Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => The Friendly Forum => Topic started by: antistate1190 on September 16, 2010, 07:32:18 pm

Title: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 16, 2010, 07:32:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g)

Say what? Have any other liberty activists and free market anarchists encountered people making arguments like this kid?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 16, 2010, 09:11:10 pm
He's correct. Anarchy would have both a peaceful and violent side... so most preference a voluntary society.
Voluntary and peaceful societies tend toward mutualism.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: maxxoccupancy on September 17, 2010, 01:00:46 am
I've heard two different versions of anarcho-cap:
1. Contracts and enforcement are handled privately.
2. Government exists as little more than a county registry of deeds and contracts.  Physical and/or intellectual property is simply registered in one place.

I've even heard a mention of the second variant in which public courts are maintained in order to interpret those deeds, patents, copyrights, and contracts.  To me, that borders on minarchy, but I'm cool with that.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: FreeStyle on September 17, 2010, 09:27:39 am
what we have here is. . . . failure to communicate.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 17, 2010, 09:43:05 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g)

Say what? Have any other liberty activists and free market anarchists encountered people making arguments like this kid?

This argument is nothing new...

The synthesis of these poles (anarcho-capitalism vs. social anarchism) is left-libertarianism/mutualism or free market, anti-capitalism.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 17, 2010, 12:37:22 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g)

Say what? Have any other liberty activists and free market anarchists encountered people making arguments like this kid?

This argument is nothing new...

The synthesis of these poles (anarcho-capitalism vs. social anarchism) is left-libertarianism/mutualism or free market, anti-capitalism.

What's mutualism and how can there be a free market without capitalism?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 17, 2010, 01:35:26 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g)

Say what? Have any other liberty activists and free market anarchists encountered people making arguments like this kid?

This argument is nothing new...

The synthesis of these poles (anarcho-capitalism vs. social anarchism) is left-libertarianism/mutualism or free market, anti-capitalism.

What's mutualism and how can there be a free market without capitalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29)

http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html (http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html)

excerpt:

Manorialism, commonly, is recognized to have been founded by robbery and usurpation; a ruling class established itself by force, and then compelled the peasantry to work for the profit of their lords. But no system of exploitation,including capitalism, has ever been created by the action of a free market. Capitalism was founded on an act of robbery as massive as feudalism. It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege, without which its survival is unimaginable.

The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market. As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expro- priation of surplus value--i.e., capitalism--cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist. It was for this reason that the free market anarchist Benjamin Tucker--from whom right-libertarians selectively borrow--regarded himself as a libertarian socialist.

It is beyond my ability or purpose here to describe a world where a true market system could have developed without such state intervention. A world in which peasants had held onto their land and property was widely distributed, capital was freely available to laborers through mutual banks, productive technology was freely available in every country without patents, and every people was free to develop locally without colonial robbery, is beyond our imagination. But it would have been a world of decentralized, small-scale production for local use, owned and controlled by those who did the work--as different from our world as day from night, or freedom from slavery.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 17, 2010, 01:37:31 pm
excerpt:

Every so often in the history of liberty a book or pamphlet has come along that has revolutionized libertarian thought and practice. One of these is Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” which was largely responsible for popularizing the ideals of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. Another is Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” which utterly demolishes the absurd “social contract” theory on which constitutionalist states are ostensibly based. Hans Hermann Hoppe’s recent work “Democracy: The God That Failed” thoroughly refutes the notion that modern democratic statism can be reconciled with liberty or even represents an improvement upon earlier monarchical states. Now comes Kevin Carson’s “The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand”.(1) Just as Hoppe has revolutionized modern political philosophy by drawing and expanding upon the work of the late Murray N. Rothbard and his teacher, Ludwig von Mises, Carson has, in the space of twenty-four pages, revolutionized political economy by expounding upon the work of Rothbard and another of his influences, the nineteenth century individualist-anarchist Benjamin R. Tucker.

Historically, anarchists have been divided on the question of markets. Traditional anarcho-socialists have typically rejected the market seeing it as nothing more than a source of predatory competition, concentration of economic power and exploitation. Most classical continental European anarchists, particularly the Kropotkinists, sought to abolish the market altogether in favor of a decentralized collection of autarchist communes based on production for subsistence, although some traditional anarcho-communists accepted the idea of free exchange or barter between independent communal units. Some American and British anarchists, such as Tucker or John Henry MacKay, preferred a lassez faire variation of anarchism consisting of small property owners operating on a stateless free market. Some of the differences between communist and individualist anarchists seem to be more of a cultural than economic nature. Anarcho-communists tended to be concentrated in nations, such as Russia or Spain, where industrial capitalism was far less advanced and the old feudal order remained largely intact. The anarcho-communist ideal was largely based on the concept of the peasant village community collectively operating its own agricultural economy minus the external exploitation of the feudal landlords. In nations where the Industrial Revolution had really taken root and the market economy had really begun to expand, such as England or America, anarchists were more likely to idealize the small merchant, craftsman or farmer, hence the individualist character of Anglo-American anarchism.

This dichotomy between communist and individualist anarchists continues to the present day. If anything, the differences have become even more pronounced. While the anarchists of old often argued fervently over ideological differences (Tucker and Johann Most refused to recognize one another as “true” anarchists), a mutual admiration frequently existed between the communist and individualist camps. Tucker was an admirer of the European anarchists Proudhon and Bakunin and translated their works into English and his anarchist journal, Liberty, published the writings not only of anarcho-socialists but also of outright Fabians or Marxists, such as George Bernard Shaw. Today, the two camps largely disavow one another. Most contemporary free market anarchists think of themselves as “anarcho-capitalists”, whereas Tucker regarded himself as a socialist, and most anarcho-socialists of today reject free market anarchists as mere apologists for corporate power.

Carson ably demonstrates that the division between contemporary anarchists on economic matters need not be as wide as it seems. Like the anarcho-capitalists, Carson favors a genuinely stateless free market. However, he argues effectively that the economic arrangements that an authentic free market economy would likely produce are remarkably similar to those typically advocated by anarcho-socialists.

to read more:

http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/ (http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/)
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 17, 2010, 01:40:28 pm

The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 17, 2010, 01:46:44 pm

The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.

Owners of capital use the state to protect their privilege/subsidies, etc. AGAINST free market forces. In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply price would be driven to cost - there would be no room for "profit".

Without the privileges and subsidies to protect capital FROM market forces - the world would look more like what anarcho-socialist describe as their utopia.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 17, 2010, 01:50:50 pm

The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.

Owners of capital use the state to protect their privilege/subsidies, etc. AGAINST free market forces. In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply price would be driven to cost - there would be no room for "profit".

Without the privileges and subsidies to protect capital FROM market forces - the world would look more like what anarcho-socialist describe as their utopia.

The reason we've never had a truly free market is b/c the state props up monopolies and puts most hard-working capitalists out of business. If I run a business w/ 10 workers I can't make as much as Walmart does b/c of the state. Get rid of the state PERIOD and we'd be back to the free market.

What is wrong with capitalism? Capitalism brought us years of prosperity until 1913 when the gov. created the FED to end the free market forever.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 17, 2010, 02:01:00 pm

The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.

Owners of capital use the state to protect their privilege/subsidies, etc. AGAINST free market forces. In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply price would be driven to cost - there would be no room for "profit".

Without the privileges and subsidies to protect capital FROM market forces - the world would look more like what anarcho-socialist describe as their utopia.

The reason we've never had a truly free market is b/c the state props up monopolies and puts most hard-working capitalists out of business. If I run a business w/ 10 workers I can't make as much as Walmart does b/c of the state. Get rid of the state PERIOD and we'd be back to the free market.

What is wrong with capitalism? Capitalism brought us years of prosperity until 1913 when the gov. created the FED to end the free market forever.

The state is used by capital to command labor.

I am a laborist not a capitalist.

I am also not a hard/"sound" money advocate

I advocate a mutualist credit clearing system of banking and land banks.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 17, 2010, 02:06:58 pm

The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.

Owners of capital use the state to protect their privilege/subsidies, etc. AGAINST free market forces. In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply price would be driven to cost - there would be no room for "profit".

Without the privileges and subsidies to protect capital FROM market forces - the world would look more like what anarcho-socialist describe as their utopia.

The reason we've never had a truly free market is b/c the state props up monopolies and puts most hard-working capitalists out of business. If I run a business w/ 10 workers I can't make as much as Walmart does b/c of the state. Get rid of the state PERIOD and we'd be back to the free market.

What is wrong with capitalism? Capitalism brought us years of prosperity until 1913 when the gov. created the FED to end the free market forever.

The state is used by capital to command labor.

