Many anarchists of various stripes have made the claim that anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchism entails anti-capitalism. I happen to think this is actually backwards. If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are.
People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such. But what then is a free market? If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition. In that case, all anarchists are “anarcho-capitalists”, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.
Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public? Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham. It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State. Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”.
Going a bit deeper, there may be issues about how property rights are defined, and the nature of ownership between different sorts of anarchists. Obviously, anarcho-capitalists do not want the government to decide who owns what property. So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself.
But the focus on goals, I think, is very much over-emphasized in anarchist communities, at the expense of looking at means. Goals sometimes lead people toward certain means, but it is the means that determine results, not the goals. And if the anarcho-capitalists follow anarchist means, the results will be anarchy, not some impossible “anarcho-capitalism”.
Anarchy does not mean social utopia, it means a society where there is no privileged authority. There will still be social evils to be dealt with under anarchy. But anarchy is an important step toward fighting those evils without giving birth to all new ones.
My take on the impossibility of anarcho-capitalism is simply as follows:
- Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
- Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
- Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.
The first part of this, that mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible under anarchism, has several aspects.
One big one is that the cost of protecting property rises dramatically as the amount of property owned increases, without a state. This is something that rarely gets examined by libertarians, but it’s crucial.
One reason for this is that large scale property ownership is never all geographically massed. A billionaire doesn’t have all his property in one small geographic area. In fact, this sort of absentee-ownership is necessary to become a billionaire in the first place. Most super-wealthy own stock in large corporations that have many factories, retail outlets, offices and the like all over the place. Leaving aside whether joint-stock companies are even likely in anarchy for now, this geographical dispersion means that the cost of protecting all of this property is enormous. Not only because of the sheer number of guardians necessary, but because one must pay those guardians enough that they don’t just decide to take over the local outlet. You could hire guardians to watch the guardians, but that in itself becomes a new problem…
But the property needs to be protected not only from domestic trespassers, but from foreign invasion as well. Let us imagine that an anarcho-capitalist society does manage to form, Ancapistan, if we will. Next to Ancapistan is a statist capitalist nation, let us call it Aynrandia. Well, the Aynrandians decide “hmm, Ancapistan lacks a state to protect its citizens. We should take over and give them one, for their own good of course.” At this point the billionaires in Ancapistan must either capitulate, welcome the Aynrandians, and Ancapistan is no more, or they must raise a private army to repel the Aynrandians. Not only will the second option be ridiculously expensive, for the reasons I’ve outlined above, but a lot of property will get destroyed if the Aynrandians decide to engage in modern total warfare. Ahh but what about all the middle class people in Ancapistan, won’t they form a militia to defend themselves? Well yes, but they won’t form a militia to defend a bunch of billionaires’ property.
The anarcho-capitalists often have a nonsensical rosy picture of the boss-worker relationship that has no basis in reality. Almost no one wakes up and goes in to work thinking “thank the heavens for my wonderful boss, who was kind enough to employ a loser like me”. When external invasion arrives, the middle classes will defend themselves and their own property. But they’re not going to risk their lives for Wal-mart without getting a piece of the action.
So, due to the rising cost of protecting property, there comes a threshold level, where accumulating more capital becomes economically inefficient, simply in terms of guarding the property. Police and military protection is the biggest subsidy that the State gives to the rich. In some sense the Objectivists are correct that capitalism requires a government to protect private property.
Furthermore, without a state-protected banking/financial system, accumulating endless high profits is well nigh impossible. The police/military state helps keep the rich rich, but it is the financial system that helped them get rich in the first place, at everyone else’s expense.
First off, state-chartered banking creates a limited supply of sources from which one can receive banking services. This cartelization allows them to get away with a fairly large amount of fractional-reserve banking, in which more is loaned out than actually exists. By increasing the in-use money supply in a one-sided manner, this creates a situation where the people who take out loans are effectively stealing from everyone else. Companies that finance expansion force their competitors to do so or fail, by bidding up the price of resources. By raising the cost of entry, this limits and reduces the amount of competitors in every industry, driving wages down.
And the current fiat money/central banking regime, by constantly inflating the money supply, destroys the ability of people to save, thus forcing them to borrow in order to start or expand a business, to buy a home or a car. It literally and directly concentrates the supply of capital in the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people, destroying savings and feeding effective purchasing power to those with higher credit ratings. This drives down wages and makes people dependent on those who still have large amounts of capital to hire them.
Under anarchy, anyone could lend money to anyone, there would be no special thing known as a “bank” per se (or to put it a different way, anyone could put up a shingle that said “bank”). Without legal tender and the ability to create large amounts of money out of thin air (the threat of “bank runs” and/or devaluation of bank notes would effectively limit this to a very small level, enough to minimally pay for itself at most), the money supply would no longer be in the hands of a cartel. Borrowing would become rare, and saving would become widespread, distributing capital more and more widely, rather than more and more narrowly, thus diluting the price of capital. Under such a system, any shift in demand would be met by a vast array of competitors, driving profits back down to the average.
Obviously, under anarchism, such a thing as “intellectual property” wouldn’t exist, so any business model that relies on patents and copyrights to make money would not exist either. This would contribute to the dilution I mentioned above.
As the price of capital is diluted, the share of production that goes to the workers increases. What we would eventually see is essentially, a permanent global labor shortage. Companies would compete for workers, rather than the other way around.
What is likely, judging from history, is that something like a private syndicalism would arise, where owners of value-producing property would lease it out to organizations of workers, simply because it would be easier for them than trying to hire people on a semi-permanent basis.
Mining was organized like this for quite a while, for instance, until the advent of bank-financed joint stock mining companies, which bought out most of the prospector/owners in the 1800s.
So we see, even assuming an “anarcho-capitalist” property regime, anything recognizable as “capitalism” to anyone else could not exist. In fact the society would look a lot like what “anarcho-socialists” think of as “socialism”. Not exactly like it, but much closer than anything they’d imagine as capitalism.
However, under anarchism, even such a strict property regime is not guaranteed. There is no way to impose it on a community that wants to operate a different way. I predict there will lots of different communities and systems that will compete for people to live in them and whatever seems to work the best will tend to spread. There’s nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than they’d prefer. Nor is there anything the anarcho-socialists could do to prevent a community from organizing property in a more rigid or individualistic manner than they’d prefer.
For, just as anarcho-capitalism is impossible, anarcho-socialism is also impossible, depending on how you define things. In reality all of us who are opposed to the state, as that great fiction that some people have a special right to do things that anyone else doesn’t, are anarchists, and what will happen under anarchy? EVERYTHING.
"So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself."
Sums it up really. With no force in a society to make people live in a certain way, be it capitalism or socialism, anything that comes after "anarcho-" is just a meaningless label.
Anarchy without adjectives is the way to go. Anarcho-hyphens make people anarcho-stupid and don't make any anarcho-sense.
Excellent work Anna, just don't let without adjectives fall into an infinite regression of ridiculous relativism and indifference to positions and so forth and you're good.
Indeed, I agree Nick. I see anarcho-capitalists as "naive anarchists with weird definitions"… but I often see anarcho-socialists the same way. Anarcho-syndicalism is a bit more realistic, having some practical experience in the fight, but often oddly philosophically rigid in a quasi-mystical way. We're all on the same side though in opposing the state.
Once we get past that, the real work can begin.
An anarcho-capitalist is someone who will stop being an anarchist when they realize that "Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible" is a true statement. Put another way, anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists, they're just ignorant.
“So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself”
is inconsistent with
"[Anarchism] means a society where there is no privileged authority."
I always saw ancap as a 'skin' in which to wrap anarchism proper so as to make it more appealing to propertarians. The content's essentially the same; the end result would be a society where some people retained more of the outlook of capitalists and others behaved more like socialists, but both (all, really) tendencies would be free to flourish where they took hold. I really wanna jack the last line of this in the sharing of it, but leading with the punchline is just wrong.
@Miko, what you're saying is only possible if you think they'll keep the state up in order to keep capitalism running. I have yet to meet an ancap who would do that.
"An anarcho-capitalist is someone who will stop being an anarchist when they realize that “Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible” is a true statement."
Like I said, I have yet to meet an ancap who will dodge back to the state in order to support capitalism. Maybe you have, and that's sad to know they exist. But by and large ancaps are just naive anarchists that think that capitalism can exist under anarchism. In the long run they will find out differently. Some will be dismayed, most of them will accept it I think.
Anna: It's going to take a village, not one specific group that's for sure.
Some very intriguing points here. It seems to me, however, that protecting the wealth of billionaires could be a very lucrative business opportunity all its own. Hence, I'm not convinced that vast amounts of capital could not accumulate w/o a state.
@Ran, I was trying to take the ancap idea and run with it, showing how it would end up in anti-capitalism, even on its own basis. That's where some of the parts you found weird probably came from. Like, even if there was some sort of anarchist "money", it would not work like the financial system we know today.
"The proletariat will fight to defend the system they know, regardless of how bad it is, because at least it’s a known entity."
Well the proletariat do so today because they are ordered to by the state and/or they are paid mercenaries of the state. But the proles in ancapistan are not going to defend property they have no direct stake in, unless they get paid, which I addressed above.
"It’s also true that using naked force to protect the wealth of the super-rich is lucrative… that’s how feudalism worked." But naked force only works with a religion or civic religion. Ancaps would demolish that, so the money that would get paid to protect wealth would balloon to the point where it would become prohibitive. Without patriotism or religion, soldiers will demand vast salaries that will drain the coffers of the rich, since the middle class and poor won't be paying for them. (Cause even in the most ancap of anarchisms, the middle class and poor won't have any need to pay soldiers or cops. They'll just defend themselves and each other as necessary by themselves.)
there is one other consideration here too, regarding property. I don't like the term "Capitalism" and I think the author makes a good point in reminding us that all property is ultimately privately controlled. But the issue that has to be dealt with still is of justice. An understanding of property ownership has to answer the question of "what constitutes just ownership of property".
Some would argue that capitalism upholds property ownership that extends from self-ownership and homesteading, since this is the only actual source of property. Just private property then being only an extension of self-ownership. If understood this way, one could uphold an anarcho-capitalist terminology, I think.
If, on the other hand, someone were to claim that Capitalism can be founded upon property taken by force, they have denied the principle of self-ownership in others while assuming it for themselves. I think this contradiction makes an understanding of Capitalism with violent expropriation, invalid. Thoughts?
Great article… it's a catalog of everything that's wrong with an-capitalism. definitely shows how that philosophy thinks that if you just take actually-existing capitalism, but remove the state, everything else will work exactly the same and it'll be anarcho-capitalism! stupid. Well done.
"Ahh but what about all the middle class people in Ancapistan, won’t they form a militia to defend themselves? Well yes, but they won’t form a militia to defend a bunch of billionaires’ property."
I think your political analysis of war is awfully simplistic. The proletariat will fight to defend the system they know, regardless of how bad it is, because at least it's a known entity. In failed-states, it's the lumpenproletariat that does most of the fighting. I certainly can't see the American middle-classes fighting under -any- circumstances.
"Under anarchy, anyone could lend money to anyone"
this just rubbed me a little the wrong way- 'under anarchy' is a nonsensical statement, and I can't imagine there would be money without government to ensure its value and to make it necessary via property taxation. Without government, syndicalism/communism is inevitable. But I guess your statement makes more sense if by 'money' you mean 'capital' i.e. tools, machines, land, skills, etc.
"Anarcho-syndicalism is a bit more realistic, having some practical experience in the fight, but often oddly philosophically rigid in a quasi-mystical way."
yeah… Platformists really need to get over it. Even non-Platformist Syndicalists always seem way, way too into process; but that might just be an effect of living under constant attack in this capitalist society.
Bert McDert on Sep 19, 2010, 9:10 pm:
"I always saw ancap as a ’skin’ in which to wrap anarchism proper so as to make it more appealing to propertarians. The content’s essentially the same; the end result would be a society where some people retained more of the outlook of capitalists and others behaved more like socialists, but both (all, really) tendencies would be free to flourish where they took hold."
I can't agree- if people are given the choice to live in a society with a gift economy, what kind of fool would opt to turn their waking hours into dead time? I think money, or even quid-pro-quo exchange of any kind, would quickly turn into nothing more than an ugly memory.
Jason Hornbuckle on Sep 19, 2010, 10:12 pm:
"Some very intriguing points here. It seems to me, however, that protecting the wealth of billionaires could be a very lucrative business opportunity all its own. Hence, I’m not convinced that vast amounts of capital could not accumulate w/o a state."
Having all the factories in the world does no good if you don't have anyone to work in them, but to force people to work for you (either by force or by depriving them of their indigenous economy) must be either statist or authoritarian in some form. It's also true that using naked force to protect the wealth of the super-rich is lucrative… that's how feudalism worked. I think everyone here is against that, but you raise a good point that we should also be careful to make sure it doesn't happen if the State collapses.
@RanDomino – I'm referring to Billionaires who earned their wealth, not those who stole it or used coercion against anyone. No one can say in advance that you can't make a billion dollars honestly. who can put limits on human potential? I am also referring to protecting wealth through moral means, not through some type of slavery fuedalistic system. there are many potential ways of protecting property that don't require armies and states. Cars that only work with your fingerprints or DNA, etc. Granted, some of this is in the future.
@Jason, I think the thing is, the differential in wealth between the poor and rich is largely a product of the state. Sure, I suspect we'll all be the equivalent of "billionaires" eventually, in an anarchist society, because we will all be able to contribute our imagination to the process of creating total wealth.
And yes, I think people will find ways to non-coercively secure contracts as best as they can. But that will only be necessary in extreme circumstances.
But I definitely don't buy into the myth that the people who are rich now, in our current economy, are thousands of times more productive than the average person… that just doesn't make any sense at all.
Bill Gates is smart, but he's not even 4 times smarter than me, let alone 1000+ times.
He's made most of his money from the scam of intellectual property.
Property of "the state" is abandoned property which a group of people running the fiction called "the state" falsely believe they control. It is no less abandoned for this view on their part. A part of the fiction of "the state" (which fiction is, I believe, categorised in the horror genre) is that the property of "the state" is not owned by any of those who control the state. If you quiz them on this point, they may well act as though it is their property, but they are often very determined to deny it is their property. They may use euphemisms for abandonment such as "it belongs to the people" but they won't ever claim it as their own personal property. Which fact serves to emphasise the important fact that it is not claimed as the personal property of anyone (and is therefore abandoned).
I have previously argued (at some length) that a given property has in fact only one owner. All collective ownership is based on fictions, some of which are regarded by "the state" as legal fictions. For example, the community property of a married couple is based on the fiction that the two of them are one person under law. They are in fact two people, and all pretence that they are one is nonsense. Anyone can see with their own eyes that there are two distinct persons. Presence of manacles on their wrists or ring fingers is not a meaningful proof of anything except a regard for jewellery.
Personally, I don't see wage slavery as a goal, or even a valid means. So the fact that wage slavery won't exist is fine with me. And if that means that capitalism doesn't exist, no sweat. I'm not married to the word capitalism. I'm very attached to the concept of property, and have long regarded myself as a propertarian anarchist. I'm similarly very fond of free markets and of the market clearing pricing mechanism in particular.
What I don't understand in your bullet points is why accumulation of capital cannot take place. Accumulation of capital is called savings. You apparently know this point, since you make note of fiat money demolishing savings. Presumably with free market money, the demolition of savings through the depreciation of currency would be more difficult. Why wouldn't all seven billion persons accumulate capital in a global anarchist future? Why wouldn't free market stock exchanges and bond exchanges operate?
Capital concentration is desirable for pursuing capital investment in property, plant, equipment. Why anyone would wish to concentrate capital for the purpose of wage slavery is beyond my ken. But if persons are not free to invest their savings in, say, anonymous societies for, say, the purpose of building and operating a hospital, why not?
I'm confused why you think that private property won't be protected in the same sorts of places that it is protected now. For example, the gold of GoldMoney.com is held in a vault in London. Other gold is held there by other outfits. It is a very well protected vault. Another company I know has a vault in Zurich. Again, much gold is held there. The gold and other valuables in the vault represent accumulated wealth. Why do you suppose this concentrated set of wealth would become vulnerable in the absence of the state? It would still have private security guards, as presently. It would still be very difficult to access, due to physical impediments in the vault arrangement itself.
So the state disappears, tomorrow. Roughly 09:00 the vault owners hire some additional security forces. This cost is allocated amongst all their customers. No big deal.
I have no difficulty believing that the Aynrandians would raise up an army and go on blitzkrieg to slaughter small children and rape women. I have met many of this sort of person, after all. But I'm confused why the billionaires and millionaires of Ancapistan are not enthusiastic participants in the militia. Again, I've met many of this sort of person.
I'm also not convinced that you have adequately studied fourth generation warfare, or the great difficulties in projecting force over long distances. It is certainly difficult to hold posts, but it is similarly difficult to prevent a population from making a region un-liveable for an enemy. What remains to be seen is whether the techniques for creating, monetising, and concealing wealth are as difficult as you imagine.
There are, of course, a number of things to prevent you and your syndicalist friends from treating my property as fluid and communal. They are my weapons and my willingness to destroy what is mine rather than let thieves steal it. You might be surprised how very many people I'm willing to kill to keep what is mine from them.
@Anna – Ok. I hear you. Point well taken. i agree.
Actually, Jim, I'm in agreement with basically everything you've said here. The individual property holder will always be sovereign in an anarchist society. I don't think it will be feasible to defend large-scale extended property holdings, but because of the lack of banking schemes and "intellectual property" I doubt anyone will actually be in the position to worry about that. What you can see to the horizon will be defendable, sure.
And actually the concepts of 4th gen warfare are part of what instructed this post.
But ok, what I'm saying here is that if the people at large save and accumulate capital, the capital holdings of the big-biggies are massively diluted. Basically everything that the government does is designed to destroy capital or prevent it from accumulating in the hands of the working class, for the benefit of the existing owners of capital.
I also am a fan of markets and the price-clearing mechanism and I think it is this very thing that can never be destroyed and will destroy the state and "capitalism" as such. I think you might be assuming things of me that I am not arguing for.
The one place where we contend, perhaps, is that I think property definitions will be worked out ad-hoc once the state is gone. That may lead to areas where property is fluid.
Still, there's no reason not to defend your own property borders as fiercely as possible, if you want to.
Like I said, this isn't about goals, it's about means. If we act like anarchists, and don't let anyone tell us differently, it will all settle out, with more or less blood, depending on how people get on.
My guess is that people are going to prefer not to shed blood in a world of vast abundance, because they will see lots of peaceful opportunities.
But it won't be Capitalism, as that term is understood today.
Excellent article, and one that reflects my own changes over the past few years, as I started to see some of the negative consequences of extreme propertarianism, and changed from calling myself an anarcho-capitalist to either a market anarchist or simply an AWA. Property can be a useful tool for solving problems, and there is some evidence that it emerges naturally from stateless orders, but in a far more nuanced form, often in the form of communal rights (see the excellent work of Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom in GOVERNING THE COMMONS), and without the ferocity and absolutism advocated by some. Even the signers of the Declaration of Independence knew enough not to list property as one of the unalienable rights.
Forgive me for providing a link to an article entitled "Is Property Theft?" that I wrote a few months ago, and which I think offers some compatible thoughts on this subject:
http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2010/03/07/is-prop…
Yes, I think anarcho-capitalism is thought (by some) an-caps to be just plain anarchism. And some might in turn not think an-syn is really anarchism either. The problem with trade unions and syndicates is that they strike some of us as mini-collectives forcing their weight against individual property owners and individual workers (much like unions today). “Join us or GTFO.” “Property is theft.” (Orly?) Syndicates become almost like mini-state direct democracies controlling the means of production — the difference between this and actual state direct democracy being the monopoly factor: anarcho syndicates can compete for members, markets, etc. But competition or not, if the individual alone cannot own production and is “damned” to an equal share collective of some kind, well its not very an-arche or libertarian now is it? Democracy and anarchism are at odds after all. Thus anarcho-syndicalism seems to be a self-contradictory term if looked at this way.
So any-syns want to remove hierarchical (ruler) relationships not just from the legal system, but the economic system. And an-caps seem less likely to want that (or more accurately, less likely to care about that). Instead, contracts and individual freedom are simply emphasized. If you want to be a wage-slave, thats your business. If you sign yourself into a top-down relationship, enjoy. An-syns seem to cringe at this kind of relation being allowed at all. Again though, without the freedom to do that, well… anarchy (or an-syn anyway) seems pretty un-libertarian.
An-caps then is really just free market-ism in all things. In this light maybe an-cap is a redundant term – but it needs to distinguish itself from an-syn, and so it does.
It seems to all come down to this: between free individuals can contracts of any kind be allowed, or are some contracts illicit? This fundamental value difference drives the wedge here. An-caps seem to be hyper-libertarian and likely answer that all contracts are legit (between free individuals). An-syns seem to be hyper anarchistic in the literal sense of no ruler and likely answer that not all contracts are legit: legal or economic contracts allowing for a ruler of some kind are forbidden.
This strikes me as moralizing if not actually just immoral. Or maybe Im the unethical one since I think some hierarchical relations are acceptable. But hey, you want to form collectives, Im fine with that.
Now I would like to be way off here actually – so please, someone correct me. I mean how can an-syns really be pro-collective and still anarchists? Just doesnt seem right. If you are really pro-individual you should have no problem with free hierarchies and individual ownership of the means of production (capitalism).
Ill let the an-syns reply.
PS: I suspect I will get a reply saying that anarchism is about not owning other people, that this kind of legal hierarchy is clearly the opposite of anarchism. And that, since property is merely an extension of yourself, an-syns just extends the an-arche of yourself (law) into that extension (economics). Thus if humans cannot be hierarchically (legally) controlled, neither can property (i.e. the means of production) since thats just part of you. But this is not right. Property rights and ownership extend out of self-*ownership*, they do not extend directly from the *self*. The self and ownership are metaphysical. Property is physical. Huge difference.
As you can imagine, Anna, I loved this essay. Putting these points specifically in the service of anti-capitalism made my day!
I didn’t get past your arguments about the cost of protecting property because they are just obviously wrong. Banks specialize in (among other things) keeping property safe, there is no reason to think that there are diseconomies of scale in this. The more gold I have, the cheaper per unit gold it will probably be to guard my gold. Once our hypothetical billionaire has a bombproof fortress for his billion in gold, he can stash another billion there at little extra cost. He may also want to swap $100M with another billionaire with a gold fortress to reduce risk…pretty soon you have a network of gold guarding fortresses and everyone is diversified. Then they start taking smaller deposits and you have…a network of secure wealth storage.
Furthermore, the idea that stock ownership has very high protection costs makes no sense either. I would expect protection costs in general to go down under ancap (after all, it’s more efficient than the government and will have a lot less waste), and right now, the taxes we pay seem to be plenty to ensure that no private parties steal any of my stock, or the stock of high-net-worth individuals.
It is certainly true that many individuals get rich through coercion or monopolies or crazy banking systems. But that’s not how Larry Page & Sergey Brin got rich. I see no reason to think that Google wouldn’t have happened under ancap, and no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to keep their $15B each under ancap. I understand many anarchists are uncomfortable with the idea of large concentrations of capital, and so very much wish to find reasons why they wouldn’t happen, but being guided by such wishes is not a good way to understand reality.
While I expect firm size to be smaller under ancap, and the resource oligarch (Middle Eastern, Russian billionaires) to not exist, and probably far fewer finance (hedge fund, Goldman Sachs, etc. types) billionaires, I see no reason that some extraordinarily lucky and productive entrepreneurs might not honestly earn and keep billions. In fact, it is possible that, freed from the high tax rates and stifling regulations of the state, the top entrepreneurs would actually earn higher rates of return, and there would be more ultra-rich entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. I’d guess there would be less ultra-rich overall, but no ultra-rich? Ludicrous.
Wow, there are so many fallacies and so much economic ignorance here I don’t know where to begin.
How about lets start with it being to cost prohibivate to protect wealth. The idea that state protection of private property of the rich is a “subsidy” is absurd. And IF it is a “subsidy” then it is a subsidy the PAY for. The top 10% bear 90% of the tax burded. Not only that, but only a tiny fraction of government expenditure go to police and courts. The vast majority goes to welfare, entitlement programs, and services for OTHER people. Anarcho-captialist don’t claim that protection of property would be significantly different than it is now, just these functions would be performed by competing firms. If one firm (the government) can protect private property then multiple firms can also do so.
Next, the concept of “wage slavery” is a massive afront to economics. It assumes a one-sided market for labor where employers get to set prices. In reality employers DO have to compete for labor and wages are set by supply and demand conditions as with any other price. While wages in anarcho-capitalism would certainly higher due to increased economic growth and productivity of labor, the basic wage mechanism would remain the same.
Surprisingly, the analysis of fractional-reserve banking and intellectual property is fairly accurate. But this is not an indictment of anarcho-capitalism as most anarcho-capitalist reject these instutions because interfere with people’s private property rights. Murray Rothbard, who coined the term anarcho-capitalism certainly wouldn’ve rejected them.
I would write more here if I wasn’t typin on my phone.
I think the adjective add ons just clarifies the way the individual would prefer to live.
I agree that it can be decisive with anarchists, but I think it is more of a clarification on additional issues, on top of the anarchy one.
In an actual anarchist society, the "form" of anarchy would be what ever prevailed. There would likely be communes of people doing things their own way, but in the end, it would all be voluntary interactions.
I am not against so called anarcho "socialism" etc, and I think it can work, and has worked, in small communes. I do not think it will end up being wide spread. I consider myself an anarcho capitalist in that I think that, as a "system" it will become prevalent and encourage the most progress, but it will not be forced upon anyone. If you don't want o buy what someone is selling, you don't have to.
@Skunk..Patri..Chris
Just a couple of thoughts…
Don't underestimate the scarcity of cheap labor and the abundance of cheap capital in an anarchist society. Once the legal protections that protect and feed current capitalists cease to exist (regs that bar entry of small players to markets, IP laws, direct and indirect subsidies to big biz, etc.), individual entrepreneurs, co-ops and, yes, collectives will be the rule rather than the exception – drying up the supply of cheap labor pretty quickly. When there are alternatives to rigid and exploitive corporate hierarchies, the price of hired help will go up considerably. (And all those millionaires that Ancap is supposed to produce, sans gov interference, will drive labor costs even higher.)
