Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: protovack on March 03, 2004, 05:11:16 am

Title: Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: protovack on March 03, 2004, 05:11:16 am
This is my first post, and i guess this is the first question that popped into my mind after reading the faq, a couple essays,  and watching the chronicles episode.  

While I'm still young (21), and still forming my own political views, I seem to feel most at home in the Anarchist camp.  Even though I have the utmost respect for all libertarians, I can't help but worry about pesky things like police, capitalism, and informal "social darwinism."

For example, I assume that FSP would want to repeal any minimum wage laws.  I would also assume that the reason for this would be that "People are intelligent enough to figure out how much employees are worth by themselves."  Well sure they are, but we aren't all libertarians.  How does the FSP address the needs of workers rights, pay, and involvement in production of goods and services?  Would libertarians be willing to confront exploitive labor practices? And if so, would it be through direct action or through standard political channels?  It seems to me that the Anarchist sentiments of labor solidarity fit right in with the Libertarian manifesto, at least in theory.

Also, as was mentioned in the essay by Micah Bales on this same subject, the environment is an issue.  I do not support libertarianism in the corporate world.  We should revert back to the type of restricitions we placed on corporations in the 1800's, like strict charter rules, mandatory earnings caps, and no "personhood" for firms.  Basically, there is no way anyone will get me to believe that companies should be treated like people under the law.

Further, I have to voice my sentiments on guns.  Of course I respect the right to own guns.  People might just think they are cool, or they might enjoy target shooting.  However, all available data currently suggests that the mere existence of guns in a community poses the risk of accidental shootings, or emotionally charged shootings.  

If the FSP and libertarianism are truly about enabling the individual to live as full a life as possible, free of restrictions....then why is it that some support the existence of the single machine which could most easily take away a life?

Even with all these somewhat philosophical objections, I still think the FSP is the greatest idea in modern activism.  All I have to do is finish my political science degree here in Portland, OR...and then I'll sign up!



Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: protovack on March 03, 2004, 05:34:31 am
And one more thing.... :)

I've seen people describing the following terms in negative ways:

1) Environmentalism
2) Liberalism
3) Gun Control
4) Universal Health-Care
5) The United Nations
6) Socialism
7) ACLU
8) Democrats

What the hell is the deal with all this ugly individualism?  All of these items, save maybe "gun control," symbolize either people or ideas that at one point or another have struggled to bring rights to people.  I just don't understand. Maybe I am missing something.

Maybe I've just never been exposed to this element of society before.  But seriously, what would be the problem with a public-cooperative dedicated to bringing universal health care to the free state?

What is so wrong with democrats?  Here in Oregon our representatives, especially Earl Blumenaeur, work tirelessly to combat the dangerous Neo-conservative spending spree.  What I think some libertarians fail to understand is this:  Our capitalistic economic system is what prevents well-intentioned officials from doing their job.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 03, 2004, 06:27:57 am
Welcome protovack

If you keep asking about those things such as socialism and the UN and gun control and enviromentalism, you'll see that, although they seem to be nice and good and fair in theory, in practice they are something very different. The overall consensus here, I'd venture to say, is that these things are detrimental to the individual and, insomuch, can never truly be right or good or just, according to what those words represent by definition.

I'd say you should stick around. You've learned alot in just finding your way here. You're gonna learn a lot more. But for my need to get ready for classes, it would be great fun to get into the gun thing with you... Maybe later.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: FTL_Ian on March 03, 2004, 07:36:47 am
Quote
Our capitalistic economic system is what prevents well-intentioned officials from doing their job.

Ahh, the road to hell...  this thread will get interesting.  I'm in a rush, myself.  Proto, I hope you'll stick around, because I know someone will post a decent response.

Regards,
Ian
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: JasonPSorens on March 03, 2004, 09:20:06 am

I've seen people describing the following terms in negative ways:

1) Environmentalism
2) Liberalism
3) Gun Control
4) Universal Health-Care
5) The United Nations
6) Socialism
7) ACLU
8) Democrats


I'd say people here are conditionally positive on environmentalism (favoring restrictions on pollution, but not on private property development), positive on classical liberalism but not on modern liberalism, negative on gun control (if by that is meant gov't regulation of guns), negative on universal health care (if by that is meant gov't provision of health care through taxation), somewhat negative on the United Nations (int'l cooperation is good, but this particular institution has done some harm), somewhat positive on the ACLU (they're generally good guys, with a few blind spots), and negative on both Democrats and Republicans.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: LeRuineur6 on March 03, 2004, 09:36:51 am
protovack,

I have never seen an anti-capitalist post on these forums before.  You must be the first!

Such a view is very, very unpopular around here.  We believe in personal AND economic freedom.  There can be no distinction between them.

A "corporation" is an organizational classification created by the government through which the government gives special privileges such as financial immunity to individuals who incorporate their businesses.

In reality, we're not talking about "corporations", we're talking about companies, businesses, and entrepreneurs.  In other words, we're talking about you and me.  This is why economic freedom cannot be separated from personal freedom.

People cannot be "exploited" in voluntary transactions such as voluntary employment.  If you do not like your pay, then find another job.  Involuntary exploitive labor, therefore, does not exist in this country as far as I am aware.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 03, 2004, 09:40:12 am
The problems with institutions like socialism, gun control and universal healthcare is that they must be imposed by a very heavy-handed government upon people who don't want those services.  How can that be construed as anarchism?

As for capitalism, it is the economic system based on voluntary exchange; it is the only economic system that fits human nature.  Any other system requires heavy-handed government and is immoral.  To be sure, this system is very different from the "big government" capitalism we have today, in which corporations and big government collude in ways that violate individual rights.

The foundation of what most libertarians (and free staters) believe can be viewed in this excellent flash animation from ISIL:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 03, 2004, 09:55:07 am
Further, I have to voice my sentiments on guns.  Of course I respect the right to own guns.  People might just think they are cool, or they might enjoy target shooting.  However, all available data currently suggests that the mere existence of guns in a community poses the risk of accidental shootings, or emotionally charged shootings.  

What data is that? The data I read suggests that the more guns there are, the less crime there is, and the less likely a government will infringe on individual rights.

The most comprehensive book on the subject is titled "More Guns, Less Crime."  You can buy it at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226493644/qid=1078325668//ref=pd_ka_1/102-6557605-7552158?v=glance&n=507846).

Let's keep in mind that a gun is an inanimate object, just a tool, that can be misused and have roles in accidents, just as many things can.  Not unlike automobiles, which are far more deadly, and far more prone to accident, yet hardly anyone is calling for the banning of automobiles.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: atr on March 03, 2004, 10:02:02 am
Further, I have to voice my sentiments on guns.  Of course I respect the right to own guns.  People might just think they are cool, or they might enjoy target shooting.  However, all available data currently suggests that the mere existence of guns in a community poses the risk of accidental shootings, or emotionally charged shootings.  

What data is that?  This is terribly misinformed view.  The data I read suggests that the more guns there are, the less crime there is, and the less likely a government will infringe on individual rights.

The most comprehensive book on the subject is titled "More Guns, Less Crime."  You can buy it at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226493644/qid=1078325668//ref=pd_ka_1/102-6557605-7552158?v=glance&n=507846).

In fairness, the book you've linked includes some dubious data. However, the important point to make is that whether guns correlate with crime is generally irrelevant. Cars are responsible for vastly more crime and deaths than guns. Liberty is an end in itself, more important than statistical analyses.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 03, 2004, 10:05:06 am
In fairness, the book you've linked includes some dubious data. However, the important point to make is that whether guns correlate with crime is generally irrelevant. Cars are responsible for vastly more crime and deaths than guns. Liberty is an end in itself, more important than statistical analyses.

You beat me to it... I had just modified my post to include the automobile analogy.  You're right.  Liberty is reason alone to oppose government gun control.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 03, 2004, 12:16:14 pm
protovack,

I have never seen an anti-capitalist post on these forums before.  You must be the first!

Such a view is very, very unpopular around here.  We believe in personal AND economic freedom.  There can be no distinction between them.

A "corporation" is an organizational classification created by the government through which the government gives special privileges such as financial immunity to individuals who incorporate their businesses.

In reality, we're not talking about "corporations", we're talking about companies, businesses, and entrepreneurs.  In other words, we're talking about you and me.  This is why economic freedom cannot be separated from personal freedom.

People cannot be "exploited" in voluntary transactions such as voluntary employment.  If you do not like your pay, then find another job.  Involuntary exploitive labor, therefore, does not exist in this country as far as I am aware.

Unfortunately it is a little more complicated than that, there are a group of left libertarians who call themselves Agorists (practicing "counter-economics") who are critical of capitalists (vs entreprenuers/innovators w/o state sanctioned priviledge) calling for a "pure" freemarket anarchism and draw this distinction:

excerpt:

Q: What are the main differences between left-libertarianism/agorism and anarcho-capitalism?

SEK3 - There are several ways of looking at this, from a theoretical view, from a strategic view, with left jargon, with right terminology, etc., but it's a fair question.

In theory, those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists (I believe Jarrett Wollstein, in his defection from Objectivism, coined the term back in early 1968) do not differ drastically from agorists; both claim to want anarchy (statelessness, and we pretty much agree on the definition of the State as a monopoly of legitimized coercion, borrowed from Rand and reinforced by Rothbard).  But the moment we apply the ideology to the real world (as the Marxoids say, "Actually Existing Capitalism") we diverge on several points immediately.

First and foremost, agorists stress the Entrepreneur, see non-statist Capitalists (in the sense of holders of capital, not necessary ideologically aware) as relatively neutral drone-like non-innovators, and pro-statist Capitalists as the main Evil in the political realm. Hence our favorable outlook toward "conspiracy theory" fans, even when we think they're misled or confused.  As for the Workers and Peasants, we find them an embarrassing relic from a previous Age at best and look forward to the day that they will die out from lack of market demand (hence my phrase, deliberately tweaking the Marxoids, "liquidation of the Proletariat").  One can sum that up in the vulgar phrase, "If the State had been abolished a century ago, we'd all have robots and summer homes in the Asteroid belt."

The "Anarcho-capitalists" tend to conflate the Innovator (Entrepreneur) and Capitalist, much as the Marxoids and cruder collectivists do.  (It's interesting that the gradual victory of Austrian Economics, particularly in Europe, has led to some New Leftists at least to take our claim seriously that the Capitalist and Entrepreneur are very different classes requiring different analyses, and attempt to grapple with the problem [from their point of view] that creates for them.)

Agorists are strict Rothbardians, and, I would argue in this case, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard, who still had some of the older confusion in his thinking.  But he was Misesian, and Mises made the original distinction between Innovators/Arbitrageurs and Capital-holders (i.e., mortgage-holders, coupon-clippers, financiers, worthless heirs, landlords, etc.).  With the Market largely moving to the 'net, it is becoming ever-more pure entrepreneurial, leaving the brick 'n' mortar "capitalist" behind.

But it is dealing with current politics and current defence where Agorists most strongly differ from "anarcho-capitalists." A-caps generally (and they have lots of individual variation) believe in involvement with existing political parties (libertarian, Republican, even Democrat and Socialist, such as the Canadian NDP), and, in the extreme case, even support the Pentagon and U.S.  Defense complex to fight communism (I wonder what their excuse is now?) until we somehow get to abolishing the State.  Agorists, as you have undoubtedly picked up, are revolutionary; we don't see the market triumphing without the collapse of the State and its ruling caste, and, as I point out in New Libertarian Manifesto, historically, they just don't go without unleashing senseless violence on the usually peaceful revolutionaries who then defend themselves.

---------------------------------------------

I have posted on this in the commons and have a link there to the full interview for those interested:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=46;action=display;threadid=5771 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=46;action=display;threadid=5771)

To read the Left Libertarian Manifesto from the Agorists (author died last week):
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/nlm/nlm.html)
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: freedomroad on March 03, 2004, 12:42:14 pm
About Anarchy (I'm listening to NOFX right now).  We have some anarchist in the FSP, but not many.  Check out http://www.strike-the-root.com for so cool news.

Quote
Maybe I've just never been exposed to this element of society before.


That's what it seems like to me :)

Talking about the Min. Wage, that doesn't come into play in NH for the average adult.  It is not even as issue because people don't make it.

Quote
But seriously, what would be the problem with a public-cooperative dedicated to bringing universal health care to the free state?

Dude, almost everyone in NH has health care.  They get it by working for a company or by working for the government or by being disabled or elderly.  

To answer your question, why do we not want to close down all of the companies in NH that deal with health care (increase taxes by 35%)  and then give everyone lower quality government health care?  Because the productive people would leave NH and the FSP and go to lower taxed states where the government did not steal all of their income (just to give it to those that did not earn it) and give them low quality health care that might kill them.  Cuba has universal health care.  Canada has universal health care, and many people from Canada come to America for health care because of this very reason.

Also, you might want to check the U.S. Constitution or the NH Constitution.  Neither one of them say government can do universal health care, and it is a bad idea to change such important documents in the name of limiting freedom.  Look at Cali, for example.  About 1/2 of the companies plan to expand outside of the state (instead of inside) because the government is out of controll.

Quote
What is so wrong with democrats?

Nothing.  We have Democrats in the FSP and would welcome more as long as they are follow the FSP statement of intent.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 03, 2004, 12:43:59 pm
Leave it to BillG to dredge up some choice indecipherable rubbish.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 03, 2004, 01:18:41 pm
Leave it to BillG to dredge up some choice indecipherable rubbish.

ad hom·i·nem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

tsk tsk Karl!
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 03, 2004, 01:27:24 pm
Leave it to BillG to dredge up some choice indecipherable rubbish.

ad hom·i·nem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

tsk tsk Karl!

I won't explain in every detail how obscure and dense the "manifesto" you cited is.  It is self evident to all who read it.

That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Eddie Willers on March 03, 2004, 04:16:45 pm
Quote
That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.

That, boys and girls, is a textbook example of an "ad hominem" attack. As Cicero so aptly put it:

"If you don't have a good argument, attack the plaintiff."

'nuff said.

Eddie
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 03, 2004, 08:20:50 pm
Quote
That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.

That, boys and girls, is a textbook example of an "ad hominem" attack. As Cicero so aptly put it:

"If you don't have a good argument, attack the plaintiff."

'nuff said.

Eddie

This "geo" libertarian thanks you sir, Mr. "neo" objectivist, for those "to the point" remarks. You will make a fine granite "stater"...
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: protovack on March 04, 2004, 04:03:04 am

In reality, we're not talking about "corporations", we're talking about companies, businesses, and entrepreneurs.  In other words, we're talking about you and me.  This is why economic freedom cannot be separated from personal freedom.

People cannot be "exploited" in voluntary transactions such as voluntary employment.  If you do not like your pay, then find another job.  Involuntary exploitive labor, therefore, does not exist in this country as far as I am aware.

Ok, your distinction between corporations and "companies" holds some water.  And you also included entrepreneurs, which is good, because they are at least individuals right?  But what about the engineers who design everything, and the workers who make everything?  Sure you can say "If you don't like your pay, find another job."  But we are talking about one small state here, correct?  