I am a laborist not a capitalist.

I am also not a hard/"sound" money advocate

I advocate a mutualist credit clearing system of banking and land banks.

OK so ur a socialist then? Dont u know socialism destroys innovation and incentive? I looked up mutualism just know and have to ask do u believe in private property or not?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 17, 2010, 02:19:58 pm
Property Rights (land) is a function of the collective. And the US didn't have a free market economy prior to 1913... it never had a free market economy.
As Wendell explained. A free market economy drives toward costs... leaving no room for profit.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 17, 2010, 02:24:49 pm
Property Rights (land) is a function of the collective. And the US didn't have a free market economy prior to 1913... it never had a free market economy.
As Wendell explained. A free market economy drives toward costs... leaving no room for profit.


So u also support a socialist market then? What's wrong w/ capitalism? I thought the whole idea of the Free State Project was to end all forms of socialism and move back to the same free market CAPITALISM (not mutualism) that the founding fathers intended for America.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 17, 2010, 02:25:01 pm
Quote
OK so ur a socialist then?

If socialism means that labor is NOT separated from the means of production by capital backed by state force and receive their full and just due, then I am a "socialist" as Benjamin Tucker used the term - in opposition to "state socialism".

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm (http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm)

Quote
do u believe in private property or not?

Of course...I believe in the labor-based theory of property but not in law-based property (privilege) without an obligation to those excluded where the excluded are somehow economically disadvantaged by the privilege.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 17, 2010, 02:52:54 pm
you guys do know there is a difference between economic and accounting profit, right?  When neo-classical economists talk about how in perfect competition in the long run, there is no profit, they are talking about economic profit.  Also, perfect competition is IMPOSSIBLE anyway.

Yes, currently, there is property that is in illegitimate hands, but there is no process that can magically undue this.  Free-market capitalism will however, transfer these resources in a more economical fashion.  In the long run, the starting position doesn't make that big of difference in a purely free market, the cream will rise.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 17, 2010, 06:21:40 pm
Listen if u don't like being seperated from the "means of production" then work harder so u can become your own boss. Simple as that. In mutualism/socialism being able to move up the ladder is impossible so why would ppl work? The only reason people work is to make more and get more stuff which is a reward for the hard work they do. You can't have that in socialism.

According to wikipedia mutualism was invented by the same person who influenced Karl Marx. why would you chose to adhere to the philosophy of someone like that?

Capitalism works. Socialism has NEVER worked. Workers won't work unless they have a boss above them showing them the profit carrot. Simple as that.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 17, 2010, 06:36:06 pm
Property Rights (land) is a function of the collective. And the US didn't have a free market economy prior to 1913... it never had a free market economy.
As Wendell explained. A free market economy drives toward costs... leaving no room for profit.


So u also support a socialist market then? What's wrong w/ capitalism? I thought the whole idea of the Free State Project was to end all forms of socialism and move back to the same free market CAPITALISM (not mutualism) that the founding fathers intended for America.
What are you talking about? The US has always been socialist and corporatist at the same time. Mutualism projects that when a free market exists revenue falls to the cost of production. Instead of Karl Marx... try Adam Smith.


Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 17, 2010, 06:42:53 pm
Listen if u don't like being seperated from the "means of production" then work harder so u can become your own boss. Simple as that. In mutualism/socialism being able to move up the ladder is impossible so why would ppl work? The only reason people work is to make more and get more stuff which is a reward for the hard work they do. You can't have that in socialism.

According to wikipedia mutualism was invented by the same person who influenced Karl Marx. why would you chose to adhere to the philosophy of someone like that?

Capitalism works. Socialism has NEVER worked. Workers won't work unless they have a boss above them showing them the profit carrot. Simple as that.
Workers aren't profit... they are a labor cost. Profit is what goes to capitalists (shareholders).
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 17, 2010, 09:38:24 pm
What are you talking about? The US has always been socialist and corporatist at the same time. Mutualism projects that when a free market exists revenue falls to the cost of production. Instead of Karl Marx... try Adam Smith.


[/quote]

Try Pierre-Joseph Proudhon the guy who said "private property is theft."
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 18, 2010, 12:52:47 pm
Proudhon's work was later used by both Marx and Smith to form the Labor Theory of Value.
The digression is over what place 'stored labor' (capital) and land access plays within the system.


Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 18, 2010, 01:35:07 pm
Proudhon's work was later used by both Marx and Smith to form the Labor Theory of Value.
The digression is over what place 'stored labor' (capital) and land access plays within the system.




Proudhon was buddies w/ Marx. Check wikipedia.

So what's wrong with capitalism? Capitalism is what has made America prosper.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 18, 2010, 09:39:11 pm
Nothing is wrong with capitalism. Proudhon worked on economic theory with the main thesis on RE property rights. Marx worked on economic theory, but determined that 'capital' in the format of 'stored labor' and 'property rights' were inherently government coercion.
Smith worked on economic theory, but determined that 'stored labor' added value... while not fully equating 'property rights'.

Proudhon in the end, gave up and became a federalist. While Marx was inherently proven wrong even in totalitarian societies.
Smith was proven right, but never fully equated 'property rights'
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: Pat McCotter on September 19, 2010, 05:00:44 am
In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply

And therein lies the rub.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 19, 2010, 06:29:50 am
Quote
Try Pierre-Joseph Proudhon the guy who said "private property is theft."

He didn't say "private property is theft".

He said "property is theft". (property1)

He also said "property is liberty" (property 2)

He also said "property is impossible" (property 3)

http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=property (http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=property)

excerpt:

Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with the subscripts attached for maximum clarity.

"Property1 is theft" means that property1 created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction.

"Property2 is liberty" means that property2, that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people's interests are co-mingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by the parties to it, can true independence be achieved.

"Property3 is impossible" means that property3 (=property1) creates so much conflict of interest that society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties 1 and 3 as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle. He also foresaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos.

It is averred, of course, that property2 will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most alleged libertarians -- especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand -- is to assume that all property1 is property2. The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, "Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?" If it be the former, it is property2 and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property1 and represents theft.

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 19, 2010, 06:31:41 am
Quote
So what's wrong with capitalism? Capitalism is what has made America prosper.

excerpt:

I. Introduction

Defenders of freed markets have good reason to identify their position as a species of “anti-capitalism.” To explain why, I distinguish three potential meanings of “capitalism” before suggesting that people committed to freed markets should oppose capitalism in my second and third senses. Then, I offer some reasons for using “capitalism” as a label for some of the social arrangements to which freed-market advocates should object.

II. Three Senses of “Capitalism”

There are at least three distinguishable senses of “capitalism”:

capitalism-1
    an economic system that features property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services.
capitalism-2
    an economic system that features a symbiotic relationship between big business and government.
capitalism-3
    rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production).

Capitalism-1 just is a freed market; so if “anti-capitalism” meant opposition to capitalism-1, “free-market anti-capitalism” would be oxymoronic. But proponents of free-market anti-capitalism aren’t opposed to capitalism-1; instead, they object either to capitalism-2 or to both capitalism-2 and capitalism-3.

Many people seem to operate with definitions that combine elements from these distinct senses of “capitalism.” Both enthusiasts for and critics of capitalism seem too often to mean by it something like “an economic system that features personal property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services — and therefore, predictably, also rule by capitalists.” I think there is good reason to challenge the assumption that dominance by a small number of wealthy people is in any sense a likely feature of a freed market. Such dominance, I suggest, is probable only when force and fraud impede economic freedom.

to read more: http://c4ss.org/content/1738 (http://c4ss.org/content/1738)
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: rossby on September 19, 2010, 09:18:51 am
Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial.

Proudhon shouldn't be spoken about publicly.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: K. Darien Freeheart on September 19, 2010, 08:18:15 pm
I identify as an anarcho-capitalist.

That said, the bulk of my rhetoric is Voluntaryism. I like anarcho-socialists. I'd welcome them as neighbors.

Why do you oppose socialism if it's tried on a purely non-state basis?

Here's the cheat-sheet...

Anarcho-*: Done without the intervention of the state.

-*: Masturbatory debate  on how free people would organize

Capitalists of the anarcho-variety believe that peaceful might try to form communes and co-ops. We also think that if the market would support it, it will survive. If not, it's not a threat.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 19, 2010, 08:26:38 pm
I identify as an anarcho-capitalist.

That said, the bulk of my rhetoric is Voluntaryism. I like anarcho-socialists. I'd welcome them as neighbors.

Why do you oppose socialism if it's tried on a purely non-state basis?

Here's the cheat-sheet...

Anarcho-*: Done without the intervention of the state.

