Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarchy and FSP together???  (Read 30496 times)

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #75 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
Logged

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #76 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..
Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #77 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
Logged

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #78 on: March 10, 2004, 05:46:13 pm »

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

lol - i understand!
Logged
nothing to say...

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #79 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
Logged

thrivetacobell

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #80 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

Logged
"There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."
                       Chistopher Morley

Harmonious Avenger

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
    • Holistic Politics
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #81 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."
Logged

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #82 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.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

alanrweiss

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • Have a high performance day
    • Synchromesh Computing
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #83 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
Logged
Alan R. Weiss
CEO, Synchromesh Computing, LLC
6300 Bridgepoint Parkway
Bridgepoint Parkway, Suite 125
Austin, Texas 78730 USA
Voice: 512-219-0302 Fax: 512-219-0402
Skype: alanrweiss78726 AIM: alanrweiss78726 SMS: 5125176507@mobile.mycingular.com
Email: alan@synchromeshcomputing.com

Harmonious Avenger

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
    • Holistic Politics
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #84 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.
Logged

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #85 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
Logged

penguinsscareme

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
  • Ain't nobody's business but mine
    • Free State Project/self-sufficiency living liaison
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #86 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
Logged
Stamp freestateproject.org on your cash!  Stamp & inkpad run less than $10 & it's the single most effective and easy thing you can do for the fsp.  And it's legal, just don't obscure the serial #.  www.currentlabels.com

Harmonious Avenger

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
    • Holistic Politics
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #87 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.

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.
Logged

penguinsscareme

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
  • Ain't nobody's business but mine
    • Free State Project/self-sufficiency living liaison
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #88 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
Logged
Stamp freestateproject.org on your cash!  Stamp & inkpad run less than $10 & it's the single most effective and easy thing you can do for the fsp.  And it's legal, just don't obscure the serial #.  www.currentlabels.com

ebola

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I am truly a llama.
Re:Anarchy and FSP together???
« Reply #89 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
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up