On the same token, property WILL be more to protect without state coercion in the form of taxes for defensive costs, underclass cannon fodder and property laws that protect ill-obtained title.
Sure, a magnate can lock his gold in a fortified bunker and employ a small army to protect it. But, if an uber-plute *owns* 10,000 fallow acres surrounded by active communities, how will he protect THAT from homesteading? A standing army? Fed and supplied by whom? Hired at what ongoing cost? And what public urgency will exist to support his paper claim on this property?
These are just a couple of limiting factors that would exist under anarchism. It doesn't mean that someone with a lot of savvy and hard work won't still get rich, but accumulating and holding wealth, in our current definition (land, means of production, ability to bully masses of people) will be a lot more problematic.
\We’re all on the same side though in opposing the state.\
I always used to think that, too. But the more hard-core of the anarcho left (communists, syndicalists, etc.) will often challenge this assertion, saying that their primary concern is abolishing \hierarchy\, and that any propertarian system keeps hierarchies intact.
@ Forrest
Why do you assume that only a state could provide those services you describe? Why not pay 5% (probably less than that) to a security/insurance company to have that same protection. You would have a hell of a lot more accountability with them than you would with ANY state.
As for afganastan, not a stateless society. They are a society raped by religious fanaticism, which became tied to the state. Somalian is a much better example. Though they were/are also plagued by religious fever, they have (had technically before the usa and others forced a new government on them) a stateless society, and they began to improve greatly compared to their previous government run selves. Also, without a state, a far more true free market style capitalism arose, leading to much better services and prices than any neighbouring states. So, an actual example of how, not only, anarchism can work, but how capitalism will prosper under anarchy, and progress will accelerate.
skunk1980 on Sep 20, 2010, 4:27 am:
“Yes, I think anarcho-capitalism is thought (by some) an-caps to be just plain anarchism. And some might in turn not think an-syn is really anarchism either. The problem with trade unions and syndicates is that they strike some of us as mini-collectives forcing their weight against individual property owners and individual workers (much like unions today). “Join us or GTFO.” “Property is theft.” (Orly?) Syndicates become almost like mini-state direct democracies controlling the means of production — the difference between this and actual state direct democracy being the monopoly factor: anarcho syndicates can compete for members, markets, etc. But competition or not, if the individual alone cannot own production and is “damned” to an equal share collective of some kind, well its not very an-arche or libertarian now is it? Democracy and anarchism are at odds after all. Thus anarcho-syndicalism seems to be a self-contradictory term if looked at this way.”
If you mean “democracy” to mean voting, I don’t think there are any Anarchists today who use/advocate that. Direct democracy using consensus (resolving all concerns until no one opposes a decision) is possible on small scales (up to a few hundred people) but not large scales (imagine if every person had to read every bill currently brought before Congress!). That’s where there’s a major overlap between Syndicalism and anarcho-communism (that ‘small scale’ that can make group decisions is a ‘community’). Within a single enterprise (a building, a factory, a farm, any other small geographic territory where it makes sense), the community or syndicate *should* have total control (assuming its internal decision-making processes are inclusive and not exploitative/oppressive), because it’s far easier to leave a small enterprise than it is to leave an entire region or country.
During the Spanish Revolution of 1936, villagers who didn’t want to collectivize were generally allowed to keep their own land as long as they didn’t hire anyone for wages. The decision to collectivize was made on by each village, and it was up to each community to handle their own affairs.
“An-caps then is really just free market-ism in all things. In this light maybe an-cap is a redundant term – but it needs to distinguish itself from an-syn, and so it does.”
I can’t agree. An-caps think in terms of title-base property rights.
“contracts”
I still don’t understand what an-caps mean by ‘contracts’. If it’s binding, there has to be some kind of enforcement mechanism- if I contract with someone to pay X dollars for Y widgets, and they deliver the widgets but I don’t pay them, then what? A judge orders the police to take me to jail? The other guy’s mercenaries go to war with my mercenaries? If a contract is non-binding, then it’s nothing I would call a contract at all, but an agreement; and that still doesn’t solve the problem of what the other guy does if I screw him.
“since property is merely an extension of yourself”
I can’t imagine any syndicalist saying anything like that. The Anarchist concept of property needs to be fleshed out, but IMO it’s based on use: What I use I own, what I use with others we own together, and what I cease to use I cease to own (with no compensation). So every workshop, factory, office, farm, apartment building, etc, should be owned and operated collectively by those who work/live there; but on the other hand, my bicycle, my clothes, my personal belongings with sentimental value only to me, my cell phone- anything I use exclusively should be solely mine, and I should be able to do with them whatever I want. I think this idea of property more closely aligns with natural human law.
In Pat’s example above, there might be a piece of paper somewhere that says some jerk owns 10,000 fallow acres, but if he’s not using them, then that paper can say whatever it wants but no one should care; it’s abandoned. Homesteading is legitimate. I just wrote down on a piece of paper that I own Asia; why should that piece of title have less precedence than any other in an-cap world, if there’s no one central body to enforce title legitimacy?
Come on, capitalist pigs! Titles, Contracts, Money; who enforces them in your scheme? Anarchists say, we can just toss all three and be better off for it!
@RanDomino – simply put, in anarcho-capitalism contracts are enforced by private courts, police, etc. This is a competitive consumer bought service (unlike the legalistic monopoly we have to day known as government). It may or may not be for profit (who knows). Im not sure if Glenn agrees. Glenn, your reply seemed to hint only at loss of money and a tarnished name being the push to keep contracts in place. I think it would be naive to think that this alone would keep humans from ripping off one another. It IS a giant factor though, but police and courts are still a must.
@Anna Morgenstern – I just want to say that I really like this article. Bravo! An article with a high quantity and quality of comments is a mark that it is thoughtful, intriguing, challenging and well done. This kind of article is precisely why I subscribe to blogs.
@everyone – a good way to settle these theoretical questions would be to end the state, put anarchism into practice and then see what happens. Idk about you, but I prefer this route over philosophizing any day.
I don't like the government any more than you do, I think. But historically, private law, and private law enforcement has been problematic. If there is more than one security company in our hypothetical society, what happens when there is a disagreement between two armed groups? You could say, "Oh, that's easy, they'd just use common sense to sort it out." But what if they don't? If I'm going to pay for someone for security, I want my armed gang to be big enough so that such conflicts don't occur, and an armed gang that big is a de facto government, providing law and order on a reliable basis. I will agree that accountability is important, and that the principals of said security apparatus need to be constrained by an immutable code of conduct and are subject to be fired by the customers. The US Constitution does an ok job of this, if it is followed (esp. the IXth and Xth amendment).
Some parts of Somalia are undergoing a boom, such as the city of Eyl. But this wealth is fueled by organized piracy. This is not a moral or sustainable way to run a society. Most of Somalia is still pretty bad. The legend of the US Marines begins with T. Jefferson sending them to subdue the Barbary pirates. These slave trading bushwhacking buccaneers had threatened and cajoled the "great powers" of Europe, even England (with the world's most formidable Navy) into paying the Barbars protection money in return for not harassing their vessels. Jefferson said, "You want us to pay you for not robbing us? I have a counter proposal: How about you don't rob us, and we won't level your city to the ground?" That's a good security company, and it didn't even cost much 200 years ago.
State or no state, I want my society to protect the accumulation of capital. I'd rather pay a billion-dollar company $20 for a hammer that it took them one second to produce than pay my local blacksmith $100 dollars for a hammer it took him all day to make and isn't as good. In order to grow a company that big, it requires long term reliable security and consistent application of law at every step of the long supply chain from raw materials to my hammer. If pirates start operating with impunity in the Atlantic or Pacific, or the highways of North America, you can kiss $20 dollar hammers goodbye.
@RanDomino
In regards to “contracts,” they would be “enforced” via ostracism/refusal to work with the individual. In other words, it would be encouraged via your reputation.
There would be a market for insuring contracts, so such insurers would be privy to any “contracts,” and those who had a habit of not honouring their agreements would likely be dropped by their insurers, and would thus have a hard time doing business with anyone.
Basically, like with most everything else in your life, if you don’t like the way someone does something, you don’t hang around them/deal with them.
A. Morgenstern sets out to prove that capitalism is impossible under anarchy, and winds up proving that anarchy is impossible, as a long term way to organize a community in the world that we actually live in. Some call me a minarchist, which is supposed to be derogatory, I guess. All I want is to be left alone. I don’t want to live in a state where the government bothers me, and I don’t want to live in an anarchy where *anyone* can bother me, at any time, for any reason. Life is too short to build a little fortress and sleep with an assault rifle. It sounds like Aynrandia would be a good country to live in. If I could get by with paying 5% of my income to the minarchist state in exchange for armed agents to guard me and my property, wherever it or I may be, I’d say that’s a hell of bargain compared to what we have now.
Ancapistan sounds like Afghanistan, another stateless society. Seriously, what’s to prevent Ancapistan from turning into another 3rd world hell hole? Aynrandia might have to invade it out of sheer self preservation. If a rotten house next door is about to fall over onto your house, you have to knock it down.
Kudos on the names for your imaginary countries, very nice work.
Skunk,
For a variety of reasons, some ethical and others political, I do not believe that violence can be legitimate. I would refuse to support contract-enforcement agencies. I might consider formal reputation systems. A state can shove its violence down our throats, but, in an anarchist society, no group can suppress demand for peaceful conflict resolution.
@Marja Erwin
Interesting. Do you not believe violence to be legitimate even in self-defense? And what about punishment as retribution? It seems kind of weak, dangerous and ineffective to not imprison a murderer. (I consider imprisonment violence, btw). — Im just curious. Ive met very few people that hold extreme views of pacifism. Usually they really dont like conflict of any kind, including arguing, so if you wish not to reply, well thats cool.
“People calling themselves ‘anarcho-capitalists’ usually want to define ‘capitalism’ as the same thing as a free market, and ‘socialism’ as state intervention against such. But what then is a free market? If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition. In that case, all anarchists are ‘anarcho-capitalists’, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.”
I love this. Great work, Ms. Morgenstern!
Skunk,
I believe self-defense is ethically dubious, but not indefensible. I think it can escalate, and collective self-defense can escalate more easily than individual self-defense. If two opposing groups each believe they are in the right, they may see each of their opponents’ acts as a provocation, and each of their own as a response. If self-defense involves significantly less violence than the original attack, I think it may be defensible.
I believe violent retaliation is wrong. I don’t want to go into a tangent about that.
My point was that there would be a certain market for non-violent conflict resolution. It’s pretty much suppressed by the state, which crowds out conflict resolution, and which obscures moral responsibility for violence.
Another one out of the park, Anna.
@ Marja Erwin
Neat. I agree. Anarchism would quite naturally create a higher demand for non-violent conflict resolution. And I think crime and violence would plummet with anarchy (of any flavor). I of course think self-defense (personal and institutional) are justifiable, but they would be less needed for sure.
Anna, While I agree that gigantic corporations will be If not impossible, Highly unlikely and rare under Anarchism, You're buying into the mass-media definition of "capitalism".
Capitalism does not require massive amounts of capital. It just requires capital. A person purchasing land and opening a small store is a capitalist. A person hiring a gardener is a capitalist. (So is the gardener.) A man who starts a business in his garage and sells his invention on the sidewalk is a capitalist.
Big business may go away. Capitalism won't.
Again, (for the millionth time sigh), if you're defining capitalism as "voluntary transactions", then sure.
In that case all anarchism is anarcho-capitalism and having an extra word for it is pointless.
Trying to convince me to use that definition isn't going to work. Trying to push that definition just confuses people and makes the free market look bad, because "capitalism" to most people around the world looks like a mixed bag at best. To poor people in the third world, it looks like a nightmare. Saying that capitalism is a free market makes it seem like the free market is responsible for that nightmare, even though both you and I know it's the state that is…
You're just muddying the waters that way, in order to piss off liberals mostly, I'd guess. (there are better ways to do that)
Marty, I agree with your assessment, and would like to add that large business are desirable. It is large business that makes it easier for small merchants and gardeners to practice their trade with lest cost, which can double or triple the profit from their labor. Making economies of scale structurally impossible -or highly improbable- is doing no one any favors. If profit can be said to be freedom to have what you want and live on your own terms, then making profiteering more difficult for large or small business is certainly reducing freedom, even one's very ability to survive.
Let's not forget that if we set back industrialization 200 years, 60-75% of the people on the planet are dead in a week (2-4 days in NYC). Any upsetting of the apple cart should be done with great caution for this reason.
@Forrest – Did it ever occur to you what makes your magical corporate economies of scale possible?
State (read: MY tax dollars) built and maintained transportation, energy, communication infrastructure
State supported educational system that produces obedient drones for the factory and research to industry.
State enforced IP and regulatory law that restricts competition.
State restricted access to capital that might allow competition.
State maintained police and empire, protecting, primarily, the rights (i.e. property) of the elite.
etc., etc., etc.
In short, the state enables giant corporations to externalize their costs while privatizing their profit.
So when you want to buy your $20 hammer (or the ability to sell your $1 production cost hammer for $20), you are also buying into a whole raft of state subsidization and coercion.
A decentralized industrial-agricultural base could supply the vast majority of our needs, with less vulnerability, less exploitation and no need for state-buttressed mega-biz. And you don't need to "set back industrialization 200 years" to do it.
Pat, you are 100% correct that "crony capitalism" is just as bad a problem as any of the other structural corruption we are saddled with. I now refuse to shop at Wal-Mart because they ran a radio ad in 2009 supporting government expansion in the health care market; I guess they thought it would help their bottom line by reducing what they spend on employee benefits. Either that or they wanted to help foment an depression, to put more of their competitors out of business. They stink.
But bigness does not necessarily mean coercion and corruption. Even supposing a 100% free market, persons or groups that provide a better product for less money are going to be bigger than the competition, perhaps much bigger. Keep in mind that "vigilante" coercion (more commonly referred to as crime) is just as bad for freedom as state-sponsored coercion. A healthy society of any sort must still be concerned with law and order (or ethics, if you like that term better) so that there is an environment to efficiently grow business and meet demand well.
Anna Morgenstern said:
"Again, (for the millionth time sigh), if you’re defining capitalism as “voluntary transactions”, then sure.
In that case all anarchism is anarcho-capitalism and having an extra word for it is pointless."
Ok, I didn't want to go there… if your only criticism is that you don't like our definition, why post at all? Yes, AnCaps define capitalism as voluntary transactions. And yes, by that definition all anarchists are AnCaps. We just made up our own label so we wouldn't get thrown in with you bunch of window-kicking, stone-throwing slackers, who seem to confuse "anarchy" with "while other people go to college".
One big criticism of your original article: You say the concentration and accumulation of capital would be impossible in anarchy. I disagree. Yes, concentration would be far less. But accumulation in total would be a lot faster! Every coercive transaction slows down capital accumulation and can even reverse it (e.g. soviets, east germany) and result in a loss of capital. So there would probably be an amazing, never before seen rate of capital accumulation, growth and improvement of all parts of life. But it might just happen in peoples garages, or whatever would be a good solution.
@Bleicke – You're right about the accumulation thing. Saying "mass accumulation" was a poor choice of words, probably redundant with "concentration" in what I was trying to say.
And yes, the state acts to block capital formation and destroy capital, in order to create capital scarcity (and thus enrich the insiders who hold capital). In fact that's the main effect of most of their interventions. Without a state, total accumulation would be enourmous and rapid, but also very widespread and diverse (as savings would no longer be destroyed by inflation). This capital formation would be a big driver of increased return to workers, via the mechanisms Mises wrote about.
Actually, I was in error before. It’s not really trivially true that all anarchists believe in trade and/or ownership per se. On the other hand, if they’re anarchists, they have no ground or authority to stop someone from selling or buying stuff.
My apologies for that part of my argument.
Less, you actually said it much better than I did. I'm almost embarrassed by my essay now. But at least I got people talking about it.
I disagree about the comparison of selective use of "capitalism" to using the language of the person you are speaking too.
This is exactly why it is crucial to define your terms. Otherwise we are just talking past each other.
Especially when dealing with loaded terms like capitalism.
I have found it successful to clarify how what we live under would be better described as corporatism.
Taking it for what it actually is, capitalism, being voluntary interactions and transactions and trade, most liberal minded people are rather supportive of it. It has just been bastardized in modern use.
As you mentioned, in actually anarchy, even anarcho "socialists" would "support" this. As long as it is voluntary.
Wait, now, there’s no reason there couldn’t be very advanced technology and mass production without capitalism… “accumulation of capital” means *in private hands*, the ability to turn money into more money through investment. Capitalists (especially neoliberals) consider everything to be interchangeable with a quantifiable amount of money. If a capitalist’s actions result in factories being built and new technology researched and exploited, from their perspective all that’s happened is that their net worth has increased. On the other hand Anarchist economics are resource-based; we don’t think of things in terms of their monetary value, but the actual resource they are. A factory that a capitalist would value at $20 million would be valued by an Anarchist as “one factory”. And of course the way this would be achieved and implemented would be by changing the nature of property ownership from title to use. Don’t get rid of the productive enterprises; put them in the hands of their workers.
The source of inequality in any capitalist system is this: Workers sell their time, but bourgeoisie sell commodities. If the owner sells more commodities in the same amount of time, they make more profit; but a worker cannot increase their amount of time (other than a slight adjustment for skill, but they are still paid for their time and not their product). Thus the income for a worker is (time * hourly pay) but the income for an owner is (gross – wages). Income for workers is linear, but exponential for owners. The justification given for this is that the owner provided the initial capital, but we don’t view that as a good reason for the difference in pay schemes (anyway, the vast majority of capital that exists is based on stolen resources). In a worker-cooperative model, which realistically is probably where we’re going, pay is given as ((gross – external costs) / number of workers) probably with some adjustment for skill and experience.
RanDomino, that is an odd argument for someone with such a cool handle.
How much can a factory worker make if no one builds them a factory? Goose egg. If a worker’s collective wants to pool their resources and build their own factory (this actually happens sometimes), that’s fair and square, but if an industrialist spends her own dough to build a factory and buy all the machine tools, it’s only fair that she employs people on her own terms, and workers are free not to work on those terms. Most independent industrialists were not born with silver spoons in their mouths (not that there’s anything wrong with that), and did not attend an ivy league school, or any school. Many learned their work ethic on the assembly line, saved their money and built their skills, then went into business for themselves. A worker with the hope of independent wealth will work harder than a worker who can only look forward to a perpetual dividend from their factory collective. At least I do.
Wow. Patri Friedman posts here. This site is even more awesome than I thought!
At the article: I call speculation. Most of what you say is completely unknowable. Anarchy is such a social quantum leap we can’t really imagine what it’d be like. Singularity they call it, I think.
Anarcho-Capitalists imagine that there would be companies. Others think there wouldn’t. We can’t know. Claiming that “there would be no banks” and “there would be no billionaires” is just as silly as claiming that there would be “one huge corporation driving everyone out of the market”. Might happen, we’ll see. We understand some of the mechanics that drive society, but not nearly enough to predict how society would look like without government.
So let’s just focus on the “Anarcho-” part and take care of the details when we’ve reached that one.
Oh, and I don’t see how defining Capitalism as “Transactions without coercion” is circular.
Can we please stop the left/right hate? It’s just statist crap.
PS: You guys have the hardest CAPTCHA ever. One word is always in another language. What are “gbeads”?
Bleicke, not to be a nerd, but a quantum leap is technically the smallest possible leap allowed by the laws of physics! I know that’s not common usage, but still…
Anna has now clarified that she was referring to concentration of capital, and not the mere accumulation of wealth, as being impossible under anarchy. Patri used a strong example, Larry Page & Sergey Brin (the Google twins), of people who have become extremely rich in the present system and who he believes (correctly, in my opinion) would still become rich under anarchy.
In fact, the wealth of Page & Brin is overwhelmingly in the form of the key currency of anarchy: Goodwill. Goodwill is around 80% of the value of GOOG stock, and most of the remainder is in the form of cash reserves to pay for future salaries and payments to third parties for new ideas. The physical means of production, land, plant, and equipment, are a trivial percentage of total assets. And Google’s business model doesn’t even rely on intellectual property laws: Google, unlike Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Oracle, etc., has never initiated an IP lawsuit against anyone, and there isn’t a single Google product I use for which there isn’t a substitute from another company, none of whom are being sued by Google to shut them down. Page & Brin are the type of rich people who will still be rich under anarchy, because their wealth is in the goodwill they have created.
There will be great wealth under anarchy, but there won’t be a concentration of the means of production. And even if there are people with more of the physical means of production, they will not have much power: with the option of self-employment not impeded by licensing, regulation, zoning, intellectual property laws, government-induced employer-based health insurance, and K-12 obedience training, business owners will find that they must make the terms of employment much better than now because the opportunity cost of working for them will have risen considerably.
Oddly, access to the physical means of production is almost trivial in modern America (though not in many other countries, where the concentrated ownership of physical capital is a MAJOR problem). Wage slavery in America is the person who can’t quit because they need the health insurance, or because they can’t afford the cost of the relatively useless education program needed to get the professional license, or because they can’t just start a taxi service with their own car or salon in their own home.
The free market will eat the rich because because land, plant, and equipment are a trivial part of total wealth. Money, today, is backed by nothing other than the willingness of others to accept it in trade (coerced, of course, by legal tender laws, but not as to its value). Money, under anarchy, can also be backed by nothing other than the willingness of others to accept it in trade. Wealth, in the form of goodwill, will be extremely secure under anarchy, more so than under a government system. And as William Gillis beautifully put it at Human Iterations, property will be a “second order good” that reflects that goodwill.
Prices are critical to the functioning of a complex society: they provide the information about relative scarcity needed for people to intelligently behave in a socially beneficial way. The abolition of prices would mean the abolition of most of the population of the planet. And honest prices can only arise from some form of property system. But that system doesn’t have to involve the strong form of propertarianism advocated by Rothbardians: it can be the nuanced, Friedmanite (David) version, which sees property rights emerging and taking the most useful form for economic efficiency (actually, I think the emergence in historical societies primarily took the most useful form for minimizing social violence, but the differences aren’t actually all that great in practice). That is the form of anarcho-capitalism Anna means, where the addition of the word capitalism is like putting legs on a snake. David Friedman doesn’t start from property: he starts from anarchy, and sees property developing as a tool of anarchy (or should I say the machinery of freedom?). One of the greatest tragedies in the recent attempts to reconcile anarcho-capitalism with anarcho-everythingelsism has been the unavailability (and out-of-dateness) of The Machinery Of Freedom: I suspect his forthcoming third edition is going to be a major, positive force in the development of stateless theory.
I do want to say, however, that the word capitalism, because it doesn’t offend conservatives, is still a useful word when explaining anarchism to them. They DO consider it a synonym for free markets, and are more likely to respect an anarchy they see as the most effective application of what they support. In discussions with limited government libertarians, for example, my favorite quip is:
Minarchy is the theory that free market capitalism is best protected by a socialist monopoly.
It has been very effective. But just as I would argue in English if I were trying to persuade an American and in Spanish if I were trying to persuade a Mexican, I think the word capitalism is helpful in persuading conservative friends and harmful in persuading progressive friends. Or is it liberal friends? Or is it socialist friends? Ah, words.
I’ve been working on a model for asymptotic anarchism, which this thread has helped me to flesh out. Thanks to all:
Hypothesis A) The ideal society is one where 1) Everyone can do anything they want except… 2) No coercion is ever used by anyone. The ideal society can be considered to have 100 freedom units. A freedom unit is equal to 1% of GDP. In this model, GDP is considered to represent all activity undertaken by anyone in the society. Coerced activity, or crime, is represented as Oppression Units, or OU for short. Example: In one society, 50% of GDP is free action, and 50% is crime. This society would have a freedom rating of 50. A poor rating, this is the current USA. Yet there are some societies with a freedom rating of 10 or worse.
Hypothesis B) Both official crime (curbs on freedom committed by a state) and unofficial crime (curbs on freedom committed by individuals) are the same thing and can be measured by Oppression Units. The freedom rating (FR) can be calculated thus:
FR = 100 – officialOU – unofficialOU
Hypothesis C) officialOU and unofficialOU are actually a function of each other, like electric current and magnetic fields.
Example 1) If part of the policy of official crime is to commit taxation to pay for a full time police force who sometimes seem to harass innocent people more often than they harass criminals, they still might reduce unofficialOU). If the net OU reduction is greater than the net OU increase, it is a good policy. If the net OU increase is greater, it is a bad policy.
Example 2) Likewise, the particular nature of unofficialOU in a society can have a dramatic impact on officialOU. If, say, ethyl alcohol is prohibited by officialOU, unofficalOU will control the alcohol market, and then people like Al Capone will become powerful enough to regulate officialOU, causing a net increase in OU. Or a doctor in Louisiana can martyr himself to assassinate Huey Long. Even though this act of murder counted as an increase in OU, it very well could have prevented Huey Long from becoming president. If so, it counts as a major net decrease in OU. I only say that because, in my opinion, a Long presidency would have had an even chance of joining the Axis in WWII, giving the Axis certain victory, or remaining neutral in the conflict, giving the Axis a merely excellent chance of victory. An Axis victory, of course, would have resulted in such a global increase in OU as we have been fortunate so far to only find in dystopian science fiction novels.
In summation, total OU is represented by Policy 1(officialOU) + Policy 2(unoffialOU) where Policy 1 represents the social policy that determines the amount of officialOU, and Policy 2 represents the social policy that determines the amount of unofficialOU. So the expanded equation for the freedom rating of a society is:
FR = 100 – P1(officialOU) -P2(unofficialOU)
The goal being to get a rating that is as close to 100 as possible, the factors of both official and unofficial crime must be taken into account.
I honestly don’t care if I’m an “anarchist” or not. I have little in common with your typical anarchist. The thing I hate about this article is that it admits that words like “free market”, “capitalism”, “socialism” “anarcho-synicalism”, etc vague, but then it tries to draw conclusions using those words without even defining the words before hand. I’m going to try to respond to it, but I know I’m guaranteed to screw up somewhere cause I honestly don’t know how she is defining her words.
“Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public?”
Only if you have a WAY oversimplied understanding of what “private property” is. Usually, when someone saids talks about private property they are talking about property who’s ownership is was (somewhat) justified through individual homesteading or trade. It’s not meant SIMPLY that it was individually owned. It’s a little more than that.
“And if the anarcho-capitalists follow anarchist means, the results will be anarchy, not some impossible “anarcho-capitalism””
But earlier you said that “capitalism” is a vague word so why are you concluding that “anarcho-capitalism” is impossible? Hmmm, so anarcho-(word with unknown meaning) is impossible? That doesn’t make sense.
“Anarchy does not mean social utopia, it means a society where there is no privileged authority. ”
“Privileged” is vague. Calling something a “privilege” is nothing but a mere judgement. This is one of the reasons why I am unsure of whether to call myself an anarchist anymore. Authority exists no matter what. Law implies authority. How exactly do you determine what authority is “privilieged” and what authority is “legitamite”? You can’t. What is priviliege to one person is a right to someone else.
“?Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.”
“Mass accumulation and concentration of capital” is vague. When exactly does meduim accumulation of capital become “massive” $100,000 worth? $500,000 worth? A million? A billion? Tell me what amount of concentration capital is “massive”? And why? If you decide that $500,000 worth of capital should be the starting point of “massive concentration” then why not $499,999? Or why not $500,001? This is all arbitrary as far as I know.
The only thing you can say about capital concentration in anarchy is that capital concentration will be voluntary and the concentrations that arose out of statism corrected.
“?Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.”
Not true. Just because the workers gained control of production doesn’t mean private property doesn’t exist. You can very well have workers gaining the means of production under the rules of Non-Proviso Lockean homesteading property rights. Another problem with this arguement is she doesn’t even define what “capitalism” is first.
“One big one is that the cost of protecting property rises dramatically as the amount of property owned increases, without a state”
You assuming three things at once. One you’re assuming the general public automatically is against private property for being anarchist. Two, you’re assuming taxation is regressive when it is not. It is progressive. The more wealth you have the more taxes you have to pay for. This makes sense given that you will be recieving more property protection from the state And third, you’re assuming the competitive nature of polycentric law in anarchy cannot decrease the price of enforcing the law.
“One reason for this is that large scale property ownership is never all geographically massed. A billionaire doesn’t have all his property in one small geographic area. In fact, this sort of absentee-ownership is necessary to become a billionaire in the first place.”
No no no. Paying people to take care of all your property and perform operations on it is not “absentee-ownership”. Absentee-ownership when you merely hold a piece of property (particularly land) and not doing anything on or improve it. It’s not the fact that you personally are not stationed on it.
“Not only because of the sheer number of guardians necessary, but because one must pay those guardians enough that they don’t just decide to take over the local outlet”
I don’t understand. I own an outlet mall. I can pay for police protection, but then when I own two of them now all of a sudden I cannot afford police protection? This arguement also begs the question why aren’t the billionares who own like 100 or so outlet malls getting their stores ransacked right now? Clearly since the government has a monopoly of police protection the price of police protection is higher than the free market price. Also, why do you assume that everyone RIGHT NOW is anti-capitalist and the only thing making them obey the rules of private property is the state? If you asked the average person they would telling you that stealing from the local outlet is wrong. Why do you assume everyone is a to-the-bone “property is theft” socialist who would steal from the outlet store just as soon as the state was abolished? This is a pretty pessimistic view of human nature.
“And the current fiat money/central banking regime, by constantly inflating the money supply, destroys the ability of people to save, thus forcing them to borrow in order to start or expand a business, to buy a home or a car. It literally and directly concentrates the supply of capital in the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people, ”
I can see how that causes certain bankers to get richer than normal, but I don’t see what that has to do with Wal-Mart or Google or other non-banking corporations who you might consider to have “large concentrations of capital” whatever amount THAT is.
“The anarcho-capitalists often have a nonsensical rosy picture of the boss-worker relationship that has no basis in reality. Almost no one wakes up and goes in to work thinking “thank the heavens for my wonderful boss, who was kind enough to employ a loser like me”.”
That is complete BS. The first boss I had I was thankful he hired me. At the time, I didn’t think I would be hired by anyone. Not everyone is so close minded to fail to see that even “anti-authoritarianism” is itself authoritarian! I respect bosses and entreprenuers albeit I have almost nothing in common with them in terms of personality.
“When external invasion arrives, the middle classes will defend themselves and their own property. But they’re not going to risk their lives for Wal-mart without getting a piece of the action.”
So what? WTF does that have to do with not respecting bosses period? Only the most self-serving and arrogant boss would expect his workers to die for the company.
“Police and military protection is the biggest subsidy that the State gives to the rich. In some sense the Objectivists are correct that capitalism requires a government to protect private property”
No that is not a subsidy. Taxation is progressive. Property taxes pay for police service and the wealthy have more property so…………..
“Obviously, under anarchism, such a thing as “intellectual property” wouldn’t exist, so any business model that relies on patents and copyrights to make money would not exist either. This would contribute to the dilution I mentioned above”
As far as my knowledge of ancaps is most of them are against IP. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to point out.
“So we see, even assuming an “anarcho-capitalist” property regime, anything recognizable as “capitalism” to anyone else could not exist. ”
Of course, I have no clue what you meant by “capitalism” this entire article.
Another article based on some personal definition of capitalism… I really dont care about the name. Under some definitions I am an anti-capitalist and under other I am a capitalist.
The thing is that writing a whole article without defining your use of the word "capitalism" its useless. Discussing about semantics is one of the most useless things that intelectuals do.
Less and Petri-
Google is a poor example of a free market entity, because most of it's highest paying customers are government subsidized corporations.
Patri said:
"The more gold I have, the cheaper per unit gold it will probably be to guard my gold."
This is simply not true.
Paying someone to risk their lives to protect property that is not their own will always be the most expensive service, perhaps second to paying for the administrative costs of such a security force.
Sure, hiring a bodyguard or a PI will be cheap, but hiring a small army to defend said fortress will be so expensive the owner of the fortress would either face downsizing or resort to taxing people. This was what happened in the feudal ages. Effectively, the peasantry was taxed to protect the royalty from the peasantry. That is why empires need to continually grow, because the cost of protecting property rises so quickly.
Why would someone take up arms when they can make the same amount of money doing something else that is less risky? Sure there are some really gung ho people in the military, but most are there because of economic incentive. They are poor and see enlisting as one of their few if any choices.
Google would not be nearly as large as it is were it not hired by State subsidized mega corporations for advertisements.
Furthermore, if our economy was gold based, and someone hoarded a portion of it, it is likely that they would be robbed.
Couldn't agree with you more.
To me, the use of a term in a way that is obviously at odds with the everyday reality of the term is a form of deception, either by the user or of the user. this is what i think you mean by "bundled" or "broken".
Since we have living testimony to what capitalism is, it seems unreasonable to allude to it as something it is not or something it could possibly become if only this, that and everything else about it were somehow different. the debate about objectivism and subjectivism can go on forever, but a rock is a damn rock. The awful truth is that capitalism is the state, just as the king used to be. As goes the state, goes capital. One cannot exist without the other.
I think you make a great overall point in a great article, but the problem being, those you wish to convince, would be the same folks that wish to define capitalism as what it is not. Those who would agree with you, already have allowed physical reality to define the term.
I'm sorry, but if you think we should let negative connotations redefine words, and avoid using them, then we sure as hell better avoid "anarchy." If you think capitalism is muddled by "reality" then anarchy is beyond repair.
General use of anarchy is synonymous with chaos and violence. You want to know what people think anarchy and anarchists are, look at the Joker in the Dark Knight. His character was defined as an anarchist in production. You think capitalism is demonized, the defiantly don't stand a chance advocating for anarchy.
Gene, we're actually living under a combo of socialism and fascism. So we don't know what capitalism looks like.
And if AnCaps really believed that what exists currently is capitalism or good, why would they be against it? That makes no sense.
I don’t really understand why there is such a problem with the word “capitalism”.
It hardly needs defined, we are living it.
Glenn,
capitalism [the term] isn't "muddled" by reality at all, it is defined by it. anarchy at present, has no or very little reality. it has unending potential for definition. what you refer to as being synonymous with "chaos and violence" is simply some people's imaginations. Imagination is easily altered, physical reality isn't.
Bleicke,
While I definately believe we know what "capitalism" looks like, I in no way would infer that AnCaps support what exists. this is my whole point,
if the entire world refers to what is as capitalism, and what is by definition is what is [obviously], then why not let the term be defined by the reality rather than some don quixote notion of it?
i also am not disputing the term anarcho capitalism, as i think combining the two terms gives enough clarity and distinction. i am simply saying the use of capitalism in isolation as meaning anything other than the current conditions is hopeless, unless you can somehow redefine the term in the minds of six billion people who experience the reality everyday. it seems absurd to me to have to refer to a theoretical definition of an ongoing reality when using a common term.
Well Gene, my argument is that the capitalism we are living in is impossible without a state. The ancaps ought to understand this, but they’ve confused capitalism with a free market (as have many, many other people, much to my dismay). To claim that they’re not anarchists is, in my opinion, silly and petulant. But if this system we’re living in is “capitalism” then they aren’t really “capitalists”, they’re just naive anarchists with particular definitions of terms.
If you accept their definitions, then we’re currently living under a mixed socialist-capitalist system, all anarchists are capitalists, and all statists are some kind of socialist. To me, those definitions seem counter-intuitive and in contradiction to common usage and experience.
One of the reasons for all this weirdness though is that the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” are basically bundled, broken concepts. In other words, there’s a hidden false premise buried in each of those words as they are commonly used.
The purpose of this article was to tease out this premise and sort of bury the idea of these concepts so we can abandon them and move on. Capitalism, socialism, whatever. We’re anarchists.
And for a bit more about these package deal terms, I suggest reading this:
http://mises.org/daily/2099#6
How is capitalism defined by reality? By the same argument I could say socialism is defined by reality. Or anarchism, referring to hooded window kickers. What is, is. But it isn't necessarily capitalism. That's just what some people call it. I wouldn't even call it a majority.
I just don't like the bashing of capitalism that goes on here sometimes. The way I see it, AnCap revived Anarchism as a serious topic after it became to punks what Che became to commies. Not implying Che was good. Yes, we define our terms differently, but we define them.
Che, and all other Leninists, are thugs supreme. That much, I suspect we definitely agree on, Bleicke.
And I would also agree that ancap was a good way to launch many ships, just as Rand was in her day. But those ships must sail. We need to move on to a more rich (excuse the pun) view of anarchism I think.
And in fact, Bleicke, a lot of ancaps do defend things that are not defensible, like big corporations fucking their workers over, when they are in a million and one ways subsidized by the state. Lots of laborers are too, I am not a fan of the modern labor union, see my previous articles for that one. But labor monopolists fuck us over on the micro level. The modern big corporation fucks us on the macro level.
bleike,
you are using the word in a duality, which is exactly what I was referring to.
when people bash capitalism here, for the most part they are bashing the injustices that go on everyday in what the world refers to as the capitalistic system. it is not what "some" people call it, it is what the entire world calls it. we are under a capitalistic system whether you refer to American, russia or china. sorry, but that is the reality of the situation and the term.
if you have a different idea and you call it an cap., that is entirely viable, but calling it capitalism in isolation can only confuse matters with basically everyone in the world but ancaps themselves.
if you think I would ever use the term socialism in isolation to describe consensual association, you are mistaken and for the very same reason. socialism is perceived by the world as its physical examples and that is the best way to define a term, by its reality.
comparing the idea that a few hooded window kickers can dominate and define a term in a comparable amount to a world system that has been in place for hundreds of years and has affected every human on the planet is not even worthy of debate.
i think I am saying the same thing as the article, time to move on. you can define your terms anyway you want, but if you want to communicate, speaking the language of the masses can really help get the point across.
Ultimately, what we care about are the ideas of liberty, not the words. The fact that a small group of people who, by and large, are more in agreement than disagreement on the most important ideas in the world, can't agree on the meaning of the word "capitalism" should make clear that any uniform definition throughout society is hopeless.
I don't change my ideas to cater to the prejudices of other people, but I DO try to use language that will be effective in communicating those ideas, and in personal conversation I have found it simplest to accept their definitions and explain my thoughts in the words they understand.
But there are times when fighting over a word can aid understanding even if the word itself isn't resolved, and I think this is one of those times: I am delighted by the variety of thoughtful comments I've read on this particular thread, and I suspect more than one person has a better understanding of their allies on this site than they did before: I certainly do.
Which is basically what I was hoping to accomplish, Less.
ANARCO-CAPITALISMO? I LIBERTARI DEVONO SPERIMENTARE!
Apprendo con grande piacere che è in corso un dibattito sull’ attualità dell’anarco-capitalismo, dibattito iniziato da Giuseppe De Bellis, proseguito da Luca Fusari, con riflessioni e argomentazioni di valore interessante.
Giuseppe analizza dei concetti dal punto di vista sia storico che politico dando voce alle contraddizioni che il sistema sociale attuale ha dato alle parole anarchia e capitalismo. Il termine anarchia ( o quello libertario, De Andrè diceva: "Il mio identikit politico è quello di un libertario, tollerante. Se poi anarchico l'hanno fatto diventare un termine orrendo… In realtà vuol dire solo che uno pensa di essere abbastanza civile da riuscire a governarsi per conto proprio, attribuendo agli altri, con fiducia, le stesse capacità" ) ha una lunga tradizione che affonda anche nell’individualismo americano di matrice liberale, nel pensiero di Berneri e nella corrente gradualista e non-violenta e alla luce di tali considerazioni il termine va recuperato riattualizzato e modernizzato.
Diverso il discorso sul capitalismo, come giustamente sottolineato, il capitalismo per colpa dei governi e delle interferenze statali è divenuto burocrazia, affarismo e clientelismo oltre che identificato con lo sfruttamento.
Altra metodologia se utilizziamo il termine mercato, il libero mercato o scambio, argomentazioni utilizzate anche dai neo-mutualisti che influiscono anche sulla sinistra politica, insomma, da queste considerazioni si può iniziare un dibattito almeno culturale che per certi versi comunque porta ad argomentare e studiare il pensiero valutando e valorizzando il lavoro della scuola austriaca soprattutto se analizziamo l’individualismo metodologico che nega la visione secondo la quale la “collettività” sarebbe un ente autonomo in grado di prendere decisioni e mina alle fondamenta tutte le teorie dogmatiche ed economiche imposte, per due motivi.
Il primo è che gli uomini sono dotati di conoscenza limitata e fallibile; il secondo è che le azioni intenzionali conducono molto spesso a effetti non intenzionali.
Ne derivano due conclusioni che chi vuole cambiare il mondo dovrebbe tenere a mente.
La prima è che “solo laddove sia possibile sperimentare un gran numero di modi diversi di fare le cose si otterrà una varietà di esperienze, di conoscenze e di capacità individuali tali da consentire, attraverso la selezione ininterrotta delle più efficaci fra queste, un miglioramento costante”.
Considerazioni che conducono al possibilismo economico, da queste considerazioni i libertari attraverso un metodo sperimentale, aperto e volontarista devono partire per diffondere idee, libertà e antistatalismo illustrando che lo statalismo ha negato la visione e la realizzazione di diverse società e organizzazioni sociali, che una volta ritiratosi lo stato usciranno e spunteranno in competizione tra loro, creando libertà di scelta di aderire liberamente e volontariamente a qualsiasi modello sociale ed economico si condivida.
http://www.movimentolibertario.it/index.php?optio…
[...] [...]
Thanks Domenico! I had to use google translate on that comment, so I might have missed some nuances, but basically I think that yes, there will be many forms of social organization that will arise in the absence of their suppression by the state. We will experiment with all of them and eventually, perhaps one or two will be preferred by most people. Perhaps they will all continue to exist side by side, with people joining up with others who do things the way they prefer.
letto anna ( sto usando anche io il traduttore)
si alla fine è la base del mio concetto, una sosrta di libero mercato anche nel decidere e nello sperimentare quale sarà la società o le società del futuro in assenza di stato.
Io scrivo dall' Italia, dove la presenza anarchica è molto incetrata sull'anarcocomunismo, e chiedo anche a te di far pressione
sul centro studi affichè si possano sviluppare studi anche in Italiano, mi auguro che si possa fare, ne abbiamo bisogno.
un caro saluto,
domenico
trodotto:
bed anna (I too am using the translator)
will eventually be the basis of my concept, a sosrta free market to decide and also in experiencing what the company or companies of the future in the absence of state.
I write down 'Italy, where the presence is very incetrata sull'anarcocomunismo anarchist, and I also ask you to press:) on the study center posters can develop studies in Italian, I hope we can do, we need it.
Best wishes,
domenico
Anna,
I know I'm a bit late to this party but just wanted to give you a ip of the hat for your piece above. Although backtracking for me, my journey today came via the capitalist/anarcho-capitalist ideal thus my heart has an attachment but I also appreciate very much your view of things. What your thoughts and ideas have to offer to the larger discussion, whether they all fit into my comfort box or not, are more important to force me to consider all aspects than anything else. Just because I believe something right and maybe even from a superior POV doesn't mean for others this same truism always doth apply.
Regardless of all the word twisting we all have to deal with (eg capitalist, socialist, libertarian, free market, pick your poison) because of the state and heirarchial methods we face daily, we of all people should be openly welcome of all manner of true free markets and this very much includes in the arena of ideas and in methods of economics. Unless we forget, the ultimate decider of economic method is not some larger construct of individuals form into a heirarchial collective but in fact it's the method the 2 individual parties to an economic action decide works best for them at the time of the transaction. By allowing all methods into the market place at all times, openness and transparency will be the determiner of best practices by actual useage rather than which approach either controls the marketplace by force or having the best and most persuasive orators in the debate arena.
Thanks again for what you do here at C4SS!
mac
Syndicalists would abolish private ownership of the means of production and the wage system, capitalists would not.
The claim is made that truly free markets would prevent the accumulation of enough capital for ownership to remain in private hands – I don't see any reason why this should be so. I also don't see any reason why a private market in security services and an armed public could not serve the needs of a society's security.
To me, there is a clear distinction. I see no reason why the two systems could not integrate parallel to each other in a free society, but I also don't see any reason why one should preclude the other.
"The claim is made that truly free markets would prevent the accumulation of enough capital for ownership to remain in private hands"
The evidence is to the contrary. Throughout history workers riots have always needed the aid of the State for private companies to squelch.
Even rail road and mining companies needed publicly funded police forces to collect debts and enforce property law.
Without a large police force threatening violence, workers and tenants would have much less motivation to send funds to absentee owners.
Soahc,
The level of coercion in a society is the extent to which freedom is limited. The more coercion you have -whether from a state or private actors- the less free the market (and everything else) is. Whether you have state funded police, or privately funded security, someone needs to protect property rights, otherwise, anything resembling a "free market" simply does not exist.
Whether you have state funded police, or privately funded security, someone needs to protect property rights, otherwise, anything resembling a “free market” simply does not exist.
Property is oppression. Profiting more off of someones labor than they profit from their labor is a total violation of what you call property rights.
You are defining a free market as one that is less competitive, I am defining it as one that is more competitive. You espouse the virtues of rights to property, I espouse the virtues of rights to compete.
There is only one definition for a free market: An economic environment where individual actors make decisions based on their free will. If I have the money to build a car factory (assume my money was acquired honestly, without coercing anybody) and I do so, that is a free market action. If 100 qualified workers show up who are willing to work for $30 per hour on the assembly line, I hire them, and they accept the job, that is a free market action. If my cost per car, including labor is $5000, but the car is good enough that I can sell them to willing customers for $10,000 a piece, and I do so, that is also a free market action. If the workers riot and seize the factory I built, that is *not* a free market action, because I did not give them the factory by my own free will, they took it from me by force. Free competition does not mean freedom…. to steal.
Now forget factories, think of farms. In the 12,000 year history of agriculture, a system where farmers own their own property has always been superior to a system where the farms are run by slavery, aristocratic decree, or collectivized. In the 1920's Soviet Union, collectivized farming was leading to mass starvation, so Lenin -who actually gave a damn about his people- announced his New Economic Policy, which included private ownership of farms. Predictably, food production skyrocketed, and the Soviet Union started to get better. Then Stalin took over and he said, "Re-collectivize the farms; if people die, it's for a good cause." Stalin was always willing to break eggs to make omelets. Food production dropped again. The Soviet population dropped again.
Look back a few hundred more years to the first European settlements in North America. In Massachusetts, a town was arranged as a collective farm. Everyone toiled on the town farm, and all the produce was collected by the town elders then re-distributed to each member of the town. But production was very poor; diaries of the time describe young men standing around, doing very little. Many died of starvation and malnutrition the first winter. The elders said, "We need to do things differently, because what we have now isn't working." A new plan was enacted the following year whereby the town land was distributed, a parcel to each family to own for themselves. The townsfolk were told, "This is your land. What you need to eat, you grow for yourself on your plot." Predictably, food production went up, and soon they were celebrating Thanksgiving.
Today, Red China continues to grudgingly reduce state oppression over property owners in a desperate attempt to maintain the 7%-9% annual growth rates they need to stave off another revolution. Interestingly, China now has one of the fastest growth rates of private gun ownership, despite this being illegal.
Bottom line, if you abolish private property, a large chunk of the current population will starve to death, plain and simple; assuming you value human life, this cannot possibly be justified.
Oh, I doubt if I'm making any assumptions about you, at all, Anna. Rather, there are quite a few other people on this thread, and I might have been making a point for one or more of them to bump into.
I think Patri is very mistaken on what banks specialise in. If banks did once specialise in keeping property safe by having secure vaults, that has long since gone out of style. That would be like expecting a 1671 London goldsmith to actually make stuff out of gold.
What banks do now is privatise profits and nationalise costs and losses. Banks are no longer even remotely private enterprise, but a publicly licensed and financed scheme for separating the unwary from their property for the benefit of those who run the bank (and to a substantial extent the state).
Forrest said:
An economic environment where individual actors make decisions based on their free will.
People should make decisions based on their own free will in all aspects of life, even if that is rioting and taking over a factory. If you think you can define for anyone else what is and isn't free then you are a semantic fascist. It is up to me and anyone else to define what freedom is.
However, worker insurrections will be largely unnecessary. Because there won't be any bosses and workers. For to enforce your version of 'free market will', you can only do so with a State. No one would even attempt to be an absentee boss without State sponsorship. The highest level of any entity would be management.
Collectivism, on a small scale, worked throughout the paleolithic, why can't it work now? Small businesses thrive on such models today. Internet startups are frequently run by their owners alone and few if any employees. Employees are often given stock options which means they become owners.
Amish and Mennonite people are collectives. Their risks are shared, as are their profits.
Native Americans were more often collective than not. Those that had classes, often held potlaches where the riches were given away, meaning redistributed.
In the 1920’s Soviet Union, collectivized farming was leading to mass starvation,
That's because the surplus was sent away from the farm to the State for redistribution! You seriously think a farm can not exist if it is organized and run by a small group of people?
Collectivism does not work only if it is enforced by the State and on a mass scale.
In an open market, small businesses could compete as collectives, much like small tribes would compete in the paleolithic.
This is really bizarre. Quotes are registering as slashes """""""""
Soahc, any sane human would agree that murder, rape, robbery, and other such blatant crimes against persons and their rightful possessions is wrong, undesirable, and should be discouraged by any practical means. If in your vision of society people feel free to use violence at any moment, for any reason (which seems to be what you are suggesting), it would be a very horrible place to live, and anyone with the means to do so would flee in terror and horror. The poor who could not flee would be likely to rally behind a warlord, any warlord who could restore a modicum of sanity to the streets. This ugly drama has played out many times before in history.
But let's say for the sake of argument that this society exists and there's no violence, but there's still no recognition of property, no "absentee owners", as you say, and there is no enterprise bigger than, say, 100 people. Our current lifestyle in the USA is not dependent on the state; it is based on the totality of individuals and how they interact with one another to produce the means of life -food, shelter, objects of happiness. For these essential products to be made and distributed to all the 300,000,000 people who currently reside in this land requires some forms of larger scale integration in the supply chain from raw materials to the end product in the consumer's hands.
You are explicit in saying that larger scale integration of supply chains would not be possible with your model society. Ergo, lacking the means to produce an adequate supply of goods to sustain our current population, millions of people would die. Who then would bury the bodies?
You may disagree with my analysis, but you cannot disagree that any societal model must exclude the "free" use of initiating violence against others, and if actually put into action in the actual world, it must not produce mass deaths. To persist otherwise is to totally and completely discredit your model in the eyes of any sane human.
"If in your vision of society people feel free to use violence at any moment, for any reason (which seems to be what you are suggesting), it would be a very horrible place to live, and anyone with the means to do so would flee in terror and horror."
People are free to use violence at any moment now! Do you realize how many people get away with murder, rape, theft already? It is a total illusion and fraud that the State has led us to believe that we don't live in anarchy already! Might makes right! And who is the biggest perpetrator? The State! The entity supposed to protect us from violence.
"You are explicit in saying that larger scale integration of supply chains would not be possible with your model society. Ergo, lacking the means to produce an adequate supply of goods to sustain our current population, millions of people would die. Who then would bury the bodies? "
False. Again, there are many productive companies that produce at levels that rival multi-national corporations. Small farms that rival large farms. Small internet startups that challenge the power of large companies. Quality can improve with some expense to quantity, but I can live without grilled cheese sandwiches made with Kraft fake cheese slices, thanks.
Corporations are actually less efficient than smaller entities that top out at about 300 people (tribes, small businesses). The reason for this is that administrative costs and efforts grow faster than the company grows after a certain point. This is why most buildings on an major University campus are dedicated to administration. Same with governments.
Large scale comes at the cost of individual freedom. Property costs individual freedom. So your free market is actually wage slavery, and debt slavery. Free for the wealthy, not so free for the lower classes.