For example, what if I am a waitor, or a janitor, single parent, with kids.  And what if I really agree with the FSP, and I want to move to NH.  What are my options going to be when I get there.  Do the Libertarians care about me at all? Or are we only recruiting professionals who already have skills that can get them a good job?

It seems semi-hypocritcal to me, to suggest that we all support personal and economic freedom, yet offer no alternative to the current problem with wages for unskilled workers.  I see social-darwinism creeping in.

And next, you have claimed that "involuntary or exploitive labor does not exist in this country as far as I am aware."  Now, no matter what all our views on capitalism are, we all know that its here and we have to work with it.  I know that, even as a semi-anarchist.  I'm not sure where you are looking, but there are plenty of examples of labor exploitation in this country.  The reason we buy many fruits, vegetables, and meat products at an insanely low price is that immigrant labor is being exploited.  Then take a look at the working poor, who typically attempt to support a family on a less-than-living wage.  I wouldn't say that we can solve all these problems at once, but come on. At least see the world as it is.

It's easy to pick and move to NH when you're a professional, making good money.  I think we should consider that situations of our fellow citizens as well, and somehow institute a living wage law of some kind.

Now, i know the word "law" is loaded around here, so how can we encourage NH businesses to support this idea?

I guess it depends on if you think people will selflessly pay their workers enough to live on. Personally, I don't think a lot of classical libertarians really even care.  But I think I speak for a least a few people when I pose these questions.  

How would you do it?

1) Sponsor an actual bill for a living wage and try to get it passed in congress?

or

2) Use education and persuasion to convince everyone that its a good idea, in the hope that it will actually happen.

or

3) Who cares? People should go to school to learn new skills and get better jobs.

hehe, only problem is, were talking about people who clean your offices, serve you fast food, harvest your produce, sell you gasoline, answer customer support lines, etc etc..

You CAN'T have a nation of 350 million people with Masters degrees. It'll never happen and it never should.  

Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 04, 2004, 05:05:50 am
First of all. You claim to be an anarchist.

How do you expect to enforce socialism, with-out a government forcing people to give their wealth that they worked for to other people?

Anarcho-socialism?

Wow. So you just think people would be willing to volentarily give most of their wealth that they worked for away to others?

Well, in many ways that happens with the free market. Lots of people volentarily donate to charities. In the free market their alloud to choose which and what types of charities they donate too. Under socialism, they're FORCED to "donate" to a single central monopoly agency who somehow has the hubris to think that he knows better then the individual how that individual should spend his money.

Take a look at my article "Who are me helping"
http://www.geocities.com/tracysaboe/Privatecharityandwelfare.html

Tracy

TRacy
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 04, 2004, 05:07:57 am
Quote
You CAN'T have a nation of 350 million people with Masters degrees. It'll never happen and it never should.  

So do you think that instead we need a government to coersively set up a cast system dictating how many experts we need and how many "non" experts we need? A system which the government prilidged live off the work of the non-privlidged for the "greater good?"

Tracy
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: protovack on March 04, 2004, 05:34:12 am
Quote
First of all. You claim to be an anarchist.

Yes, although maybe I mis-represented myself.  I'm more of a libertarian-socialist.  Meaning, I think we could use a skeleton government that serves a meta-organizational function.  No funds would be controlled by it.  No laws, no police, and best of all, no "property rights."

Quote
How do you expect to enforce socialism, with-out a government forcing people to give their wealth that they worked for to other people?

Socialism doesn't need to be "enforced."  It also doesn't rest upon redistrobution of wealth.  Rather, it addresses the underlying causes of inequality in the first place.

Quote
How do you expect to enforce socialism, with-out a government forcing people to give their wealth that they worked for to other people?

I'm not interested in accumulating wealth.  I'm interested in food, a roof, and enough shared resources to accomodate the collective need for leisure and hobby time.  Thats it.  

Quote
Well, in many ways that happens with the free market. Lots of people volentarily donate to charities. In the free market their alloud to choose which and what types of charities they donate too

True, although a bulk of that money(the specific amount I'm not sure of), goes to "pet" charities.  For example, how much money goes to dog/cat rescue organizations, when there are American citizens starving.  Do we need to cure obscure genetic diseases before we feed and house our veterans?

Quote
Under socialism, they're FORCED to "donate" to a single central monopoly agency who somehow has the hubris to think that he knows better then the individual how that individual should spend his money.

It sounds like you don't really know what libertarian-socialism is.  Trust me, we have much more in common than you think.  I agree with you on basically everything, and additionally, I suggest that we address economic exploitation.  Social-darwinism certainly doesn't address that.  Simply saying "Well, the government shouldn't be a welfare state," is more of an avoidance of the real issues.  Why are people on welfare in the first place?  It's because all of our good jobs are in China.  It's because some people have psychotic disorders, many of them veterans.  It's because we are still a racist and sexist culture.  

It all comes back to your intro Sociology 201.  When you hear the words "Single mom on Welfare," don't just hear a soundbite.  Look at the meaning behind the situation.  Look at the economic opportunities available to people.

Libertarian-Socialism shares much with standard-fare libertarianism.  But lets remember what your stance is here.  Are you really a social-darwinist?  Just let everybody fall where they may....and if you aren't an "entrepreneur" then you're fucked?  Come on.

Sure, our wealth should be ours to keep. I guess I just don't share your belief in people being charitable.  

It's like people who volunteer at the Humane Society, but still eat meat.

It's not charity. It's filling up your time making yourself feel good.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: FTL_Ian on March 04, 2004, 07:11:12 am
Quote
It's like people who volunteer at the Humane Society, but still eat meat.

It's not charity. It's filling up your time making yourself feel good.

So what?  Making ourselves feel good by helping others is the motivation behind all charitable work.  There's nothing wrong with it.

Quote
Socialism doesn't need to be "enforced."  It also doesn't rest upon redistrobution of wealth.  Rather, it addresses the underlying causes of inequality in the first place.

Can you expand on this?

Regards,
Ian
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 04, 2004, 07:41:29 am
Quote
Yes, although maybe I mis-represented myself.  I'm more of a libertarian-socialist.  Meaning, I think we could use a skeleton government that serves a meta-organizational function.  No funds would be controlled by it.  No laws, no police, and best of all, no "property rights."

get yourself over to "The Commons" to interact with other "Left Libertarians"

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=46;action=display;threadid=5793 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=46;action=display;threadid=5793)
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 04, 2004, 08:36:22 am
[quote from protovack ]
Yes, although maybe I mis-represented myself.  I'm more of a libertarian-socialist.  Meaning, I think we could use a skeleton government that serves a meta-organizational function.  No funds would be controlled by it.  No laws, no police, and best of all, no "property rights."

Protovack

Glad to see your back, and I hope your keeping an open mind. By all means, stick to your beliefs- until you find you can't believe them anymore.

If you get the chance, theres some reading you might enjoy which  right along the lines of what seems to be your 'ideal society'.

The first is an eloquent essay by Oscar Wilde, written around the 1880's, in which he argues that socialism will inevitably lead to individualism,  titled "The Soul of Man Under Socialism".

The second is a short novel called "Looking Backward", written in the late 1890's. I forget the authors name, but in the story he envisions Boston in the year 2000, a hundred years in the future. Its a largely socialist society, and the author gets into the details of government and economics and wages and entertainment.

I recommend them only insomuch as they were written before socialism had a chance to prove itself in the field. They offer a chance to look at how things were envisioned to work, theoretically, in such a society and, in the past century, we get to look back and see how they turned out in practice.

A question on your quote above... No property rights? Well, i'm a lobsterman. If their were no property rights, my boat wouldn't belong to me, right? Perhaps i'd be working on a government boat?

So there i'd be, risking my life on a government boat, to make a small living for myself. But it wouldn't be for myself. The government would need its share, as they need to maintain the vessel. And the money left, well, I couldn't keep it because I live in an ideal society where everyone has a home and food and health care, and even though they might fill out 'emergency need' forms all day in the office, i'm out risking my ass on the water, in all seasons and weather.  Wheres the justice?
Quote
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: LeRuineur6 on March 04, 2004, 09:00:09 am
It seems semi-hypocritcal to me, to suggest that we all support personal and economic freedom, yet offer no alternative to the current problem with wages for unskilled workers.  I see social-darwinism creeping in.

New Hampshire's poverty rate is 40% (?) lower than Vermont's, yet Vermont has FAR MORE government social programs.

Why?

Because in a free society, people will lift THEMSELVES out of poverty.

Proof:

Report Card on Vermont #4 - NH versus VT
http://home.adelphia.net/~frankmazur/nh_vs_vt.htm

"New Hampshire’s poverty rate has decreased in 5 years to the lowest in the country while Vermont’s has remained at 10%.  The percent of population receiving public aid in New Hampshire is half of what it is in Vermont.  Welfare payments are also significantly lower in New Hampshire and their caseload reduction caused by welfare reform is 2 times greater than Vermont’s.  The leniency in the administration of welfare in Vermont and the benefits to the poor make this state a hand out leader."

"It appears Vermont’s potpourri of taxes and fees only stimulates the appetite of bureaucrats.  New Hampshire has the same level of services without the broad-based sales and income tax.  New Hampshire’s  tax free, self-serving, if-you-can-make-it-you-can-keep-it economic philosophy has helped the economic climate in New Hampshire."


People do not WANT to live in poverty.

Also, charitable donation and volunteerism help as a hand up rather than a handout.  This is addressed by the Give Five charity that we're starting in the FSP-Charities group.  In New Hampshire, we're going to promote giving 5% of your net income and 5 hours per week to charitable purposes.

A free society is the most prosperous society because it is directly in line with human nature.  Governments and laws inherently violate human nature, and thus will never be successful "solutions" to any problem.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 04, 2004, 09:03:51 am
protovack,

Based on your questions, I suspect you haven't had an opportunity to read much about free market economics vs. socialism.  On its face, socialism seems like the moral system.  Virtually everyone wants their fellow man to have a good education, good health, satsifying work, and a happy life.  Socialism means well by striving to provide these things for everyone.  But, there is a cost.  To enact it, government must threaten to jail and murder those with wealth to give it to those it deams deserving.

That said, it would be unwise to rely on this forum to eductate yourself on this subject.  The way I began to understand moral economics is by slowly taking in the wealth of quality information available for free over the internet.  By understanding this philosophy, it will become easy to determine how most free staters might tend in specific policy.

Start with this animation.  Its abstract, but extremely useful.  I still like to watch it every now and then:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Read some of the regularly published articles on these web sites:

http://www.mises.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.free-market.net

Mises is more academic.  A great recent article appropriate to this discussion titled "Proud to be a Replacement Worker" (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1461) seems particularly appropriate for this discussion (although I do strongly disagree with its conclusion that union strikes constitute coersion; carrying signs and exercising free speech on public property can in no way constitute initiation of force).  

LewRockwell.com is a bit more firebrand, written to an audience that already understands libertarian fundamentals and appreciates free-market economics.

Free-Market.net also contains many great articles.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 04, 2004, 09:37:19 am
Karl Biesel

I loved that animation you mentioned,

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Absolutely wonderful... Don't miss it, Protovack!
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 04, 2004, 09:37:50 am
Socialism doesn't need to be "enforced."  It also doesn't rest upon redistrobution of wealth.  Rather, it addresses the underlying causes of inequality in the first place.

Of course it needs to be enforced.  How else will wealth be given to the poor if the wealthy aren't willing to give it to them?

BTW, a kind of micro-socialism does exist and is good -- families, churches and all manner of community/charitable organizations are socialist by design.  Of course, all of these are voluntary.  And they work fairly well.  One of the consequences of governmentalized socialism is that it weakens these institutions.  Ex: Why should I give money to the church when the government already takes care of the poor?

Quote
I'm not interested in accumulating wealth.  I'm interested in food, a roof, and enough shared resources to accomodate the collective need for leisure and hobby time.  Thats it.

Start a collective, a church, or a family.  If you have wealth to spare, invite the poor to share in your wealth.  Remember, life can never be a free ride.  At minimum, one must hunt/gather and cook, and have shelter.  Like all creatures in the world, humans should be expected to provide for their own life, and not live on the production of others against that producer's will.

Quote
True, although a bulk of that money(the specific amount I'm not sure of), goes to "pet" charities.  For example, how much money goes to dog/cat rescue organizations, when there are American citizens starving.  Do we need to cure obscure genetic diseases before we feed and house our veterans?

This is false.  Where did you get this idea?

Here's a web site that describes the destination of most charities.  Almost half goes to churches and education.  The pets charities are so small, their lobbed into the "environment/animals" categoriy at 2.7%.  I bet they're significantly less than half of one percent.

(http://www.aafrc.org/images/giving_usa_2003_recipients_pie.jpg)
http://www.aafrc.org/bytypeof.html

Quote
...Why are people on welfare in the first place?  It's because all of our good jobs are in China.  It's because some people have psychotic disorders, many of them veterans.  It's because we are still a racist and sexist culture.

This is also false.  More Americans are more prosperous today than ever.  Outsourcing production to China, where they can make certain goods more efficiently, is a boon for Americans.  It means more Americans can buy less expensive goods, and use their time and labor in pursuing more worthwhile goals and more prosperous ends.

I believe you have grossly overestimated the number of uncared for veterans with psychotic disorders.

America is probably the least sexist and least racist culture the world has ever known, though it does exist in some places.  Again, you have overestimated its existance, and its impact.  Crying racism and sexism is no longer an excuse for getting on the government dole, as it might once have been.

Quote
Libertarian-Socialism shares much with standard-fare libertarianism.  But lets remember what your stance is here.  Are you really a social-darwinist?  Just let everybody fall where they may....and if you aren't an "entrepreneur" then you're fucked?  Come on.

The term "social-darwinism" is archaic, and does not describe most libertarians.  Libertarians, for the most part, simply don't want other people stealing from them.  Libertarians want to choose the time and manner in how their wealth is used.

Quote
Sure, our wealth should be ours to keep. I guess I just don't share your belief in people being charitable.

What is so wrong about expecting individuals to sustain their own lives?  Every creature on earth does it.  The "poor" are not some permanently oppressed group.  They are people who work jobs or engage in trade, or cultivate land for crops, to support themselves and their families, just as every human being has the moral duty to do.  Because they make some "income" below some line established by buerocrats ought not compel everyone to render them additional aid beyond what they are receiving for their voluntarily-provided services.

Quote
It's like people who volunteer at the Humane Society, but still eat meat.
It's not charity. It's filling up your time making yourself feel good.

When I give money to charity, I expect to feel good about it.  Thats what motivates me to give to charity.  It would take a twisted moral outlook to expect me to feel bad about it.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: RhythmStar on March 04, 2004, 10:56:12 am
Leave it to BillG to dredge up some choice indecipherable rubbish.

ad hom·i·nem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

tsk tsk Karl!

I won't explain in every detail how obscure and dense the "manifesto" you cited is.  It is self evident to all who read it.

That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.

Actually, the information is spot-on!   Corporate fascism has blinded many liberatarians into confusing individual rights with the privileges of government-sanctioned authoritarian collectives (i.e., multi-national corporations).   These are quasi-governmental entities operating in ways that are antagonistic to individual freedom -- they are the coming Borganism in its infancy!