-*: Masturbatory debate  on how free people would organize

Capitalists of the anarcho-variety believe that peaceful might try to form communes and co-ops. We also think that if the market would support it, it will survive. If not, it's not a threat.

it becomes an issue if other types of anarchists don't recognize the property rights of others.  Otherwise yes, go off an join a 'socialist' commune if you wish, just make sure the land it was built on was homesteaded or acquired through voluntary means
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 19, 2010, 11:55:42 pm
Absolutely impossible due to historic events.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: maxxoccupancy on September 20, 2010, 01:19:58 am
Corporate socialism does not equal capitalism.

If we as a society demonstrate a real respect for others to keep the goods, services, and real property that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

Steal the incentive--or allow it to be stolen--and we have nothing.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 20, 2010, 05:35:42 am
that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 20, 2010, 09:25:07 am
that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 20, 2010, 09:56:13 am
that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 20, 2010, 11:07:37 am
No. Corporatism... not capitalism. I own stocks... I certainly do not 'command' labor. And unlike labor, my 'stored labor' is placed at risk.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 20, 2010, 01:17:10 pm
that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!

I think anyone that understands liberty get the distinction between the two ideas that we are talking about.  Its just about which words are used to describe these ideas that we seem to be in disagreement.   What some folks on here are saying capitalism is, I would instead call either crony capitalism, corporatism, state capitalism, or fascism.  And I think its inherent what kind of capitalism someone is talking about if they call themselves an anarcho-capitalist.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 20, 2010, 02:50:29 pm
Quote
And I think its inherent what kind of capitalism someone is talking about if they call themselves an anarcho-capitalist.

I don't...that is why the term "vulgar libertarianism" was coined!

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html)

excerpt:

"vulgar libertarianism as an ideology in the opening section of Chapter Four of my Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. Since that passage is as coherent a description as I am likely to write, rather than reinvent the wheel I'll just take the lazy man's way out and paste in the relevant paragraphs:

    This school of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: "Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get." For every imaginable policy issue, the good guys and bad guys can be predicted with ease, by simply inverting the slogan of Animal Farm: "Two legs good, four legs baaaad." In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."


    The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.


    Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles.""
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 20, 2010, 03:23:44 pm
See you were not attacking anarcho-capitalists there.  Ayn Rand was very much against anarcho-capitalism, Milton Friedman wasn't an AnCap either.  And what exactly do you mean by 'defending the wealth of existing corporations'?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: FreeStyle on September 20, 2010, 04:29:43 pm
the rub I have with the mutualist idea versus the anarcho-capitalist idea, is that under one you would never have the right to do as you please on your property, because they don't believe you can legitimately own any property.   Under the other you can have unlimited ideals as long as the principles of not harming others is in place. 

In a voluntary society, I can own property, a small 4 acre forest.  Mutualist types don't have to enjoy the fact that I will and can defend my 4 acres of trees as long as they keep themselves off of it.

In a mutualist society, others will choose how much land you can have based on what you can defend.  If you can't hang around your entire life on that 4 acres of land, eventually someone will choose to tear it down and build what THEY want.

Forget conservation land in a mutualist world.  Eventually you will have to leave your property and when that happens someone will start building their shack on it.  They will claim that you're not using the land to their satisfaction, and they will change your property that they don't believe you have any right to.  Perhaps they might have some of their friends move in beside them and choose to remove your trees, home, driveway, and farmland to do as they please with it.  What can you do about it, you'd have to revert to the always disgusting 'might makes right'

far as I'm concerned, capitalism continues to get a bad rep based on the corporatist world that has come from it.  Damn you if you choose to purchase land from someone else, take a tree on it, carve it into a canoe, and sell it for a profit in order to help fund your life and the process of cuttingg down another tree to make a canoe out of. 

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 20, 2010, 07:34:16 pm
Quote
because they don't believe you can legitimately own any property.

but they do - based on occupancy and use.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on September 20, 2010, 07:57:10 pm
Anarcho-”Capitalism” is impossible
Posted by Anna Morgenstern on Sep 19, 2010 in Feature Articles

Many anarchists of various stripes have made the claim that anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchism entails anti-capitalism.  I happen to think this is actually backwards.  If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are.

People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such.  But what then is a free market?  If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition.  In that case, all anarchists are “anarcho-capitalists”, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.

Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public?  Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham.  It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State.  Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”.

Going a bit deeper, there may be issues about how property rights are defined, and the nature of ownership between different sorts of anarchists.  Obviously, anarcho-capitalists do not want the government to decide who owns what property.  So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself.

But the focus on goals, I think, is very much over-emphasized in anarchist communities, at the expense of looking at means.  Goals sometimes lead people toward certain means, but it is the means that determine results, not the goals.  And if the anarcho-capitalists follow anarchist means, the results will be anarchy, not some impossible “anarcho-capitalism”.

Anarchy does not mean social utopia, it means a society where there is no privileged authority.  There will still be social evils to be dealt with under anarchy.  But anarchy is an important step toward fighting those evils without giving birth to all new ones.

My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

    * Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
    * Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
    * Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

to read the rest of the story...

http://c4ss.org/content/4043 (http://c4ss.org/content/4043)
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 20, 2010, 08:15:30 pm
Anarcho-”Capitalism” is impossible
Posted by Anna Morgenstern on Sep 19, 2010 in Feature Articles

Many anarchists of various stripes have made the claim that anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchism entails anti-capitalism.  I happen to think this is actually backwards.  If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are.

People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such.  But what then is a free market?  If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition.  In that case, all anarchists are “anarcho-capitalists”, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.

Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public?  Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham.  It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State.  Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”.

Going a bit deeper, there may be issues about how property rights are defined, and the nature of ownership between different sorts of anarchists.  Obviously, anarcho-capitalists do not want the government to decide who owns what property.  So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself.

But the focus on goals, I think, is very much over-emphasized in anarchist communities, at the expense of looking at means.  Goals sometimes lead people toward certain means, but it is the means that determine results, not the goals.  And if the anarcho-capitalists follow anarchist means, the results will be anarchy, not some impossible “anarcho-capitalism”.

Anarchy does not mean social utopia, it means a society where there is no privileged authority.  There will still be social evils to be dealt with under anarchy.  But anarchy is an important step toward fighting those evils without giving birth to all new ones.

My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:

    * Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
    * Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
    * Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

to read the rest of the story...

http://c4ss.org/content/4043 (http://c4ss.org/content/4043)

her explanations for the "impossibility" of capitalism in anarchy are a joke, and don't make any economic sense.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 20, 2010, 08:28:08 pm
In a true anarchy, capitalism would be improbable... but her comments on wage slavery are a joke. An individual can sell their labor for any price they deem sufficient... if they can find a willing employer.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 21, 2010, 12:47:14 am
that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!

Why do we need people from the left? The left are socialists who want MORE government NOT less. Even "anarchist" socialists want gov-run health care and gov-run schools and they never stop complaining about capitalism (the same system that made their parents rich lol.)

Yes mutualism is socialism. Proudhon was not a nice guy. He inspired Karl Marx to become a socialist if I remember correctly meaning his works were the basis of the anti-capitalist "movements" you see today. Socialism is the opposite of freedom even "libertarian socialism". Socialism means democracy which automatically equates to mob rule of the 51% taking everything away from the 49%. u complain about capitalists taking "capital" from workers but try working in a workplace where 51% of your coworkers take everything from you. That's socialism that's democracy that's mutualism. No individual rights.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: K. Darien Freeheart on September 21, 2010, 09:50:51 am
Quote
Why do we need people from the left? The left are socialists who want MORE government NOT less. Even "anarchist" socialists want gov-run health care and gov-run schools [...]

I have to disagree there, or at least "redefine" what the "Left" is. On the authoritarian-libertarian scale, all anarchists (meaning, those who actually oppose violent and imposed government) are left.

I've got several friends who are interested in moving to New Hampshire who fit my definition of Voluntaryist, who agree with the FSP Statement of Intent, and who do not believe that capitalism is an effective means to organize people. Some disagree over the scope and extent of property rights, some have very different motivations for opposing the state, but all agree that as long as we're not using force as a general means to interacting with each other, we're on the same side. I tend to agree, I'd rather have a socialist who refuses to hurt me as a neighbor than a gun-toting, surface-government-hating conservative who thinks that government should "only" provide military services or cops.

Quote
[...] and they never stop complaining about capitalism (the same system that made their parents rich lol.)

You could say the same (or opposite, doesn't matter) about you and I. I'm pretty sure we both hate the state and yet, for our entire lifetime, the state has been so enmeshed with business, with transportation, with regulatory standards, telecommunication (Okay, I'll stop there... you get the point) that what we have (for good or bad) would be so radically different without it. Since we don't live in a totally state-run society, and since we don't actually live in a capitalist free market, that point is as equally invalid as it is moot.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 21, 2010, 10:17:48 am
libertarianism doesn't really fit anywhere on the typical left-right paradigm that is used today.  Thats why its a false choice, and I'm sure the statists like it that way.