"but you cannot disagree that any societal model must exclude the “free” use of initiating violence against others, and if actually put into action in the actual world, it must not produce mass deaths. To persist otherwise is to totally and completely discredit your model in the eyes of any sane human."
People are free to initiate violence against anyone else whenever they please! Driving down a two way street, you are free to swerve into oncoming traffic and cause death any time you wish. Any time you want you could kill someone, hide the body, and more likely than not get away with it.
People don't treat each other with decency because it is a law that we have to. People don't avoid killing, hurting, causing suffering because we will go to jail if we do. The majority of people in the world just want to live their lives, have a family, do no harm, live in peace. And those people outnumber the people who want to destroy.
The problem with you Forest is that you don't trust humans, and ultimately, you don't trust yourself, because you are a greedy, stingy propertarian.
Urm, I think he wasn't defending the status quo. He was merely pointing out that "workers rioting and taking over the factory" was an act of aggression if the factory was legitimately owned (i.e. non coercive in a free market, not now).
Nothing will be owned without the State. Possessed, occupied, but not owned. If you do not tend to your land, you do not own it. A piece of paper does not denote ownership.
In a truly free market, no one would work for propertarians, because there would be other options.
So the need for taking over factories would not even be there. I am just illustrating a point, namely that wage slavery is an act of aggression.
So when I come back from the holidays my house is gone? What if I really like working for wages, which would of course be higher than now in a free market? If both employer and employee agree on a wage, how is it slavery?
@soahc
In a truly free market, the availability of other options will result in many employers improving the terms of employment enough to attract workers. I have no doubt that there will be an explosion of self-employment once licensing, regulation, zoning, intellectual property, government-induced employer-based health insurance, and government education are eliminated.
But many people will still value the security of a steady paycheck that isn't dependent on sales, at least at certain stages of their life, just as renting rather than owning a home makes more sense when one is young and wants mobility or old and wants to spend the equity in one's home rather than leave the home's value at death unspent.
What is critical is to remove ALL the obstacles to self-employment. That doesn't mean everyone will choose it.
"So when I come back from the holidays my house is gone? What if I really like working for wages, which would of course be higher than now in a free market? If both employer and employee agree on a wage, how is it slavery?"
It is slavery if the wage slave has no other option. He/she must be a wage slave and go into debt in order to afford rent.
If you leave on holiday and you do not take precautions to secure your personal possessions then there is a chance you will be robbed while gone.
This chance may be less in a free market where there are less poor, desperate people. But the key here is without the State to protect you, you must protect yourself and your belongings.
Propertarianism simply would not exist, because it is a monopoly. Property discourages free market competition, and requires a State to protect it.
Absentee land owners would not exist because there would be no incentive for people to mail rent checks to someone who they have never met and who has never been to the 'property' to tend to the place.
I think a central issue with this is that propertarians are lazy. They want to be rich but they don't want to work. Do you really think the population will put up with that behavior? Absentee bosses demanding a cut of pay? Why would you send money to someone you have never met? I wouldn't given a choice.
Anarchism would demand that we interact with each other and form communities that work together, rather than alienating us into individual property owners.
Forrest, a car is a possession, not property. You are falsely associating a guy with a car to the president and majority shareholder of a corporation who expects to tax the workers without contributing to the actual labor.
And tractors can be built like kit cars are built, by small business that hire other small businesses to make components. A conglomerate of small businesses, self sustained and functioning collective units, independent, can barter with one another to create a tractor.
Might will always make right. You don't argue with nuclear weapons. We already live in anarchy, where the strongest win. This is facilitated by a weakened individual. Similarly, if we all carried firearms, the world would be more peaceful. Only someone stoned out of their mind on PCP or totally psychotic actually seeks out a firefight.
The free market would probably bring about phaser type non lethal weapons. Similarly, medical procedures to literally bring someone back from the dead. If we all carried those, yes might would still make right. Might will ALWAYS make right. Actions will always speak louder than words.
Which is why property must always be defended. Propertarianism would not be possibly without the State to enforce it. This is all really a hapless argument, because the free market would probably bring about such resource abundance and post scarcity that property would never be an issue. Property is hand in hand with scarcity. If we are all supplied for with abundant food, shelter, warmth, then no one would really care anymore.
Small organizations have less administrative costs. THAT is a FACT. If you allow the small business to thrive it will rival output of larger businesses. Wal Mart is a waste of space. Sky scrapers use up more space at a higher cost than ten story buildings. Centralized mass scale is a waste any way you look at it. It is not efficient and only people attached to the status quo argue on it's behalf.
@ Forrest
Actually, I'm already a published author, and plan to write again, but I still oppose IP because I consider it a violation of the property rights you and I both hold dear in tangible property. Too big a subject to crack open in this thread, but I think authors would be much better off in a society that didn't restrict the free flow of information. Copyright by contract doesn't require IP, although it would be far less restrictive than IP: see my http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2009/06/19/an-anti… if you have an interest, and make sure to check the comments where Stephan Kinsella attempts to refute even my limited defense of copyright (perhaps successfully).
I'm not in favor of kidnapping, even if it is by a not-for-profit organization.
But I realize you were kidding: obviously, aggression is verboten whether it is freelance or for the boss.
As for kidnapping,
Soahc,
It’s Forrest, Two r’s.
I did not say “free to use violence”, I said “feel free to use violence”. There is a difference. Yes, the state is not what prevents people from committing more crimes. There are certainly some people I wouldn’t mind punching in the nose, but I don’t wish to do so, because I wouldn’t want to be punched in the nose. For those whom the Golden Rule doesn’t restrain, many are kept in check by the knowledge of the heaping pile of social disapproval that could be dumped on their head. You might be able to get away with it (violent crime), but it’s nothing you want to brag about, unless you have feral beasts for friends.
Crime brings with it a burden of shame (unless perhaps you are mentally ill) that the perpetrator must bear in suffering silence. Have you ever wondered why so many criminals seem to want to get caught? In this sense, police are like traditional Hawaiian fishermen, they just put up a net when the tide’s in, and when the tide goes out they’ve got a bunch of fish. Easy work. All this assumes that crime actually has opprobrium attached to it in a society.
So, I’m greedy because I don’t want my land stolen, but rogue workers are not greedy when they steal my land? I guess you must have your own private definition of “greedy”, too. You know, this kind of thing is going on in Venezuela as we speak. One day a band of “workers” or “peasants” will march up to a landowner and say, “You are not being productive enough with your land; it belongs to us now.” Or if the hapless owner is lucky, they will merely say, “You are hoarding automobiles, (or whatever) we are taking half.” Do you approve of such “direct action”, and if so, does this mean you have no pity for the few landowners whose brains are so disordered by the injustice that they lose the will to live, go on a hunger strike for justice and die of starvation waiting for it?
My point is that property crime is taking place at an accelerating rate in Venezuela, and so is murder. Venezuela’s murder rate is the highest in the world; an objective survey of the world’s worst countries indicates that Iraq is now a better place to live than Venezuela. History and current events show that disrespect for property and disrespect for life go hand in hand. If you convince someone that there is nothing wrong with taking property, some will logically conclude that it is ok to take life. And in a contest of vice between thieves and killers, killers always win.
Property and life are measured in the same coin. If some guy who works at, say, a car wash makes $25,000 dollars a year, and he buys a $25,000 dollar car (he saved his money) so he can impress the ladies as well as get to work easier, that car represents a year of his life. If you accost him when he gets out of his car and say, “You don’t need a car that expensive, it belongs to me now,” and then drive off with his car, you have committed 1/75th of a murder (assuming he lives to 75). When you have no problem depriving people of the product of their time and energy, it’s not morally different to take their time and energy itself. And really, it’s not physically different, either.
“It is a total illusion and fraud that the State has led us to believe that we don’t live in anarchy already! Might makes right!” If might really does make right, the the USA has to be the rightest place on the planet, and might requires billion dollar weapons, and since it takes large organizations to mass produce billion dollar weapons, then large industrial concerns must be right, right?
I’ve read the same studies that show that “tribal sized” groups function better than mega-corporations, because there is more lateral communication or something. But, as Stalin says, “Quantity has a quality all of its own.” The large business make it possible for more small business to exist. Let’s say a young couple has a rinky-dink little organic vegetable farm that they can actually squeeze a living profit from. They need a tractor, and many other things, to make a profit from their little farm. The fact that there are many farms -some much larger than theirs that buy farm machinery by the bushel- makes the demand for mass production and distribution that makes their one tractor affordable. The integrated supply chain that makes the mass production of tractors possible require the active and synchronized cooperation of thousands, if not tens of thousands of people.
Fact not fiction: If you make it impossible for people to assemble such integrated supply chains, the production of farm equipment (and everything else) will fall. The production of food (and everything else) will fall. The population will fall; people will die. You are free to take any course of action you wish, but you are not free to evade responsibility for the results of such actions.
Bleicke,
Your comments were short and to the point. As Jefferson said, “Brevity is the soul of wit,” and I salute you.
L. Antman,
I agree with 95% of what you said, but since I would like to publish a book someday, I have a great personal as well as moral interest in intellectual property. Also, do we really want to remove “ALL” the obstacles to self employment? We don’t want self-employed or otherwise kidnappers now do we.
Soahc, you are doing dialectic somersaults. 99.9% of people consider possessions and property to be the same thing. While I am open to the notion that one person can be right and a million people could be wrong, this is not a matter of fact; language is a matter of common usage, and when you use words in a manner that defies common usage, it shows that you are being deliberately murky in the exposition of your views. Are you saying that it's ok to steal a factory but it's not ok to steal a car? That would be inconsistent. If might makes right and people feel free to steal anything at anytime, then no property/possession is safe.
So how about Venezuela?
If might makes right, then the founding fathers never would have seceded from England, the mightiest empire on the planet. If the British had put their mind to it, they could have bayoneted and burned every last colonist and stated from scratch. But we had secret weapons, high-minded rectitude, and sweet words to win the sympathy of British taxpayers. True, the French military helped, too, but they did not intervene until we were already turning the tide.
As I pointed out, right actually makes might. During World War II, Roosevelt scrapped pretty much all his onerous regulations on industry and allowed near-perfect laissez-faire on the production side, so as to get the maximum output from his weapon-makers. That's what fixed the Great Depression, not that we had a war at all, but that Roosevelt got rid of his stupid regulations. The liberated American industrial base soon outstripped the production of the 3rd Reich's dismal command economy and we buried them. The Soviet Union, in the deluded belief that might makes right spent all their money on weapons and collapsed. A command economy will never out-produce or outfight a liberal economy.
"A conglomerate of small businesses, self sustained and functioning collective units, independent, can barter with one another to create a tractor." This pretty much happens anyway, except it is a conglomeration of large and small business that make up the tractor supply chain (and barter economies don't make tractors). Look at the beginning of the supply chain -ore mining. Modern mining requires trucks that are seven stories tall and have tires that cost $36,000 apiece and only last a few months. Except for things like gold and diamonds which are profitable enough to be mined with slave labor, there *are* no small mining companies. If you make it impossible for a mining company to get big enough to work on the giant truck scale, then the cost of your iron ore goes up, the cost of steel goes up, the cost of tractors go up, less tractors get purchased, food production goes down, and people die.
Larger companies have larger administrative costs, true, but their economies of scale can make up for this in some cases. I don't shop at Wal-Mart, but it's not because they are big. I stopped patronizing them for good when they ran a radio ad for socialized medicine.
L. Antman, In addition to being a writer, I am a reader, and I don't want to discourage the production of new books by taking away the incentive for people to write and distribute them. Many authors would write anyway, but unless they're getting paid, they're sure as heck not going to share their work with a million people. With copyright law, books are cheap and abundant, without it, books (especially good ones) would be scarce. A world with scarce books is no good.
pos·ses·sion (p-zshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or fact of possessing.
b. The state of being possessed.
2. Something owned or possessed.prop·er·ty (prpr-t)
n. pl. prop·er·ties
1.
a. Something owned; a possession.
b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
d. Possessions considered as a group.
2. The right of ownership; title.
3. possessions Wealth or property.
4. Law Actual holding or occupancy with or without rightful ownership.
5. A territory subject to foreign control.
Property and possession are different Forrest. There are some similarities in the definitions, but they are NOT synonymous. I don't care what you think '99%' of people's definitions are. If I followed the herd and lived be other people's definitions I would be a sheep.
Property is theft Forrest. And it is an integral part of the State. If you oppose the State, you oppose property, because the chief function of the State is to protect property. Absenteeism would be impossible without the State.
try this: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/pers…
If you insist on me rewording, personal property vs. private property. A car is personal property. A building is private property.
If you are an absentee landlord who expects rent checks to flow in, but have no police force to evict tenants who feel less than motivated to send money to someone they have no personal relationship with and have never met, you're in for a dose of reality.
Or take this scenario:
Why would someone rent from an absentee land lord when they can stay at a bed and breakfast for the same price? A furnished apartment with on site cooks, maids, masseuses even?
Why would cooks, masseuses, maids, who are laboring physically at a hotel, send part of their check to a company owned by people they have never met? I doubt they would be motivated to do this.
You could hire a security force to evict the workers or tenants that don't send you the taxes you wish to charge for occupying and making use of a building that you think you own because of a title, but that would be incredibly expensive. You would need a small army to do so.
Seems to me like propertarians will be going out of business if they didn't have the State to protect them.
Genghis Khan's armies were essentially self sustained, highly mobile units topping off at about 150 soldiers.
I am going to venture to guess that these units would function well even without Khan's central control. I am going to venture to guess that they still would have kicked any other army's ass without taking orders from the Great Khan.
Similarly, the a Afghans kicked the USSR out of their country with small individual shoulder mounted rockets. The USSR should have had the advantage since they benefited from greater economy of scale.
Economies of scale do not grow exponentially At a certain point there is diminished, then nil, returns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomy_of_scale#…
Forrest: You totally don't get IP. You think IP is good for writers or readers? Do you also think social security granted by the state is good for the provider or the customer? Germany overtook England in the industrial age because it was decentralized and IP couldn't be enforced. A German who wrote a manual on how to properly irrigate your plants earned more and sold more copies than Mary Shelley did with Frankenstein.
IP is bad for readers and for authors. It monopolizes knowledge in the hand of powerful publishers.
@Soahc:
I need to know a few things from you to understand what you're talking about.
1.What is the difference between property and possession?
2.Why don't you differentiate between ought and is? You say might makes right now, therefore might makes right. That's positivist crapshit. Just because something is doesn't mean it should be. Don't you believe there is a better way than might makes right?
@ Forrest
As I said, the topic of IP is a very big topic (I hope you'll read my piece), but I am a published author who receives royalties and cannot help but laugh at the idea that this system was designed for my benefit. The system is designed so that only someone with the volume to hire high powered attorneys can use it, which is why only the most popular of authors and publishing companies benefit from IP in the real world. The rest must give up the overwhelming majority of revenues to a publishing company which then prevents them from distributing their own work should they be unhappy with the distribution by the publisher. One of the greatest works ever written on statelessness, David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, was virtually impossible to obtain for over a decade because Friedman couldn't get permission to post online a version of a book his publisher was no longer making any effort to distribute.
And as long as we're going to move from ethical to practical arguments, copyright enforcement in the world of the Internet requires draconian government power, including the ability to access everybody's computer, smartphone, etc. The effect this will have on freedom of expression, and the manner in which it will negatively affect the writings of any author whose views are considered unfavorable to the government, needs to be included in the equation. I know you care deeply care about liberty in general, and you need to weigh the benefits you think the present system has for authors against the gathering cloud of total information awareness that the government is demanding, in part based on the argument about the need to protect IP from Internet-based circumvention.
In any event, there is plenty of evidence that authors write plenty in any system. Few authors make anything close to a living from their writing, and most benefit far more from becoming better known than they do from royalties (certainly the case for me). As several authors have noted, obscurity is a far greater threat to them than piracy.
I believe an anarchist society without IP would have a social norm of fairness that will result in most people wanting to benefit the author. Why? Because people overwhelmingly agree with you that they want a wide variety of books available to read. The Internet makes such compensation easier than ever in history, just as it makes IP unenforceable in anything other than a complete police state. We can argue about anarchy vs minarchy, but I'm sure neither of us wants a police state.
Bleicke, L. Antman,
I'll accept you know more about IP than I do, I just don't want anyone else to make money on my book other than the people I pay to print and distribute it. And no, no police state.
Soahc,
I went to the dictionary, too, and it seems that property is always a possession, and a possession is property, just not necessarily your own property. In other words, you could be in possession of a stolen painting, even though it is the property of the person you stole it from. You seem to imply that property is a legal fiction, while I believe that property is a derivative of natural law. If I have land and I go on a trip, when I come back I would like a reasonable expectation that there won't be squatters. If there are squatters, I will ask them to leave nicely, after recompensing me for any property damage. If they insist that the land is theirs, I will either call the police, or, if I live in a stateless society, I will be forced to kill them. So you see, the state protects thieves from bodily harm as much as it protects property. I would go so far as to say the state protects thieves a bit too much, these days.
This reminds me of a joke: How can you tell if hippies have broken into your house? They're still there!
I think it's a bit much to suggest that a landlord would need a small army to evict a delinquent tenant. Or even a bunch of tenants. What country can I go to where I can stay at a bed and breakfast with cooks, maids, and masseuses for the same cost as renting an apartment?
As far as Genghis Khan goes, the idea of dividing your military into small and flexible independent units is at least as old as the Romans. These small units still needed a large support network as well as coordination from the Khan and his staff to be effective enough to topple empires. Among many other things, the Khan's horde needed to operate ridiculous amounts of state-of-the-art medieval siege equipment to reduce cities, when necessary.
The most successful "anarchic" warfare ever waged, in my opinion, was the Arabian campaign for world domination that was launched shortly after the founding of Islam in Mecca/Medina, then Arabia. As any wise and learned person -such as the Prophet and his successors- could see, the Byzantines and the Persians had just got done kicking the living crap out of each other in a very hard fought war, and though the Byzantines had officially "won", both sides were exhausted. Thus did near-autonomous "armies" of about 1000 Arab light cavalrymen each, run circles around the hapless Persians and Byzantines, rolling up the Holy Land, Mesopotamia, and Persia quicker than Alexander. And the first Arab empire had no concept of "state", perhaps that's why it split into pieces and was re-assembled by the Ottomans, minus Persia.
Jeez Louise, you've got to know that the advanced weaponry that the Mujahideen beat the Soviets with was provided by the USA; the Afghans didn't build their own Stinger missles. Haven't you seen "Charlie Wilson's War"? I'll give the Afghans credit, though: We didn't teach them how to beat tanks from horseback, we only gave them the weapons to do so.
@soahc
Did you even read the definitions you copy/pasted?
pos·ses·sion (p-zshn)
n.
2. Something owned or possessed.
prop·er·ty (prpr-t)
n.
1.
a. Something owned; a possession.
Property = Possession. They both mean: Something owned.
[...] Anarcho-”Capitalism” Is Impossible by Anna Morgenstern [...]
Forrest:
"You seem to imply that property is a legal fiction, while I believe that property is a derivative of natural law."
What natural law? The natural law is, if you can't protect and secure your own property, it is not yours. Might makes right is natural law. Don't get me wrong, I believe humans are inherently good. We cooperate as our default mode of interaction. And most of the time in a society left to itself, if the free market ruled and poverty was quelled, if you leave your bike unlocked outside a book store, no one will steal it. However owning vast amounts of real estate and expecting to hoard rent checks from it is not a bicycle.
"If there are squatters, I will ask them to leave nicely, after recompensing me for any property damage. If they insist that the land is theirs, I will either call the police, or, if I live in a stateless society, I will be forced to kill them."
Fine, great, we pretty much agree. However this implies, in my perspective, that you will never be able to become a vastly wealthy landowner with multiple factories and miles of real estate. Because you are just you. And you will not be able to hire an army without taxing people, which means government.
"Jeez Louise, you’ve got to know that the advanced weaponry that the Mujahideen beat the Soviets with was provided by the USA; "
A free market couldn't provide shoulder mounted rockets too? You seem to be making an argument for the State. Are you even an anarchist?
"I think it’s a bit much to suggest that a landlord would need a small army to evict a delinquent tenant. Or even a bunch of tenants. What country can I go to where I can stay at a bed and breakfast with cooks, maids, and masseuses for the same cost as renting an apartment?"
What country has a free market?
Marty:
See I read it like this:
pos·ses·sion (p-zshn)
1. The act or fact of possessing.
n. pl. prop·er·ties
1. Something owned; a possession.
If you don't possess it, you don't own it. A piece of paper does not mean you possess land or a building. You have to commit the act of possessing.
Protect your own property. If someone notices that you inhabit it, they will likely respect it.
Bleicke:
"1.What is the difference between property and possession?
2.Why don’t you differentiate between ought and is? You say might makes right now, therefore might makes right. That’s positivist crapshit. Just because something is doesn’t mean it should be. Don’t you believe there is a better way than might makes right?"
1. I make the same distinction Proudhon made. If you are not familiar with the works of Proudhon I would suggest reading up before entering a debate on a mutualist web site.
2. I believe the better way is that people avoid might makes right. But death, suffering, and destruction will always be the ender of any argument. That is simply reality. I don't believe it is what we 'ought' to desire. I just believe that it is. However I believe humans naturally avoid it at all costs. Humans are inherently cooperative. Propertarianism makes us less so. It alienates us from each other. Instead of 'lets work together to cultivate' it's 'I'm an owner and you're another owner'.
I am not against leaders, focalizers, meritocracies. I believe there will always be individual competition and outliers. But property is not a good currency for this at all. Property is not born of meritocracies. It is born of greed. Instead of creating, property stifles creation. Instead of Microsoft going 'okay,here is the code, improve upon it', they hoard it.
The thing propertarians fail to understand is that humans like to solve problems. We always will. We don't need the promise of vast riches to motivate us.
I heard a radio show once that said that psychologically, money can only buy someone happiness up to a lower middle class level. After that, a person is only as happy as they were when they were making 40k a year.
I think motivation is much the same way. In a free market, there would be some people with more money that others, but the playing field would be much more naturally level.
@soahc
You can't just use the parts of the definition that you like and ignore the rest.
Look at the second half of the "Property" definition you use:
1. Something owned; a possession.
See there? it says "a possession," ie, something you own.
Proudhoun anarchists (Like yourself, I assume, from your arguments) Don't understand that If you don't universally honor property rights, even if the owner only visits once a month, or year, or decade, you open a can of worms deciding exactly when a property is "abandoned". If I come home with my groceries to find my door broke down and my apartment occupied, I'm going to be pissed. Same goes for my (hypothetical) hunting lodge in the mountains, or what have you.
@soahc
Like any good commenter, I'll ignore all of my points of agreement with you and focus entirely on a handful of disagreements.
Suffice to say I find your comments thought-provoking, even though I see some issues differently:
(1) This isn't a mutualist site, although mutualists are certainly present and respected here. This site promotes market anarchism, and its only dogma is that legislative, adjudicative, and protective services should not be in the hands of a coercive monopoly. I'm pretty certain you will find a wide variety of views on valid and invalid property amongst both the staff and financial supporters, and it is perfectly understandable for someone to be unclear as to how another commenter distinguishes property from possession.
(2) If it is true that might makes right in the practical sense, it is also true that what people consider right determines might. All political power may come from the barrel of a gun, but as my friend Jeff Hummel likes to say, "when you change people's ideas, you change the direction they point those guns." Might is not primary: it is a derivative based on what people believe is right.
(3) I agree strongly with you that we exaggerate the greed of people, and I think most people realize on some level that life is not a business with a goal of dying with the highest possible net worth: there is plenty of evidence that people find happiness in helping others. But if the world is populated entirely by altruists, I still want a price system, since prices help us know the relative scarcity and value of inputs and outputs, allowing us to determine how we can best serve others. And prices require a reasonably stable property system.
My ideal society has strong property rights deriving from the goodwill such property represents and a social norm of helping others which makes one's generosity a major factor in one's status in the community. This might not even be a disagreement between us, except that you believe that no absentee owner will ever be respected in a free society, and I think that someone who built a house and then agreed to rent it to someone for a sum far smaller than the value of the house will have the community on her side if the renter chooses to stay there and not pay rent. She won't need an army to expel the squatter: she'll have a volunteer militia.
(4) There is ample evidence that social norms respecting property develop in societies that have no central planners. Among others, Bruce Benson has documented this in his THE ENTERPRISE OF LAW. Property arose in those societies as an agreement among people in order to minimize social violence. It didn't arise from axioms passed down from philosophers: we agree on that. But when we achieve our goal of a stateless society, I'm willing to wager that there will still be rent and wages. I hope we can resolve that wager in our lifetimes.
Less:
"I still want a price system, since prices help us know the relative scarcity and value of inputs and outputs, allowing us to determine how we can best serve others. And prices require a reasonably stable property system. "
How do you enforce a 'price system'? All systems are flawed. The only way a system can maintain stasis is through (political) power. If there is any system under anarchy, it will be far from predictable and exploitable as the system today is, with speculators in the know (and often not, but manipulating anyway).
"Might is not primary: it is a derivative based on what people believe is right."
Might is not primary, but it is final. It is the end of all conflicts. Once someone or one side is dead or incapacitated, the arguing is over. Sure, wins are temporary and violence tends to beget more violence, but in the interim, disputes are settled when the smoke clears.
"except that you believe that no absentee owner will ever be respected in a free society, and I think that someone who built a house and then agreed to rent it to someone for a sum far smaller than the value of the house will have the community on her side if the renter chooses to stay there and not pay rent. She won’t need an army to expel the squatter: she’ll have a volunteer militia."
In a small community this is true. But by that definition, the owner technically is not absentee, since her friends, comrades, neighbors, family all are charged with the security of the possession. In such a case I find it hard to believe that rent will be a viable or utilized model, because I am sure the owner of said property would simply rather let her friends, or cousins, or second cousin twice removed stay in the house.
I think there will be sublets and temporary agreements, but renting property long term for the express purpose of profiting will just not be a natural model in the free market.
"Property arose in those societies as an agreement among people in order to minimize social violence. It didn’t arise from axioms passed down from philosophers: we agree on that. But when we achieve our goal of a stateless society, I’m willing to wager that there will still be rent and wages. I hope we can resolve that wager in our lifetimes."