All freedom and rights ARE individual.  Everything else is corporate fiction.

RS
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 04, 2004, 11:09:44 am
Leave it to BillG to dredge up some choice indecipherable rubbish.

ad hom·i·nem    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

tsk tsk Karl!

I won't explain in every detail how obscure and dense the "manifesto" you cited is.  It is self evident to all who read it.

That you are a frequent purveyor of such garbage is standalone fact; anything you post is suspect by reputation alone.

BTW, I wasn't questioning your motive.  I was questioning your competence.

Actually, the information is spot-on!   Corporate fascism has blinded many liberatarians into confusing individual rights with the privileges of government-sanctioned authoritarian collectives (i.e., multi-national corporations).   These are quasi-governmental entities operating in ways that are antagonistic to individual freedom -- they are the coming Borganism in its infancy!

I was only stating that it was difficult to read.  The author used disjointed academicese.

I am in agreement that corporations have excessive government-granted priveledges.  I am deeply troubled at how corporations have grafted themselves into the government, and am increasingly skeptical of the wisdom of their limited-liability protections.  On the other hand, I am even more skeptical of attempts to apply band-aid solutions by regulating these businesses, which essentially grafts them even more into government.  These band-aids are often what I see proposed by Greens and other lefties, motivated more by a desire to harness the powers of these corporations for the benefit of big government than to end the evil perpetrated by them.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 04, 2004, 03:02:57 pm
Quote
I am in agreement that corporations have excessive government-granted priveledges.  I am deeply troubled at how corporations have grafted themselves into the government, and am increasingly skeptical of the wisdom of their limited-liability protections.  On the other hand, I am even more skeptical of attempts to apply band-aid solutions by regulating these businesses, which essentially grafts them even more into government.  These band-aids are often what I see proposed by Greens and other lefties, motivated more by a desire to harness the powers of these corporations for the benefit of big government than to end the evil perpetrated by them

who specifically is arguing for regulation of corporations for the benefit of big government here? can you cite an example?
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 04, 2004, 03:43:48 pm
who specifically is arguing for regulation of corporations for the benefit of big government here? can you cite an example?

Not even Hillary Clinton admits her Marxist dreams.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 04, 2004, 03:59:29 pm
who specifically is arguing for regulation of corporations for the benefit of big government here? can you cite an example?

Not even Hillary Clinton admits her Marxist dreams.

yet, Bill O'Reilly still has the guts to makes the charge...
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 04, 2004, 04:27:19 pm
who specifically is arguing for regulation of corporations for the benefit of big government here? can you cite an example?

Not even Hillary Clinton admits her Marxist dreams.

yet, Bill O'Reilly still has the guts to makes the charge...

BillG, I do not know why you expect me show you any respect.  I gave you that opportunity, as have many others.  In past discussions, you have repeatedly ignored those who pointed out critical flaws in your "geo-lib" program, refusing to explore the issues meaningfully, or even talking about how to you might mitigate those flaws, which were self-evident by all but you.  In doing so, you've demonstrated complete disrespect for those who were discussing the matter with you, and insulted their intelligence repeatedly.  By now you must agree that your "geo-lib" program has not sold well among free staters, nor has it attracted any more than a couple new members, if that.  Your denial of this fact is another insult to my intelligence.

Your apparent inability to move on from trying to sell your whole "geo-lib" program is very disheartening.  I know we agree on some things, like the LVT.  I'm interested in knowing how your efforts are going there, and what you thought the best way to sell the LVT tax to policymakers was.  An LVT shift is a major big deal for a city the size of Concord or Manchester, and your experience in the matter could benefit other activists.  But if you try to sell it along with your "citiziens dividend" and "economic scarcity rent" your audience and your effectiveness, is going to be small indeed.

I'm not asking you to give up your geo-lib ideas, I'm asking you to stop treating your fellow FSP members like morons, and to work on those topics where there is more agreement.  Until you do, just call me O'Reilly, because that will be all you deserve from me.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 04, 2004, 04:41:29 pm
If you have no property right, it's impossible to give to charity. It's impossible to help others if I can't own anything with which to help them.

Property rights evolved before government. They already existed prior to government.  The only way to force people not to claim property is which government force.

Look at Communist Russia. Look how many people had to be murdered and killed for their private-property free utopia. And they still didn't get it.

How can you believe the notion that you can't own property, and yet expect me to leave your roof in tact. After all, if you don't own, it. I can use it. You have no right to tell me to stop dismanteling it, or taking it. It's not yours.

TRacy
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 04, 2004, 05:49:43 pm
who specifically is arguing for regulation of corporations for the benefit of big government here? can you cite an example?

Not even Hillary Clinton admits her Marxist dreams.

yet, Bill O'Reilly still has the guts to makes the charge...

BillG, I do not know why you expect me show you any respect.  I gave you that opportunity, as have many others.  In past discussions, you have repeatedly ignored those who pointed out critical flaws in your "geo-lib" program, refusing to explore the issues meaningfully, or even talking about how to you might mitigate those flaws, which were self-evident by all but you.  In doing so, you've demonstrated complete disrespect for those who were discussing the matter with you, and insulted their intelligence repeatedly.  By now you must agree that your "geo-lib" program has not sold well among free staters, nor has it attracted any more than a couple new members, if that.  Your denial of this fact is another insult to my intelligence.

Your apparent inability to move on from trying to sell your whole "geo-lib" program is very disheartening.  I know we agree on some things, like the LVT.  I'm interested in knowing how your efforts are going there, and what you thought the best way to sell the LVT tax to policymakers was.  An LVT shift is a major big deal for a city the size of Concord or Manchester, and your experience in the matter could benefit other activists.  But if you try to sell it along with your "citiziens dividend" and "economic scarcity rent" your audience and your effectiveness, is going to be small indeed.

I'm not asking you to give up your geo-lib ideas, I'm asking you to stop treating your fellow FSP members like morons, and to work on those topics where there is more agreement.  Until you do, just call me O'Reilly, because that will be all you deserve from me.

let me see if I understand this...so are you saying that the Hillary comment wasn't another one of your smear jobs in an area of the forums where I can't defend my ideas after asking a simple forthright question?

where sir is your sense of fairness?
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: DualBerettas on March 04, 2004, 06:27:22 pm
What the hell is the deal with all this ugly individualism?  All of these items, save maybe "gun control," symbolize either people or ideas that at one point or another have struggled to bring rights to people.  

Gun Control....kills people.  Wanting to get rid of gun control is a struggle to bring the right of self defense to people...not just your tax paid politicians who have tax paid bodyguards with their guns and what not.

Food for thought

Gun Control does NOT AFFECT
Politicians = see reason above
Govt. = they make the laws and exempt themselves
Military = Duh
Police = they are exempt; not to mention in some areas where you can't carry a gun for your own protection yet 12 swat guys with submachine guns can defend themselves against 1 guy
Criminals = since by definition, they break the law, and if they don't care about the laws that say do NOT MURDER, RAPE, or ROB, etc.they why would they care about some dumb gun control law or laws or a no guns sign?

So if none of them are affected by gun control...who is left....?

US!  the law abiding citizen, the good guys!

Hope this helps.
DB

-------

Want to make pets live longer AND make a paycheck?
http://go2-url.com/aaui
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 05, 2004, 04:33:00 am
Greetings.
I, too, like protovack, am an anarchist.  You may also call me a libertarian socialist, for they are synonymous. (sorry protovack, the terminology is taken. :) ).

A few of you seem to be rather mystified as to how socialism and anarchism could coexist let-alone flourish together.  I'll try to break it down here.
there are two main varients which I am familiar with, the first of which being mutualism.  Mutualism is basically market-socialism in a stateless context.  Workers form cooperatives on the basis of mutual use of a single factory or perhaps they organize themselves at an even higher level.  These workers own the factory and the returns from the sales of all their products.  The self-manage democratically.  Rights to interest and rent are generally unrecognized though there would exist mutualist banks, a type of shared community bank which would facilitate investment in new capital (without charging interest).

And then there are the infamous anarcho-communists with whom I am most sympathetic.  Would should first of all remember that communism is necessarily anarchic, but not vice versa.  They advocate free access to the means of production and a "gift-economy" whereby goods are shared freely and produced according to need.  Common hesitations to anarcho-communism include:

but what about shit jobs:  there are a couple solutions.  My favorite idea is that they would be distributed equally throughout society.  what if everyone spend like an hour a week picking trash up off the streets?

how would people decide how much to produce:
simple...if goods are flying of the "store"-shelves faster than they are produced, the producers work within their means to make more.  In the long term, they will communicate with other groups of workers that they need more workers or communicate with architects and construction workers that a new factory should be built.  If it turns out that a certain type of good is scarce, that good can be rationed to those who want it (enforcement of the rationing being extremely decentralized) or perhaps it could be the responsibility of those who desire such goods to work with those who have the necessary knowledge to produce them themselves.  Solving problems of overproduction would be rather simple.  Workers stop making stuff. :)

anywho, for a primer on anarchism, id read this lengthy FAQ which puts things more eloquently than I ever could:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

for anarchist writers, I would definitely suggest Kropotkin.

As for the free state project, I am definitely intrigued and wish you all luck although I think the lion's share of repression is exerted by the federal government working in conjunction with the interests of capital.

ebola
np: venetian snares
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Eddie Willers on March 05, 2004, 05:40:27 am
Quote
I'm more of a libertarian-socialist. 

Sounds like you belong to the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party - aka "Green Nazis". They even have a website:

http://www.nazi.org/

I kid everybody not. The only difference is they usurp a whole flock of terms, and corrupt them into simple Naziism. Oh, and the swastika backgrounds are green instead of red.

Quote
  Mutualism is basically market-socialism in a stateless context.  Workers form cooperatives on the basis of mutual use of a single factory or perhaps they organize themselves at an even higher level.  These workers own the factory and the returns from the sales of all their products. 

This is an example of a parasitic philosophy. It depends on capitalism to get things started, then takes over and redistributes the profits in a different manner. There's a term for it, but the name escapes me at the moment.

It's all the same BS that socialists want.

As far as you guys being sufficiently satisfied with roof/food/ leisure activities, that is fine as far as it goes. **I** am not satisfied with such. Why not just get some Soma, and go to a feelie? ("Brave New World") and be done with it?

I'm sure a job at McDonalds will give you enough mental stimulation - not to mention nourishing food - to get you through the day.

By the way, what the heck is a "geo libertarian"?

Eddie
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 05, 2004, 06:03:51 am
Man, I just can't get the "Libertarian socialist" thing.

How could one maintain a sense of  individual freedom and unrestricted Liberty while being told to pick up trash on the streets for an hour every week?

Oh, gee, a gift economy? I can't wait to make a gift of everything i've earned in life for the sake of the people.

So you think that the lions share of repression is exerted by the federal government working in conjunction with the interests of capital? So you intend to solve this by the people taking over the federal government, so the people are working in the interests of capital? Or maybe it would be better solved by destroying capital?

Your position seems w...  ahh... thought out, but how can you justify it? How?
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 05, 2004, 06:16:48 am
LOL!

http://www.nazi.org/


 Great link, Eddie Willers, for the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. I feel like I just went on a trip to Europe!
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: FTL_Ian on March 05, 2004, 06:26:26 am
Quote
shit jobs: they would be distributed equally throughout society

Anarchy means "without rule".  That sure as hell sounds like rule to me.

Quote
communism is necessarily anarchic

 ??? ??? ??? WTF?

Okay, let's play "Make up our own definitions!"!  Sorry "comrade", but communism has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with control by an elite state.

Sieg Heil!
Ian
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Jhogun on March 05, 2004, 08:05:08 am
You may also call me a libertarian socialist, for they are synonymous. (sorry protovack, the terminology is taken. :) ).

No, they are mutually exclusive.

Libertarianism means free markets, freedom of association, and little to no government.

Socialism means control of the market and means of production by government.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 05, 2004, 08:09:03 am
I think ebola's idea of libertarian socialism implies that the people, not the government, will control production and distribution.

Isn't that a pretty picture?
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 05, 2004, 08:29:29 am
I think ebola's idea of libertarian socialism implies that the people, not the government, will control production and distribution.

Isn't that a pretty picture?

there is a third way that proper balances equality and freedom...

here is a leading NC Libertarian Party's website who is a proponent

http://holisticpolitics.org (http://holisticpolitics.org)

Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Karl on March 05, 2004, 08:49:44 am
A few of you seem to be rather mystified as to how socialism and anarchism could coexist let-alone flourish together.  I'll try to break it down here.

ebola,

What you are describing is voluntary "socialism", not political socialism as most of us understand it.  This is compatible with the FSP philosophy, because it is based on voluntary mututal consent, not force or fraud.  If someone voluntarily wants to live by the Marxist creed with others, they should be free to do so, as long as they don't force the unwilling to partcipate.

But you should realize that voluntary communes have a long and colorful history of self-destruction.  They are fundamentally incompatible with human nature -- the Communists had murder millions of people to maintain it, because the most productive of society would not voluntarily submit to it.  Successful communal structures tend to be bound by strong social ties, such as with families.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: bostnfound on March 05, 2004, 03:59:11 pm
Quote
shit jobs: they would be distributed equally throughout society

Anarchy means "without rule".  That sure as hell sounds like rule to me.

Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary before defining the meaning of Anarchy.  Anarchy means "without GOVERNMENT" not without rule.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: freedomroad on March 05, 2004, 04:13:36 pm

Anarchy means "without rule".  That sure as hell sounds like rule to me.

Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary before defining the meaning of Anarchy.  Anarchy means "without GOVERNMENT" not without rule.

Words can have more than one meaning.  Anarchy has many.  It comes from a Greek word (or two Greek words) and its etymology means something like without a ruler.  Some people take that to mean government and some dictionaries might use the word government.

http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Anarchy
http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/A0282000.html


Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: freedomroad on March 05, 2004, 04:21:28 pm
I think ebola's idea of libertarian socialism implies that the people, not the government, will control production and distribution.

Isn't that a pretty picture?

That is exactly what libertarians want.  If the people control production and distribution that is called a free-market economy (the type of economy we are fighting for.)  Long life the birth of capitalism in NH.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 05, 2004, 05:06:52 pm
Capitalism!
A Free Market Economy!
 Free Enterprise!
Thrive Taco Bell!

I don't want people to dictate production and distribution!
I want the Free Market to dictate those terms!!

CAPITALISM IS NEXT TO GODLINESS!!!!!
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 05, 2004, 05:10:06 pm
Quote
CAPITALISM IS NEXT TO GODLINESS!!!!!

Indeed

Christianity's Free Market Tradition.
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1267&month=58

Tracy
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 05, 2004, 05:32:29 pm
Christianity's Free Market Tradition.
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1267&month=58

How do have all this information at the tip of your fingertips, Tracy? Damn, your fast.

Another enjoyable link, which i'll be sure to reread. Thanks.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 05, 2004, 05:34:59 pm
:-)

Part two is here

"Profits vs Society: Must We Choose?"
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1270&month=58

Glad to be of help.