Libertarianism has its roots in classical liberalism, which started on the left, right about the time when politics started putting itself in those kinds of terms.

Once the left was hijacked by the socialists, many classical liberals found themselves on the right despite not changing their position.  These anti-new deal people were called the Old Right.

Today, there are many short term issues where libertarians can find agreement with both the left and the right, however, at the same time, to call libertarians centrists or moderates wouldn't be correct either.  Some prefer to call libertarianism 'top of center' or above center, but I'm not such a big fan of that.  Saying you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, makes you sound inconsistent, when in fact many libertarians (and especially anarcho-libertarians) have the most consistent principles based views on political issues.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: 10stateswithnh on September 21, 2010, 10:39:43 am
Anarcho-”Capitalism” is impossible
Posted by Anna Morgenstern on Sep 19, 2010 in Feature Articles

Many anarchists of various stripes have made the claim that anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchism entails anti-capitalism.  I happen to think this is actually backwards.  If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are.

People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such.  But what then is a free market?  If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition.  In that case, all anarchists are “anarcho-capitalists”, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.

Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public?  Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham.  It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State.  Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”.

Going a bit deeper, there may be issues about how property rights are defined, and the nature of ownership between different sorts of anarchists.  Obviously, anarcho-capitalists do not want the government to decide who owns what property.  So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself.

This whole discussion rests on the question, what is the definition of capitalism? I agree with those who say we should avoid using the word. The first definition given earlier is the only one compatible with anarchism, so obviously that is what is meant by those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists.

I think this author goes too far in assuming she has the right to tell others how they are allowed to define the word.

Anarcho-capitalism(1) is private property rights AND a free market.

Anti-capitalist anarchist socialism (I can't remember how it was worded earlier in the thread) is using definition 2 or 3 - means a free market and no private property rights.

I think we should focus on what the person means and not argue about which word they happen to use.


http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html)

excerpt:

In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."
    The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.


There are plenty of self-described anarcho-capitalists who totally disagree with Ayn Rand and do not defend big businesses. Perhaps the term is also used by the other side, I don't know. I don't know why anyone would call themself anarcho-capitalist if they wanted government handouts to big businesses - the government handout contradicts the anarcho- part.

"Robber baron capitalism"? What does that mean? Yes, there was some of this going on, but the history of this is much misunderstood - The true entrepreneurs tended to outcompete their rivals despite govt meddling, until the anti-trust laws were used against them.

Some companies were getting political favors and handouts before the regulatory and welfare state started, in the late 1800's, but it was my understanding that most of the companies labeled as robber barons were actually maligned entrepreneurs who innovated and served customers so well that other companies could not compete. Then they were successfully attacked by their would-be competitors through the new anti-trust laws (if they had political influence they would not have lost their anti-trust hearings so it seems likely they were not using govt to get rich, at least not at the time).

See this article on mises.org about robber barons (it distinguishes, as most histories do not, between market entrepreneurs, such as James Hill with the Great Northern Railroad, and "political entrepreneurs", the real robber barons, such as Leland Stanford, who used govt to ban competition with Central Pacific). Two other market entrepreneurs described in the article are John D Rockefeller, with Standard Oil, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, with steamboats.

http://mises.org/daily/2317

One other important point - Rockefeller's reduction in the cost of kerosene made it so, for the first time, poor people had an affordable way to light their homes at night (just think what an effect that had on the education and literacy of society). Yet most people call him a robber baron, someone who helped the poor so much!
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 21, 2010, 11:56:10 am
Private property rights do not exist in an anarchy.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 21, 2010, 12:18:29 pm
that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!

Why do we need people from the left? The left are socialists who want MORE government NOT less. Even "anarchist" socialists want gov-run health care and gov-run schools and they never stop complaining about capitalism (the same system that made their parents rich lol.)

Yes mutualism is socialism. Proudhon was not a nice guy. He inspired Karl Marx to become a socialist if I remember correctly meaning his works were the basis of the anti-capitalist "movements" you see today. Socialism is the opposite of freedom even "libertarian socialism". Socialism means democracy which automatically equates to mob rule of the 51% taking everything away from the 49%. u complain about capitalists taking "capital" from workers but try working in a workplace where 51% of your coworkers take everything from you. That's socialism that's democracy that's mutualism. No individual rights.
Marx wasn't a socialist. And Proudhon's works were also the basis of capitalism. The Founders indoctrinated public schooling in the various State constitutions. Proudhon determined that there could be no 'private land holdings' without the benefit of the collective (government).
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 21, 2010, 03:08:07 pm
that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!

Why do we need people from the left? The left are socialists who want MORE government NOT less. Even "anarchist" socialists want gov-run health care and gov-run schools and they never stop complaining about capitalism (the same system that made their parents rich lol.)

Yes mutualism is socialism. Proudhon was not a nice guy. He inspired Karl Marx to become a socialist if I remember correctly meaning his works were the basis of the anti-capitalist "movements" you see today. Socialism is the opposite of freedom even "libertarian socialism". Socialism means democracy which automatically equates to mob rule of the 51% taking everything away from the 49%. u complain about capitalists taking "capital" from workers but try working in a workplace where 51% of your coworkers take everything from you. That's socialism that's democracy that's mutualism. No individual rights.
Marx wasn't a socialist. And Proudhon's works were also the basis of capitalism. The Founders indoctrinated public schooling in the various State constitutions. Proudhon determined that there could be no 'private land holdings' without the benefit of the collective (government).

Proudhon wasn't even born until 1809 when capitalism was already in effect and didnt write anything until after 1840 when the founding fathers were long dead. He was friends w/ Marx and Marx took many of his ideas from the guy.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: 10stateswithnh on September 28, 2010, 09:11:04 am
Private property rights do not exist in an anarchy.


They did in the "wild" west. It came pretty close to anarchy, before the army established posts there and the people formed new states. There were voluntary governing systems developed as well as voluntary courts and property systems, so maybe it doesn't fit your definition of anarchy, but it's pretty close and provides a good case study for what a more anarchistic society would be like.

See this article about the real history of the west. They describe some of the voluntary governing systems, such as land clubs or claims associations, cattlemen's associations, mining camps, and wagon trains. By the way, when we "anarcho-capitalists" or private-property anarchists advocate anarchy, we do not mean, chaos, society completely disorganized, etc - but rather that all organization be voluntary, as it was in this place and time.
http://mises.org/daily/4108

Just one quote:

"The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect."
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: Ed on September 28, 2010, 09:47:50 am
yes but they don't work as well or consistently. It tends to be might makes right. Property rights can be pretty consistent with appropriate amounts personal property, but things like real estate and larger amounts of personal property, and the various details as to what rights exactly people have, tends to lose its consistency. These things are pretty important if you want a resilient, modern economy. Even problems that only pop up like 5% of the time or for 5% of all the property can cause systemic problems that add up to big problems that prevents an economy from moving forward well.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin that as there are more laws, doing business tends to be more complicated and thus harder. But the original concept still matters.
We are of course, with the endless federal codes, on the business-choking side of the scale. But if you're talking about anarchy I'd be worried about the other side of the scale (again, mentioned above).
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: 10stateswithnh on September 28, 2010, 11:20:29 am
Ed, as you point out, both approaches, anarchy and govt, are imperfect. No one who is rational claims that a society without coercive govt will not have any problems. But perfection is not an option. The question is what approach gives us the least problems. I prefer the one where people are not prevented by force from trying new ways to settle things peacefully, the one where they have more choices to the one where an out-of-control govt seizes more power over time and uses its force to reward the problematic behavior.

The two situations in the article I linked to where the private voluntary organizations didn't solve problems well both had coercive govts getting involved and not making any better resolution.

The might makes right claim I thought was pretty thoroughly disproved by my article. Did you read it?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: Dreepa on September 28, 2010, 03:38:09 pm
Private property rights do not exist in an anarchy.


wrong
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 28, 2010, 03:42:27 pm
Explain. Whom/what is to stop someone from making declaration on what you consider your property?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 28, 2010, 09:38:51 pm
Explain. Whom/what is to stop someone from making declaration on what you consider your property?


OK I don't care what Proudhon (Marx's buddy-buddy) said about property. The fact is if I PURCHASE property its mine no ands ifs or buts. I have the LEGAL RIGHT to own as much property as I can afford because I WORKED HARD FOR IT. There is no such thing as unjust property. If we don't have the right to own property regardless whether we "use" it or not then what other rights do we have??? What else holds capitalism together then the right to own private property?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 29, 2010, 04:26:11 am
If I take your property by force... how many times does it need to change hands before its no longer stolen goods?
By what authority does a crown grant land that it has never set foot upon?