I will have to research Benson's writing, but I will venture to guess that what he and you are calling property are simply possessions, meaning the owner still commits the act of possessing, rather than retaining ownership based on natural, or artificial, law. Basically an owner will have to be an on site manager, and it is doubtful that they will have much pull in the society to extract more profits, while working less, from a business than their employees make on pay day.
Marty:
"Look at the second half of the “Property” definition you use:"
Marty, if they meant the EXACT same thing chances are we wouldn't have them as different words, methinks. The reason possession and property are different words is because they have different uses, and that there is distinction between the two.
Specifically, possession can be the act of possessing. Property is not used as the act of propertying. Property is much more alienable, and relies not as much on action so much as legislation.
"Don’t understand that If you don’t universally honor property rights, even if the owner only visits once a month, or year, or decade, you open a can of worms deciding exactly when a property is “abandoned”. If I come home with my groceries to find my door broke down and my apartment occupied, I’m going to be pissed. Same goes for my (hypothetical) hunting lodge in the mountains, or what have you."
You hastily jump from once a month/year/decade to a trip to the grocery store. Well let me tell you, the longer you leave without having someone (neighbors, friends, family) occupy or tend to the property, the more chance you will always have of a squatter moving in.
In anarchy, we will be forced to adapt to the collective model of society. Less induvidualistic, more tribal. We will be so decentralized that neighborhoods will have their own security, fire brigade, schools. A renter will inevitably become part of the tribe and start pooling with the tribe, at which point extracting rent will be obsolete and alien, because a tribe always gets along better when resources are pooled.
@soahc
The English language is FULL of words that mean the same thing… so many, in fact, that they coined a term for them: Synonym.
I don't "jump", I use a clear example of B&E to illustrate what taking over an "abandoned" property would be viewed as when the owner got back. Thus the Hunting lodge example. If you move in without finding out if anyone has a claim on the place, don't be surprised when you get tossed out on your ear when they get back.
You can claim whatever you want will happen without Government, , but there's only one answer that rings true: Everything.
People will live in mutualist communes. People will live in hierarchical top-down systems. People will live, in short, however they want.
Yes Marty I know what a synonym is but rarely (if at all?) do we consider two words synonymous when they are different types (verbs/nouns) of words.
So while 'student' and 'pupil' may be synonymous, possession of possessing are not necessarily synonymous with property. The 1st definition of 'possession' is 'to possess' or the act of possessing. Furthermore sure we can speak of a house or even a factory as a possession, but the more you have, say you own multiple factories, the less likely someone is going to call them 'possessions'.
It is very simply. I am being very clear. This is how I distinguish property from possession.
"People will live in mutualist communes. People will live in hierarchical top-down systems. People will live, in short, however they want."
Oh now this is just funny. You really expect workers and tenants to choose to live and work in a hierarchal system when they can go be a part of a group where they have more clout and are more involved in decision making processes? That's laughable.
@soahc
>How do you enforce a ‘price system’?
How do you enforce a gift economy? We're both anarchists: neither of us would ever ENFORCE our preferences, if that means using violence against non-violent people to make them come about. But I believe there is plenty of evidence that a society with liberty of contract will develop sticky property and have contracts for rent and wages. I totally agree with you that possession is the primary way of determining who has rightful ownership, but also believe that a contract made by the possessor in which she receives value for respecting the ownership of another is valid.
> In a small community this is true. But by that definition, the owner technically is not absentee, since her friends, comrades, neighbors, family all are charged with the security of the possession.
If all it takes for you to stop calling someone an absentee owner is for the local people near the property to acknowledge and defend her ownership, then we have no disagreements. She can retire in Florida and know that the apartment building she built and maintained over 40 years in Maine is still hers even if she arranges for repairs and maintenance of the building long distance rather than on the premises.
> In such a case I find it hard to believe that rent will be a viable or utilized model, because I am sure the owner of said property would simply rather let her friends, or cousins, or second cousin twice removed stay in the house.
Because of what I said earlier: price systems provide critical information on relative value and scarcity, and a society without them would be enormously chaotic in its function unless brought down to a level of extreme simplicity. I'm not willing to see billions of people plunged into poverty and early death, nor will those billions agree to die, just because you don't want to have a modern, technological society.
The idea of "every community for itself" strikes me as only slightly less repulsive than "every man for himself." When there is a flood or earthquake or drought or hurricane that devastates an area, are the other communities supposed to say "Tough Luck"? Is my affection to be limited to the people in physical proximity to me? No more Facebook friends? {:
Like you, I don't think property is an axiom or natural law. But I do think it emerges from stateless societies, because it reduces social violence and improves welfare. It also facilitates a widening circle of compassion through free trade. We both agree on the importance of community: I just have a less territorial concept of it.
@soahc
That's because "possession" is another one of those funny things in the English language: A word with multiple meanings. one is a verb, "to possess", and the other, a noun "A possession". English is weird like that.
And yes, I do expect people to choose to live in ways I would not. In the same way people choose AT&T over Verizon, or Windows over Linux. *I* think they're better, but obviously, they don't.
@Marty
What, do you honestly expect workers and and tenants to choose AT&T over Verizon? They never have coverage! And their contracts are way too binding! And they don't even let you use tethering on your iPhone without buying an additional fee! That's just laughable.
@soahc
"It is very simply. I am being very clear. This is how I distinguish property from possession."
Unfortunately you're wrong. You're not being very clear. In fact when I asked you about the distinction, you told me to fuck off and read Proudhoun. So I'm going to tell you: Don't come to a market anarchist site and take part in a debate if you don't capiche what property means and why it is important. Read some Mises or Rothbard.
Less:
"But I believe there is plenty of evidence that a society with liberty of contract will develop sticky property and have contracts for rent and wages."
How will you enforce contracts? Ostracism? Insurance? Not enough. People will be more likely to ostracize someone for trying to extract rent and wages.
"If all it takes for you to stop calling someone an absentee owner is for the local people near the property to acknowledge and defend her ownership, then we have no disagreements. She can retire in Florida and know that the apartment building she built and maintained over 40 years in Maine is still hers even if she arranges for repairs and maintenance of the building long distance rather than on the premises."
I think those are different. Paying someone you don't know personally to repair and maintain a property is not the same as having friends and family on site to repair and maintain it.
"Because of what I said earlier: price systems provide critical information on relative value and scarcity, and a society without them would be enormously chaotic in its function unless brought down to a level of extreme simplicity. I’m not willing to see billions of people plunged into poverty and early death, nor will those billions agree to die, just because you don’t want to have a modern, technological society."
I never said I am a primitivist, and scarcity is a myth. Under a free market there would be post-scarcity. Right now we basically have no scarcity. There is more than enough resources for everyone. The what if we go to space? Propertarians are so attached to scarcity, because scarcity enables elitism and class division. More greed.
"The idea of “every community for itself” strikes me as only slightly less repulsive than “every man for himself.” When there is a flood or earthquake or drought or hurricane that devastates an area, are the other communities supposed to say “Tough Luck”? Is my affection to be limited to the people in physical proximity to me? No more Facebook friends? {:"
Of course communities will help communities, just like tribes helped tribes. All I am saying is that there will be more individual responsibility. In conditions of individual liberty/responsibility, the default tendency is for humans to band up. So a neighborhood will be responsible for schooling its own children, securing its own possessions. Of course neighborhoods would share this with other neighborhoods. They would 'pay it forward' for the same reason I help someone else's grandmother cross the street.
If you don't trust communities to handle their own business, how can you be an anarchist?
"Like you, I don’t think property is an axiom or natural law. But I do think it emerges from stateless societies, because it reduces social violence and improves welfare. It also facilitates a widening circle of compassion through free trade. We both agree on the importance of community: I just have a less territorial concept of it."
Like how? I still think what you are talking about is the act of possessing. Absenteeism would not exist, because there is no way to enforce it without an army. If you do not have a personal relationship with your tenants and employees, they will have no incentive to share the fruits of their labors with you.
Marty:
That’s because “possession” is another one of those funny things in the English language: A word with multiple meanings. one is a verb, “to possess”, and the other, a noun “A possession”. English is weird like that.
It would appear that we are at an impasse. I was clarifying how I distinguish possession and property. You don't except my distinction, even though the first definition of 'possession' is a verb (according to Webster).
And yes, I do expect people to choose to live in ways I would not. In the same way people choose AT&T over Verizon, or Windows over Linux. *I* think they’re better, but obviously, they don’t.
Windows would not even exist without the State. I can give you endless examples of how Windows has used the State to protect its monopoly. Until you provide me an example of a multinational corporation that does not benefit from State welfare, I am left with the inevitable conclusion that there would be no corporations, as they are today, under anarchy.
@soahc
And the second definition is a noun. That's English for you… always tripping you up with things like "facts".
Nice diversionary tactic, but it's not going to work. Of course there wouldn't be corporations, as we know them today without the state, given that they are state-created fictions. People would still choose the products or services they liked, regardless of your opinion of which is better.
MARTY:
"And the second definition is a noun. That’s English for you… always tripping you up with things like “facts”."
That's English for you, multiple meanings for multiple words. Thankfully, I still have the freedom to distinguish which definition I am using and when. Different words can be used to mean different things in different circumstances. In this case I am using the 1st definition of 'possession' and the 1st definition of 'property', which according to Webster's, are distinct, especially since one is a verb and one is a noun.
"Nice diversionary tactic, but it’s not going to work. Of course there wouldn’t be corporations, as we know them today without the state, given that they are state-created fictions. People would still choose the products or services they liked, regardless of your opinion of which is better."
What diversionary tactic? You used Microsoft and Verizon as examples of what people might choose in anarchy. I clarified, and you agreed, that Microsoft would not even exist under anarchy. What's the issue?
@soahc
And I am using the second definition, wherein property and possession are used interchangeably, as they are in the first definition of "Property", thus, I am comparing noun and noun.
The issue is, that we are discussing issues of personal choice, such as which cell-phone carrier or operating system people use (or, in a broader sense, which societal structure people choose to live under), and you are attempting to derail that discussion with an argument about corporations not existing. OF COURSE corporations – as they exist now – will not exist without the state.
That does not change the fact that people will still choose what THEY feel is best for them, not what YOU feel is best for them. Some people will choose to live in a hierarchical structure. It's statistically certain.
"And I am using the second definition, wherein property and possession are used interchangeably, as they are in the first definition of “Property”, thus, I am comparing noun and noun."
Go right ahead. You can ignore the first definition if you so choose. Language, like property, is not compulsory.
"That does not change the fact that people will still choose what THEY feel is best for them, not what YOU feel is best for them. Some people will choose to live in a hierarchical structure. It’s statistically certain."
Lol according to what statistics? I think YOU would rather live in a hierarchical nature, especially if you are higher up in the hierarchy. Please show me any data that someone would choose to live in a hierarchy, yet be at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Presented with the alternative (small groups where consensus, or close to consensus is achievable), I am fairly certain that no one would choose to be in a hierarchy at the bottom levels.
@soahc
Unlike yourself, I don't ignore the definition that doesn't fit my point. It's just not relevant. You'll notice neither of us are discussing comparing ownership to being inhabited by malevolent spirits.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "statistically certain" Let me explain.
Statistically certain means that, based on the odds, some thing is bound to happen. For example: "Unless you are a first-generation (US) immigrant, it's statistically certain that there is an african-american somewhere in your family tree" While there are some exceptions to that statement, by and large, it's true. thus, "Statistically certain"
Contrast that with "Statistically proven", which is what you are asking for.
Some people like structure. Some people prefer to be left alone. Some people like to be tied to a bed and spanked. Just because you would decide a certain way, does not mean that everyone would.
Marty:
"Unlike yourself, I don’t ignore the definition that doesn’t fit my point. It’s just not relevant."
Obviously the people who compile Webster's dictionary think the difference between possession and property are relevant enough.
"Statistically certain means that, based on the odds, some thing is bound to happen. For example: “Unless you are a first-generation (US) immigrant, it’s statistically certain that there is an african-american somewhere in your family tree” While there are some exceptions to that statement, by and large, it’s true. thus, “Statistically certain”
Just because a high percentage of us are statistically certain to have some African DNA (all of us really if you go back far enough), it doesn't mean that we will choose to be slaves. That is a false analogy.
"Some people like structure. Some people prefer to be left alone. Some people like to be tied to a bed and spanked. Just because you would decide a certain way, does not mean that everyone would."
Well, the people who like to be tied up and spanked are statistically proven to be a minority and I doubt that will change. Please provide a better analogy.
Where is the data that people are 'statistically certain' to choose hierarchy over tribalism?
Some interesting points, but you make many assertions with no logic to back them up. I realize you were probably trying to be concise, but you can't make blanket statements such as "Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible." without thoroughly explaining why that may be so.
Examples:
What defines mass accumulation and concentration of capital?
How can you assume that a current billionaire couldn't protect his factories?
How can you assume that managers and security guards/forces couldn't be freely hired to protect them.
You may be correct about these things, but I doubt it. To phrase these assertions as fact, rather than theory, is ridiculous.
I recommend that you read some Hoppe. Not to be convinced of anarcho-capitalism, but rather for pointers on how to make bullet-proof logical arguments. See: http://mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf
More to the point, to theorize what society would look like absent of any state control is only theory. Whether it would be more anarcho-capitalist, or more anarcho-syndacalist is anyone's guess, as most prominent anarcho-capitalists agree, see Rothbard, Hoppe, or Block.
Theorizing is great, but it should not be masked as fact.
I did not mean to mask it as fact. Merely as my belief, based on personal observations.
"What defines mass accumulation and concentration of capital?"
The State as far as I can tell. Meaning, without the State such would not be possible, because before the State, this did not exist.
"How can you assume that a current billionaire couldn’t protect his factories?"
Well for one a current billionaire is only so under a fiat currency. Also, security, and administration of security is and will always be the most expensive service in any economy, seems like. It is so expensive that the power elite needs to tax people to maintain it.
On an micro level, this is not necessarily so. But said costs increase faster than the size of what is being protected. The only way I see to offset these costs is through enforced monopoly.
"How can you assume that managers and security guards/forces couldn’t be freely hired to protect them. "
They could, but it is not likely. On a micro scale this will happen, of course. But as the size of a company grows, it is less and less likely to be viable. It is human behavior. Humans are more likely to help strangers (giving directions to travelers, helping ladies cross the street, pushing a car off the road, looking after a neighbors house while they are on vacation), than they are to accept leadership from strangers.
Similarly, managing one factory is much easier, and cheaper, than managing multiple factories. And someone is much more willing to accept transgressions and faults of people they know (husband slaps wife, they make up, friend gets drunk and borrows car, has a wreck, swears never to do it again, forgiven) than they are from a land lord or boss.
No land lord or boss will be without fault, they will just have much less leeway for faults, so much so that I believe being an absentee owner will be cost prohibitive.
@soahc
I have to conclude that you are either mentally handicapped or deliberately twisting my words.
The people who compiled webster's dictionary felt the need to differentiate the multiple meanings of the word "possession", one of which is "property".
I was not making an analogy, I was providing an example of the phrase "statistically certain". I even used the phrase "for example" to show that. You even show that you understood it by re-stating it. I never claimed that african DNA would cause people to want to be "slaves". If you would like to continue this debate, please cease being deliberately obtuse, or learn to use logic correctly, whichever is the fault at play here.
A minority that dissents is sufficient to disprove your claim that "everyone" would choose to live as you do. Even one person who would rather have someone else make his decisions for him is sufficient, since 100% -1 is no longer 100%.
Again, "statistically proven" (ie, data) and "statistically certain" (ie, overwhelming odds), are not one and the same, and given that we are not, in fact, living in a stateless society, I cannot provide data showing that some people will choose hierarchies given other options, since currently, there are no other options.
However, I do not claim that everyone will choose to live in hierarchies, only that some will. That "some" may be a tiny minority, but any non-zero number of people who want to live in a hierarchically structured society is enough to prove my point, and it is a mathematical certainty that out of over 6 billion people in the world, at least one will choose to have a boss.
Marty:
"The people who compiled webster’s dictionary felt the need to differentiate the multiple meanings of the word “possession”, one of which is “property”."
Yeah. The second one. The first one is not synonymous with 'property'.
"I was providing an example of the phrase “statistically certain”. I even used the phrase “for example” to show that."
It is an irrelevant example, unless you tend to associate genetics with sociology.
"or learn to use logic correctly, whichever is the fault at play here."
There are many different kinds of logic. If you expect me to obey some logical rules (non-contradiction, excluded middle) the that would require me to willfully do so, unless you use force.
"A minority that dissents is sufficient to disprove your claim that “everyone” would choose to live as you do. Even one person who would rather have someone else make his decisions for him is sufficient, since 100% -1 is no longer 100%."
Very well. I agree, there may be a minority of people who might choose to be on the bottom of a hierarchy…a very small minority.
"Again, “statistically proven” (ie, data) and “statistically certain” (ie, overwhelming odds), are not one and the same, and given that we are not, in fact, living in a stateless society, I cannot provide data showing that some people will choose hierarchies given other options, since currently, there are no other options. "
You also can't prove that it is statistically certain. And in my opinion you have not made a very good case for it being so.
"and it is a mathematical certainty that out of over 6 billion people in the world, at least one will choose to have a boss."
Arguably, a personal relationship between a single boss and their single employee (a teenage kid working at the local mom and pop hardware store) is very different than a single boss and a factory full of employees.
@soahc
Thank you for conceding my point. People, given the freedom to choose, will choose different options. Some (no matter how small a minority) will choose what others will view to be an inferior option. The only requirement for a just society is that those who would chose what the majority deems inferior are not forced to choose the majority-supported option.
In an anarchy, there will be factories run by the workers, and there will be factories run by a single boss. There will be communes and communities run like an ant-hill. There will be Free-market exchanges using gold, silver, or other commodities, and there will be barter and gift economies. What will happen in an Anarchy? Everything.
"In an anarchy, there will be factories run by the workers, and there will be factories run by a single boss. "
Probably not.
Why? Because it is highly unlikely that ANYONE would choose hierarchy if faced with alternative that allow MORE personal freedom.
Top down centralization will render itself obsolete unless it is enforced via monopoly.
You are so attached to hierarchy you feel compelled to argue that it will exist in absence of the State, as if free people would chose not to be free. Well, by the very nature of hierarchy, it is the antithesis of anarchy.
You ask me to be logical, but this seems very illogical, to argue that anarchy naturally beget hierarchy. Meritocracy I would be more willing to consider.
Marty,
I dig your style, but I did find the comment, What happens in anarchy? Everything, a tad troubling. After all, Everything includes a lot of really bad things. There are some things, like war, pestilence, famine, etc. that I think it is good to avoid.
Sohac asked me, aren't you an anarchist, in an apparent attempt to cow me into agreement by challenging my bona fides. No, I would not call myself that, I don't really call myself anything in that sense -I am on no one's side, because nobody is on my side. Treebeard. What I am is an individual human. My primary concern is my own well being, and the well being of my family and friends.
I have a secondary concern for the good of others in general, for the very practical reason that I live here, on Earth, in this time, now, and what ye do to the least of my brothers, ye do to me. If anyone is being oppressed, anywhere, this constitutes a threat to my existence, because if they are oppressed, that means I can be oppressed as well. Thus, I take a keen interest to see that freedom is maximized for all. What I desire from an ideal society is maximum freedom and minimum coercion, which I think can be achieved by what I call asymptotic anarchism. If anyone bothers to scroll up through this mass of posts, they can find a well detailed description of it.
The basic formula is: best possible society = max freedom -state coercion – private coercion.
It seems that Soahc is saying, If you reduce state coercion to zero, everything will be peachy keen. This seems a little unsophisticated. Private coercion reduces freedom just as validly as state coercion does. When modeling an ideal society, both types of coercion must be taken into account.
Twice I asked Soahc what he thought about the rampant property crime in Venezuela, and he pretended the question did not exist. This is logical, because if he was consistent and supported the property crime, he would be condoning self-evident immorality. If he was moral and opposed these vile actions, he would be contradicting his argument. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Ask him if he has ever heard of false flags.
@Guthrie:
Accumulation would be possible, and fairly ubiquitous actually. I made an error there (see above comments). Mass concentration of capital would be impossible by the very fact that accumulation would be available to everyone.
As far as the protection thing goes, well, the point I was trying to make is that paying someone enough to protect distributed capital scales wildly and reaches a point of inefficient returns. By "billionaire" you can read "billionaire by today's standards" … in fact, we might all be the equivalent of billionaires under anarchy. But I meant someone being vastly more wealthy than the general populace. The wealthier the populace is, the more you have to pay them to change their general behavior. But there are also the agency problems I mentioned in my post. You have to pay them enough not to just decide to appropriate your property or to just go to sleep on the job. This is one of the reasons why executives get paid so much. They have to be paid enough not to run the company into the ground for their own benefit, or draw a salary and pretend to do their job. Even paid as much as they are, it still happens often enough to be a known problem. In a society where the state artificially creates oligopsonistic labor markets, it's much easier for firms to avoid this problem (Even executives only have a relatively small number of places they can work). In a society where people have a lot more opportunities, the opportunity cost of being a "guardian" for any one firm or wealthy individual is much higher, and the incentive to "defect" against your employer also becomes much higher.
I've read Hoppe, he actually was an inspiration for one part of this article. His theory of asymptotically diminishing interest rates in a free market, specifically, from A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.
In a free financial system where finance capital is extremely liquid, "first to market effects" die out pretty quickly. Every time a firm starts to make noticeably more profit than the average rate of interest they'll draw competitors until the rate of profit goes back down to just above the average rate of interest. The average rate of interest asymptotically approaches zero as more and more investment capital enters the market.
@forrest
Well, "everything" does include a lot of bad stuff, but some is impossible (War needs armies, armies need taxes), and other things would be reduced (Poverty, famine, pestilence).
The nature of Anarchy makes it easy to reduce or avoid the negative things people don't want.
"Twice I asked Soahc what he thought about the rampant property crime in Venezuela, and he pretended the question did not exist. This is logical, because if he was consistent and supported the property crime, he would be condoning self-evident immorality. If he was moral and opposed these vile actions, he would be contradicting his argument. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Ask him if he has ever heard of false flags."
Regarding morality, there is none. Your morality is not my morality. There is no objective value system. The only way you can get me to adopt what you perceive to be universal values is through the use of force.
I must have overlooked Venezuela because I honestly do not remember seeing that post.
My answer is simply that Venezuela is not under anarchy. It is State controlled and the citizens are coerced by the State.
I do not believe what you consider property crimes will be rampant under anarchy. Part of the reason for this is that there won't be property (as it is today, in such scale), only possessions. But also part of this is that there won't be scarcity. No one will be desperate enough to need to hoard or thieve.
You heard it from the horse's mouth, "There is no objective morality." According to Soahc, there is no objectively moral reason not to murder someone. The mask comes off. I figured out what "soahc" stands for: socialist anarchist. I can just picture him at a protest, with the words "eat the rich" written on his jeans in black marker. He says that property theft and violence are just a means to an end (supposedly the end being to increase freedom… does not compute). But I suspect that theft and violence are the ends.
And all that pap about how in "anarchy" people would all have "personal relationships" with their maids and cooks and masseuses and everybody is standard progressive/socialist boilerplate about how in a society without private property everyone would get along in one big love-fest. This is a ruse to attract the lonely and the outcasts and the unloved to the Red standard. Sad.
The next issue soahc dodges is that of false flags. The terms libertarian and anarchist have a reputation for being pro-freedom (in the sense that Webster understands the term). I have seen certain folks who will adopt these tags, and then proceed to advocate for anti-freedom causes. In military terms, a false flag operation entails soldiers putting on enemy uniforms so as to infiltrate and disrupt the enemy, as German commandos did during the Battle of the Bulge, by wearing American uniforms and speaking English.
"You heard it from the horse’s mouth, “There is no objective morality.” According to Soahc, there is no objectively moral reason not to murder someone."
I believe everyone is free to create whatever values they want for themselves. It just so happens that being an optimist, I have faith that the general tendency for human beings is to consider death and suffering unaesthetic. However I believe that the only way I can tell someone not to value or to value something, be it human life, property, factories, or whatever, is through force. I don't believe in forcing people. And I don't believe property would exist without force.
"I figured out what “soahc” stands for: socialist anarchist"
Hahaha Sherlock…no. soahc is CHAOS backwards.
"I have seen certain folks who will adopt these tags, and then proceed to advocate for anti-freedom causes."
Yet you advocate a boss/employee, landlord/tenant hierarchy, and feel that it can be in any way compatible with anarchism? Without the State, human affairs would default away from all hierarchy.
No, it is the propertarians (and the socialist anarchists) who are the false flags. Socialists want their welfare and propertarians want their power over other people.
Good job to Anna for prompting this thread's discussion.
Two observations that speak to my personal brand of what some call "intellectual" processes, when I read the thread's various comments.
1) I appreciate Less Antman's posts.
2) I wish Forrest would stop using campfire tales instead of proof while at the same time, accusing others of playing the rhetorical charlatan or joker. Unless Forrest is playing at a character and is trying to be ironic, that is. In which case I chuckle mildly. Forrest, it's not convincing to me when you tell tales of Massachusetts colonizers and their woes with communal farms but their great splendor when farming individually, as if it were a point to demonstrate that capitalism is supreme. There are so many different reasons why the individual farming **might** have been better, the argument just doesn't hold water. It's like you're appealing to some fond romantic admiration for "the Pilgrims," or something. Just not cool, not at all. Since you said you admire the notion of brevity as the soul of wit, I'd suggest hewing a bit closer to that direction.
3) Someone above said minarchism is ___________, and the definition given made no sense to me. I think it's clear what minarchism means, and it doesn't mean what that prior "definition" suggested. "Min" and "archism" are all you need, do your etymology!
Just one fool's personal opinions.
Oxtrot,
The event recounted about the crop yields and such in the Massachusetts town is well documented; records were kept that show that people did indeed work harder and grow more food under the latter scenario. This may be a campfire tale, but it did happen, and when you gather enough campfire tale data, there comes a point when you achieve a preponderance of evidence. Forgive me if I think Pilgrims are a little bit cool, that's just me. I would be briefer, but as G.B.Shaw, noted Fabian, once said, "Every man is a damn fool at least 15 minutes a day, and wisdom consists in not exceeding that limit."
Chaos,
Force can be both good and necessary at times. The bad thing is to initiate the use of force. For instance, if someone thinks it's not immoral to kill me, and they try to kill me for no good reason, It is moral for me to use force to stop them. Aside from perhaps the mentally ill, no human on the planet would think I was wrong to do so. The moral precept of self-defense is near universal among humanity; it has self-evident worth. If I say it is an objective moral precept and you say it isn't, you are just splitting hairs. I would go so far to say that self-defense is hard-wired into our DNA, and that makes it pretty goshdarn objective.
Physical differences between humans of today and humans of 50,000 years ago are negligible, we are born savage animals. What makes us different is the evolution of our culture, but this needs to be learned by each individual. If it is not learned, that individual might as well be hunting wooly mammoths with a spear. In a planet of 6,000,000,000 people, there are bound to be aberrant individuals in any region who do not learn how to be civilized, and any model for society must take this into account, so as to minimize total coercion in the society. A wooly mammoth hunter understands nothing but coercion.
I advocate no hierarchy, just individuals free to compete, free to rise and fall, with as little coercion of any kind as possible.
Whether the state buys (or seizes) a factory and gives it to some workers, or whether workers seize it through "private enterprise", it is the same kind of theft and coercion; the results are the same. The giving or the taking of the unearned includes both welfare and property expropriation; they are both unearned transfers of wealth effected by coercion, and they are both counter to the principles of a free society. Freedom and coercion are opposites.
@ CF Oxtrot
Thanks for the kind words. Since I was the one who offered the definition of minarchy, I think it important to note that I described it as a whimsical definition that I use with conservatives and limited government libertarians whose definitions of capitalism and socialism are different than the ones most of us on this board use. I was trying to make the point that I prefer to accept the meaning of words of the person with whom I'm conversing, then describe my ideas in terms they can understand, and that was an example. I agree that the definition of minarchy doesn't make sense to people whose definitions of capitalism and socialism are different than those favored by conservatives and most limited government libertarians. But it facilitates my attempt to persuade such people to the merits of anarchy.
Still, don't words evolve over time based on usage? Etymology would never tell us what an "abolitionist" wanted to abolish, or that a Federalist was someone who opposed federalism and wanted a strong central government while an Anti-Federalist was someone who supported federalism and wanted the national government severely limited. How would I know that I was supposed to drive on a parkway and park in a driveway? And, of course, the Moral Majority was neither.
"Minarchy" was a word coined by someone I knew in Southern California a long time ago, Sam Konkin, and he was referring solely and specifically to libertarians who favor a government that protects life, liberty, and property and does nothing else. He also coined the term "partyarch" to refer to those of us who profess to be anarchists and still retain membership in the Libertarian Party. I still have a button that I made up for a surprise birthday party several of us gave for anti-political libertarian George Smith: all the LP members at the party wore a campaign style button with the slogan, "Partyarchs for Smith." Those were the days.
In any event, my definition of minarchy was intended to be humorous, I think we will increase support for anarchy at a more rapid rate if we are friendlier with the people we are trying to persuade, even though they're all violent morons who deserve to burn in Hell. Oops.
@Forrest
Don't underestimate the mammoth hunters. A single, savage, non-cooperative maniac would have no chance in hell to hunt down a mammoth. Those things were enormous and powerful. I'm certain humans from 500,000 years ago had to use a great deal of teamwork and cooperation to hunt one down. And even to build a spear – if you know "I, Pencil", you can imagine building a spear isn't much different. The fact is that even many animals show social behaviour that clearly benefits them. And animals also have a built-in sense to defend themselves. If you're going to play evolution it's just a damn good trait to value your own life.
@Chaos
You seem to be looking for conflict here. Nobody was advocating hierarchy. He just said that with 6,000,000,000 people it's highly unlikely that not ONE of them would like to be employed at some point in their life. It's like Rule #34.
You still haven't given a usable definition of property vs. possession. I imagine you're not against self-ownership, against the right to eat an apple you found or walk upon the earth. Where does the evil of property start? When you don't like the owner? When the owner delegates management of the property? When the owner delegates management of the property to people who are not his buddies but get paid to do it? Why is there this arbitrary difference?
"You still haven’t given a usable definition of property vs. possession."
Wow.
pos·ses·sion (p-zshn)
1. The act or fact of possessing.
n. pl. prop·er·ties
1. Something owned; a possession.
1. Verb.
2. Noun
Any questions? Then lets turn to Proudhon:
"By this principle, the man who takes possession of a field, and says, "This field is mine," will not be unjust so long as every one else has an equal right of possession; nor will he be unjust, if, wishing to change his location, he exchanges this field for an equivalent. But if, putting another in his place, he says to him, "Work for me while I rest," he then becomes unjust, unassociated, unequal. He is a proprietor.
Reciprocally, the sluggard, or the rake, who, without performing any social task, enjoys like others — and often more than others — the products of society, should be proceeded against as a thief and a parasite. We owe it to ourselves to give him nothing; but, since he must live, to put him under supervision, and compel him to labor.'
If you are not willing to secure your own property, you are a statist in my eyes. If you are willing to secure, occupy, protect, and tend to your own property, you possess it. If you rely on 'natural law' and title to retain your property, you do not possess it. Hence the State.
There are other ways writers have made the distinction, and it is arguably on a continuum. Benjamin Tucker spoke of how property was only conceptualized in the face of scarcity. Native Americans for instance had no property as we define it, for the most part. They had possessions, like horses, etc. But not property.
Forrest:
"Whether the state buys (or seizes) a factory and gives it to some workers, or whether workers seize it through “private enterprise”, it is the same kind of theft and coercion; "
Name me one factory that was begotten, and retained as property, without State aid. Show me one large, hierarchical corporation that did not receive State welfare.
All factories that exist now were stolen to begin with.
@Chaos:
So, If I hire a security guard to watch my home while I sleep, I am a statist?
What of my place of business? Must I sleep in my store to prevent squatters from moving in and claiming it as their own?
At what point does a property become abandoned? After a week? A month? A year without my seeing it? What if I hire (or simply ask) someone to watch it for me?
If I leave my car in the driveway overnight, should I be surprised that when I awake, someone has "claimed" my hubcaps?
Ytram (since we are spelling names backwards now):
So, If I hire a security guard to watch my home while I sleep, I am a statist?
No. But if you think you will be able to enforce any sort of hierarchy in a workplace, with you profiting from the labor of others, without the help of a state, I think you're delusional.
At what point does a property become abandoned? After a week? A month? A year without my seeing it? What if I hire (or simply ask) someone to watch it for me?
There is no time frame set in stone. There is a continuum. However if you hire or ask someone to watch it for you you are committing the verb of possession.
If I leave my car in the driveway overnight, should I be surprised that when I awake, someone has “claimed” my hubcaps?
Well you should take responsibility for securing your own possessions. Don't expect the state, some natural law, or moral value system to do it for you. Take responsibility for yourself!
However post scarcity I don't see anyone giving a passing glance at hub caps.
@Tserrof:
RE: Morality-
"Force can be both good and necessary at times."
The only way you can force me to agree when force is 'good' is through the use of force. See where I am going with this? I decide for myself what is 'good' and 'bad'.
" The bad thing is to initiate the use of force."
By telling me what I should think of as 'good' or 'bad' you are initiating force.
"For instance, if someone thinks it’s not immoral to kill me, and they try to kill me for no good reason,"
Who decides what is a 'good' reason? You either do it or you do not. Good and bad is irrelevant and subjective.
"It is moral for me to use force to stop them."
It it your moral, not mine, unless I consent to it. The only way you can render your morals binding for anyone else is through force, (or persuasion?).
"The moral precept of self-defense is near universal among humanity; it has self-evident worth."
Therefore I should defend myself from corporations, perhaps?
"If I say it is an objective moral precept and you say it isn’t, you are just splitting hairs."
It takes two to tango.
"I would go so far to say that self-defense is hard-wired into our DNA, and that makes it pretty goshdarn objective."
Self preservation is distinguishable from being a landlord who profits from a building full of tenants.
@soahc
Who said anything about enforcing a hierarchy? Either they work in the hierarchy, or they don't. It's all voluntary. They, after all, are gaining benefits from the hierarchy as well… The "head" assumes responsibility for things like the physical capital, security of the workplace (even though he likely delegates that responsibility to a security agent), etc, freeing the worker to use his income for other things, instead of maintaining and defending the equipment. There is efficiency in delegation.
So, if I hire someone to watch my property for me while I am away, I am still committing the verb of possession… And if I use the time so freed to go and commit the act of possession on another piece of property, then hire the guards to defend that, etc, at what point do I become the eeeeeevil proprietor?
So, I should not be surprised that my hubcaps have disappeared. Thanks. I'll remember not to leave you alone with my silverware.
I would like to know, however, how you intend that everything become infinite. Scarcity will always exist, even if it is only relative scarcity.
Marty:
How is a hierarchy ever voluntary? Using the sexual metaphor, we usually apply the label 'sexual deviant' or 'kink' so people who enjoy being tied up.
That any significant number of people would willfully submit themselves to a hierarchical structure is highly doubtful.
"So, I should not be surprised that my hubcaps have disappeared. Thanks. I’ll remember not to leave you alone with my silverware."
Either they are stolen, or they are not. All that I ask is that you take responsibility for protecting your own possessions. No nanny should have to do that for you.
"I would like to know, however, how you intend that everything become infinite. Scarcity will always exist, even if it is only relative scarcity."
Actually scarcity does not exist now. There is ample resources on this planet for everyone to have food, clean drinking water, heat, A/C, internet, cell phones, etc. More than enough.
@soahc
Love how you dodged my question. Probably because it caused cognitive dissonance.
Let me re-state it. If I am still committing the verb of possession, even though it is by proxy, at what point do I shift from being a possessor to a proprietor? At two properties possessed by proxy? Three? Five?
Since you were so big on asking me for statistics, earlier, Let's see the numbers on how you propose to provide every one of 6 billion and climbing people on this planet, with the resources available today, with a standard of living equal or surpassing that of the average american? I understand thatI sound like a green-freak, but I'm not, I'd just like to see the numbers.
@soahc
And to answer your question, "How is a hierarchy ever voluntary": When both persons involved agree that that is the way they would like to structure their organization. For instance: Let's say that Able owns some land he would like farmed, but doesn't have the time to do it himself. He hires Baker to manage the property, through voluntary contract. Baker, then, contracts with Charlie, Daniel, Edward, Francis, and Gerald, again, voluntarily, no one's forced to do anything they don't want to, to farm the land in exchange for some portion of the proceeds. The land gets farmed, there is a hierarchical structure, and it's all voluntary. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head.
Again, just because you or I would not like to live like that, doesn't mean that others wouldn't
Marty-
"Love how you dodged my question. Probably because it caused cognitive dissonance."
Didn't realize I was dodging a question. No cognitive dissonance here. How are you doing?
"If I am still committing the verb of possession, even though it is by proxy, at what point do I shift from being a possessor to a proprietor? At two properties possessed by proxy? Three? Five?"
I do not include proxy in my definition of possession. If you authorize someone else to use your land, and they are willing to share the fruits of their labors with you…well as I said before this is not a viable model. Meaning I highly doubt more than a small minority of people will adopt it. And those that do will probably be role playing, much like the SCA role plays knights, kings, and servants.
Again, your propertarian model is based on scarcity, which won't, and doesn't, exist. You will have no need for employees, tenants. No need to fend of squatters and thieves.
In the interim, I think syndicalist insurrection is totally viable. All factories, bosses, and corporations have begotten their wealth with State aid, so they are fair game.
New gems from soahc:
"By telling me what I should think of as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ you are initiating force."
"The lazy should be compelled to labor."
According to this, speech is force, which means speech can be answered with force. And if your neighbors, who have some kind of undefined mastery over you, deem that you are not productive enough (for which they need no reason -there are no objective reasons), they can compel you into forced servitude, or slavery.
Freedom and coercion are opposites. Soahc advocates coercion, therefore soahc is opposed to freedom. This isn't rocket science.
Forrest failed to address a lot of what I said, but instead mentioned:
"According to this, speech is force, which means speech can be answered with force."
Negative. Not so. Just because I speak does not mean that I want you to adopt the same (moral) values as me. Speech itself is consensual. Whether or not we value a given arraingment of letters, vowels, consonants, words, and sentences, is entirely a subjective decision (unless of course, you are willing to use force to assert otherwise).
"And if your neighbors, who have some kind of undefined mastery over you, deem that you are not productive enough (for which they need no reason -there are no objective reasons), they can compel you into forced servitude, or slavery. "
Any person can attempt to do whatever they want whenever they want. I could kill someone, hide the body, and more than likely get away with it if I plan my course of actions well. It just so happens that I have disdain for suffering and death. However whether anyone values life and morals or whatever is ENTIRELY a personal decision.
It just so happens that most people do not take pleasure in suffering. However a much smaller minority would consider squatting in a building owned by a wealthy land lord as inflicting suffering.
The author has a point about cronyism and how the rich use the Regime to accumulate and protect wealth, but she misuses the word "Capitalism"-she is describing "State Capitalism" or "Fascism".
@soahc
So verbs are good and nouns are evil? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
And if you didn't quote Proudhoun out of context there (I haven't read him) he's simply wrong. If I buy a house and ask someone (not force!) to watch it for me while I'm on vacation, I become a thief? That's absurd. He also claims that possession is alright as long as everyone else has the same right of possession – meaning nobody has the right of possession. Because possessing something means being able to control its use. If my eating of an apple rids others of their right to possession, I can never act at all. Every action I take will take away other's rights of possession.
I have to say I don't get Proudhoun. Somehow it's ok to own things while you're there, but if you leave, they become unowned or it's suddenly evil. Is there a magical sphere of morality, making all my evil property into moral possession while I'm present? Or is possession some kind of "you can't own what you can't see" thing, like out of sight, out of mind? This seems childish, as if abstract concepts are unreal. The disability to project thoughts out of the current situation is something kids learn at age 3 or so. Even some animals have it. Why does Proudhoun deny it?
If you leave your house, and it falls into disrepair, I have no qualms with someone moving in.
If you leave it temporarily, and it is clearly still a domicile that has recently been used, I believe most humans would respect that, and more so without rampant poverty afflicting humans with desperation.
If you have a piece of paper that says you own a factory, one that you never go to much, don't manage yourself, and do not work at, but expect to profit from, you are probably in for a reality check. Same with your house. If you leave it, don't tend to it, are absentee, but you expect to extract rent checks, you are asking for the fruits of someone elses labor, without having to labor yourself.
This will not happen under anarchism.
Less, if the definition was humorous, then I understand it. I mistook it as serious. Duh.
Forrest, I wasn't challenging whether the campfire tale's general facts (communal then individual farm activity) actually happened, I was saying that you're suggesting capitalism caused the success and you're also suggesting that communal farming is always worse. Neither of those conclusions is inescapable, neither is the only explanation. Might well be that the mistakes made during communal farming were never replicated and that enabled later efforts — farming generally, I mean — to be more productive. The communal plot may have been poorly located, it may have been quickly stripped of whatever nutrients it could spare to support crops. And where's capitalism's hook in all that? I don't see it anywhere.
In other words, by describing it in a campfire tale-like manner and then stating bald-faced conclusions, you're suggesting something should be believed — the causation leading to the conclusion — merely because the general presentation of the campfire tale seems sincere.
@soahc
"If you leave it, don’t tend to it, are absentee, but you expect to extract rent checks, you are asking for the fruits of someone elses labor, without having to labor yourself.
This will not happen under anarchism."
It doesn't happen *now*.
Would you have a problem with a factory owner who keeps all the equipment in good order, kept the factory secure, and payed good wages?
How about a Landlord who keeps his apartment building in good shape, and satisfies his tenants' requests?
A Hotel owner?
"It doesn’t happen *now*."
Yes, silly me. The world is perfect.
"Would you have a problem with a factory owner who keeps all the equipment in good order, kept the factory secure, and payed good wages?"
If the 'owner' if profiting off of the labor of others, he is a thief. Given a choice in the matter, no one would auction of their labor.
You really think the hierarchical, corporate, top down, centralized mode of organization would last under anarchy? Of course it wouldn't. All hierarchies have to be enforced.
@soahC
Both of these things you have said:
"Very well. I agree, there may be a minority of people who might choose to be on the bottom of a hierarchy…a very small minority. "
"All hierarchies have to be enforced."
Which is a lie?
"Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public? Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham. It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State. Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”."
No, I wouldn't agree that the property is private, yet owned by the state or a collection of individuals. That there is public property means that there is a group that is willing to use force to prevent property from becoming privately owned, or put to private use. It is the prevention of private ownership by the state that makes property public.
By analogy, the degree to which I own my "private residence" is commensurate with the degree to which the state attempts to wrestle control of it from me and make it public. With the existence of a state and the taxes enforced by it, private property that is a sham. Public property is the reality (to varying degrees). Only abolishing the state can bring about private property.
"# Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
# Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible."
Please correct me if I misunderstand you, but you statements imply that you believe it to be true that accumulation of capital leads to "wage slavery" (which I assume that you consider such an undesirable state of affairs) and that there is a natural conflict of interest between individuals of different classes.
Now I agree that anarchism should not be put forth as a utopian program, for reasons I will not go into here. But what leads you to believe that concentration of capital is impossible, undesirable (from a societal or individualist standpoint), and would/could lead to "wage slavery?" What do you mean by "wage slavery?"
"Ahh but what about all the middle class people in Ancapistan, won’t they form a militia to defend themselves? Well yes, but they won’t form a militia to defend a bunch of billionaires’ property."
Why would a well-compensated militia not protect the property of another? The billionaire could pay them more than most other property owners.
@soahc:
"If the ‘owner’ if profiting off of the labor of others, he is a thief."
What? Why? A thief is someone who takes from others against their will. If the owner profits off the labour of a voluntary worker, how is he a thief?
"Given a choice in the matter, no one would auction of their labor."
Now that's once again just complete bullshit generalization. Do you actually have any arguments or are you just afraid to come out of the socialist-statist closet?
Again I might just be misinterpreting what you say, but here goes.
"There’s nothing the anarcho-capitalists could do to prevent people from agreeing to treat property in a more fluid or communal manner than they’d prefer."
What you are saying is that there is nothing that individuals could do to prevent others from forming "voluntary communal ownership contracts." Such contracts would be voluntary, hence anarchist. But this does not mean that individuals who agree to such a contract are therefore anti-capitalist or non-capitalist. Capital is just savings, it is that which is produced but not consumed. A commune that is composed of anarcho-capitalists need not consume all that they produce. That which is left over is accumulated capital. Of course it would be wise to stipulate in the contract how such capital would be used or controlled in the absence of individual ownership.
From my understanding, anarcho-communism just assumes that without the state men would spontaneously form communes and abolish private property, which is nonsense. Private property is rooted in our biology, as there is a clear distinction between my body and yours. It cannot be rejected or refuted because our minds are ours and belong to no other (though the state and religions may try to control the mind as well).
Anarcho-socialism/-syndicalism fares no better philosophically. The idea is that there will still be ownership, that of groups. But then you are back at the state, not anarchism. What we have right now is many states (communes). The states tell individuals that membership is voluntary. But the only choice is to go and join another state. There are no territories that are free from a state. Again you have public ownership, which means use of force to prevent private ownership.
"For, just as anarcho-capitalism is impossible, anarcho-socialism is also impossible, depending on how you define things."
No, it follows logically that anarchism implies capitalism (hence refuting socialism). The state (or the actions of its individual members) is what prevents the realization of capitalism. The term "anarcho-socialism" is nonsense, except as some sort of voluntary agreement between individuals.
Capitalism is the system where there is a market free from intervention by any individuals using force (forget talk about government or the state, for a moment). In such a market individuals receive the things which they value the most, limited by what they contribute to production. Now it is likely that under anarchism, you will still have transactions in which force is a factor (if not the primary one, i.e. murder or robbery). But such transactions will be minimized because individuals will be able to prevent them, to the degree to which taking preventative measures doesn't decrease the consumption of more urgent wants. In any case, more is contributed to production by the division of labor (as opposed to individual autarky).
If you abolish private property then you also abolish the means to transact. Without indirect exchange you cannot have division of labor. Without division of labor you end up with primitive living conditions. Socialism implies primitivism.
I would be happy to clarify anything.
@soahc:
“If the ‘owner’ if profiting off of the labor of others, he is a thief.”
http://mises.org/resources/3583/Not-a-ZeroSum-Gam…
"And in fact, Bleicke, a lot of ancaps do defend things that are not defensible, like big corporations fucking their workers over, when they are in a million and one ways subsidized by the state."
"Ancaps" in name only, I would say. I am an anarchist, but I do not advocate the use of violence (except to protect violations of private property, of course). But many anarchists support violent direct action and other despicable acts.
"…I am not a fan of the modern labor union, see my previous articles for that one. But labor monopolists fuck us over on the micro level. The modern big corporation fucks us on the macro level."
And both exist in their current forms because of the state. Without the state you would not have labor unions or corporations as we know them today. They can get away with murder (literally) because the state allows it.
A market in which exchange is not controlled by a massive, organized police force would tend towards that which the participants desire. Since the producer can only continue to produce that which the consumer demands, labor unions and the modern corporation would likely be replaced by different models. The current labor union requires the police apparatus of the state to enforce its decrees, through violence if necessary. The laws of modern states also protect corporations at the expense of other individuals, and are hence like subsidies.
Subsidies result in the allocation of limited resources such that the most desired satisfactions are not met. Certain marginal wants are not met and instead wealth is transferred to the subsidized group or individuals of the group. In an anarchist society such transfers would not be possible. They would amount to a break from the anarchist paradigm and likely activate widespread resistance and collaborative effort to suppress the violent individuals.
Marty:
"Which is a lie?"
No one can make that decision for you.
Ryan Allen:
"Why would a well-compensated militia not protect the property of another? The billionaire could pay them more than most other property owners."
A billionaire who has a billion what? Fiat currency dollars? Gold coins? Diamonds?
Throughout history the rich have only maintained their wealth with help from government monopoly welfare.
Bleicke:
“If the owner profits off the labour of a voluntary worker, how is he a thief?”
Who would share the fruits of their labor with someone else in an unequal manner voluntarily? You seriously think if given a choice people would enter a hierarchical relationship? Hierarchical relationships are about not having choices.
“Now that’s once again just complete bullshit generalization. Do you actually have any arguments or are you just afraid to come out of the socialist-statist closet?”
Socialist? Right. I am against any form of authority whatsoever. Period. Including government of a workplace. Including the governance of a boss over a wage laborer.
It is the anarchist propertarian who is the unconscious statist, because they do not realize that without State protection, there would be no labor as commodity.
@soahc
You know what? You're right. no one can make decisions for me. And I have indeed decided. I've decided that you are a sub-moronic, completely brain-washed, tape-recorder. I doubt you've had an original thought in your life. Pity you picked up Proudhoun instead of someone intelligent. Then, at least, you wouldn't be parroting complete drivel.
Have a nice life. Just do it far from me and mine. Wouldn't want you "claiming" my silverware.
Marty:
Actually, technically I have had many original thoughts. It just so happened that in reading Stirner, Proudhon, and Tucker, these original thoughts were affirmed.
If you think Proudhon is unintelligent, well then you most likely have not read his works. No one of low intelligence is capable of composing such complex thoughts and writing.
Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't make them stupid.
@soahc:
Nobody can make decisions for other people. So you can't make decisions for other people either. If anyone wants to work as an employee oder in a hierarchy in anarchy, you can't prevent them from doing it. There are people who like being told what to do, and if only because they're into kinky stuff.
How the world would look like in anarchy is impossible to know. We can only make guesses. So your guess that nobody would work for an absentee owner is as good as my guess that elephants will dance and sing.
Just to clarify this: In anarchy, if a landowner (according to your desc., so living on it) goes away to become an absentee landowner and finds a person who voluntarily guards the land in exchange for money, is that theft or exploitation? You keep saying that "no one would do that" in anarchy, but if someone were to do it, would you consider it immoral to hire that person? Is ownership in itself immoral or do you just consider it immoral because it's being abused and used immorally now?
Bleicke:
I do not believe in morals. I believe in action.
So few people would choose to live and work in a hierarchical situation, given the option to be their own boss, that it is really negligible. And your concept of property is thrown out the door when you have no one to lord over. No one to work for you or rent from you.
In the meantime, if someone appropriates something that was begotten with the help of State welfare, like taking over a factory run by a corporation, or a building with ‘legal’ title, I do not see that as theft.
@soahc:
Yes, anything state-owned or help-of-state-owned is essentially unowned an can be homesteaded. Though I think most people would abandon most of their land, factories, etc. that were gotten with state help, because with the crutch suddenly missing, they'd have no way to profit from it. What use are 10000 acres if you don't get corn subsidies anymore and have to compete on the free market?
What you say about people making choices is pure speculation. You just don't know. Maybe working as an employee in anarchy has such greats benefits in one region that most people would do it. Who knows?
I believe in action, too. But I believe action must be moral, or it should not be taken. Rather no action than immoral action. Which is why I think that just going around and kicking in windows isn't helping.
Anarcho-Capitalists are NOT anti-state. Ancaps consider themselves MONARCHS over their private property. If an Ancap ends up owning much land by means compatible with Ann Rand capitalism, they say that it is “legitimately owned” and they will declare themselves privatized monarchs over their privatized STATE….when ancaps say they are anti-state, they really mean they are against the federal governments monopoly on the state. They want to decentralize the state and reduce “freedom” to the freedom to choose masters…..as “anarcho”-Capitalism is really a return to feudalism, not progress into Anarchism.
In reality, “anarcho-Capitalism” is synonamous with extreme tyranny and totalitarianism. The “anarcho”-Capitalist MONARCH has ABSOLUTE RULE over his aquired territory. If you attempt to rise up against him, he will employ private contractor police (hit men) to kill you to remove you as a threat…..and they say with a straight face that they are about non-violence…..what they really mean is that they reject the revolutionary means of traditional Anarchism in favor of extreme brutal privatized authoritarianism where they become absolute dictators….no democracy, no bill of rights, no workers or renters rights, none of the civil victories the poor have won against the rich which protect them which even Anarchists have supported……Just pure absolute power wielded by the capitalist class against everyone else.
The author of this article, though well intentioned, should consider rewriting this article after doing a little more research into what “anarcho”-capitalists actually believe in.
First of all, we need to define the “state”.
The state =! government! The two are interwoven but not the same thing…..Let me give some examples of the difference between the state and government…..congress is government. The police are the state. The president is government. The military is the state. So, what is the difference really?
The state is the medium by which authority and dominion is declared over a given area…..by contrast, government is the social institutions which govern the state.
This is really where anarcho-capitalism becomes self refuting……their definition of the state is IDENTICAL WORD FOR WORD with their definition of the rights of property owners. It becomes clear as day what they mean…..
They mean that they want to be the State!!! They mean that they want to end the federal governments MONOPOLY on the state so that every capitalist land lord can be a privatized duke or lord, and everyone who is not a land owning capitalist will become serfs…..people who have rights only over their body but absolutely no squaters rights, no workers rights, no constitution, no power to vote, and not even the right to food or water or to be free from hierarchial relationships and indentured slavery or wage slavery…….the freedom they speak about is only the freedom to choose masters, but even to walk the earth is a privilege to them, not a right…..once the whole earth is owned, you may be denied the right to “trespass”, with private security preventing you from crossing a border. So while the ancaps with their privately owned factories and private security with assault rifles preach about non-violent resistance (but still allowing the employment of third party killers and cops to protect their wealth), you can become TRAPPED in a geographic area under a capitalist self described MONARCH (ancap), and since you do not have the “right” to tresspass on private property, if you are surrounding by private property that you are not allowed to cross, you can become a slave with nowhere to run. Since you are not guaranteed the right to food or water or medicine or a place to sleep, you are completely dependent and subject to the whims of the capitalist class.
So no…..Ancaps are not Anarchsits WHATSOEVER. They are not even anti-state….not really. They are just against the feds, extreme right-wing libertarians, because they want to PRIVATIZE the role of government rather than abolish it, and private property becomes the new state with every land owning capitalist his own king, and every other Anarchist too poor to own land, a serf or slave free only to choose masters but not free to reject the claims of ownership that prop up their privatized kingdom.
A better word for “anarcho” Capitalism would be “Anarcho-Monarchism”.
Watch this video. It explains my point perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrQObaYFmaw
There is no such thing as an Anarcho-Capitalist. They are not Anarchists at all.
@your video:
1.If this was the development, it would be morally right. Property is property. You don't have the right to aggress against aliens just because they're hard workers and you're a lazy bum. Of course you could ask the alien nicely and he might be very charitable, as he would hardly have to work at all to support himself and 1/6th of the worlds human population simultaneously. Material possessions would likely mean nothing to such an alien and he would happily give most of it away.
2.Of course the situation would develop completely different. The creator of the video clearly doesn't understand economics. If you inject an alien with 1 billion times the working ability into the current system, he'll drive prices of everything he produces down enormously. So you'll be able to buy a house for $1.
3.If you don't want an alien controlling 100% of the water supply, don't sell your water supply.
4.Breaking Anarcho-Socialism using the same model: Imagine an alien entering an anarcho-socialist society that uses 1 billion times as much resources as a human, but produces the same as the human being. He would quickly suck the entire socialist economy (or what was left of it) dry and everybody would starve. Everything that wasn't currently in use would immediately be used up by the alien. Stopping him from consuming these things would be forbidden, dooming everyone to starve.
5.AnCaps are against the state not because control over land is bad. AnCaps are against the state because control over OTHER PEOPLE'S land is bad. So you're completely right. We're not against the ownership of land or other things. We're against the state (or you slackers) stealing from us.
I don't understand this. What's so hard to get about property? It's your stuff. Would you eat your friends food when he isn't looking? Would you take your neighbours car when he isn't looking? Would you rape a girl while she's asleep? SHE doesn't seem to be using her body.
A better word for non-property-anarchists would be "thieves".
"Otherwise, everyone would choose to work for themselves."
Did you check? I mean, really? Did you invent the what-if-machine, set it to anarchy and then ask every individual alive?
Because if not, that's just bullshit.
Bleicke, the only thing that makes a boss/employee hierarchy more lucrative than self employment is monopoly.
If you could be just as if not more comfortable working for yourself as working under someone else, would you choose to work under someone else? Do you know anyone who would?
If you could work from home, spend more time with your family, less time commuting (the larger the workplace, the more commuting is necessary to access it), have control over your schedule, and avoid the stresses of quotas, would you choose to work in a hierarchical relationship?
Who the heck would?
I think the sexual analogy is perfect. I really do think there is some Freudian reason why people would choose hierarchy. They probably have unresolved sadomasochistic sexual fantasies.
To recap:
"2.Why don’t you differentiate between ought and is? You say might makes right now, therefore might makes right. That’s positivist crapshit. Just because something is doesn’t mean it should be. Don’t you believe there is a better way than might makes right?"
Ought is irrelevant. Might is. If I kill a mouse that is in my house, it doesn't matter whether I ought to or ought not to. I kill the mouse because I can and want to. I decide that I ought to do.
I don't think there is any discrepancy between 'ought' and 'does'. I can do whatever I can do, whenever I want to do it. If I am able to steal property, I can choose to do so. I can decide that I ought to.
If I want to physically fly to the moon without a spaceship, I im impeded. If I want to re-define 'moon' and 'fly' so as to make myself able to fly to the moon (moon=pool, fly=fall from the diving board), I can do so should I decide I ought to.
Ought does. There is no 'is'.
And you believe morals aren't relative?
The only way you can prove that to me is through the use of force.
Thanks for chiming in Nick.
Bleicke:
“What you say about people making choices is pure speculation. You just don’t know. Maybe working as an employee in anarchy has such greats benefits in one region that most people would do it. Who knows?”
The only way being an employee would have more benefits than being self employed, is if there is some sort of monopoly enforcement. Otherwise, everyone would choose to work for themselves.
@soahc:
In that case would you happily help me if I decide to pat you on the back? And by pat I mean shoot with a gun. Several times, until you stop moving. Because, you know, there is no ought.
I call moral relativism.
“I really do think there is some Freudian reason why people would choose hierarchy.”
Thanks. I knew I was right.
Please answer the question.
@soahc
I don't expect to create your morals. Especially since you have none. I can, and do, expect to dictate the ways in which you interact with *me*. You will respect my property, or I will remove you from my property, by force if necessary. I will, also, at that time, remove from you any of my property not freely given or traded for. If that is not possible (e.g., you ate my food), I will expect recompense for my loss.
That's all I ask. If you don't like it, feel free to interact with other people, but do not interact with me unless you accept those stipulations.
"Especially since you have none"
I have values. Namely my own.
"You will respect my property, or I will remove you from my property, by force if necessary."
I f you are able to remove me by force, then you possess it. However without State welfare, you would not be able to hire a private security firm that matches the power of city police or the National Guard.
@Marty: Well said. It's not about dictating morals to others, it's about not being aggressed against by others.
@soahc: Speculation #346. Prove it. And I mean a video tape of you interviewing 6 billion people, because everything less is still speculation.
By the way: You're confusing "convincing someone" with "forcing someone". I can try to convince you that 1+1=2 without the use of force. Yea, I might failt. But I might succeed. So if I can convince people to not kill me, I haven't "dictated my morals on them", I've succeeded in a peaceful discussion.
Marty:
The power of the police and national guard is monopolized force. Without the State and the State's monopolies, there would be no security force that powerful.
Hence, you would be responsible for your own security and possessing your own property.
Paying someone to risk their life for something that they do not possess, and the accompanying administrative costs, will always be cost prohibitive. Don't expect workers who are not gaining full share of their labor to risk life and limb to protect your property.
You guys are really funny. You think that you are going to basically recreate what we have now, with corporations, absenteeism, and hierarchy… under anarchy. Laughable.
Yes, I know, there is no ought. You ought to do whatever you think you ought to do. If I get shot in the back today, so be it. But I doubt this will happen. Because I trust other people to decide for themselves, and have faith that there will be concordance in our behaviors.
Humans are perfectly capable of creating their own morals, values, and definitions. Anyone that thinks they should be able to create values for anyone else is a closet Statist in my book.
When soahC says, "There are no absolutes," he seems to not realize that he has uttered a contradictory statement. To say that there are no absolutes, is to utter an absolute.
@soahc
What, exactly, is the “Power of city police”, or of the national guard?
Generally, only one police officer responds to any one incident, unless it is particularly violent, or a particularly boring town. I can easily hire one security guard.
As for a national guard, certainly a coalition of people could get together and all agree to collectively fund a defensive force. For that matter, the same could be done for a city police force. Or, An enterprising individual may, with his own funds, hire some guards and offer their services to the townspeople individually. Of course, once someone saw he was making a profit at this venture, there would be competition, and he’d have to offer better rates or better services to gain business.
Let me get this straight, Chaos; if someone “determines for themselves” that it is moral to kill me, and I think that it is not moral to kill me, and I try to convince the would-be killer to change their moral outlook, I am a “closet statist” because I am trying to change someone’s moral code? That seems to be what you are saying.
Also, I don’t think anyone is buying the “faith in humanity” argument. Faith is the opposite of reason. If reason and evidence tells you that some people will decide to be bad, no amount of “faith” is going to change that.
Here ya go Tserrof:
You can convince someone to behave in any way you convince them to behave, but that in no way renders your morals prescriptive or binding. Without their consent, you can not convince them.
No one has to buy my ‘faith in humanity argument’. If you don’t trust people, then I welcome you to attempt to render your values binding and universal. However that would be totalitarian.
forresT, allow me to reword:
There are no absolutes, unless you are powerful enough, have the desire, and are prepared to use force to assert that there are.
Quantum mechanics has proven that reality does not exist outside our perceptions.
“You can convince someone to behave in any way you convince them to behave, but that in no way renders your morals prescriptive or binding. Without their consent, you can not convince them.”
Ok, soahC. Then why won’t you consent to accept that murdering of innocent people is wrong? You would have much more credibility if you show that you will consent not to advocate the murder of innocent people.
Nick Djinn, although I disagree with you about the same things I disagree with soahC with, I like your post. I actually think that yes, we are sovereign individuals with sovereign rights. The best societies are those where individual sovereignty is respected, and individuals co-operate to establish norms and customs that best protect the rights, values, and interests of all individuals. By the way, the author’s first name is Ayn (rhymes with mine), not Ann.
Miss Rand would not suggest, as you seemed to, that it would be OK for someone to acquire property with legitimate means, and then to defend it with illegitimate means, such as the initiation of force. She says, “Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.” This means freeing *all* people from being coerced by *anybody*, not the establishment of some coercive plutocracy, as you seem to suggest.
If you think I ‘advocate the murder of innocent people’ then you are misinterpreting my posts.
For one thing, I don’t believe in ‘right and wrong’.
I think the murder of innocent people, and suffering in general, is ugly. I like beauty. By reading my posts you will see that I have stated this many times.
It just so happens that, as an optimist, I believe that most humans would agree with me, especially if the State weren’t running about encouraging desperate perversions of human nature.
Right and wrong implies categorical absolutes. I believe in no such thing.
So, it seems like some people have an idea of Anarchism which tries to rationalize mutualism with capitalism….the idea that capitalism can produce liberty and that somehow there is some clause that prevents land owners from becoming kings (nothing prevents this in capitalism or in Rothbards theories, but plenty prevents this in Tuckers brand of mutualism).
The idea that everyone can be liberated by capitalism assumes there is infinite land for anyone who wishes autonomy to homestead…..maybe if everyone is limited to what they can personally use, as Tucker suggested….about 10 acres per person in rural areas and less home area with more shared space in urban areas….in capitalism though, people will try to "mix their labor" with as much space as possible, to claim as much as they humanly can under Anarcho-Capitalism. Before you know it, space will be encroaching and people will be fighting over rights to that land……
Whats worse, because people have the rights of a sovereign king over their own property, once space is impacted and people dont have room to make new autonomous homesteads, people then must seek shelter on OTHER PEOPLES LAND.
Now, I dont care if you claim to honer peoples individual body as free and autonomous….when you own the land under their feet and they have no land to call their own, under a system of ownership where one can own more than he can use and another owns nothing with no room to homestead, this WILL produce hierarchal relationships, like the relationship of a land baron to serfs, and this produces a new ruling class over a new class of serfs.
This is not acceptable to any traditional Anarchist.
There are some variants of Anarchism who propose that wealth and resources can be distributed by other means besides money, for example, anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialism are variants of planned economies and some political philosophers believe these can exist, so unless Anna wants to argue with all those folks that their approach to a civilized society isn’t really anarchical in nature, I suggest to keep anarcho-capitalism to explicitly support the use of money as the primary means of exchange.
Bottom Line…..
Ancaps are not political Anarchists at all, but merely ‘market Anarchists’ who do no reject hierarchal relationships.
Ancap-ism is about the freedom FOR slavery…..An ancap society is where you are “free” to sell yourself into indentured servitude, if somebody in a position of economic privilege is able to exploit your situational misfortune and convince you to voluntarily “agree” to be a slave.
Of course, nobody wants to be a slave. It is simply better than starving, or being without shelter in the cold, or being without water in the desert…..these situations might be worse than indentured servitude, so the capitalist claims that they would only agree if the agreement was mutually beneficial….ie, the now indentured slave does not die of thirst and now has shelter, and the capitalist has another servant for their factory or cotton plantation…..a win win right?…No.
So, while Ancap-ism is freedom TO engage in slavery, Anarchism is freedom FROM slavery…..You are NOT “free” to produce slaves in an Anarchist society, EVEN IF you manage to convince somebody to agree to such a contract voluntarily by exploiting an immediate vulnerability, like a lack of physical necessities…..a situation which is often created by allowing capitalists to stake claim to more than they are able to occupy for personal use….their so called “justly acquired property”…..what BS!
So the Ancap, who is not Anarchist in regards to anything but the market, will criticize such an example by claiming that that we cant prove that people would not choose to be a boss or self employed if they had THAT chance instead of merely the choice of working for a boss or starving….they further go on to insult the unfortunate by calling them lazy bums, because of course the factory owners built the entire factory by themselves with their own two hands, right? :evil snicker: Of course they didnt. It was those “lazy bums” who built the capitalist factories .999999999% of the time.
‘Volontaryism’ in a hierarchal society is nothing more than the freedom to choose masters.
Claiming that capitalism is anarchist since you can choose masters is like claiming that the US military is non-hierarchal and Anarchist because people voluntarily join, and are subsequently subjected to extreme brutal oppression and a rank system/ pecking order.
So, is the US Army Anarchist, simply because people who are poor end up joining by their own free will to get an education?…..Truth be told, the US army is about as Anarchist and Anti-authoritarian as Anarcho-Capitalism….that is, Anarcho-Capitalism is no more Anarchist than the US military, assuming there isnt a draft and people “voluntarily: choose to join.
There is a manipulation in the ancaps argument regarding this….they will say “well, am I not free to join the army if I wish”….they focus on the choice TO participate in slavery or hierarchal relationships, focusing on the freedom of making the initial choice, forgetting to ask whether the subsequent situation is WITH or WITHOUT hierarchy.
Voluntary choices can exist within a hierarchal society. That does not make the society Anarchist. People can choose to join the army. That does not make the army Anarchist. People can choose to work for a mega-corporation. That does not make the corporation Anarchist. So long as there are hierarchal relationships, that isnt anarchy.
Ancapism is Anarchist in regard only to the market, but in no other regards is it Anarchist, in the social or political spheres, because Ancap-ism does not reject hierarchy inside of a ‘volontary’ society, and without rejecting hierarchy you cannot be an Anarchist.
Of course, no one wants to be a slave. Which is why it boggles my mind to try and wonder how on earth ancaps think that people will ever choose a hierarchical relationship if there are alternatives.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is not a “planned economy”.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is not about having a group dictate who gets what….the only ‘planning’ that is done is within an individual factory, or by voluntary agreements between unions and neighborhood councils.
People misunderstand this all the time. Its not a planned economy because people are free to produce what they want. The only time you have to compromise is when you are dealing with large complex factories or utilities that many people need and a union is required to run it….but you dont have to join a guild or a union. You can start an individual small business out of your home or small office, and you dont have to collectivize.
Its not about “redistributing wealth”…its about claiming the product of your own labor. Not in the capitalist sense but in the ANARCHIST sense.
The workers are the ones who built the factory, NOT the capitalists who “justly own” it. The people who run the factory are its rightful owners if you accept the Anarchist position. The people who live and work on the land are its rightful occupants, rather than the landlord who collects rent….
So Anarcho-Syndicalism is where you fire your boss, take over his factory, and next you evict your landlord. Its about turning authority on its head.
Its not about creating a central authority to hand out identical clothing, like in the USSR though….definitely not. Syndicalism still more or lesses uses a system of mutualism, where there are free markets but large corporations and public utilities are run by collectives rather than individuals, where there is no rent or the need to “buy” unused land before building a home on it….cities grow naturally, as space allows, as people homestead for free. The difference between this system of mutualism and capitalism is that you can only occupy an amount of space or resources reasonable for personal use…you cannot claim more than that, and have it be recognized as “possession” by others, regardless of how much you “mix” your labor with it. You can take what you use. but trying to take what OTHER people need, so you can exploit their need…well, that isnt Anarchism.
But really, the only planning that goes on is within a union and limited to within the voluntary collective, or voluntary agreements between collectives. There isnt a central economic planning agency or anything, beyond the people engaging in free communication and making deals. There are still free markets, and the freedom not to associate, but you cannot claim ownership of an amount that is more than a person will ever need.
Oh no! I live on other people’s land right now! I rent an apartment. It takes me about 2 days of work a month to pay for the rent. Am I a slave to the nice old man who rents it to me, picks up my packages when I’m at work and is generally very friendly? He even let me “try out” the apartment for 15 days FOR FREE before he charged me anything.
If we define capitalism as a free-market, property based form of society, freedom from anything (nature or men) can only be achieved under capitalism. Without the accumulation of capital, there would be no progress. All goods would be immediately consumed (else they would be capital goods). We would still hunt mammoths and pick fruit, wondering every day if we will survive the next. Now of course if your goal is to force mankind into slavery to hunger, the weather and other whims of nature, go ahead and prevent them (forcefully) from the possibility to become capitalists.
Any human being will try to accumulate capital and better his situation. Even animals do it. Therefore, any sort of society except the most primitive form of hunter-gatherers is impossible without capitalism.
@soahc
“The power of the police and national guard is monopolized force. Without the State and the State’s monopolies, there would be no security force that powerful.
Hence, you would be responsible for your own security and possessing your own property.”
This is what’s called a “Non-sequitur.” Look it up on wikipedia if you don’t know what it means.
What I don’t get is how you don’t understand that “Getting the full value of your work” is a relative thing, and the wage payed to the stock-boy in the mom-and-pop store or the MVP of a baseball player will be dependent not only on what the employer thinks it is, but also the employee. If they can’t agree on a sum, then the work doesn’t get done, and the (prospective) employee doesn’t get any money. Thus, it’s in both of their best interests to find a sum that they can both agree upon. Highly skilled people will be able to demand higher sums, because their work is worth more than a less-skilled person’s
The value of something is what you can get for it. No more, no less.
@soahc:
“Ryan Allen:
“Why would a well-compensated militia not protect the property of another? The billionaire could pay them more than most other property owners.”
A billionaire who has a billion what? Fiat currency dollars? Gold coins? Diamonds?
Throughout history the rich have only maintained their wealth with help from government monopoly welfare.”
Umm, that hypothetical was put forth by the author, not me. The argument was that the poor would not come to the aid of the wealthy individual when the country is attacked or invaded, if I remember correctly. But responding to your last statement, I am in partial agreement. The rich often maintain wealth with the help of government welfare (as well as government arms). But the other (peaceful, free market) way to maintain wealth is to produce what the consumer most demands.
@Nick Djinn:
“Anarcho-Capitalists are NOT anti-state. Ancaps consider themselves MONARCHS over their private property… ”
“In reality, “anarcho-Capitalism” is synonamous with extreme tyranny and totalitarianism. The “anarcho”-Capitalist MONARCH has ABSOLUTE RULE over his aquired territory. If you attempt to rise up against him, he will employ private contractor police (hit men) to kill you to remove you as a threat…..and they say with a straight face that they are about non-violence…..what they really mean is that they reject the revolutionary means of traditional Anarchism in favor of extreme brutal privatized authoritarianism where they become absolute dictators….no democracy, no bill of rights, no workers or renters rights, none of the civil victories the poor have won against the rich which protect them which even Anarchists have supported……Just pure absolute power wielded by the capitalist class against everyone else. ”
Nice sleight of hand, too bad for you that the human body is private property, making each individual a monarch, as you call it, over his own body. As this is the case, the scenario you depict is by definition a contradiction, an impossibility. You cannot have slavery (i.e. feudalism) without slaves.
@Nick Djinn :
“They mean that they want to be the State!!! They mean that they want to end the federal governments MONOPOLY on the state so that every capitalist land lord can be a privatized duke or lord, and everyone who is not a land owning capitalist will become serfs…..”
Okay, thanks for sharing what you think anarcho-capitalists think/mean. Do you have a rational argument for this? How did you delve into the thoughts of the anarcho-capitalists?
@soahc:
“The only way being an employee would have more benefits than being self employed, is if there is some sort of monopoly enforcement. Otherwise, everyone would choose to work for themselves.”
No, because a person can earn more by being employed by a person or business with capital investment. Of course, if the working individual amasses enough capital he can possibly earn more through self-employment, which is a good thing because it means greater satisfaction of the consumers’ wants.
No monopoly enforcement is necessary for capital formation and concentration to take place, the free market allows individuals to choose the methods of production through their consumption.
@soahc:
“If you could be just as if not more comfortable working for yourself as working under someone else, would you choose to work under someone else? Do you know anyone who would?
If you could work from home, spend more time with your family, less time commuting (the larger the workplace, the more commuting is necessary to access it), have control over your schedule, and avoid the stresses of quotas, would you choose to work in a hierarchical relationship?
Who the heck would? ”
The choice is constrained by the allocation of scarce capital and resources. Even if I want to be self-employed, I might not be able to because I do not have the capital to do so.
“I think the sexual analogy is perfect. I really do think there is some Freudian reason why people would choose hierarchy. They probably have unresolved sadomasochistic sexual fantasies.”
Even if this were true for some individuals, it is a poor explanation for a mass phenomenon. The economic explanation is more plausible as most people have very little capital, but only few “have unresolved sadomasochistic sexual fantasies” that has been shown scientifically.
“Ancaps are not political Anarchists at all, but merely ‘market Anarchists’ who do no reject hierarchal relationships.”
First of all, anarcho-capitalism does not need to reject hierarchic relationships since the only such relationship that could possibly exist in a truly capitalist society is the family, which is naturally socialist. The relationship between most individuals is that of strangers, but the realization that division of labor makes it possible to realize a higher standard of living through greater material wealth leads to cooperation, even among complete strangers. This exchange is mutually beneficial, or neither party would transact. The seller of labor is better off, as is the buyer of labor (at the time of the exchange). The power to buy labor is limited by the capital of the entrepreneur, which is neither limitless nor under his control. In an anarchist society, the power over money is decentralized. Money is the most marketable of all commodities.
Now this is where your argument fails. Since no one controls the money and exchange is purely voluntary, the capitalists need to sell goods or services to the population in order to continue to buy their labor and resources for production. But they can only do this by satisfying the population, by producing that which the people demand. If the capitalists (as entrepreneurs) make poor choices in deciding what to produce or how it is produced, then they lose their position as entrepreneurs and must join the ranks of laborers. They are replaced by others who have amassed capital and must now produce what the consumers want or face the same fate.
The only way to be able to produce blindly, without attention to what is demanded by consumers, is with the aid of the state, which we do not have in this case. Perhaps you can explain how the capitalist can avoid the laws of the market without the aid of the state?
Maybe you can explain how hierarchy would develop or what it would look like in a truly capitalist society. I cannot envision it beyond the hierarchy of the family.
@Nick Djinn:
“Anarcho-Syndicalism is not about having a group dictate who gets what….the only ‘planning’ that is done is within an individual factory, or by voluntary agreements between unions and neighborhood councils.
People misunderstand this all the time. Its not a planned economy because people are free to produce what they want. The only time you have to compromise is when you are dealing with large complex factories or utilities that many people need and a union is required to run it….but you dont have to join a guild or a union. You can start an individual small business out of your home or small office, and you dont have to collectivize. ”
Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Capitalism are not philosophically incompatible, in that under an anarchist society many different modes of exchange can be philosophically considered. This is what differentiates anarchism from statism, and why is is non-hierarchical; individuals decide how to exchange what is produced.
The reason anarcho-capitalism would be the likely scenario is because capitalism is dictated by the laws of the market. It makes no sense to get emotional about it and to talk about overthrowing capitalism or the free market; that is like getting upset about biology and calling for an end to dying (immortality now!). The laws of the market are always in operation. Since this is the case, if government were abolished, people would continue exchanging, now free from government interference, and you would have a free market.
I will comment on syndicalism later.
@Nick Djinn:
“Whats worse, because people have the rights of a sovereign king over their own property, once space is impacted and people dont have room to make new autonomous homesteads, people then must seek shelter on OTHER PEOPLES LAND.”
Why limit yourself to this narrow vision of tenure?