I have a fairly good memory, so I usually can remember pretty quickly where I've read something.

Tracy
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 06, 2004, 12:31:14 am
<<
This is an example of a parasitic philosophy. It depends on capitalism to get things started, then takes over and redistributes the profits in a different manner. There's a term for it, but the name escapes me at the moment.

It's all the same BS that socialists want.
>>

I am not a mututalist and accordingly am not an expert in mutualist economics.  However, given that the world in which we live has followed a singular, definite course of development, shouldn't we now be asking whether mutualism would be an appropriate politico-economic arrangement for present times, not whether mutualism would have spurned us on the same developmental path had it existed in place of capitalism?

>>As far as you guys being sufficiently satisfied with roof/food/ leisure activities, that is fine as far as it goes. **I** am not satisfied with such. Why not just get some Soma, and go to a feelie? ("Brave New World") and be done with it?

I'm sure a job at McDonalds will give you enough mental stimulation - not to mention nourishing food - to get you through the day.
>>

I'm not satisfied either and I am not advocating that we submit to authority for our own good.  What are you getting at?

>>How could one maintain a sense of  individual freedom and unrestricted Liberty while being told to pick up trash on the streets for an hour every week? >>

Within anarchism, specifically within anarcho-communism, the idea is not that someone else tells you do do a certain task.  The idea is that we share certain problems, mututally, and we have to decide a fair way to go about solving these problems.  The group using the streets in an area, for example, would have to decide how to clean those streets.  this decision could perhaps be voted on...voluntary democracy is a useful concept.

>>Oh, gee, a gift economy? I can't wait to make a gift of everything i've earned in life for the sake of the people. >>

Of course not everything would be a gift, of course people would have possessions.  You do have a point in that for anarchism to work, it would necessarily be voluntary.  the majority of people in an area would need be anarchists...

>>So you intend to solve this by the people taking over the federal government, so the people are working in the interests of capital? >>

You're thinking of Lenin, not me. :)


>>Or maybe it would be better solved by destroying capital?
>>

in which way?  I do not advocate destorying the factories, but I do advocate an end to the split between capitalist and worker and an end to wage-labor.  I say that the workers seize the factories...

>>shit jobs: they would be distributed equally throughout society
 

Anarchy means "without rule".  That sure as hell sounds like rule to me.

>>

We, ourselves, would distribute these jobs amongst ourselves...there would be no ruler enforcing some distribution schedule.

>>Okay, let's play "Make up our own definitions!"!  Sorry "comrade", but communism has nothing to do with anarchy, and everything to do with control by an elite state.>>

You have fallen prey to the cold-war era propaganda propagated by both the US and the USSR (both regimes' distortions of the ideas of Marx were surprisingly similar).  The USSR was not communist; it was not even socialist.  Various people have proposed that we call the USSR "state-capitalist", but I think this creates more confusion than clarity.  We can agree, though, that the USSR was rife with classist exploitation...

Even within the very writings of Marx is the idea that communism is anarchic.  He thought that after socialism had developed past a certain point, the state would "wither away" (this is my major disagreement with him)...at that point, laborers would be completely unalienated and the economy would be a "gift-economy" like I described.  this is communism.

>>No, they are mutually exclusive.

Libertarianism means free markets, freedom of association, and little to no government.

Socialism means control of the market and means of production by government. >>

Sorry, I wasn't very clear.  what I meant was that libertarian socialism is anarchism...not that libertarianism is socialism.

libertarianism doesn't necessarily entail a market-economy.  People as free should be free to choose group-strategies in production and consumption.  Your definition of socialism is to narrow.  Socialism is simply ownership of the means of production in groups.  Historically, people have attempted to acheive this through the state, but the state is a power unto itself, and when socialist ownership has been claimed, it has truly been totalitarian ownership.

>>But you should realize that voluntary communes have a long and colorful history of self-destruction.>>

I would argue that this has been due to prior monopolization of the means of production in the surrounding societal context.  With our present level of technological development, it is rather tough to build a self-contained productive economy on a tiny plot of land.  That, and it isn't easy to maintain a commune outside of the market-economy when the state demands taxes, especially taxes in currency.

>>They are fundamentally incompatible with human nature >>

As a side note, when most people posit a "human nature", it is really a projection of their particular cultural nature onto humanity at large...

>>the Communists had murder millions of people to maintain it, because the most productive of society would not voluntarily submit to it.>>

I would argue that the USSR had to murder millions to maintain itself precisely because it was NOT truly communist.  People were simply being exploited by their state under the banner of egalitarianism.

>>Successful communal structures tend to be bound by strong social ties, such as with families. >>

This is an empirical question which I hope anarchists will someday have a chance to answer.

>>Words can have more than one meaning.  Anarchy has many.  It comes from a Greek word (or two Greek words) and its etymology means something like without a ruler.  Some people take that to mean government and some dictionaries might use the word government.>>

To me, and to many anarchists, anarchy means without authority, without hierarchy.  Without rule puts the point across, I think.

>>I don't want people to dictate production and distribution!
I want the Free Market to dictate those terms!!>>

I would argue that under the world-capitalist system, the productive lives of the workers are dictated by what is most profitable for capital.  This results in an extreme loss of freedom and economic wealth on the part of the workers.  The decisions of the capitalists, on the other hand, are dictated by what is most profitable for the firm in competition with other firms.  This has lead to extremely irrational outcomes in the macroeconomy.

this topic is really beyond the scope of this post.  I have written a few essays on this kind of thing, if anyone is interested, And, of course, other people have written on this topic far more insightfully than I.

ebola
np: autechre
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 06, 2004, 12:33:30 am
Quote
However, given that the world in which we live has followed a singular, definite course of development

It has?  Their have been a multitute of economic and political philosophies that have been document throughout history.

Tracy
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Eddie Willers on March 06, 2004, 01:16:13 am
So many bogus points, so little time.

First, to put "USSR" and "capitalist" in the same sentence shows a profound lack of economic knowledge.

It appears that you are confusing "capitalist" with "wealth" and anything that puts money in one place therefore must be capitalism. This is not true. Dictators collect lots of wealth via taxation and direct plunder. They may even "own" businesses that sell stuff. None of this is "capitalism". It goes under various names, including totalitarianism, National Socialism, socialism, fascism, communism, mercantilism, "third way", aristocracy, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Any wealth building WITHIN such a system, but not benefitting FROM such a system is an "island of capitalism" within an ocean of looting.

Quote
Socialism is simply ownership of the means of production in groups. 

This is an incredibly vague "definition". Who are the groups? What is "means of production?", Who divides the "profits"? etc.etc.

For example, in Fascism, the "group" that "owns" the "means of production" are a small group of very wealthy that sell stuff primarily TO the State with all kinds of special laws preventing competition. However, that same State has the power to seize the means of production any time it wants on a whim. This is the system we have now in America. The whims are usually couched in environmental, social, or for breaking arcane rules.

Please read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", and then you'll understand a modicum of economic theory and will get your definitions right. As I've said before - you and protovack (?) are just green nazis.

'nuff said

Eddie
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 06, 2004, 08:22:21 am
You've got moxie, ebola, and you seem to be pretty informed in your beliefs, which I can admire, yet...

                        Capitalism=Individualism.

If I care about myself and my life, capitalism is the only economic system which not only allows, but actively promotes, the concept that my life belongs to me to do with it what I will.

What attracts you to socialism? Do you view it as all inclusive?
Did you check out the link Karl Biesel posted earlier? Here it is again:

                               http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 06, 2004, 05:08:15 pm
>>However, given that the world in which we live has followed a singular, definite course of development
 

It has?  Their have been a multitute of economic and political philosophies that have been document throughout history. >>

my apologies.  I was speaking unnecessarily vaguely.
What I meant is that the history into which we are born is given.  So the question is, "what do we do now?"

>>So many bogus points, so little time.

First, to put "USSR" and "capitalist" in the same sentence shows a profound lack of economic knowledge.
>>

There is a reason I said that I would avoid defining the USSR as "state-capitalist". :)

>>It appears that you are confusing "capitalist" with "wealth" and anything that puts money in one place therefore must be capitalism.>>

We are on the cusp of a fruitless semantic argument here, but it will be necessary for us to define our terms to avoid speaking past each other.  To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.  Capitalism flourishes best when commodity trade is utterly free, when property is owned privately and may be bought and sold at will.  It could be argued, though, that the govt. of the USSR acted as a single capitalist in relation to the many proletarians of the country.

>>Socialism is simply ownership of the means of production in groups.  
 

This is an incredibly vague "definition". Who are the groups? What is "means of production?", Who divides the "profits"? etc.etc.>>

I was so vague because I wanted to include the many socialist variants.  The owning group would be large and composed of common people, perhaps on the level of a single factory, perhaps on the level of all society.  They would devide profits amongst themselves.

>>For example, in Fascism, the "group" that "owns" the "means of production" are a small group of very wealthy that sell stuff primarily TO the State with all kinds of special laws preventing competition. However, that same State has the power to seize the means of production any time it wants on a whim. This is the system we have now in America. The whims are usually couched in environmental, social, or for breaking arcane rules.>>

This, here, is pretty insightful, although I would say that the state is more apt to lay its hand on the productive process in order to stimulate imperialist expansion by way of the military.

>>Please read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", and then you'll understand a modicum of economic theory and will get your definitions right.>>

I might check it out although I doubt this book will end all semantic arguments. :)  I think I do understand a modicum of economic theory, only my analysis begins from the standpoint of production whereas, it would seem, that yours begins with commodity-trade.

>>As I've said before - you and protovack (?) are just green nazis.>>

Hah...I thought the green Nazis were a joke. :)

>>You've got moxie, ebola, and you seem to be pretty informed in your beliefs, which I can admire, yet...>>

why thank you.  It is not so often that I am told I have "moxie".

>>If I care about myself and my life, capitalism is the only economic system which not only allows, but actively promotes, the concept that my life belongs to me to do with it what I will.>>

I disagree.  On a systemic level, capitalism's promises of ownership and autonomy are rendered false for the vast majority of individuals.  The majority are forced to sell their labor in the marketplace, putting their activity under the control of another individual four the majority of their waking ours, all for the profit of that individual.

>>What attracts you to socialism? Do you view it as all inclusive?>>

I believe that socialism, anarchic socialism specifically, allows for the free expression of the indivdual.  Laboring in a socialist economy, the laborer him or herself has free access to the means of production and is able to control his or her laboring activity and reap its fruits.  Also, what do you mean by "all inclusive"?

>>http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf>>

I watched it just now although flash-animation is not my prefered medium for communication of politico-economic theory. :)

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: SteveA on March 06, 2004, 05:18:22 pm
I think any type of government that people want to try is great, just as long as there is a voluntary peaceful way for people to opt out of one strategy and try another.

Quote
...perhaps on the level of all society...

So I would have to personally rule out the one size fits all concept.  We're seeing that lack of flexibility currently in government and want to avoid it.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Eddie Willers on March 07, 2004, 04:27:09 am
Quote
To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.

Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.

I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.

Eddie
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 07, 2004, 08:03:37 am
<<I disagree.  On a systemic level, capitalism's promises of ownership and autonomy are rendered false for the vast majority of individuals.>>

Ebola! I think your thinking in this instance is a little out of date, by a hundred years or so. Such an inference implies that old progressive thinking intended to raise up the hordes of immigrants or, for Europe, the hordes of the working classes.

This thinking always omits the fact that if the greedy capitalists hadn't invested in the lines of economic production which gave these masses the meagre wages they did, these masses would have starved.

If the wealthy had not invested in the infrastructure which made food production so productive, these masses would have starved.

Look at the state of the poor in America today. They (the poor) have a place to live, and heat in the winter. They have computers and automobiles. If they're hungry, its more likely than not they have a few bucks to spin by the local McDonalds.

Were the Free Capitalist Market be allowed to thrive, individual opportunities- and rewards- would thrive accordingly.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 07, 2004, 11:05:52 am
Quote
To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.

Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.

I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.

Eddie

forget the "means of production" argument which is the just product of someone's labor and simply substitute "access to land" and Rand's first principle of self-ownership crumbles under it's own hypocracy...

Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Mike Lorrey on March 07, 2004, 01:03:59 pm
Quote
To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.

Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.

I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.

Eddie

forget the "means of production" argument which is the just product of someone's labor and simply substitute "access to land" and Rand's first principle of self-ownership crumbles under it's own hypocracy...

Poor BillG, can't seem to be able to stay in your georgist ghetto. When the primary organizations preventing access to land are the governments and the charities they give tax exemptions to (tree hugger land trusts), the problem you speak of is obviously not one of capitalism, but of the socialist policies the georgists helped put in place in the early 20th century that create the present state of artificial scarcity.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 07, 2004, 01:37:35 pm
Quote
To me, the defining feature of capitalism is that, on one hand, we have a small group of individuals that own the means of production and purchase the laboring activity of workers in order to realize a profit, and on the other hand we have a larger group of wage-laborers which are propertyless and must sell their laboring activity in order gain access to to the means of production, and in the process produce their subsistence.

Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.

I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.

Eddie

forget the "means of production" argument which is the just product of someone's labor and simply substitute "access to land" and Rand's first principle of self-ownership crumbles under it's own hypocracy...

Poor BillG, can't seem to be able to stay in your georgist ghetto. When the primary organizations preventing access to land are the governments and the charities they give tax exemptions to (tree hugger land trusts), the problem you speak of is obviously not one of capitalism, but of the socialist policies the georgists helped put in place in the early 20th century that create the present state of artificial scarcity.

well, I guess it depends if you believe "government" land is collectively owned or held in common...

also, your consternation against private individuals purchasing land and holding it in trust places you squarely in the minority on these forums...that is what most people are advocating for!

 
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 07, 2004, 02:26:19 pm
Actually it's held by Government.  Who disallow anyone from entering. Not much of a "commons" if you ask me. It's controlled by a sellect few political agencies. Most of which make their regulations and laws with-out legislation.

If you want to expouse your land-socialist principles, do it in your forum that the board moderators of insainly given you. Don't come out here and discourage would be FSPers from joining.

Tracy
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Top Dollar on March 07, 2004, 04:22:09 pm
Then take a look at the working poor, who typically attempt to support a family on a less-than-living wage.

People shouldn't be having children they can't afford to support.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 08, 2004, 03:11:45 am
>>Listen up, folks! It's very rare when you see a naked Marxian argument these days. This is right out of Das Kapital.>>

No doubt, although Marx was hardly the first political economist to analyze in terms of class or exploitation in the process of production.

>>I change my mind, don't bother with "Road to Serfdom", go straight to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Rand. She shatters all Marxian rhetoric in 180 dense pages.>>

I'll give this a read some time.  Is it available online anywhere?  I'm so glad you suggested this instead of saying, "just read the fountainhead, okay?"

>>Ebola! I think your thinking in this instance is a little out of date, by a hundred years or so. Such an inference implies that old progressive thinking intended to raise up the hordes of immigrants or, for Europe, the hordes of the working classes.>>

Marx's analysis holds a great amount of relevance when we look at contemporary society although it needs a great deal of updating.  Luckily, later economists have undertaken this task.  Namely, we need to account for the fact that the present economy is dominated by massive oligopic firms rather than numerous competitive firms, and we must also keep in mind that capitalist exploitation, more than ever before, operates on a global level.  While it may be true that first-world proletarians, by and large, occupy a rather privileged position in comparison to their equivalents of the late nineteenth and earlier twentieth centuries, proletarians in the third world are in an even more exploited position than their predecessors in Europe and the USA.  Finally, Marx's analysis of the role of the state in this process is rather lackluster.

>>This thinking always omits the fact that if the greedy capitalists hadn't invested in the lines of economic production which gave these masses the meagre wages they did, these masses would have starved.>>

While it may be true that capitalists were responsible for driving investment  in the past, it would be rediculous to say that further development in the means of production required the classist exploitation of the capitalist system.  If production were socialized, investment could have continued to occur while workers could have partook in the fruits of their labor.  I also think it is innappropriate to blame individual capitalists as greedy.  It is because of the the acts necessary to thrive in the business world necessitated by the capitalist system that this exploitation has occured.  The exploitation exists on a systemic level; its source does not reside in any individual per se.

>>Look at the state of the poor in America today. They (the poor) have a place to live, and heat in the winter. They have computers and automobiles. If they're hungry, its more likely than not they have a few bucks to spin by the local McDonalds.>>

It seems to me that you are rather removed for the reality of the situation of the poor in the united states.  They lack necessary healthcare, live in overcrowded, delapidated housing, and definitely do not have the money to spend on McDonalds (if they do, it is because they have been working overtime and haven't time to cook), let alone computers.  Also, if you haven't noticed, our streets have a rather large presence of homeless people on them.

>>Were the Free Capitalist Market be allowed to thrive, individual opportunities- and rewards- would thrive accordingly. >>

Prove me wrong with your experiment in new Hampshire. :)

>>Actually it's held by Government.  Who disallow anyone from entering. Not much of a "commons" if you ask me. It's controlled by a sellect few political agencies. Most of which make their regulations and laws with-out legislation.>>

spot-on! :)

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: SteveA on March 08, 2004, 03:48:52 am
Quote
If production were socialized, investment could have continued to occur while workers could have partook in the fruits of their labor.

Workers have an effect over their wages, which are derived from their labor.  Companies must compete for labor and there are enough alternative ways to live that the workforce has options whether they choose to exercise them or not.

I think too many have the mindset that they are trapped in their job.  While it may be difficult to change jobs, for all the hours people spend daily working, it's worthwhile to invest a small percent of that looking for other options.  It's almost the duty of the populace to change jobs a few times in their life, just so companies don't take them for granted. ;)
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Eddie Willers on March 08, 2004, 06:17:43 am
Quote
well, I guess it depends if you believe "government" land is collectively owned or held in common...

Somebody above pretty well nailed you on this, but I wanted to add that it's amazing what the greenies want.

On one side, they want to have the government buy up all the land, kick any humans on or near it off, and let nature take over. In a few hundred years, perhaps the fires will stop. Or not.

The Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc. etc. all have tax breaks, and frequently actual cash to buy land. Then they start messing with their neighbors - tearing up right-of-ways, accidentally knocking down power poles, stuff like that, to push their neighbors off.

Also, once they get a plot of land, and their taxes go to nothing since it's not commercial, they expect the government to use its resources for police and fire protection.

And what if a hiker accidentally meanders onto a path in their property? They litigate them into oblivion.

They're the most hateful, arrogant bastards I've ever encountered. Between them and Uncle Sam, they own 80% of my county.

Which almost burned to the ground 18 months ago.

They swoop in, jobs are lost, property values go DOWN, services get stretched.

Their stated goal is to move everybody to cities, and eliminate the rural folk - such as myself - that "interface" with the wilderness. Those jerks thought that 18,000 people were an insufficient number of casualties to be wiped out during that fire.

We won't even get into the whole wildlife issue.

'nuff said.

Eddie

PS(NO, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" is not free. Think about it.)
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 08, 2004, 02:06:22 pm
>>PS(NO, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" is not free. Think about it.) >>

Heh, I almost made a crack about that.  Since Ms. Rand is dead, I was hoping someone wouldve pirated it.

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: BillG on March 08, 2004, 02:21:39 pm
Quote
well, I guess it depends if you believe "government" land is collectively owned or held in common...

Somebody above pretty well nailed you on this, but I wanted to add that it's amazing what the greenies want.

On one side, they want to have the government buy up all the land, kick any humans on or near it off, and let nature take over. In a few hundred years, perhaps the fires will stop. Or not.

The Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, etc. etc. all have tax breaks, and frequently actual cash to buy land. Then they start messing with their neighbors - tearing up right-of-ways, accidentally knocking down power poles, stuff like that, to push their neighbors off.

Also, once they get a plot of land, and their taxes go to nothing since it's not commercial, they expect the government to use its resources for police and fire protection.

And what if a hiker accidentally meanders onto a path in their property? They litigate them into oblivion.

They're the most hateful, arrogant bastards I've ever encountered. Between them and Uncle Sam, they own 80% of my county.

Which almost burned to the ground 18 months ago.

They swoop in, jobs are lost, property values go DOWN, services get stretched.

Their stated goal is to move everybody to cities, and eliminate the rural folk - such as myself - that "interface" with the wilderness. Those jerks thought that 18,000 people were an insufficient number of casualties to be wiped out during that fire.

We won't even get into the whole wildlife issue.

'nuff said.

Eddie

PS(NO, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" is not free. Think about it.)

Eddie,

you either support private indiviuals purchasing land for whatever purpose or not...I agree that their activities in no way should be subsidized.

I personally think everyone should pay a land value tax no matter who owns it but I am not allowed to discuss it outside of "the commons".

You can always start a new thread there and I will respond...
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 08, 2004, 02:27:01 pm
<<It seems to me that you are rather removed for the reality of the situation of the poor in the united states.  They lack necessary healthcare, live in overcrowded, delapidated housing, and definitely do not have the money to spend on McDonalds (if they do, it is because they have been working overtime and haven't time to cook), let alone computers.  Also, if you haven't noticed, our streets have a rather large presence of homeless people on them.>>

Oops, you got me wrong, Ebola (and though I would love to go about how much I admire the clarity and substance with which you argue, i'll stick with this for now).

The lifestyle which I chose to lead until the past few years left me with no income, no help from the state, no home... The people with whom I socialized were the homeless, the destitute, the poorest of the poor. And I have no sympathy for the large majority of them, as it is largely a matter of choice which keeps them in the predicament they are in and not the capitalist economy which never offers anything but a ladder up.

As for the poor having no health care, let me give you an example in a friend of mine. Shes an older lady, HIV positive for 14 years now (and on the methadone clinic for the same amount of time). She hasn't worked in at least ten years, and is entirely dependant on the state for her housing, her extensive health care, her methadone, her food (largely italian ice and sweet cereal), her utilities, and don't let me forget she has also has an 18 year old daughter who refuses to get a job, but constantly demands money for beer and clothes and for socializing and- you guessed it- McDonalds.

Because I exist, and choose to work, how can you tell me its my responsibility to take care of these people? It would be kinder to leave them to their own devices, and a lot more just. You cannot force- or 'expect'- those individuals who are capable of life to subsidize those who are indifferent or incapable of living.


And don't give me that crap about all the homeless people. A socialist utopia is impossible, as it feigns to exist under rules which have no consideration for the fact of reality. Hell, even the Buddhists will tell you, "LIFE IS DIFFICULT"!!!
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Eddie Willers on March 08, 2004, 04:35:56 pm
Quote
you either support private indiviuals purchasing land for whatever purpose or not...I agree that their activities in no way should be subsidized.

And that's the problem. The money that the WWF and Sierra Club use is partially tax free donations AND Federal money. So MY taxes get used to buy land at firesale prices, which then get taken off the tax rolls, and which the remaining services have to cover, too.

Also, the lands owned by FedGov, StateGov, and SierraGov (er SierraClub) don't have to follow the rules about fire prevention that I do. For example, here in Oregon, you're supposed to clear brush and trash for 30 or 50 feet or something on the perimeter of your entire property. If your property abutts one of these .gov lands, THEY don't have to follow those rules. Also, you can't do a "treatment" for the forest on your land, as that's not following their spec. A treatment is the standard private forestry practice of clearing brush and saplings, and spacing the trees apart for maximum growth and health of a forest.

If YOU don't follow the rules, you can get fined tens of thousands of dollars. Also, since THEY don't have to maintain their land, the fires invariably start in their land and jumps over to your land. You're ruined, they're "back to nature" which is a euphemism for "without man".

Nice system, eh?

Eddie
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: RhythmStar on March 08, 2004, 08:19:37 pm
Both extremes are wrong.  The successful path lies in between, balancing the efforts and needs of humans with maintaining REASONABLE biodiversity.

BTW, I think that not all species need to be preserved.  However, there is no reason not to DNA-bank the ones we know we are driving out.  That way, we can bring them back if we want to, and don't miss out on undiscovered biological assets they may possess.

RS
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: LeopardPM on March 09, 2004, 07:05:41 am
Wow Ebola!
Nice style!  how did I ever miss out on this?!

Quote
It seems to me that you are rather removed for the reality of the situation of the poor in the united states.  They lack necessary healthcare, live in overcrowded, delapidated housing, and definitely do not have the money to spend on McDonalds (if they do, it is because they have been working overtime and haven't time to cook), let alone computers.  Also, if you haven't noticed, our streets have a rather large presence of homeless people on them.
first off 'necessary healthcare' is totally subjective - there is a cost to healthcare and the amount any one person decideds to spend upon it is determined by their own values/morals/desires/needs - it is immoral for you or I to impose upon others how much they should spend on this service/good.  This same with 'delapidated housing' - why would you want to insult their housing of choice?  I am sure this housing they choose is quite inexpensive and fits within their budget - they are of course free to improve their skillset and employ themselves in undertaking labor which would bring them greater wealth to afford a wider choice in housing.  In comparing the poor in our country in a socio-economic-philisophical context, we must be honest and do so in an 'apples-to-apples' manner: our economic system has a great degree of free market overtones (though it is vastly hindered by our government interference and monetary policies), so to see how 'good' our poor are doing, we should compare with other nations of different economic models.  In this we see that almost across the board, the 'freer' the market is, the better the overall standard of living is - EVEN for those existng on the lowest rungs of society.

now, regarding the socializing of production: the total salaries of 90% the workers in america per year is TWICE the total value of 90% of all the companies - this means that if the workers truly desired to 'own the means of production' they could easily band together and voluntarily socialize just about the entire productive capacity of the US in perhaps three years (depending on how they mortgaged out the financing, etc).  Why don't they do this?  It is because they, for the most part, do not have the skills or talents necessary to guide the production in the best manner - the folks who DO know how to achieve this already own the companies.  I think a great misconception that alot of folks have is that somehow the 'worker' is different from the 'owner' or a 'company'.  The great insight which everyone needs to understand and where our 'public' education falls short on preparing kids for the 'real world' is this: basically every human being IS a 'company' - you make 'capital expenditures' (education), you have an 'overhead' (expenses like food, shelter, etc just about everything you spend your money on), and you provide a 'service' (your labor).  Now when a  person truly understands this and then understands how a free market works then it is easy to see that it is soley up to you to determine where you want to go.  Businesses MUST cater to their customers to continue to exist - the same for wage-earners, the 'customer' in question are 'wage-payers' or businesses.  You are competing with other wage-earners and it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the best service you can so you can be successful in your goals.  Continued education is a boon as well as a 'work ethic' (be on time, etc).  You simply CANNOT be exploited without coercion UNLESS you allow it, in which case it ceases to be 'exploitive'.  We do not 'exploit' migrant workers from mexico, they certainly don't feel that way or else they wouldn't make the ffort to work for the wages offered to them.  Perhaps to YOU, if you were forced to accept those same wages it would be exploitive, but those workers are not being forced (and those few that are should have legal retribution).  I suppose you might also rail against 'sweatshops' in the phillipines?  Do you understand that the folks that work in those businesses CHOOSE, purposely, to work in that environment over EVERY other job choice at their disposal - doesn't this tell you something - like if the 'sweatshops' were closed down then the workers would have an even lesser standard of living?

Re: minimum wage/liveable wage
ahhh, gotta love this argument: all people should be paid a 'liveable wage' for the work they do in our society.  Do you agree that different jobs require different skills and different labor abilities?  A Neurosurgeon has a much higher skillset and talents than a garbage collector.  Assuming you understand the logic here and understand that different jobs have different 'values' and that these 'values' are not arbitrarily set by some Godly Tome but by the aggregate values in society which is shown by the pricing system we have in the free market, then how can you tell me with a straight face that a person should be paid some 'minimum amount no matter what their particular labor is?  should everyone with a paper route earn enough to feed/clothe/shelter a family of four?  How do you determine this 'level' without using prices to determine what the desires of the market are?  I have a business and I get paper scraps all over the floor everyday.  I am too lazy to clean it up myself and would rather pay someone else to do so, BUT, is this worth paying someone $20/hr for, or even $10?  Not to me, to me I would offer someone perhaps $4/hr to do it PLUS give them a chance to learn other skills to make themselves more useful.  Is this a job for a 40 yr old supporting a family? no - it is an entry level position which great possibiliy for advancement.  The sad thing is, it is illegal fo me to provide this kind of 'on the job traing' because the government has priced all labor too high to be of use to me.  So my place remains a mess and some teenager remains without a job and the ability to access the benefits f all I offer.  how nice of the government.  On the other side of the coin is the unionized worker (it is the unions you advocate for min. wages) who gains from this as they are protected from competition in labor by the government.  So, basically, the minimum wage laws increase the wages for the already skilled at the expense of the non-skilled - I wonder where a portion of our unemployment comes from....

I look forwar to continueing with you at a later dater, forgive the Rant and good night for now, my friend!
michael
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 09, 2004, 05:52:58 pm
hey...I'm just gonna shoot my mouth off in between psychology experiments.

>>Oops, you got me wrong, Ebola (and though I would love to go about how much I admire the clarity and substance with which you argue, i'll stick with this for now).>>

why, thanks.

>>The lifestyle which I chose to lead until the past few years left me with no income, no help from the state, no home... The people with whom I socialized were the homeless, the destitute, the poorest of the poor. And I have no sympathy for the large majority of them, as it is largely a matter of choice which keeps them in the predicament they are in and not the capitalist economy which never offers anything but a ladder up.
>>

Looks like I did have you wrong.  While I will concede that there are a certain number of people who are homeless by choice (perhaps larger than I think), there are numerous homeless people who are not.  Furthermore, I am more concerned with the masses of working poor and poor who wish to be employed and housed.  Since I have no journal articles in my pockets, I doubt I'll be able to convince anyone of this point, so we can agree to disagree.

>>As for the poor having no health care, let me give you an example in a friend of mine. Shes an older lady, HIV positive for 14 years now (and on the methadone clinic for the same amount of time). She hasn't worked in at least ten years, and is entirely dependant on the state for her housing, her extensive health care, her methadone, her food (largely italian ice and sweet cereal), her utilities, and don't let me forget she has also has an 18 year old daughter who refuses to get a job, but constantly demands money for beer and clothes and for socializing and- you guessed it- McDonalds.
>>

Again, while I will concede that there are those who will use the welfare system simply because they are lazy, there are also many who have failed to find employment in our economy who are receiving inadaquate benefits.

>>Because I exist, and choose to work, how can you tell me its my responsibility to take care of these people? It would be kinder to leave them to their own devices, and a lot more just. You cannot force- or 'expect'- those individuals who are capable of life to subsidize those who are indifferent or incapable of living. >>

I'm not.  I'm an anarchist, and in an anarchist society, no such thing would be required of you.  Even in an anarcho-communist society, you would be free to produce for yourself and hoard those goods to yourself.  The only hitch would be that other people would likely not let you monopolize productive aparati that are clearly for the use of many people.  Also, communists who prefer to share goods may be reluctant to trade with you.  Anarchism is not socialism through the welfare "state".  Rather, anarchism gives individuals freedom to support themselves by offering free access to the means of production.

>>A socialist utopia is impossible, as it feigns to exist under rules which have no consideration for the fact of reality. Hell, even the Buddhists will tell you, "LIFE IS DIFFICULT"!!!
>>

Life would still be difficult in an anarchist society, just freer and more just.  People would still labor and conflict with one another.  

>>Wow Ebola!
Nice style!  how did I ever miss out on this?!>>

Thanks!  Your reply is exhaustive and I will not be able to reply to all of it right now.  Still...

>>I am sure this housing they choose is quite inexpensive and fits within their budget - they are of course free to improve their skillset and employ themselves in undertaking labor which would bring them greater wealth to afford a wider choice in housing.>>

This would be true if we entered into the commodity market, particularly the labor market, as equals.  The worker, however, is at a particular disadvantage when bargaining over wages because he or she must earn wages to eat.  Because the economy is dominated by oligopic firms, the worker must take the wages he or she is given or starve.  In the third world and increasingly in the first, wages are approaching the level of subsistence.  Finally, it should be noted that capital is continuing to deskill the jobs they offer so as to gain a greater control over the worker and the process of his or her labor so as to increase profits.  The kernel of truth to the myth of meritocracy through craft and education is beginning to come to an end.

>>our economic system has a great degree of free market overtones (though it is vastly hindered by our government interference and monetary policies), so to see how 'good' our poor are doing, we should compare with other nations of different economic models.  In this we see that almost across the board, the 'freer' the market is, the better the overall standard of living is >>

This assertion is false, on a couple levels.  Firstly, when we look to the third world, it is specifically the nations which have opened tax-free havens of free trade to multinationals, such as Sri Lanka or the Phillipines, that have a hyper-exploited proletariat that is growing in size.  Conversely, Sweden, which employs comparitively drastic Keynesian economic policies, enjoys a higher per-capita GDP than the United States.  Finally, in the nations where policies of free-trade seem to correlate with economic prosperity, policies of free-trade are an effect rather than a cause of this prosperity.  The United States, because it enjoys a markedly privileged position in the world-economy, a position with origins that do not stem from free-trade policies, promotes current policies of free trade because they allow its multinationals to exploit labor-sectors in the third world, a practice which stands to benefit the US.  The ruling elite of these third-world countries benefit from prusuit of "free-trade" (I put this in quotes because "free-trade" in the third world entails theft of land from peasants in order to proletarianize the populace) whereas the workers in this country do not.  We can see then that world-macroeconomic health is more complex than opening up freer trade.

I will answer to the rest soon...

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 09, 2004, 07:00:48 pm
<<I'm not.  I'm an anarchist, and in an anarchist society, no such thing would be required of you.  Even in an anarcho-communist society, you would be free to produce for yourself and hoard those goods to yourself.  The only hitch would be that other people would likely not let you monopolize productive aparati that are clearly for the use of many people.  Also, communists who prefer to share goods may be reluctant to trade with you.  Anarchism is not socialism through the welfare "state".  Rather, anarchism gives individuals freedom to support themselves by offering free access to the means of production.>>

Free access to the means of production? How is it free? Who pays for it? Who pays for its upkeep and maintenance and development? Private property ISN'T a bad thing to you, unless its property of productive value? Who decides whats considered productive, and to what extent?

Again, great responses, moxie etc..
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 10, 2004, 02:12:33 pm
this post stands to be a product of my insomnia...but here goes.

>>the total salaries of 90% the workers in america per year is TWICE the total value of 90% of all the companies - this means that if the workers truly desired to 'own the means of production' they could easily band together and voluntarily socialize just about the entire productive capacity of the US in perhaps three years (depending on how they mortgaged out the financing, etc).  >>

It is more useful to think about disparities in wealth rather than income when looking at these sorts of questions.  While capital has at its disposal a tremendous amount of wealth, most of which is reinvested in the means of production, the average American actually has negative wealth.  The average person is in $8000 worth of debt, not counting housing-assets.  The situation is even worse in the production-centers of the third world.  This makes a cooperative buy-out infeasible.  Also, the size and scope of the modern oligopic firm coupled with legalistic protection makes a buy-out highly unlikely as well.  If some workers at a coca-cola factory attempt to buy it out, they will have buy out the entire multinational lest they get sued for copyright infringement when they begin producing for themselves.
Nonetheless, I advocate cooperative buy-outs as a useful anti-capital tactic.

>>Why don't they do this?  It is because they, for the most part, do not have the skills or talents necessary to guide the production in the best manner - the folks who DO know how to achieve this already own the companies. >>

We have to ask, though, why do the workers lack these skills?  It is because capital working in conjunction with management professionals has progressively de-skilled the workplace, affording them more control over their workers and bolstering profits at the same time.  This, of course, was not always the case.  In the early period of the industrial revolution, before the assembly-line, the process of production and all its skills were largely integrated into a single individual...the downside to capital was that the workers could use their special productive knowledge as a tool against their employers to gain a leg-up in bargaining wages and work-intensity.

>>basically every human being IS a 'company' - you make 'capital expenditures' (education), you have an 'overhead' (expenses like food, shelter, etc just about everything you spend your money on), and you provide a 'service' (your labor).  >>

Social capital is an interesting metaphor but differs from capital-proper in that one can not hire wage laborers to make use of one's social-capital, reaping a profit in the process.  The distinctive feature of capital is not its usefulness as a tool in production (for such things have existed in previous eras, eg feudalism).  What is crucial is the social relation entailed by capital, the of wage-laborer and profiteer.

>>Businesses MUST cater to their customers to continue to exist>>

With the proliferation of oligopic control, businesses are more than ever-before determining the terms of how these goods are catered.

>>the same for wage-earners, the 'customer' in question are 'wage-payers' or businesses.  You are competing with other wage-earners and it is incumbent upon YOU to provide the best service you can so you can be successful in your goals.  >>

The labor market is the best example of a lack of parity in the relation of capital and labor.  Part of presenting the "best service" to capital is being willing to work for wages that approach subsistence.  Don't like the situation?  Well, you could just starve instead...

>>Continued education is a boon as well as a 'work ethic' >>

As I have said earlier (I think), with continued deskilling in the workplace, the myth of the educational meritocracy is dying.  There is a kernel of truth to the myth in that there is a small class of managers and professionals which serve capital in perpetuating the illusion of meritocracy.  I hope to be in this class! :)

>>You simply CANNOT be exploited without coercion UNLESS you allow it, in which case it ceases to be 'exploitive'.  >>

this is true, if you take the existing socio-economic context as given.  I do agree with you in that the workers should not consent to coercion; they should overthrow the government and seize the factories.

>>We do not 'exploit' migrant workers from mexico, they certainly don't feel that way or else they wouldn't make the ffort to work for the wages offered to them.  >>

Or, it is more accurate to say that these workers are less exploited than their bretheren in Mexico.  They are upwardly mobile, moving from the hyper-exploited third-world to the working poor of the first-world.

>>).  I suppose you might also rail against 'sweatshops' in the phillipines?  Do you understand that the folks that work in those businesses CHOOSE, purposely, to work in that environment over EVERY other job choice at their disposal - doesn't this tell you something - like if the 'sweatshops' were closed down then the workers would have an even lesser standard of living?
>>

Once again, this makes sense only if we take the existing context as given.  Intensive production in the third world has been predicated upon seizure of land and natural resources from the populace at large.  There is a reason they choose to be exploited, for the other choice is death.

>>like if the 'sweatshops' were closed down then the workers would have an even lesser standard of living?
>>

This is a good question.  Given that world-revolution is unfeasible, where do we go from here?  How do we improve these workers' bargaining position?

>>all people should be paid a 'liveable wage' for the work they do in our society.  Do you agree that different jobs require different skills and different labor abilities? >>

Such is obvious.  On the other hand, I disagree that different skill-sets should necessarily be paid different amounts (if we still are thinking in the context of wage-labor.  remember, I'm a commie.).  Taking into account that a true meritocracy has proved utterly unfeasible, it only really makes sense to pay workers that require more training if they themselves have had to pay exorbinant fees for their schooling.

>>.  Assuming you understand the logic here and understand that different jobs have different 'values' and that these 'values' are not arbitrarily set by some Godly Tome but by the aggregate values in society which is shown by the pricing system we have in the free market>>

I reject this description of the market.  The intersection of supply and demand show the struggle of power between capitalist and worker in the labor market, and between business and consumer in the labor-market.  We can only describe the equilibrium price as the efficient fulfillement of aggregate preferences if we take the existing power-struggles as given.

>>How do you determine this 'level' without using prices to determine what the desires of the market are?  >>

Within a capitalist and statist context, a state will arbitrarily declare it. :)  I, on the other hand, am more interested in a total rejection of wage-labor.

>>Is this a job for a 40 yr old supporting a family? no - it is an entry level position which great possibiliy for advancement.  >>

You seem to be assuming that 40-somethings are having an easy time finding jobs that dont charge entry-level wages.

>>So my place remains a mess and some teenager remains without a job and the ability to access the benefits f all I offer.  >>

Perhaps you could employ someone under the table?  Or perhaps we could have a two-tiered system of minimum wage where teenagers are employed for less...

>>On the other side of the coin is the unionized worker (it is the unions you advocate for min. wages) who gains from this as they are protected from competition in labor by the government. >>

here is something I dont get.  Pushing the legislative minimum wage issue aside, aren't unions the activities of workers freely-associating in the marketplace?  Aren't unions part of the free-market?

>>I wonder where a portion of our unemployment comes from....
>>

The notion that unemployment correlates with higher minimum wages is actually unsupported by cross-state comparisons in the US.  Yates covers previous studies on this issue in a literature review in Naming the System.  I would argue that our current problems with unemployment stem form concentration of wealth within the capitalist class, creating a demand-crisis because the workers are also the consumers.  Consequently, are economy stagnates as there is insufficient demand to produce near capacity.

>>I look forwar to continueing with you at a later dater, forgive the Rant and good night for now, my friend!
michael
>>

I had fun, but, God, this is enough typing for a sitting.

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: LeopardPM on March 10, 2004, 05:46:13 pm
Quote
I had fun, but, God, this is enough typing for a sitting.

lol - i understand!
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 12, 2004, 12:18:47 am
The answers to the following concerns really depend on what variant of anarchism we're talking about.  Since I am a commie, I will answer from the perspective of anarcho-communism.  If you want to know what mutualists would say, I'd check out the anarchism FAQ on the net or...talk to a mutualist. :)

>>Free access to the means of production? How is it free?>>

Free in that one needn't pay to gain access to it.  Insofar as a piece of productive machinery is laying unused, individuals wishing to use it would have the right to do so.  It should be noted that a lot of production involves a degree of coordination greater than this, so workers could form groups in factories and higher levels to manage themselves democratically.

>>Who pays for it?>>

The answer when we are talking about communism is "not applicable".  Currency would not exist!  I'm having trouble "translating" this question into one that would be relevant in a communist economy.  Perhaps you can help me here...

>>Who pays for its upkeep and maintenance and development?>>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here is a more relevant question.  We should ask who expends the labor in maintaining and expanding factories.  The answer is that it would likely be the factory workers and members of the construction syndicate.  Perhaps a separate maintenance syndicate would emerge, but it is dubious as to whether this would be labor-efficient.

>>Private property ISN'T a bad thing to you, unless its property of productive value?>>

This is, to a large extent, true.  Anarcho-communists dont advocate that we share toothbrushes, automobiles (assuming we still possess the resources to use them), or even the wood lathes in our garages that are suited to use by one person.  We do, however, argue that the means of production which require collaborative use should be owned collaboratively.

>>Who decides whats considered productive, and to what extent?
>>

As with any disagreement in an anarchist society, we would have to determine how to sort things out ourselves, and enforcement of what is decided would be radically decentralized.  If there is a disagreement over whether a single productive tool can be kept exclusively by a particular person, for example, they could each appeal to a person or group they mutually consider to be neutral in the matter.  If a particular person is a jerk about things and consistently tries to hoard goods he or she couldn't possibly use, those around him or her would be free to refuse to associate with this person and refuse to give him or her the product of their labor.

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 12, 2004, 06:30:24 am
Not to slight you or anything, ebola, but that is the most irrational thing I've ever heard.

<<(assuming we still possess the resources to use them)>>

How many years would it take in such a system for automobiles to be impossible? Much less food production, clothing production, on and on.

Suppose this: 'oops i ran out of oil for heat'!  What would I do? Hope that someone somewhere had nothing better to do with their time than decide to 'dig up some oil' and bring it to my house because I don't want to be cold?

Are you anti-progress? Why? You think its gonna make life easier? Bring us back to the earth? What?

I work lobstering. Because I had a boat, would it no longer be mine because someone came along and took it because they needed to go out and catch dinner? And my traps, would they be public property, because they exist today? Who would keep things running? What would I do when I got hungry?

Or would I get to keep the boat, but be expected to go out to work every day, and when I get back give everything for a big communal feast?

Its all so emotionally pleasing and widespread with heartwarming fairness, but I already have "No Child Left Behind" to effect those feelings

Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Harmonious Avenger on March 12, 2004, 09:17:52 am
Perhaps this chart will clarify this discussion. The left has been dominated by  big government types for the past century. But leftism does not necessarily mean big government.

Adam Smith was on the left. That is, he was for considerably more equality than existed in his day.

And despite the rightwing rhetoric used by many libertarians, the complete libertarian program is to the left of the U.S. as it exists today. This is true even without a "citizens dividend."
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Mike Lorrey on March 12, 2004, 01:16:58 pm
without any standards of reference, your chart there is absolutely useless. It is also quite wrong. The maximum freedom occurs at a corner, not the middle of a side, since the chart measures 100% economic by 100% social liberty.

Leftism is defined as less than 50% economic liberty, over 50% social liberty. It is therefore mathematically impossible for a leftist to be a libertarian. Henry George's philosophy rests on the boundary between the two.

Nor is the Law of Moses on the left, as it is very significantly a limitation on social liberties: it requires theocratic monotheism, adherence to church/government dictated calendars, heterosexual marriage structure, male dominance, and is also very propertarian, which is also quite not-leftist.

While there is no dispute that the Democratic Party has been drifting more toward Republicanism in its right wing, just as British Labor Party has done, it is also true that Republican Party members have been becoming more liberal and pro-big-government.

The distribution of the people in the US is very significantly not left - right. It is far more broadly distributed between libertarians and authoritarians.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: alanrweiss on March 12, 2004, 01:35:31 pm
This is my first post, and i guess this is the first question that popped into my mind after reading the faq, a couple essays,  and watching the chronicles episode.  


Well, the good news is that you're asking good questions, and you're inquisitive enough to want good answers.

Quote

While I'm still young (21), and still forming my own political views, I seem to feel most at home in the Anarchist camp.  Even though I have the utmost respect for all libertarians, I can't help but worry about pesky things like police, capitalism, and informal "social darwinism."


I think you mean "Left-Libertarian", which has a long tradition within the broader movement of libertarianism.   Karl Hess, Samuel E. Konkin III, and Tom Knapp are all examples of "left-libertarians", although I believe that all would have good reasoning why social darwinism is nonsense, police are not necessary, and "capitalism" is the "unknown ideal" (which is why they usually replace it with the term "free market"  :-)

Quote

For example, I assume that FSP would want to repeal any minimum wage laws.  I would also assume that the reason for this would be that "People are intelligent enough to figure out how much employees are worth by themselves."  Well sure they are, but we aren't all libertarians.  How does the FSP address the needs of workers rights, pay, and involvement in production of goods and services?


So this is an interesting question, but the answer is really this:  study a bit of Economics, and you will get your answers.  OK, that's not really all that fair, so I'll give you the short-answer, and you can look up the details later:

1.  Libertarians don't seek to impose prices, supply, or demand on anyone else.  In fact, a libertarian society would simply remove barriers to free trade in the market, including the labor market.

2.  It has been proven that the minimum wage causes unemployment, especially amongst the young, unskilled, people of color, and others.

3.  "Workers rights" include the right to strike, form primary and secondary boycotts, trade their labor for fee (set a price for their labor), and so on.  The KEY to all this is called the Zero Aggression Principle:

The Non-Aggression Principle formalizes a way of living that many people already believe in:

No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation ... This is all Libertarianism consists of, no more, no less. It's the most important thought ever generated by the mind of man. Those who act consistently with it are Libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not Libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."


-- L. Neil Smith

Quote


Would libertarians be willing to confront exploitive labor practices? And if so, would it be through direct action or through standard political channels?  It seems to me that the Anarchist sentiments of labor solidarity fit right in with the Libertarian manifesto, at least in theory.


One hardly knows where to start here.  First of all, go read Allen Thornton's "Laws of the Jungle", which you can find for free on the Internet.  Do a google search.

Second, what is exploitive to you may not be to others.  Would you impose your preferences on others?  Would you interfere in the right of a worker to hire out their services for a given price ("wage")?  Or the right of the employer to say, "I can only afford to pay you x money now ... do you want the job at that wage?"

If so, if you would interfere, you are an AGGRESSOR.  You are violating liberty and freedom.

Quote

Also, as was mentioned in the essay by Micah Bales on this same subject, the environment is an issue.  I do not support libertarianism in the corporate world.  We should revert back to the type of restricitions we placed on corporations in the 1800's, like strict charter rules, mandatory earnings caps, and no "personhood" for firms.  Basically, there is no way anyone will get me to believe that companies should be treated like people under the law.


You would be shocked to learn that libertarians agree that "corporation" is a device of the State, a fiction often used to cause aggression.

Quote

Further, I have to voice my sentiments on guns.  Of course I respect the right to own guns.  People might just think they are cool, or they might enjoy target shooting.  However, all available data currently suggests that the mere existence of guns in a community poses the risk of accidental shootings, or emotionally charged shootings.  


Fortunately, you are completely and utterly wrong.  Not just a little bit, my friend - but completely wrong.   Furthermore, you have no more right to tell me or anyone else that they can, or cannot own, guns than I have the right to demand that you give me your hard-earned wages, or that you wear a kilt OR ELSE.

If you do not want to own a gun, then don't.

Guns, demonstrably and proveably, in the hands of law-abiding citizens defeat violence and crime thoroughly.  If you like gun control, you're in good company.  So did Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, and Chairman Mao.

Quote

If the FSP and libertarianism are truly about enabling the individual to live as full a life as possible, free of restrictions....then why is it that some support the existence of the single machine which could most easily take away a life?


This is silly.  Do you not own a hammer?  Do you not own a butter knife?  You can kill as easily with those as a gun.   A gun is the bulwark against tyranny, against those that would violate the Non-Aggression Principle.  It is EVERY sentient creature's right to defend themselves in any manner they choose against aggression.

I refer you to the Atlanta Declaration:

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission."

Evil exists.  It is up to us, those who are not evil, to prevent it if we can, defend against it when we must, and teach others the same.


Even with all these somewhat philosophical objections, I still think the FSP is the greatest idea in modern activism.  All I have to do is finish my political science degree here in Portland, OR...and then I'll sign up!

It is astonishing that someone so obviously intelligent can obtain a Political Science degree and yet be filled with such mush, misinformation, illogical threads, and rampant STATISM.  But then again, you have probably gone to public schools, right?

Cordially, and helpfully,

Alan R. Weiss
FSP Member
Anarcholibertarian
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Harmonious Avenger on March 12, 2004, 01:46:42 pm
Quote
without any standards of reference, your chart there is absolutely useless. It is also quite wrong. The maximum freedom occurs at a corner, not the middle of a side, since the chart measures 100% economic by 100% social liberty.
[/table]
The standard of reference is the status quo, which is at the center of the chart.

It is not "wrong"; it is different from the Nolan Chart. I could argue that the Nolan Chart is "wrong" since it places fascists and communists at the same location, despite the fact that they hate each other.

Look at the axis labels: freedom, as in limited government, is one axis. The other is economic equality.

The feudal system had less economicfreedom than modern Euro-socialism, yet was far less egalitarian than U.S. capitalism. It is not just the amount of government, but what the government does with its power.

Quote:
Leftism is defined as less than 50% economic liberty, over 50% social liberty

This is a definition used by many libertarians. It is not a universal definition. Listen to the Left. Actually listen. Their values are more about equality than about seeing how big they can make government. They see big government as a tool to get there. They are open to other tools.

I have had more pleasant discussions than this one with socialists. With them I can attack Keynes and point out that Austrian economic prescriptions are more egalitarian than Keynesian economics. The response is good.

Looking at reality from a different perspective can be difficult at times. Reflexes have to be controlled in order to allow reason to work.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 12, 2004, 01:46:55 pm
>>How many years would it take in such a system for automobiles to be impossible? >>

What I meant here is that we are on the cusp of running out of oil, so it may soon be unfeasible for everyone to drive everywhere.

I am not anti-technology.  Some anarchists are, and they call themselves primitivists.  I find their proposed system to be unfeasible if only because we don't have the resources to feed the earth without farming.

>>Suppose this: 'oops i ran out of oil for heat'!  What would I do? Hope that someone somewhere had nothing better to do with their time than decide to 'dig up some oil' and bring it to my house because I don't want to be cold?
>>

We should remember that there is an existing infrastructure of production.  After the revolution, the anarchists wont be going, "yay!  We vanquished the state and capital.  Time to do nothing."  Well, if they do do this, we all die. :)  Production would continue, albiet on voluntarilly democratic terms.  Distribution would be communist.

>>I work lobstering. Because I had a boat, would it no longer be mine because someone came along and took it because they needed to go out and catch dinner? And my traps, would they be public property, because they exist today? Who would keep things running? What would I do when I got hungry?
>>

Do you employ a crew on your boat?  Do you catch more lobsters than you could possibly store for yourself for eating?  Even if the latter were true, I dont think anyone would take your lobsters unless they were starving.  If you do employ a crew, the crew would likely demand a fair share of the profits, ie some lobster.

>>Or would I get to keep the boat, but be expected to go out to work every day, and when I get back give everything for a big communal feast?>>

No, you wouldn't.  On the other hand, if you do not provide anything to the community whatsoever, people may be reluctant to share what they produce with you.  But you would be free to act alone, living soley on lobster.

>>Its all so emotionally pleasing and widespread with heartwarming fairness, but I already have "No Child Left Behind" to effect those feelings>>

No Child Left Behind...*snicker*...

>>Perhaps this chart will clarify this discussion. The left has been dominated by  big government types for the past century. But leftism does not necessarily mean big government.>>

I'd tend to aggree although I'd like to ask you why you chose such loaded terms for the axes.  I'd propose economic leftism vs. rightism for the horizontal axis and libertarianism vs authoritarianism for the vertical axis.
On this tip, check out: www.politicalcompass.org

Also, as with any attempt to reduce any complex thing to a couple dimensions, some information will be lost.  For example, both Bush's massive expansion of the military for imperial aims and intensive Keynesian spending on public works involve expansion of the state and expansion in taxation (or deficit spending).  On the other hand, they are VERY different things in practice.

>>The maximum freedom occurs at a corner, not the middle of a side, since the chart measures 100% economic by 100% social liberty.
>>

Left-anachists would agree although they'd disagree with you about which corner.

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 12, 2004, 01:57:28 pm
>>How many years would it take in such a system for automobiles to be impossible? >>

What I meant here is that we are on the cusp of running out of oil, so it may soon be unfeasible for everyone to drive everywhere.

Ebola (ebola?? ???), I'm as big a renewable energy and self-reliance geek as you're likely to find in the fsp, and even I will openly acknowledge that we are far from running out of oil.

Andrew
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Harmonious Avenger on March 12, 2004, 02:05:14 pm
Quote:
I'd tend to aggree although I'd like to ask you why you chose such loaded terms for the axes.  I'd propose economic leftism vs. rightism for the horizontal axis and libertarianism vs authoritarianism for the vertical axis.

I chose the loaded terms because they are the values that motivate political action vs. the actions
that different political factions engage in.

The maximum freedom attainable is not on a corner of my chart. (Not all areas are attainable.) Since we have differing abilities and ambitions, complete economic equality is not compatible with freedom. Then again, extreme inequality is also incompatible with freedom, since more government is needed to guard the concentrations of wealth. See http://www.holisticpolitics.org/WhatIsFreedom (http://www.holisticpolitics.org/WhatIsFreedom).

Perhaps some examples would clarify.


Legalizing marijuana would increase both freedom and equality, since the drug war hurts poort neighborhoods the most

Repealing inheritance taxes increases freedom and decreases equality

Government sale of monopoly patents decreases freedom and equality. (This used to be a common method of raising revenue in mercantilist days.)

A progressive income tax increases equality and decreases freedom.
[/list]

Here are some steps I call for to improve equality and freedom.

Replace the corporate income tax with a corporate market cap tax. This would end the merger subsidy and greatly simply the tax code.

Cut deficits. Run a surplus to pay down the national debt. This will lead to big tax cuts in the future. For now, it would lower profit rates for passive investors while raising wages. (I got this idea from Adam Smith, who is rarely referred to as a socialist.)

Simplify IPO regulations. This would give big corporations some fresh competition.
[/list]

The list is not complete. I've got about a hundred pages of ideas on my web site on reducing the size of government while moving to the left.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 12, 2004, 02:37:30 pm
Ebola,
Even when we do finally run out of oil -- in fact, hopefully long before that -- we will be able to drive around on vegetable fuels.  Check out this link
http://www.hempcar.org/biofacts.shtml
Anyway, I won't hijack the the thread, I just couldn't resist getting in a plug for one of my favorite websites.

Andrew
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 12, 2004, 03:07:18 pm
someone brought up a problem with the lack of anchoring for the axes.  I'll propose something tentative, a way to anchor the extremes.

On the extreme libertarian left, we have anarcho-communism.
On the extreme libertarian right, we have anarcho-capitalism.
On the extreme authoritarian right, we have fascism.
On the extreme authoritarian left, we have stalinism.

I could be alone, but I think stalinism and traditional fascism are rather similar things.

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 12, 2004, 03:26:33 pm
>>Ebola (ebola?? ),>>

Worry not about it.  I just get tired of capitalization occasionally.

 >>I'm as big a renewable energy and self-reliance geek as you're likely to find in the fsp, and even I will openly acknowledge that we are far from running out of oil.>>

We may be working under different conceptions of soon.  I was thinking within 100 years.  And there is the question of whether we want the supply to stretch for longer than that.

>>Austrian economic prescriptions>>

What are these??  I'm interested...not that I'm a Keynesian. :)

>>The maximum freedom attainable is not on a corner of my chart. (Not all areas are attainable.) Since we have differing abilities and ambitions, complete economic equality is not compatible with freedom. Then again, extreme inequality is also incompatible with freedom, since more government is needed to guard the concentrations of wealth. See http://www.holisticpolitics.org/WhatIsFreedom.>>

I'll check it out although I doubt I'll change my mind.
Most of the examples you give assume the continued existence of capitalism while focusing on commodity trade, ignoring the realities of production.
...
  There is also the question of what we mean by equality and what we mean by freedom for that matter.  Are we talking about equality of ends, equality of means, or equality under the law?

>>Even when we do finally run out of oil -- in fact, hopefully long before that -- we will be able to drive around on vegetable fuels.  Check out this link
http://www.hempcar.org/biofacts.shtml>>

This is promising, although I am skeptical as to whether will have enough crops of wheat, corn, hemp, etc. to fuel personal cars for everyone.  Public transit may become a necessity.

ebola

Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 12, 2004, 03:43:43 pm
>>alanrweiss
>>

I disagree with the majority of your assertions about economics although I have already addressed most of them in this thread.

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Mike Lorrey on March 12, 2004, 04:41:25 pm
Quote
without any standards of reference, your chart there is absolutely useless. It is also quite wrong. The maximum freedom occurs at a corner, not the middle of a side, since the chart measures 100% economic by 100% social liberty.
The standard of reference is the status quo, which is at the center of the chart.

It is not "wrong"; it is different from the Nolan Chart. I could argue that the Nolan Chart is "wrong" since it places fascists and communists at the same location, despite the fact that they hate each other.

Look at the axis labels: freedom, as in limited government, is one axis. The other is economic equality.

This is the key problem. There is no such THING as economic 'equality', for the very simple reason that every individual values things different from every other individual. The only thing you can have is economic liberty or economic slavery, i.e. how much control YOU have, as an individual, over your personal economic expression and development.

Quote

The feudal system had less economicfreedom than modern Euro-socialism, yet was far less egalitarian than U.S. capitalism. It is not just the amount of government, but what the government does with its power.

Quote:
Leftism is defined as less than 50% economic liberty, over 50% social liberty

This is a definition used by many libertarians. It is not a universal definition. Listen to the Left. Actually listen. Their values are more about equality than about seeing how big they can make government. They see big government as a tool to get there. They are open to other tools.

I have had more pleasant discussions than this one with socialists. With them I can attack Keynes and point out that Austrian economic prescriptions are more egalitarian than Keynesian economics. The response is good.

Looking at reality from a different perspective can be difficult at times. Reflexes have to be controlled in order to allow reason to work.

Reason only works so long as you haven't had your mind so open that your brain falls out. Socialists ideals of equality are impossible to achieve for the simple reason that humans are not clones, are not robots. We each value things differently, and because of this, equality can never be attained.

Because of this, socialism is an irrational and unrealizable value system.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 12, 2004, 05:07:22 pm
>>Even when we do finally run out of oil -- in fact, hopefully long before that -- we will be able to drive around on vegetable fuels.  Check out this link
http://www.hempcar.org/biofacts.shtml>>

This is promising, although I am skeptical as to whether will have enough crops of wheat, corn, hemp, etc. to fuel personal cars for everyone.  Public transit may become a necessity.

ebola

Yah, but see that's exactly why it's so beautiful!  Agriculture in this country has been limping along on government subsidies for years; biodiesel from fuel crops such as hemp and canola could make agriculture pay for itself again!  It would also go a long ways toward erasing America's trade deficit, it would increase our national security by eliminating our dependency on a foreign essential resource, and the best part is we could almost totally decentralize the petroleum economy!  Whereas fossil fuels are only found in certain places -- unfortunately underneath dickhead governments like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq -- hemp can be grown virtually anywhere!  In fact, you could even produce your own fuel!  Biodiesel can even be made -- in fact often is made -- from waste vegetable oil from fast food joints!  It's one of the few things in life that really has almost no downside!
I don't know what the numbers indicate potential for production vs. consumption, but I think we could still drive personal vehicles.

Okay, I apologize for diverting the thread again; sometimes I just get rollin'!
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: SteveA on March 12, 2004, 05:35:49 pm
Quote
The feudal system had less economicfreedom than modern Euro-socialism, yet was far less egalitarian than U.S. capitalism. It is not just the amount of government, but what the government does with its power.

The trick is never putting all your eggs in one basket.  As long as people have the ability to stop supporting something they view as harmful to themselves I believe we avoid the problem of too much power, in too few hands.

Assuming government can control wealth in a fair manner is the weakness of the left.  Placing control of the economy in the hands of people who are allowed to legitimately use force is not good.

Assuming government can enforce morality is the weakness of the right.  Placing control of our thoughts and actions in the hands of people allowed to legitimately use force is not good either.

I don't think there are many "positive tradeoffs" that can be made at the expense of our liberty.  Given a Constitutional government, there's still a good chance many states might have laws similar to the federal ones now but allowing the states greater freedom in determining these is a benefit in itself and only better than without it.

Quote
I could argue that the Nolan Chart is "wrong" since it places fascists and communists at the same location, despite the fact that they hate each other.

Maybe authoritarians tend to hate each other? ;D

The Nolan Chart shows 2 dimensions - economic and social freedoms.  There are obviously many dimensions to political views but from the 2 in the Nolan chart, they appear very similar.  It's at least better than the single left-right dimension, which only allows economic repression OR social repression or some varied ratio of the two.  I can imagine the day when the option of left or right is removed. :P
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Harmonious Avenger on March 12, 2004, 06:16:30 pm

>>Austrian economic prescriptions>>

What are these??  I'm interested...not that I'm a Keynesian. :)


This is promising, although I am skeptical as to whether will have enough crops of wheat, corn, hemp, etc. to fuel personal cars for everyone.  Public transit may become a necessity.

Keynesian economics worries about the "Paradox of Thrift," that more savings can accumulate than can be invested or spent. Thus, Keynesians try to discourage savings and believe in federal budget deficits. The Austrian school is pro-savings.

Adam Smith pointed out centuries ago that as savings accumulate, the rate of interest and therefore the rate of profits go down. This results in wealth going to the working class. See http://www.holisticpolitics.org/BalanceOfWealth (http://www.holisticpolitics.org/BalanceOfWealth).

Social Security (discourages savings), deficit spending (eats savings) and the SEC (cripples the capital markets), result in continued high profits, which results in continued high demand for programs to level out the national income. This results in bigger and bigger government.

With true equality of opportunity (which would result in more equality of final result than we have now), there would be more stakeholders in the capitalist system.

And yes, I am presuming capitalism. Capitalism is inherent in freedom. If you outlaw trade, you outlaw a big chunk of human activity. Having to get permission from the community in order to deploy resources is not being particularly free. I placed the Bushmen on the chart at the ideal point for such communitarian anarchism.

The problem we have now is too many wage slaves and not enough capitalists.

---
As for automobiles, they will continue to be with us. There is a lot of oil in the ground still, and more coal, oil shale and tar sands. Biomass is also an option. My recollection is that current fossil carbon use is about 5% of what nature generates annually (source: Energy Information Administration).

BTW, in Asheville we had a Libertarian candidate for city council integrate a veggie powered car into his campaign http://www.goreeforasheville.com (http://www.goreeforasheville.com) Goree is currently designing the next generation of waste vegetable oil car conversion kits.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Morpheus on March 12, 2004, 07:20:46 pm
Quote
Worry not about it.  I just get tired of capitalization occasionally.

A mark of intellectual laziness, to be sure. But as this is coming from a Socialist I cannot say that I am surprised.

By the way.. you didn't answer Top Dollar's assertion. We would be amused to see your response.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Morpheus on March 12, 2004, 07:22:21 pm
By the way, Bill.. thanks for the link. I needed a good laugh.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 12, 2004, 07:24:50 pm
I get it now, Morpheus.  You're just a meanie.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Morpheus on March 12, 2004, 07:30:31 pm
At least I'm honest.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 12, 2004, 07:32:18 pm
So am I, but I'm not a meanie.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Harmonious Avenger on March 12, 2004, 07:57:10 pm
By the way, Bill.. thanks for the link. I needed a good laugh.
Um, I am not Bill. I did get on this forum because of Bill, because his links it generated activity on my web site. I had hoped to clarify any questions people might have.

Um, Morpheus, I hope you don't use the same manners in person when you go to NH. Part of the art of politics is the art of being polite to those you think are horrible people. This is not an easy skill, but it does get easier with age -- if you work at it.

There was a time when I made a hobby of making liberals explode. 'Twas fun, but not very productive for liberty. Nowadays, I have recognized liberal values, adopted their terminology, and am now making progress teaching them sound economics. I am applying capitalism to political philosophy: sell egalitarians and nature lovers what they want and I get freedom in return. Capitalism: truly the unknown ideal.

The fact that some of you think that I am a socialist is testament to the success of my approach. I make Ronald Reagan look like a socialist. Twenty some years ago I was an anarcho-capitalist in the Rothbard mold. Have mellowed out a wee bit, but less than some might imagine.

For the EEs in the audience, think impedance matching.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Morpheus on March 12, 2004, 08:18:06 pm
I did not read your posts as closely as I should have. I was referring to BillG's earlier post of your website to this thread.

I was not calling you a Socialist; I called *ebola* a Socialist, which he is.

As for your website? Not my thing- but if you're a true Libertarian Capitalist who is trying to manipulate our Ideological enemies to our advantage, then I wish you luck. I just don't resonate with your expressed values, most notably your Altruism. I am an Egoist, you see.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Morpheus on March 12, 2004, 08:19:22 pm
You are a Libertarian, aren't you? And if so, of what disposition are you truly? Minarchic? Ultra-Minimalistic? What?
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 12, 2004, 09:23:16 pm
We have to ask, though, why do the workers lack these skills?

Two words.

Public Education.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Tracy Saboe on March 12, 2004, 09:36:38 pm
Quote from: ebola link=board=12;threadid=5939;start=75#msg88822
What I meant here is that we are on the cusp of running out of oil, so it may soon be unfeasible for everyone to drive everywhere.

Quote

Actually we have a good 100 years of oil left at our present rate of consumption. And more is being discovered all the time.

By the time we run out of oil, it will have become more economical to use solar, and wind power.  Solar and Wind at current projections, are both going to be cheaper then fossil fuels with-in the next 10 years.  Some would say sooner then that because of recent developoments in nano-tech.

There will be no catastrophy.

Tracy
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: FTL_Ian on March 12, 2004, 09:39:30 pm
Quote
Public Education.

This would be more accurately described as:

"Government-Run Public Education"

I suggest you use that when talking education.  The term "government" helps it have a more negative connotation, and assigns blame.

After all, once the government is out of it, we'll still have education for the public, just run by private organizations.

Regards,
Ian
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: Harmonious Avenger on March 12, 2004, 10:11:35 pm
As for your website? Not my thing- but if you're a true Libertarian Capitalist who is trying to manipulate our Ideological enemies to our advantage, then I wish you luck. I just don't resonate with your expressed values, most notably your Altruism. I am an Egoist, you see.
"Manipulating our ideological enemies" is overly harsh language, though the impression is likely my fault.  Freedom from government is a value. But so is cleaning up the environment, helping the poor, etc. Those who are more concerned with the non-freedom values still have some appreciation for freedom, but on the margin consider more of the other values more important that more freedom.

An analogy: the marginal cost of diamonds is far more than the marginal cost of water, simply because we have lots of water. Water is more valueable than diamond, but the value of an additional gram of water is less than the value of an additional gram of diamond.

Continuing the analogy, if I were to mass-produce gem-quality synthetic diamonds, then people would pay less for diamonds.

I am in the business of cheaply "producing" a clean environment, wealth for the poor, etc. I am "selling" these in return for more freedom. And I tell those on the Left that is what I am doing. There is no "subtle manipulation" going on.

----
As for Egoism, I did once dabble in Ayn Rand's philosophy myself, but found it wanting. It is incorrect at about step 3 of John Galt's derivation. (It is not the nature of animals to survive; all animals die. It is the nature of species to survive.)

More importantly, I have taken Public Choice economics into account. Self-interest leads to big government. It takes heroes to keep a free society free. Our Founding Fathers understood this; their writings are full of altruistic rhetoric. They made Liberty "cool."

I realize I am getting a bit off topic, so if you want to take the egoism discussion further, we should probably take it offline or to another thread. Or see the "Greed vs. Freedom" chapter on my web site, or see my earlier essay "The Virtue of Benevolence" at http://www.quiz2d.com/essays (http://www.quiz2d.com/essays)
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 13, 2004, 03:42:31 pm
>>A mark of intellectual laziness, to be sure. But as this is coming from a Socialist I cannot say that I am surprised.

By the way.. you didn't answer Top Dollar's assertion. We would be amused to see your response. >>

Heh...maybe my posts will seem more coherent or less "intellectually lazy" if you read the sentences instead of examining the individual letters.  Then we could, you know, engage the ideas rather than grammatical conventions :)

>>[people shouldn't have children they cant support]>>

I would tend to agree although the solution would not be an authoritarian crackdown a la China.  I'd say what is needed is intensive family-planning education and widely distributed birth control.  Also, in the third world where population growth is truly a problem, we must remove the economic incentives for large families.  Namely, the situation must be such that children are no longer necessary as wage-earners for the family.  As for various religious doctrines' advocacy of intensive child-bearing, I don't really have a tidy solution there. :)

ebola
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 13, 2004, 04:16:41 pm
Hey ebola...

So you tend to agree that folks shouldn't have children they cannot afford. You don't think we should have a forced one-child policy like China. The family-planning education- such would be available, of course, for anybody willing to pay for it. And birth control is readily available in any pharmacy.

The incentive for people to not breed like welfare moms in the eighties could be partially enforced by government not doing anything. Stop offering tax breaks or any priveleges to anyone choosing to have kids. Stop forcing people to subsidize public schools. Make people responsible for their choices, and their
mistakes.

And why oh why do you worry about third world countries? The best thing we could do for them is mind our own business.
For once.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 13, 2004, 05:06:27 pm
And why oh why do you worry about third world countries? The best thing we could do for them is mind our own business.
For once.

Definitely.  Two words for ya -- Monroe Freakin' Doctrine.
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 14, 2004, 05:09:31 pm
>>Actually we have a good 100 years of oil left at our present rate of consumption. And more is being discovered all the time.>>

There isn't anything that indicates that consumption is remaining constant.  Also, we are all but finished spreading across the earth.  Slowly, new discoveries will dwindle.  I hope, though, that you are right in your optimism.

>>Solar and Wind at current projections, are both going to be cheaper then fossil fuels with-in the next 10 years.  Some would say sooner then that because of recent developoments in nano-tech.
>>

I would like to see the data behind these assertions.  If this projection proves true, it will make me a lot more optimistic. :)

>>After all, once the government is out of it, we'll still have education for the public, just run by private organizations.>>

Or, under anarcho-communism, we could have autonomous collectives of educators from which to choose.  That, or education could be more decentralized, experts in various fields taking on various teaching duties.

Re: population problems
>>And birth control is readily available in any pharmacy.
>>

Once again, this is not true about the third world where it is most needed.

>>The incentive for people to not breed like welfare moms in the eighties could be partially enforced by government not doing anything. Stop offering tax breaks or any priveleges to anyone choosing to have kids. Stop forcing people to subsidize public schools. Make people responsible for their choices, and their
mistakes.
>>

Although it is true that some individuals do abuse the child-based incentives of the welfare system, the notion of the "welfare queen" is largely a myth constructed by proponents of welfare reform.

>>And why oh why do you worry about third world countries? The best thing we could do for them is mind our own business.>>

Why worry about the third-world?  Why should I worry about people in the US?  I mean, Mexico is a shorter drive from my apartment than New Hampshire. :)  I concern myself with people in general rather than people of any particular nationally.  This is really necessary because of the interdependence inherent in the world-capitalist system.
 
You are right that we should mind our own business.  First-world multinationals should get the hell out of the third-world, and indigenous peoples should reclaim the areas' wealth and the fruits of their labor for themselves.

ebola



Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 14, 2004, 05:48:10 pm
<<Why worry about the third-world?  Why should I worry about people in the US?  I mean, Mexico is a shorter drive from my apartment than New Hampshire.   I concern myself with people in general rather than people of any particular nationally.>>

So frustrating! Why should you worry about people in the US or Mexico or the world?

I'll leave it to someone else why you should worry about the people in your own country, and look forward to a response to that myself.

How about concerning yourself with yourself? Could you suppose that, were you to look after yourself and let others take responsibility for themselves, that the world might just be a better place?

(Yeah, that sounds like crunchy hippie shit but you said nationally instead of nationality and I'm not gonna pick on you for that... we're all human!)
Title: Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
Post by: ebola on March 15, 2004, 01:36:39 am
>>I'll leave it to someone else why you should worry about the people in your own country, and look forward to a response to that myself.>>

I'll be entertained and surprised if this is taken on by an anarcho-capitalist.

>> Could you suppose that, were you to look after yourself and let others take responsibility for themselves, that the world might just be a better place?
>>

At the same time, we should be free to cooperate with whomever we choose if we deem cooperative strategies more effective.  Such is the thrust of anarchism.  And well, I cannot turn my back on my own empathy.

>>Yeah, that sounds like crunchy hippie shit but you said nationally instead of nationality and I'm not gonna pick on you for that... we're all human!>>

I'm all into cruchy hippie shit.
and thanks for not focusing on my malfunctioning brain-based spell-checker.  Idea-based conversations are ultimately more fulfilling.

ebola