If I make a deal with you to trade my land for services rendered, and you don't provide those services... is the land still yours?

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on September 29, 2010, 02:43:39 pm
If I take your property by force... how many times does it need to change hands before its no longer stolen goods?
By what authority does a crown grant land that it has never set foot upon?

If I make a deal with you to trade my land for services rendered, and you don't provide those services... is the land still yours?



OK first there's no force in an anarcho-capitalist society. Ever heard of the non-agression principle?

Second if you VOLUNTARILY gave me your land then yes the land is mine. Why should not using the land mean I'm not allowed to own it if I purchased it VOLUNTARILY. No one is forcing anyone else to do anything in an anarcho-capitalist system. The only force comes w/ mutualism and socialism where the 51% forcefuly controls the 49%.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 29, 2010, 04:30:38 pm
If I take your property by force... how many times does it need to change hands before its no longer stolen goods?
By what authority does a crown grant land that it has never set foot upon?

If I make a deal with you to trade my land for services rendered, and you don't provide those services... is the land still yours?



OK first there's no force in an anarcho-capitalist society. Ever heard of the non-agression principle?


what??  Anarcho-capitalists do not make this claim.


as to the original question about changing hands.  That has no affect, but at some point it becomes impossible to PROVE the rightful owner.  But if such proof were presented, then yes anyone that recognizes property rights would say that a rightful heir to property that was illegitimately obtained by someone else should be granted to the rightful owner.  But keep in mind, we are talking about actual property rights, and actual heritages, not the vague notion of all the native peoples of the americas owning the entire continent.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 29, 2010, 05:56:12 pm
What would be the difference? If you killing someone for land, whether they claim singular ownership or collective... its still land taken by force. And it doesn't answer any of the questions.
Its suggesting that collective morals other than the attainment of capital is the basis.

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 29, 2010, 05:59:56 pm
If I take your property by force... how many times does it need to change hands before its no longer stolen goods?
By what authority does a crown grant land that it has never set foot upon?

If I make a deal with you to trade my land for services rendered, and you don't provide those services... is the land still yours?



OK first there's no force in an anarcho-capitalist society. Ever heard of the non-agression principle?

Second if you VOLUNTARILY gave me your land then yes the land is mine. Why should not using the land mean I'm not allowed to own it if I purchased it VOLUNTARILY. No one is forcing anyone else to do anything in an anarcho-capitalist system. The only force comes w/ mutualism and socialism where the 51% forcefuly controls the 49%.
I think I fully explained that mutualism is the result of open economic competion. And you didn't answer the questions.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on September 29, 2010, 10:37:35 pm
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nine.asp
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 30, 2010, 04:26:40 am
This is where you see Smith and Marx differ. Proudhon was able to ascertain the Labor-Value relationship... but couldn't factor the primary acquisition of land. Marx, for some unapparent reason, could not ascertain the storage of labor and increased economic productivity through its usage.

It may be that in Marx's life, he witnessed few laborers that saved and invested.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: 10stateswithnh on September 30, 2010, 07:23:49 pm
Explain. Whom/what is to stop someone from making declaration on what you consider your property?


If you have good evidence it is your property, any well-run arbitration firm worried about its reputation will decide in your favor.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: Polemic on September 30, 2010, 08:57:15 pm
Anyone care to justify the labor theory of value?

To me, it seems objectively and demonstrably incorrect.  While I acknowledge its usefulness in describing complex commodity markets, it is by no means a proper description of value, especially when you discuss it in the context of private contracts between individuals for small discrete quantities of goods or services.

Mutualism's understanding of property, or even many breeds of anarchists, rely heavily on this theory to describe private property.
I don't think that a logical case can be made to bridge any theory of value to any theory of ownership - it's a cart & horse problem.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 01, 2010, 05:37:37 am
Anyone care to justify the labor theory of value?

To me, it seems objectively and demonstrably incorrect.  While I acknowledge its usefulness in describing complex commodity markets, it is by no means a proper description of value, especially when you discuss it in the context of private contracts between individuals for small discrete quantities of goods or services.

Mutualism's understanding of property, or even many breeds of anarchists, rely heavily on this theory to describe private property.
I don't think that a logical case can be made to bridge any theory of value to any theory of ownership - it's a cart & horse problem.

Kevin Carson, the modern mutualist, uses a "subjectivized" version of the labor theory of value.

http://blog.mises.org/4875/anarchism-left-and-right/ (http://blog.mises.org/4875/anarchism-left-and-right/)

excerpt:

Carson defends the labor theory of value, but in a subjectivized form, holding that the price of a good tends to correspond to the subjective disutility of the labor needed to produce it – since a higher price would be whittled away by competition while at a lower price the good would not be produced at all."
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 03, 2010, 01:47:10 am
Lenin didn't work on economic theory.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on October 03, 2010, 12:39:35 pm
Lenin didn't work on economic theory.


So let me ask you would Proudhon's version of socialism be any better? I don't want union thugs running my town. Unions are worse then the gov. IMHO.

Private property is the foundation of liberty. How can there be true liberty if mutualist socialist unions take away YOUR legal property?

In Proudhon's socialist-mutualist land union thugs take away your backyard if its too big or your inherited factory if they don't think its for your "personal use". How is that liberty?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on October 03, 2010, 05:38:25 pm
Quote
How can there be true liberty if mutualist socialist unions take away YOUR legal property?

Well the question is what is "legal" property - no?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 03, 2010, 09:47:17 pm
Mutualism isn't socialism. Though many socialists try to embrace mutualism, as mutualism is a result of free markets... it doesn't involve the redistribution of wealth. Mutualism simply is the result of open competition. Open competitition results in lower prices... at a certain point the 'profit' of the venture becomes squeezed from that competition lowering prices. Capital flows away from lower profits. If lots of open competition exists, the 'profit' (return on capital) becomes much lower... i.e. mutualism.

As for the solution to property rights... I'm afraid history has shown none to exist. So an uneasy arrangement commences.

* By the way, Proudhon was an anarchist working on natural economic theory. He detested the use of force, but failed to accept it as a natural.

 
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on October 03, 2010, 11:47:13 pm
Mutualism isn't socialism. Though many socialists try to embrace mutualism, as mutualism is a result of free markets... it doesn't involve the redistribution of wealth. Mutualism simply is the result of open competition. Open competitition results in lower prices... at a certain point the 'profit' of the venture becomes squeezed from that competition lowering prices. Capital flows away from lower profits. If lots of open competition exists, the 'profit' (return on capital) becomes much lower... i.e. mutualism.

As for the solution to property rights... I'm afraid history has shown none to exist. So an uneasy arrangement commences.

* By the way, Proudhon was an anarchist working on natural economic theory. He detested the use of force, but failed to accept it as a natural.

 

u didnt answer me about the union thugs. Isn't that what mutualism is? Unions run the place? Isn't mutualism technically called "market socialism?"
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 04, 2010, 12:51:43 am
Nope. Mutualism doesn't involve public ownership.
Proudhon was an anarchist... so no government would exist for public ownership to occur.

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: 10stateswithnh on October 04, 2010, 05:04:51 am
A question about mutualism - if land is owned publicly, or collectively, and there is no government, who would act on behalf of the public? Surely you don't think each person in the public will assume the responsibilities and duties of ownership and feel motivated by the socially beneficial incentives associated with single ownership?

Also I see your point about the profit being squeezed out by lots of competition over time, but presumably the entrepreneur/inventor has made enough by that time to justify his investment of time, effort, risk, and willingness to wait to recover his money. There is still enough profit to pay someone to manage the business, and the entrepreneur can go on to start new things. Why do you think profit will go to zero, which I think it would have to do for individual ownership to cease?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 04, 2010, 07:04:42 am
Mutualism doesn't have format for public ownership. Most people make that jump because of the early economic theorists' various works. During their day, land was granted by monarchy.

The work of our Founders (having to deal without monarchy) determined that property rights were the result of the collective will.
They added public charity to each of the State constitutions... but also added public school as a means to reduce the need.
Sort of the 'Feed a man a fish, Teach a man to fish' parable.

Its not by any means perfect... but improvement.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: BigJoe on October 04, 2010, 08:45:23 am
A question about mutualism - if land is owned publicly, or collectively, and there is no government, who would act on behalf of the public? Surely you don't think each person in the public will assume the responsibilities and duties of ownership and feel motivated by the socially beneficial incentives associated with single ownership?

Also I see your point about the profit being squeezed out by lots of competition over time, but presumably the entrepreneur/inventor has made enough by that time to justify his investment of time, effort, risk, and willingness to wait to recover his money. There is still enough profit to pay someone to manage the business, and the entrepreneur can go on to start new things. Why do you think profit will go to zero, which I think it would have to do for individual ownership to cease?


profit will never disappear.  the 2 most glaring reasons are that perfect knowledge, just one aspect of perfect competition, is impossible and when someone claims that in the long run in perfect competition profit goes to zero, they are talking about ECONOMIC PROFIT, NOT ACCOUNTING PROFIT.  So 'profits' going to zero isn't even the claim being made and to not indicate that is either ignorant or dishonest, because most people when they see the word 'profits' have an idea of 'more money coming in than going out,' but when 'calculating' economic profit, opportunity costs are also factored in.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on October 04, 2010, 09:57:50 am
Actually profit does disappear in many unregulated areas. Most people's accounting of such is just terrible.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: fernanb8521 on November 20, 2010, 01:26:43 am
Anarchy signifies the absence of order. Anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself, acting without waiting for instructions or official permission. I believe that as a society we need someone to govern us, to control and administer public policy, to exercise authority and direct and control the actions of each members or subject.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: Bazil on November 21, 2010, 12:33:14 pm
Actually profit does disappear in many unregulated areas. Most people's accounting of such is just terrible.


I'm not an anarchist but I think that much of the regulation that is "needed" could be achieved through other means than government, like Underwriters Laboratories.  Where you have organizations that rate companies and their products so if a company misbehaves the customers will know and avoid it.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: Dreepa on November 21, 2010, 02:04:12 pm
Anarchy signifies the absence of order. Anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself, acting without waiting for instructions or official permission. I believe that as a society we need someone to govern us, to control and administer public policy, to exercise authority and direct and control the actions of each members or subject.

you might need someone not all of us do.

Anarchy does not mean absence of order.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 21, 2010, 06:13:34 pm
If it can be achieved through a market means... then it is no longer requires government regulation.
The system has 'hold overs'. These are programs that were 'possibly' needed at one time, but are no longer needed.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: CurtHowland on November 22, 2010, 09:32:54 am
Anarchy signifies the absence of order.

An- standard prefix meaning "without" or "no", eg an-hydrous being "without water".

-archy standard suffix meaning "rule by" or "ruler", eg gyn-archy, rule by women, olig-archy, rule by an elite few, mon-archy, rule by a single king/emperor/etc.

So an-archy in no way implies disorder. It is, explicitly, a lack of RULERS. Not a lack of rules.

Chaos can exist under any "-archy", just as order can.

Quote
I believe that as a society we need someone to govern us, to control and administer public policy, to exercise authority and direct and control the actions of each members or subject.

You can believe the moon is green cheese if you want, that doesn't bother me. The problem occurs when you attempt to force that belief upon others.

The result of your belief that other people need to be governed is that you are advocating coercion be used against those who do not agree with you.

Why? If what I do does not harm you, why must I be "governed"?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 22, 2010, 04:47:14 pm
If 'rules' are not applied by another, only by oneself... is it not possible for one to simply decide to change 'rules' as it suites ourselves?
That is what creates a lack of order.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on November 23, 2010, 12:26:58 am
If 'rules' are not applied by another, only by oneself... is it not possible for one to simply decide to change 'rules' as it suites ourselves?
That is what creates a lack of order.


Anarcho-capitalism is the only "anarcho" that makes sense. All of these socialist forms of anarchist incld. mutualism are not real anarchism. People wont co-op/collectivize unless theyre forced to.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 23, 2010, 01:25:31 am
Mutualism was the product of the First Anarchist... his concept being that capitalism could not function without authoritarian order.
Mutualism doesn't require collectivization or co-ops.

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on November 23, 2010, 01:44:08 pm
If 'rules' are not applied by another, only by oneself... is it not possible for one to simply decide to change 'rules' as it suites ourselves?
That is what creates a lack of order.


This is self correcting. If you decide that murder is no longer against your rules. You commit murder. Now you can be murdered. The golden rule 'governs'. People won't be likely to murder if it would lead to their own death.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 23, 2010, 01:59:40 pm
Odd. Pretty sure I can be murdered without ever having committed a murder.
And pretty sure that people that murder expect that it may well lead to their death... yet we have mass murderers.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on November 23, 2010, 02:29:11 pm
Odd. Pretty sure I can be murdered without ever having committed a murder.

This is physically true in any conceivable context, anarchic or authoritarian. What is your point?

Quote
And pretty sure that people that murder expect that it may well lead to their death... yet we have mass murderers.

Where? In the US? No they don't. There were 15,241 murders in 2009. I counted 51 state executions in that year. That is .003 state executions for every murder, or one third of a one percent chance per murder. Pretty slim odds...
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 23, 2010, 04:43:40 pm
If the golden rule stipulates that once I commit murder than I can be murdered... then if I do not commit murder than I should not be able to be murdered. Hence it was a false statement.

I posted 'may well lead to their death'... I didn't post will 'lead to their death', nor anything absolute.

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on November 23, 2010, 05:18:00 pm
If the golden rule stipulates that once I commit murder than I can be murdered... then if I do not commit murder than I should not be able to be murdered. Hence it was a false statement.

I didn't say abstaining from murder would keep you from being murdered. I didn't even imply it. I don't believe that. It is nonsensical. I asserted that committing murder would carry a high risk of death and would deter murder.

Quote
I posted 'may well lead to their death'... I didn't post will 'lead to their death', nor anything absolute.


Then your implication that loss of life is a poor deterrent lacks any evidence.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on November 23, 2010, 07:35:08 pm
In an anarchy, it doesn't carry a higher risk than not.

My implication is that the possibility of death must cross every murders mind... and not in a totally abstract way.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on November 23, 2010, 09:14:14 pm
In an anarchy, it doesn't carry a higher risk than not.

What doesn't carry a higher risk in anarchy? Capital punishment? It would if people were free to kill murderers. I believe the threat of retribution would be a greater deterrent that the threat of imprisonment.

Quote
My implication is that the possibility of death must cross every murders mind... and not in a totally abstract way.

But who do they fear more: armed victims and their vengeful families, or the nanny state? I say they fear armed defense and retribution more. This seems logical given the lack of execution at the hands of the state.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: CurtHowland on December 06, 2010, 10:27:42 pm
I believe the threat of retribution would be a greater deterrent that the threat of imprisonment.

A theory of rational self interest on the part of the killer that is plainly demonstrated by the historical statistics.

In every state, every time it happens to even the smallest degree, violent crime rates DROP when firearms are made less illegal for every-day people to own.

Source: More Guns Less Crime by Lotte and Mustard, University of Chicago Press

Quote
But who do they fear more: armed victims and their vengeful families, or the nanny state? I say they fear armed defense and retribution more. This seems logical given the lack of execution at the hands of the state.

Don't dismiss the fact that those places where private firearms are illegal, and violent crime highest, are also the places with the greatest concentrations of "professional" police.

More cops has little effect on violent crime, for the simple fact that no matter how many police there are, they cannot be everywhere.

The only constant is that there must be a victim, and the possibility of a potential victim being armed is what scares a criminal the most.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 07, 2010, 12:00:55 pm
Because of the current system... if I choose to rob you, it makes less sense to kill you unless I have to.
In an anarchy, the risk is equal. So killing you, then robbing you makes sense.


Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 07, 2010, 01:44:37 pm
Because of the current system... if I choose to rob you, it makes less sense to kill you unless I have to.
In an anarchy, the risk is equal. So killing you, then robbing you makes sense.

That is a pretty bare assertion. Why would the risk be equal? In anarchy, people will face retribution in proportion to the anger they cause. Murder will usually demand the greatest retribution while theft would require less retribution. Armed theft would fall somewhere in between. If the robber is nice, and doesn't put his gun in your face, you won't be nearly as mad as if he injures you and threatens your life. You might not be willing to pay big money to have him hunted down if you never felt your life was in real jeopardy (as long as you complied). But if he puts you in the hospital or kills a family member, you will be likely to spend more on retribution.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 07, 2010, 03:24:05 pm
Nope. Your thinking in collective morality terms.
As the thief, your risk is lower with a dead victim taken by surprise. And as the plausible victim, your risk is lower with a dead thief rather than an aggressor that may return.

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 07, 2010, 04:18:32 pm
Nope. Your thinking in collective morality terms.
As the thief, your risk is lower with a dead victim taken by surprise. And as the plausible victim, your risk is lower with a dead thief rather than an aggressor that may return.

I'm not talking in any morality terms. I am talking practically. If you kill your victim, you eliminate a witness, but you raise the stakes. This is true in any 'crime', in any system. You are ignoring proportional retribution brought about by the application of scare resources to gain marginal utility. Greater offences make possible greater utility from retribution. Fear of greater retribution reduces the incentive to aggress.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 07, 2010, 06:18:52 pm
Anarchy doesn't have a 'crime'. Because of our current system, the stakes are lower for robbery than murder.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 07, 2010, 10:50:41 pm
Anarchy doesn't have a 'crime'. Because of our current system, the stakes are lower for robbery than murder.

Yah, I know, that's why it was in quotes. 

The stakes would be lower for robbery than murder in anarchy as well, for reasons already mentioned.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 07, 2010, 11:43:47 pm
No. Whether you attempt to murder me, or attempt to rob me... the outcome is the same.
I don't have variations of response to someone seeking to harm me.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 08, 2010, 12:19:47 pm
So if someone takes your pencil, you kill them?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 08, 2010, 12:33:08 pm
So if someone takes your pencil, you kill them?
If you don't... you risk repeated violations, or an escalation that could result in your death.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 08, 2010, 02:09:03 pm
So if someone takes your pencil, you kill them?
If you don't... you risk repeated violations, or an escalation that could result in your death.

Why don't you just ask them to pay damages on threat of force? Killing them would be an even greater escalation that could lead to your death. Even repeated small violations would be preferable to risking death or injury. Only large violations would bring most people to the fighting or killing stage.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 08, 2010, 03:09:45 pm
If I robbed you, why would I pay? Why wouldn't I try to rob you again with a better plan? Maybe this time killing you to insure a lack of retribution or witness?
The dead don't tend to escalate.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 08, 2010, 03:56:49 pm
If I robbed you, why would I pay? Why wouldn't I try to rob you again with a better plan? Maybe this time killing you to insure a lack of retribution or witness?
The dead don't tend to escalate.


You would pay to keep me from attacking you in retribution. You would pay to keep me from telling other people that you are a thief. I could tell your insurer that you are a thief and they might drop you. There are a lot of different ways to deal with a thief other than killing him. There is plenty of leverage to be had against him. Murder only raises the stakes. If you murder someone with a family, you can bet the family will have an interest in killing you.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 08, 2010, 04:37:12 pm
If I attacked you by surprise and killed you... I wouldn't need worry about your retribution... your dead, and no witness.

What insurer? You could tell people I'm a thief now... so why does the lack of State make a difference?
In other words, what stops the thief from continuing? And what stops the escalation to murder... especially when it lowers the risk to injury during the theft?

The only reason I can think that a thief may not wish to kill the victim, is to support future theft. Sort of like shearing a sheep and letting the wool grow back for another shearing.



Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 08, 2010, 06:03:50 pm
If I attacked you by surprise and killed you... I wouldn't need worry about your retribution... your dead, and no witness.

If there are no witnesses, that is true now...

Quote
What insurer? You could tell people I'm a thief now... so why does the lack of State make a difference?
Exactly, there is no difference here. That is my point.

Quote
In other words, what stops the thief from continuing? And what stops the escalation to murder... especially when it lowers the risk to injury during the theft?

The threat of force and ostracism reduces the risk/reward of theft and, later, fighting. Same as today. Only the threat of force would be greater because more people will be armed. It is a game of chicken with society on one side, and the thief of the other. The thief will usually give up before society does. Society as a whole benefits by reducing theft. Only the thief benefits from his theft. And even then only by the amount his theft exceeds his opportunity costs of working legitimately.

You are trying to make a slippery slope argument, that once a theft takes place, it will escalate into war. If you can't show A leads to B leads to C, in the majority of cases, it is just fallacious.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 08, 2010, 09:17:37 pm
Forensics.

If I perceive that you may be able to defend yourself, it makes sense for me to kill you by surprise before robbing you... much less of a risk.
Ostrasize a robber from your social circle? I don't think someone that robs you is looking to make friends.

 
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 08, 2010, 11:15:31 pm
Forensics.

??? What about it?

Quote
If I perceive that you may be able to defend yourself, it makes sense for me to kill you by surprise before robbing you... much less of a risk.

How are you going to kill someone who can defend themselves? You can't easily. Bullets aren't magic. Most of the time, they take minuets or hours to kill. The same is true of any common weapon. Any attempt to kill brings new risks and raises the stakes. If you shoot at someone (because they are armed) you are raising your chances of being shot. That is incredibly stupid. Smart criminals will always target people who they perceive as weak. That is why concealed weapons reduce crime. Criminals can no longer tell who is able to shot back.

Edit----

Quote
Ostrasize a robber from your social circle? I don't think someone that robs you is looking to make friends.
What a straw man... You know I am not talking about just a social circle. I am talking about the greater society. Your private accusal record and conviction record will make it more difficult to get a job and do business.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 09, 2010, 12:06:52 pm
*Forensics is the witness without eyes.

*Without warning.

*From the Greater Society... sounds like a collective ideal.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 09, 2010, 02:39:23 pm
*Forensics is the witness without eyes.

What about it?

Quote
*Without warning.

What?

Quote
*From the Greater Society... sounds like a collective ideal.

And?

This debate seems over to me.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 09, 2010, 06:26:11 pm
What debate?

Today forensics can surpass witness... not likely in a world were you would need to pay directly for such services.
A thieve lowers their risk by killing the victim without warning. They don't need to make the victim aware of their intentions nor presence.
And collective ideals seldom work... because they are not entirely encompassing.

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 09, 2010, 09:46:07 pm
What debate?

The debate we have been having for days. Your last post didn't make any cogent points. You seemed to be out of things to say.

Quote
Today forensics can surpass witness... not likely in a world were you would need to pay directly for such services.

Private markets will deliver forensics at better quality and at better prices than we see today. Private markets are always better.

Quote
A thieve lowers their risk by killing the victim without warning. They don't need to make the victim aware of their intentions nor presence.

As I have already pointed out, this is much easier said than done. You seem to think life is like Splinter Cell or Assassins Creed. It isn't. People don't usually fall down dead when shot or stabbed. That is Hollywood. If armed, they will fight back; possibly leading to the robber's death. BTW gunshots and fights are pretty loud, leading to witnesses and evidence.

Quote
And collective ideals seldom work... because they are not entirely encompassing.

People will be less likely to do business with a known criminal. This is not a collective ideal (whatever that is). It is simple rational behavior. It doesn't have to be all encompassing. Any ostracism serves as a deterrent. The more people participate, the stronger the deterrent will be.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 10, 2010, 07:07:26 am
Private markets work when someone is willing to pay. The costs of investigations are very high, and wouldn't by shear physical consequences entail all instances.

Snipers don't make their presence known. So the advantage goes to the offender.

Your supposing that criminals have no social outlets...
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 10, 2010, 05:39:13 pm
Private markets work when someone is willing to pay. The costs of investigations are very high, and wouldn't by shear physical consequences entail all instances.

The cost of a lot of things are high. If there is demand, there will be supply. And there will always be demand for retribution.

This isn't utopia, all instances will never be covered, in any system.

Quote
Snipers don't make their presence known. So the advantage goes to the offender.

This is a joke right? There will be a rash of sniper robbers? Did you miss the point that guns are loud? besides, this supposes a high level of skill for someone who is resorting to robbery.

Quote
Your supposing that criminals have no social outlets...

No I am not. You aren't listening to what I am saying. I am not talking about social activities. I am talking about ostracization form business opportunities. Criminals won't be able to get loads or insurance as easily and at competitive rates. This is a disincentive to criminal activity.

To reiterate the point, there are many options to deal with aggression other than war. The market will develop these options. It is not even necessary that we know what the options will be beforehand. We can expect them to develop in response to future conditions.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 10, 2010, 06:10:45 pm
Most won't pay the cost... much more simply to jump to conclusions and act. Which is what occurs in the real world.
Sniping doesn't take any more effort than hunting. It isn't about the distance of the shot, simply an unsuspecting victim with the correct conditions.

Robbery would be their business. Things we consider 'crimes' are simply survival methods we deem repugnant.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: CurtHowland on December 15, 2010, 12:23:00 am
Mr. Mercier, you are forgetting several incentives, and present reality.

Present reality is that without evidence, crimes go unpunished. Even with evidence, if the evidence points to a politically well-connected perp, the crime also goes unpunished.

Cops, for example, are punished much more rarely, and less severely, than mere mundane normal people for the same crimes.

Some of the incentives you're forgetting in a market adjudication environment are,

o Heirs, survivors, even creditors of the victim, can and would be very motivated to seek restitution.

o Poor victims would have every incentive to "sell" their interests in restitution to someone with greater resources to hunt-down the perp to recoup their investment, the same way that collections agencies do now. Or, for that matter, the way contingency lawyers do now.

That seems to be a component of the mistakes people are making in this discussion, ignoring what people are already doing.

Every way that it is possible to harm another person has been prosecutable for a thousand years, since the invention of tort. Show deliberate or negligent harm, "prove" who did it, receive restitution.

It is the institution of Sovereign Immunity, the intrusion of government into the process, the usurpation of all prosecution into the monopoly that is government, that has caused problems. Not solved them.

Merely remove the monopoly, and let people do what they have been doing the entire time: Proving harm, receiving restitution.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on December 15, 2010, 12:57:59 am
Seek all they want... there are no rulers. And thus no rules apply.


Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: KateCragger on December 15, 2010, 02:21:52 pm
As to forum start - yes it is anarhism
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on December 15, 2010, 06:22:04 pm
Sniping doesn't take any more effort than hunting.

....You obviously have no idea what you are talking about in this regard. Sniping is indeed more difficult than hunting. Squirrels and ducks don't carry guns, wear body armor, hire bodyguards, or think to any measurable extent. Killing people is difficult. Don't think it isn't.

Most won't pay the cost... much more simply to jump to conclusions and act.

Again, people won't likely jump from "my wallet was stolen" to "lets kill the guy". Whereas they will more likely jump from "my brother was killed" to "let's kill the guy." People will make varied choices to defend against aggression. Seeking to kill is only 1 possible choice out of many. Look at any market and you will see a variety of choices. You can make your own coffee at home for like 10 cents. But some people decide to buy it at Starbucks for $5. People will satisfy their demand for retribution and security in many different ways. The market will cultivate these choices.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: andysurtees on February 06, 2011, 12:37:24 am
Just to cut in here for a second...

I'd consider myself a voluntarist first, an anarcho-capitalist second. As far as I support anarcho-capitalism, i only support it as far as is consistent with voluntarism. Anarcho-snydicalism isn't inconsistent with voluntarism, provided entry to and exit from a given sydicate is voluntary.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 06, 2011, 12:41:43 pm
Sniping doesn't take any more effort than hunting.

....You obviously have no idea what you are talking about in this regard. Sniping is indeed more difficult than hunting. Squirrels and ducks don't carry guns, wear body armor, hire bodyguards, or think to any measurable extent. Killing people is difficult. Don't think it isn't.

Most won't pay the cost... much more simply to jump to conclusions and act.

Again, people won't likely jump from "my wallet was stolen" to "lets kill the guy". Whereas they will more likely jump from "my brother was killed" to "let's kill the guy." People will make varied choices to defend against aggression. Seeking to kill is only 1 possible choice out of many. Look at any market and you will see a variety of choices. You can make your own coffee at home for like 10 cents. But some people decide to buy it at Starbucks for $5. People will satisfy their demand for retribution and security in many different ways. The market will cultivate these choices.
You've obviously never visited areas that the societal order has completely vanished. And 'sniping' in this instance would be someone that is totally unsuspecting. Of course the change takes time... but it happens remarkably fast.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 06, 2011, 12:43:12 pm
Just to cut in here for a second...

I'd consider myself a voluntarist first, an anarcho-capitalist second. As far as I support anarcho-capitalism, i only support it as far as is consistent with voluntarism. Anarcho-snydicalism isn't inconsistent with voluntarism, provided entry to and exit from a given sydicate is voluntary.
And vol-cap would make sense. Its the basis of our current system.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on February 06, 2011, 03:15:42 pm
And vol-cap would make sense. Its the basis of our current system.


No it isn't. There is no right of emancipation within the boundaries of US political authority. The only emancipation possible is to flee the territory. 'If you don't like getting robbed, then move' is not a voluntary system.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 06, 2011, 03:44:30 pm
I guess if you were 'emancipated' that society would owe you no protection of life, liberty, or property.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: CurtHowland on February 06, 2011, 07:49:06 pm
I guess if you were 'emancipated' that society would owe you no protection of life, liberty, or property.

So far as I can tell, no "society" does now either.

Individuals choose to be charatable, organizations can choose to give things away. "Society" does nothing at all.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 06, 2011, 07:59:50 pm
So the next time your charged with a crime and held captive... don't protest to the society... because you have no right to liberty, jury trial, nor fair punishment.

PO might as well just sentence you to death and go straight to execution.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on February 06, 2011, 08:33:51 pm
I guess if you were 'emancipated' that society would owe you no protection of life, liberty, or property.


Correct.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on February 06, 2011, 08:50:11 pm
So the next time your charged with a crime and held captive... don't protest to the society... because you have no right to liberty, jury trial, nor fair punishment.

PO might as well just sentence you to death and go straight to execution.


This would never happen in a stateless society. We would have private courts to deal w/ law.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 06, 2011, 10:35:34 pm
So how would your private court have more authority than my private court?
My private court finds me 'not guilty' and 'having justifiable action' at all times.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 06, 2011, 10:38:14 pm
I guess if you were 'emancipated' that society would owe you no protection of life, liberty, or property.


Correct.
So I claim your property... I'm not emancipate, so society owes me the protection... and your official 'moved'.
Feeling a little like a Native American yet?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on February 07, 2011, 11:48:43 am
I guess if you were 'emancipated' that society would owe you no protection of life, liberty, or property.


Correct.
So I claim your property... I'm not emancipate, so society owes me the protection... and your official 'moved'.
Feeling a little like a Native American yet?

So what is your argument? Better to be the bully than the bullied?
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 07, 2011, 01:45:48 pm
Guess so! Since no one is willing to return what was taken.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on February 07, 2011, 02:27:21 pm
Then my counter argument is that it should be my prerogative, and I will just have to live with the consequences. As it is, my property is stolen on a daily basis.

Maybe once emancipated it would only occur on a weekly basis. That might be an improvement.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: antistate1190 on February 09, 2011, 07:21:34 pm
Guess so! Since no one is willing to return what was taken.

What makes you think under statelessness everyone would be stealing everyone else's stuff? If you touch my lake house I'll hire someone to merce your ass. If you touch my lawn I'll send my guard dogs on you. Protection of property is easier in a stateless society. It's the state which steals most property through eminent domain.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: WendellBerry on February 09, 2011, 07:54:09 pm
Guess so! Since no one is willing to return what was taken.

What makes you think under statelessness everyone would be stealing everyone else's stuff? If you touch my lake house I'll hire someone to merce your ass. If you touch my lawn I'll send my guard dogs on you. Protection of property is easier in a stateless society. It's the state which steals most property through eminent domain.

welcome to "back to the future" -- law of the jungle!
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 09, 2011, 10:19:02 pm
Guess so! Since no one is willing to return what was taken.

What makes you think under statelessness everyone would be stealing everyone else's stuff? If you touch my lake house I'll hire someone to merce your ass. If you touch my lawn I'll send my guard dogs on you. Protection of property is easier in a stateless society. It's the state which steals most property through eminent domain.
Because the mercs you might hire will realize its much more simple just to kill you and take what you have.
Don't believe me? The Zetas were trained to work with the DEA against druglords. First the druglords offer them more than the government... then they realized that they could just take the place of the druglords.
Top dog is never anyone else's bitch.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on February 10, 2011, 11:56:26 pm
Don't believe me?

No, not really. What makes you think a state is any better at controlling its dogs than private firms and individuals? We already know that the government is a rather incompetent manager.

You must also think that businesses will always cheat their customers in a free market, right? Because that is obviously the way to make the most money.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 11, 2011, 07:11:11 am
The question was rhetorical.
And this was about hiring mercs. If a POs pay was directly attributed to his/her actions... definately would get a negative response.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on February 12, 2011, 01:17:32 am
The question was rhetorical.
And this was about hiring mercs. If a POs pay was directly attributed to his/her actions... definately would get a negative response.


I know, I was just having a little fun.

I know you were talking about mercs, so was I. Mercs under private control vs mercs/police/military under public control.

PO = Police officer?

If so, why can the state enforce negative feedback and a private entity can't?

Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: John Edward Mercier on February 12, 2011, 01:37:50 pm
Amongst the private entity... upward mobility and the rewards that go with it are often removal of superiors.
Our current system usually sees corruption, but not as unlimited.
Title: Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
Post by: dude6935 on February 14, 2011, 12:25:12 pm
^gibberish.

Please explain in plain language.

I also think you are using the ellipsis... wrong...  :-\
Are you conveying a pause in thought, uncertainty, or a missing word? I don't think so.

Anyway, upward mobility exists in both private and public realms. So why is its downfall only apparent in the private realm?