) you'd have to give them to me free to get rid of them. LTV appears to assert that there's an underlying value that supply and demand act around, but that isn't consistent with an example like this. There is a general tendency for things which require more labor to sell for more. But that doesn't determine value.
If this is asserting that labor actually determines price under capitalism, it is subject to the wine/mudpie thing.
Price is determined by supply and demand, value is determined subjectively.
Subjectivity is a property of satisfaction, satisfaction is the goal of consumption, consumption requires production, production requires suppliers.
Value and price are confused. Supply and demand determine price. Subjective judgements determine value.
Thanks for the debate, Zhwazi, but as Hal the computer said, this conversation can serve no further useful purpose. I haven't heard anything here that convinces me that an anarchy would be anything other than a bloody free-for-all, finally ended by a new government regime of some kind. Not that the idea of living without government isn't nice, but I just don't think human nature allows for it, any more than it allowed for Communism.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
You've just done what a theist does. You start with a conclusion (god exists/government is necessary), and when all the evidence you've seen doesn't prove otherwise, and all the evidence you think you've seen confirms it, you declare that (god exists/government is necessary) and nobody who believes otherwise can put forward a good case in your eyes. You probably don't take the time to even consider their case. You take premises and come to stupid unfounded conclusions based on them (there is no god therefore right and wrong don't exist/without the government rich guys would take over) just like a theist. You cling to an absurdity as your savior.
Don't keep calling yourself an atheist if you're gonna do that.
Notice that there is a fundamental difference in those two statements: God exists is a positive statement about the natural world, one that is in principle falsifiable. Government is necessary is an observation based on all successful nations throughout history. You still have not provided empirical evidence that anarchy would work. All you have is an idealistic appeal to "the market will take care of it."
You wave away all criticism by appealing to the naturalistic fallacy (what is economically viable is right), and assure us that the market will take care of everything. Gee, who sounds like a theist now?
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Finally had the time....
The price would be the exchange-value. Value as you use it seems to be closer to a concept of utility.
If you won't buy something because its value (as you put it) is too high, how do you determine its value?
Wine is not made more valuable than grape juice by the effort put into it. Mudpies are not made more valuable by the labor put into them. If the LTV were true, and the value of a thing increased according to the amount of money put into it, these couldn't happen.
So if you had object A that you value at $10 and object B that you value at $8, and you could buy both, which one would you buy?
Labor regulates exchange-value.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought