Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?  (Read 33829 times)

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2010, 02:25:01 pm »

Quote
OK so ur a socialist then?

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

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

Quote
do u believe in private property or not?

Of course...I believe in the labor-based theory of property but not in law-based property (privilege) without an obligation to those excluded where the excluded are somehow economically disadvantaged by the privilege.
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2010, 02:52:54 pm »

you guys do know there is a difference between economic and accounting profit, right?  When neo-classical economists talk about how in perfect competition in the long run, there is no profit, they are talking about economic profit.  Also, perfect competition is IMPOSSIBLE anyway.

Yes, currently, there is property that is in illegitimate hands, but there is no process that can magically undue this.  Free-market capitalism will however, transfer these resources in a more economical fashion.  In the long run, the starting position doesn't make that big of difference in a purely free market, the cream will rise.
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2010, 06:21:40 pm »

Listen if u don't like being seperated from the "means of production" then work harder so u can become your own boss. Simple as that. In mutualism/socialism being able to move up the ladder is impossible so why would ppl work? The only reason people work is to make more and get more stuff which is a reward for the hard work they do. You can't have that in socialism.

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

Capitalism works. Socialism has NEVER worked. Workers won't work unless they have a boss above them showing them the profit carrot. Simple as that.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2010, 06:36:06 pm »

Property Rights (land) is a function of the collective. And the US didn't have a free market economy prior to 1913... it never had a free market economy.
As Wendell explained. A free market economy drives toward costs... leaving no room for profit.


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


Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2010, 06:42:53 pm »

Listen if u don't like being seperated from the "means of production" then work harder so u can become your own boss. Simple as that. In mutualism/socialism being able to move up the ladder is impossible so why would ppl work? The only reason people work is to make more and get more stuff which is a reward for the hard work they do. You can't have that in socialism.

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

Capitalism works. Socialism has NEVER worked. Workers won't work unless they have a boss above them showing them the profit carrot. Simple as that.
Workers aren't profit... they are a labor cost. Profit is what goes to capitalists (shareholders).
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2010, 09:38:24 pm »

What are you talking about? The US has always been socialist and corporatist at the same time. Mutualism projects that when a free market exists revenue falls to the cost of production. Instead of Karl Marx... try Adam Smith.


[/quote]

Try Pierre-Joseph Proudhon the guy who said "private property is theft."
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2010, 12:52:47 pm »

Proudhon's work was later used by both Marx and Smith to form the Labor Theory of Value.
The digression is over what place 'stored labor' (capital) and land access plays within the system.


Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2010, 01:35:07 pm »

Proudhon's work was later used by both Marx and Smith to form the Labor Theory of Value.
The digression is over what place 'stored labor' (capital) and land access plays within the system.




Proudhon was buddies w/ Marx. Check wikipedia.

So what's wrong with capitalism? Capitalism is what has made America prosper.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2010, 09:39:11 pm »

Nothing is wrong with capitalism. Proudhon worked on economic theory with the main thesis on RE property rights. Marx worked on economic theory, but determined that 'capital' in the format of 'stored labor' and 'property rights' were inherently government coercion.
Smith worked on economic theory, but determined that 'stored labor' added value... while not fully equating 'property rights'.

Proudhon in the end, gave up and became a federalist. While Marx was inherently proven wrong even in totalitarian societies.
Smith was proven right, but never fully equated 'property rights'
Logged

Pat McCotter

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2010, 05:00:44 am »

In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply

And therein lies the rub.
Logged
Visualize Whirled Peas

Give Pizza Chance

I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly. - Steven Wright

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2010, 06:29:50 am »

Quote
Try Pierre-Joseph Proudhon the guy who said "private property is theft."

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

He said "property is theft". (property1)

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

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

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

excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2010, 06:31:41 am »

Quote
So what's wrong with capitalism? Capitalism is what has made America prosper.

excerpt:

I. Introduction

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

II. Three Senses of “Capitalism”

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

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

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

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

to read more: http://c4ss.org/content/1738
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 06:35:19 am by WendellBerry »
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2010, 09:18:51 am »

Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial.

Proudhon shouldn't be spoken about publicly.
Logged

K. Darien Freeheart

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 760
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2010, 08:18:15 pm »

I identify as an anarcho-capitalist.

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

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

Here's the cheat-sheet...

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

-*: Masturbatory debate  on how free people would organize

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

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2010, 08:26:38 pm »

I identify as an anarcho-capitalist.

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

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

Here's the cheat-sheet...

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

-*: Masturbatory debate  on how free people would organize

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

it becomes an issue if other types of anarchists don't recognize the property rights of others.  Otherwise yes, go off an join a 'socialist' commune if you wish, just make sure the land it was built on was homesteaded or acquired through voluntary means
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 10   Go Up
 

anything