In an anarchist society, I imagine that personal protection (something desired by most) will have a semi-geographic basis, just as it is today (you have your city police, state police, etc). One of the qualities people will look for in seeking out homesteads to rent is that it is safe and there is little crime (people do that now). In order for the “exploiting” capitalist-monarch to attract tenants, he will have to insure that his property is safe, orderly and lawful, to the degree determined on the market (demanded by the consumers). If not, if he plunders his own tenants, he will end up with a big empty worthless plot of land. When the ruthless monarch-capitalist begins to starve, he will abandon his land and become a laborer (if anyone will hire him, his reputation notwithstanding).
genie,
“The idea that everyone can be liberated by capitalism assumes there is infinite land for anyone who wishes autonomy to homestead…..” There may not be infinite land, but there is indefinite land. On Earth alone, there is tons and tons of land that has yet to be divvied in a proper fashion. You who are so eager to “take down the State”, get your practice in the 3rd world. There are many states that stink as bad as you say all states stink, let’s get rid of them first. And after the Earth, the Galaxy. Humans will never run out of property until we reach the edge of the universe.
One of the stupidest, most offensive, and evil canards perpetrated by commies everywhere, including here on this post, is that “workers” and “capitalists” are, in effect, different species, with different rights. A commie will tell you that a capitalist is clever and resourceful, but wicked, greedy, and cruel, whereas a worker is industrious and noble, but stupid and helpless to do anything for themselves, beyond the use of physical force. As the attempted extermination of the Jews illustrates, before you can take away someone’s rights, you have to take away their humanity. When you suggest that a capitalist is somehow a different breed than the normal man, and a worse breed at that, like a serial killer, you have dehumanized them, and it then becomes much easier to take their rights, their factory, and their life.
Tell me, Nick, how do *you* feel about the “liberation” taking place in Venezuela? The property of evil capitalists is being appropriated by good little workers right and left down there.
soahc,
Are there no academic subjects you will not pollute with your utterances? Per quantum physics: QP does *not* say that reality fails to exist without an observer, as you falsely averred (except force, that’s the only thing that’s real). Rather, QP says that the act of observation alters what you are observing, so that it becomes impossible to separate yourself from what you are observing.
Once again, you have advocated the murder of innocents. How? You said that if someone has legal title to a property, and someone wants to steal it it is not theft. So if I have a house, with a legal title to it, and I try to stop someone from stealing my house and they kill me, it’s ok, because I didn’t really own the house anyway, so it’s not theft. soahc, why don’t you just get it over with and start robbing banks?
Ryan Allen:
“The choice is constrained by the allocation of scarce capital and resources. Even if I want to be self-employed, I might not be able to because I do not have the capital to do so. ”
So we are to be forced into hierarchical jobs because of resource scarcity? We are to live under scarcity of resources AND share the fruits of our labor with someone who is profiting off of us?
Doesn’t seem very anarchistic to me.
Ryan Allen:
“No monopoly enforcement is necessary for capital formation and concentration to take place, the free market allows individuals to choose the methods of production through their consumption.”
Anarchy allows individuals to choose the method of production through their production.
Forrest:
“Are there no academic subjects you will not pollute with your utterances?”
Go write Hamlet Part II
“Per quantum physics: QP does *not* say that reality fails to exist without an observer, as you falsely averred (except force, that’s the only thing that’s real). Rather, QP says that the act of observation alters what you are observing, so that it becomes impossible to separate yourself from what you are observing.”
Compelling arguments have been made to the contrary. But that is a matter or personal taste.
“Once again, you have advocated the murder of innocents.”
Once again, no I have not.
“How? You said that if someone has legal title to a property, and someone wants to steal it it is not theft.
“So if I have a house,with a legal title to it and I try to stop someone from stealing my house and they kill me, it’s ok, because I didn’t really own the house anyway, so it’s not theft. soahc, why don’t you just get it over with and start robbing banks?”
Ok? When something happens, ‘ok’ is irrelevant. It just happens. Stop trying to pigeon hole me into your limited, binary value system.
And that is exactly why I like to call myself an anarcho-CAPITALIST. To differentiate myself from those morons claiming everything they don’t like is oppression, everything other people do is force and everything they think is right because they’re a unique snowflake.
Thank you for playing, soahc, but you’ve proven that you have nothing to contribute to a discussion but repetition of slogans you don’t seem to understand, denial of logic (\Arguments are a matter of personal taste\) and ignorance.
I dont think you should use “Anarcho” or “Anarchist” at all.
I have yet another good analogy.
Calling ‘Ancaps’ “Anarchist” is like calling chairman Mao a Republican, because he was the dictator of the Peoples REPUBLIC of China.
Sure, if you use an inappropriate dictionary definition, you can claim that Communists are Republicans, but if you instead use an Encyclopedia definition you will quickly discover that Maoists are not Republicans and Capitalists are not Anarchists, except in a very limited sense of not wanting government interference in the market.
And like I said…..Anarcho-Capitalism is the freedom TO engage in hierarchy. They consider it a “freedom”. Through “volontaryism” they advocate that people choose to contract hierachal relationships, supposedly by their own free will, but they do not critique the socio-economic conditions which would encourage somebody to agree to something they do not wish because of hunger or cold…..people would not choose to be a wage slave given the choice, even if they will agree to be a wage slave to avoid starvation.
The scarcity of resources that is created by allowing capitalists to claim more than can be justified by personal use creates the very conditions that would encourage somebody to sell their labor for wages, earning less than the value* of their labor….value to an Anarchist = the total productive value of what they create, rather than the going rate for labor which is how a capitalist defines value.
@Ryan
“Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Capitalism are not philosophically incompatible”
Yes they are. Anti-capitalism is one of the most central tenets of Anarchism, starting with Proudhons treatise on property…..Property is theft, rent is robbery, was the mantra of Anarchists. They spent more time attacking capitalism than they did attacking the state. They wanted an abolition of all class society, not just the abolition of government so that the role of government could be privatized by the wealthy.
To be an Anarchist….in a meaningful sense of the word, like where you are not trying to call Maoists Republicans……by definition makes you anti-capitalist.
Ancapism is the freedom TO engage in hierarchal relationships which are anti-thetical to Anarchism. Anarchism is the freedom FROM those hierarchal relationships, some of which exist in Ancapism.
“Tell me, Nick, how do *you* feel about the “liberation” taking place in Venezuela? The property of evil capitalists is being appropriated by good little workers right and left down there.”
There are things I do not like about Venezuela, including the centralization of state power and curtailing free speech.
The loss of property from the mega-corporations is not one of the things that bothers me. I would be in favor of taking the property of the mega-corporations and dividing them among the poor.
“Once again, you have advocated the murder of innocents.”
Hahahahaha!!!
Because the poor oppressed capitalists will shrivel up and die without a legion of private jets and caviar?
hahahaha
In some instances, like in brutally oppressive sweat shops where physical abuse and child labor takes place, I may in fact advocate violence, but in most instances it is not necessarily to cause bodily harm to the capitalists unless they attempt to claim and defend the workers property from the workers via use of ‘private security contractors’. In which case, the workers have a right to self defense against the contractors and the contractors employers. In order to reduce the amount of bloodshed, it may be best to target the capitalists directly before there is an opportunity to recruit additional outside assistance which will only be used to initiate violence against the workers who are claiming the product of their own labor.
To abolish hierarchal society, it becomes necessary to abolish privilege….or else, those who are in positions of privilege will subjugate those who are not….and even if you say it is a voluntary contract between consenting individuals, that is only valid if they would not choose to be their own boss and would choose to earn less than an equal share of the product of their labor. Most people would not choose such a thing, given THAT choice, so the relationship between a corporation who pays as little as possible to get the best/most work and the workers they employ is considered to be a hierarchal relationship……Anarchists seek to fire their boss and evict their landlord. Anarchists turn the tables on authority.
The talk about how capitalists have more risk, and therefor deserve more profit is false.
Capitalists do not have more risk. They might lose more money or property, the rights to which are not recognized as being natural rights by traditional Anarchists…..but the amount of risk is actually greater for the worker….the worker may risk starvation or homelessness, the breakup of their family, the loss of children…..the capitalist just loses spare money. Trying to say that the capitalist risks more than the poor is an insult to reason.
There is no such thing as a capitalist Anarchist. The two are inherently antithetical to each other.
The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists is that anarcho-capitalists understand economics.
It’s like discussing Shakespeare with someone who hasn’t read Shakespeare. You can explain all you want, they just won’t get it. So go read up on some Mises. Then you’ll understand why the “full product of his work” is bullshit, why being employed is not slavery and why capitalism is the reason we don’t live in caves anymore. And why we moved into caves in the first place.
“why being employed is not slavery and why capitalism is the reason we don’t live in caves anymore. And why we moved into caves in the first place.”
Anarchism is the antithesis of hierarchy. Period.
Small businesses, run by workers who are also share holders, innovate, as proven by the Wright brothers, and the dot com boom.
Without State intervention on behalf of monopoly, large businesses would be unable to compete with small businesses.
soahc writes:
“It’s irrelevant whether murder is ok… it just happens.”
I write (to soahc):
“Once again, you have advocated the murder of innocents.”
Nick writes (thinking I was addressing him, and now I guess I was):
“Hahahahaha!!!
Because the poor oppressed capitalists will shrivel up and die without a legion of private jets and caviar?
hahahaha
In some instances… I may in fact advocate violence, but in most instances it is not necessarily to cause bodily harm to the capitalists unless they attempt to claim and defend the workers property from the workers via use of ‘private security contractors’. In which case, the workers have a right to self defense against the contractors and the contractors employers. In order to reduce the amount of bloodshed, it may be best to target the capitalists directly before there is an opportunity to recruit additional outside assistance which will only be used to initiate violence against the workers who are claiming the product of their own labor.”
So the workers have property now? I thought property was theft? Don’t you realize how cold blooded and reptilian you sound when talking about targeting peaceful civilians for assassination so you can steal from them? I can see why you people don’t like to be pigeonholed in binary moral codes -it’s not very flattering.
Economic freedom is just as important as political freedom; if you’re against one you’re against the other. And the dirty little secret about hierarchy, is that there will always be hierarchy, it is a natural consequence of the social interactions of a species where everyone is different. If you want a world without hierarchy, it would require yet another kind of hierarchy to enforce the prohibition against hierarchy.
soahc writes:
“Physics and morality is a matter of taste.”
# advocate – recommend: push for something; “The travel agent recommended strongly that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day”
# advocate – a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea
# advocate – preach: speak, plead, or argue in favor of; “The doctor advocated a smoking ban in the entire house”
“Anarchism is the antithesis of hierarchy. Period.”
Wrong. Anarchism is the absence of rulers. Hierarchy can be consensual. Rule can not. Therefore, consensual hierarchy can exist in anarchy. Period? I guess period.
“Small businesses, run by workers who are also share holders, innovate, as proven by the Wright brothers, and the dot com boom.”
Great examples, of course. The Wright brothers profited enormously from government patents. Let me quote Wikipedia:
“The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871 – January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867 – May 30, 1912), were two Americans who are generally credited[1][2][3] with inventing and building the world’s first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903.
(…)
Their U.S. patent 821,393 claims the invention of a system of aerodynamic control that manipulates a flying machine’s surfaces.[9]”
And the dot com boom was, of course, induced by government controlled fiat money. You remember the dot com bubble burst, right?
As I said, learn economics.
“Wrong. Anarchism is the absence of rulers. Hierarchy can be consensual. Rule can not. Therefore, consensual hierarchy can exist in anarchy. Period? I guess period.”
Hahaha very funny. Consensual hierarchy? Yeah right. Again, if it is equally as (if not more) viable to work for oneself, who are these people that would choose to work under someone?
The only way you people are going to work under you is through force or denying them alternatives.
Just because the wright brothers landed a patent, doesn’t mean that they never would have invented flight.
And you think computer programmers would never program without fiat currency?
Regardless, numerous dot com start up businesses are virtually devoid of hierarchy. Meritocracy, yes.
Leaping lizards! Meritocracy is just another form of hierarchy!!! If you are for meritocracy, you are for hierarchy.
Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit).
Hierarchy is any system of persons or things ranked one above another.
Assigning responsibilities is not necessarily assigning rank.
Semantics is fun.
@soahc:
And you think workers would never work for capitalists without the government?
Now you’re contradicting yourself in the same post. Again.
Learn economics. Stop making bullshit claims.
@soahc:
“Meritocracy, yes.”
“Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit).”
SO YOU ADVOCATE GOVERNMENT? AND YOU CALL YOURSELF AN ANARCHIST?
Government OR other organization there.
Not all organizations are governments.
“And you think workers would never work for capitalists without the government?”
Not if they had the opportunity to work for themselves and keep more of their income (in whatever form that income may be).
I am not prepared to go read Mises any more than you are prepared to go read the works of Benjamin Tucker.
soahc writes:
“Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit).
Hierarchy is any system of persons or things ranked one above another.”
Ok, so in a meritocracy different appointments and responsibilities are made and assigned to individuals based on merit. But unless the appointments all have the same exact level of responsibility, you have created a hierarchy where some jobs are more important than others. And for that matter, who is/are the person(s) who are doing the appointing? How is it that they are vested with this power without the existence of a hierarchy? Short answer: they can’t be.
Do you know what this argument reminds me of? I was playing chess while working at a nuclear power plant once (it was a union job; in addition to board games, my brother workers and I also engaged in plenty of card games as well. Spades and Hearts were the most popular and contentious) when I made a move with my knight that threatened his king and rook, without any hope of retaliation. When my opponent comprehended the tough position he was in, he burst out angrily, “That piece wasn’t where it was, you must have moved it when I wasn’t looking!” This was not true, of course, but rather than admit he’d been outplayed, he accused me of cheating and flipped the board over.
My experience in unionized fields also leads me to wonder, between Johhny Paycheck and his employer, who is it that’s actually getting exploited in our current system? As Marx (Groucho) said, “Under capitalism, man exploits man. With communism, it’s the other way around.”
“who is/are the person(s) who are doing the appointing? How is it that they are vested with this power without the existence of a hierarchy? Short answer: they can’t be.”
Ever heard of group consensus?
I agree with Groucho.
Just to clarify, because I realize that this argument is becoming endless and while I have picked up some interesting ideas from each of you, I don’t want you to get the wrong impression of what I’m trying to say, let me clarify what I believe, in a snappy format:
1. The socialists attempt to say that anarcho-capitalists aren’t anarchists, but they’re absolutely wrong.
2. Anarcho-capitalism in the sense that a socialist would understand it, is impossible.
3. Capitalism, as socialists define it, cannot exist without a state.
4. Anarcho-capitalists will (generally) choose anarchism over statist forms of capitalism.
4a. The features of “capitalism” that socialists consider statist will be abandoned by ancaps, *even* if that means abandoning “capitalism” as the socialists understand it to exist.
5. Capitalism – as we experience it today – is utterly dependent on a state to exist. There can be no Walmart without a state.
6. What ancaps call capitalism is actually an anarchist free market, which is not what socialists mean by “capitalism”.
7. In an actual free market, no one will acquire vast amounts of profits far beyond the average rate of return on capital. The theory of the super-entrepreneur is bullshit.
8. In an actual free market, as firms expand the cost of protecting CAPITAL (not wealth, Patri) becomes prohibitive at some point
9. In an actual free market, savings is so ubiquitous that capital accumulation is diluted and distributed.
10. Without a high concentration of capital in a few hands, which is impossible in anarchism, “wage slavery” – that is, a labor market in which jobs are artificially scarce so workers have to act like slaves in order to stay employed, is impossible.
11. Therefore, the primary concept of “Capitalism” as socialists see it is impossible in Anarchy.
There’s a reason for the quotes in the title of my article. If you want to understand that reason, read Roderick Long’s article: Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: Forty Years Later (google it)
I agree with 90% of that.
I guess you could say an overwhelming consensus of my own gray matter agrees with that.
The rest is trivial.
Wages and bosses would not exist without the State.
I think they could exist, but they’d certainly be a lot less common. It wouldn’t be “get a job or starve”, the job would have to compete with other options.
What do you mean by super-entrepreneurs? I suspect that in a truly free market, a lot more people would be entrepreneurs than now.
And I still thing there’s something open here: Is property theft? I think that (and understanding of economics) is a big difference between different types of anarchists. If I believe in property and they don’t, the only way to coexist is to live on another continent and never visit each other. Because when I homestead some land, the AnSocs will come and “use” my house.
All Anarchists are socialists, of a sort. Not Marxist socialists, but they are anti-capitalist. Every single one.
Getting the last word or spamming circular arguments wont change that.
Ancaps are “anarchists” like Mao Tse Tung was a presidential candidate for the Republican party in America…..
Its a manipulation of language….they use a dictionary definition of ‘Anarchy’, which to them means no rulers, but then they say that you can have ‘consensual hierarchy’…..Dumbass.
Hierarchy = rulers. Volontaryism in a hierarchal society is nothing more than the freedom to choose masters. Anarchists reject masters. A boss is a master. A landlord is a master. Its somebody who has authority over you, and that is not Anarchism.
So, you can argue that you fit a dictionary definition of ‘anarchy’, ignoring the tradition of AnarchISM……just like somebody can read the definition of a REPUBLIC and then argue that the leader of the PRC in China was a presidential candidate for the Republican party.
Its a manipulation of language. Chomsky explains why words should mean something, and you have to dumb down language in order to accept that Capitalists can belong to a tradition that is universally anti-capitalist.
Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
“Because when I homestead some land, the AnSocs will come and “use” my house.”
Lol. You have demonstrated complete ignorance of Anarchism….not surprising since you think Capitalism is compatible with Anarchism that you would also show absolute ignorance of possession and stewardship.
No. Anarchists, if they follow the philosophy of Proudhon would NOT come and use your house, unless it was your 5th or 6th house which you only used for the purpose of extracting taxes through rent. If this was your HOME, the place where you lived, where you raised children and grew vegetables for your own consumption, then NO, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE YOUR HOME TAKEN FROM YOU OR USED BY OTHERS.
Educate yourself. You are clueless. You dont know the first thing about Anarchism. Literally, the first thing. This is the cornerstone of traditional Anarchism, and you have proven yourself to be completely 100% wrong.
Unless you were talking about “homesteading” your 25th house, so you could start renting them to others for profit? Then yes, an Anarchist (no need for the soc qualifier since we are the original Anarchism, and you are the bastardization and misrepresentation of our ideas) might occupy those homes which are not intended for your individual use.
Do you think there is infinite land? That ancaps can just go around “mixing some labor” with various geographic areas in order to claim them, like staking flags on the moon or claiming a mountain top……how long do you think it will take before every square inch is owned by somebody?
The following division between land owners and non owners creates a new class society, and a class society is not anarchist because anarchy is against hierarchal relationships.
“consensual hierarchy” is a load of horse shit. Next you will be telling us that the US military is compatible with Anarchism because it does what it wants and joining is (currently) voluntary.
You really have to dumb yourselves down to believe that.
And the biggest flaw in Ancap philosophy?…..the idea that people will “voluntarily” respect your property rights…..thats absurd. Most people will not volontarily consent to your claims of ownership, just because you carved your name in a tree to “mix your labor” with an area. Even if you built a cabin, nobody will pretend that you own the forest around it.
Get real.
Capitalism would not exist without the state. You can pretend that it would or could, if only everyone could accept ancap philosophy….but they wont.
So you will have a situation where most people dont respect your property rights, and you will have to hire security contractors to engage in violence against the common people to protect your property……in the end you will lose, because the people are more numerous, and without taxes and a military draft, nobody will retain property long enough to have enough wealth to convince enough people that they have to serve you as a security contractor, not when they can simply homestead or loot themselves.
Ancaps would be easy targets if the government fell…..lacking the solidarity and organizational strength of the Anarcho-Syndicalists, they would just get robbed repeatedly if not killed…..not by other Anarchists necessarily, but just by random people who are poor and hungry, without a social assistance network in place to fedd the urab poor…..they will spread out looking for food, and unless you have built a fortress with a private army to enforce your “justly acquired property”, its going to be taken from you.
At least your right-libertarian cousins were intelligent to realize that the state exists to PROTECT private property, not just to tax some of it from you.
Anarcho-Syndicalists, among other traditional Anarchists, who believe in and practice solidarity will have security in numbers and fellowship…..they wont go hungry. Nobody will be homeless. Everybody will have a place to live. You wont have to be rich to have the protection of a militia. Every individual will have access to the protection of the union militia, regardless of social status.
Lone capitalists of middle class status wont stand a chance….maybe in theory, but not in practice. Economics be damned, the state is the only thing which prevents the hostile takeover of the wealth of the rich by the poor. If you think that the rules will continue on as they taught you in econ class, only without the state to protect your wealth, then you must be one of the most naive people in the country. Concentration of wealth cannot exist without the state and an army with a police force to protect the minority of the wealthy against the so called “tyranny of the minority”.
Thats just fine with us Anarchists though, because we never liked the rich much anyway.
You ancaps would be SOL if you ever got your way though. I hope for your sake that you dont.
Anna gets it.
soahc doesn’t.
Chomsky on Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn’t the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of “free contract” between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
@Nick Djinn (212):
"@Ryan
“Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Capitalism are not philosophically incompatible”
Yes they are. Anti-capitalism is one of the most central tenets of Anarchism, starting with Proudhons treatise on property…..Property is theft, rent is robbery, was the mantra of Anarchists. They spent more time attacking capitalism than they did attacking the state. They wanted an abolition of all class society, not just the abolition of government so that the role of government could be privatized by the wealthy."
I share your fascination with history, and whatever the merits of Proudhon and other Anarchists (the "they" you refer to), they were ignorant about economics. Again, this isn't to dismiss what they may have contributed to other areas of thought, but I can't take seriously any thinker, regardless of what label they apply, whose thoughts and opinions ignore the irrefutable laws of economics.
"To be an Anarchist….in a meaningful sense of the word, like where you are not trying to call Maoists Republicans……by definition makes you anti-capitalist."
No, this is only true if you claim to have authority as to what a word (anarchism) may mean. However, since I am an anarchist I reject such authority. The meaning is determined by common agreement and linguistic convention, not what any person or group says.
I think that we agree that anarchism means "without government rule" or something along those lines (to keep it short). What follows from there is a matter for logic and human reason.
@soahc (214):
"Small businesses, run by workers who are also share holders, innovate, as proven by the Wright brothers, and the dot com boom."
You can't use history to prove an economic theory. History is not a natural science. My experience of burning my hand on the stove helps me to avoid repeating such a foolish action. The interaction of humans involved in the exchange of goods and services, however, is far more complicated and cannot be reduced to scientific principles. This is because the ultimate end of each actor in the market is irrational, though the steps taken towards that end may be rational (though not necessarily so).
Innovation results from discrepancies in the market which are brought about by the behavior of consumers. Innovators and entrepreneurs seek to exploit such discrepancies in order to make a profit, which is the (semiotic) sign, in a free market, that they are satisfying consumers in the best way. Of course this can be upset by the government, in which case profits only result because the government prevent market forces from bringing about a situation in which the consumers are best satisfied. But that is why I am an anarchist.
"Without State intervention on behalf of monopoly, large businesses would be unable to compete with small businesses."
This is true in many cases, but is not necessarily true. The success or failure of a business, in the free market, is determined solely by the ability of the business to meet the needs of the consumers.
@soahc (218):
"Hahaha very funny. Consensual hierarchy? Yeah right. Again, if it is equally as (if not more) viable to work for oneself, who are these people that would choose to work under someone?
The only way you people are going to work under you is through force or denying them alternatives."
The whole reason people in the Western World make higher wages than elsewhere is because of the capital at their disposal. It is the capital of the employer that allows the employee to be so productive and to earn such high wages. Wages are low in the Third World because they have no capital. The West has hundreds of years of capital accumulation (despite socialist policies which destroy capital).
I don't see how everyone can viably work for themselves as opposed to others. It just doesn't make sense to choose to produce less, unless what one desires is more leisure. But such a choice is free to anyone under an anarchist society.
Offering a person a commodity in exchange for their time and labor does not constitute force, or the denial of alternatives.
@soahc (220):
"Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit)."
By this definition, capitalism is a meritocracy. Those whose ability to best satisfy the wants of the consumers are appointed to the positions of entrepreneur, capitalist, manager, owner, or laborer. Thanks for the clarification. You are right about rank, no position is better or worse than the other, each is solely determined again by consumer preference, by how individuals choose to exchange their private property.
@soahc (227):
"Wages and bosses would not exist without the State."
So I couldn't find anyone at all that would be willing to exchange their labor for a commodity? Then we would have individual autarky.
If I accepted your premise I would have to support the state. But I prefer the division of labor and the high standard of living that results.
@Nick Djinn (229):
"All Anarchists are socialists, of a sort. Not Marxist socialists, but they are anti-capitalist. Every single one."
Not me. In fact, I never selected you to represent or speak for me. You aren't my agent.
"Its a manipulation of language….they use a dictionary definition of ‘Anarchy’, which to them means no rulers, but then they say that you can have ‘consensual hierarchy’…..Dumbass."
I made no mention of "consensual hierarchy, who is the "they" you refer to?
"Hierarchy = rulers. Volontaryism in a hierarchal society is nothing more than the freedom to choose masters. Anarchists reject masters. A boss is a master. A landlord is a master. Its somebody who has authority over you, and that is not Anarchism."
A boss is not a master, unless they can justifiably use force. A landlord is not a master, unless they can justifiably use force. The roles are created through voluntary contract, which may or may not specify the use of force. But each party only enters into the contract if and because they are better off as a party to the contract, as opposed to foregoing the contract. The boss needs workers, the landlord needs tenants, the worker needs money, the tenant needs a home. It isn't complicated.
The position of the landlord and the boss is just as precarious as that of the tenant or worker. Without labor the work will not get done, and without a tenant the landlord's building will set empty. You have failed to explain how their is hierarchy in an anarcho-capitalist society.
"So, you can argue that you fit a dictionary definition of ‘anarchy’, ignoring the tradition of AnarchISM……just like somebody can read the definition of a REPUBLIC and then argue that the leader of the PRC in China was a presidential candidate for the Republican party.
Its a manipulation of language. Chomsky explains why words should mean something, and you have to dumb down language in order to accept that Capitalists can belong to a tradition that is universally anti-capitalist. "
Yes, they should mean what we agree that they mean. We both agree that anarchism is a society without rulers. We disagree whether such a society would be capitalist or socialist. There is no manipulation of language, and the claims to tradition you keep making are authoritarian and antisocial.
Anyone who claims that they are an anarchist and anti-capitalist does not understand that anarchism implies capitalism, insofar as anarchism means a society without rulers. Likewise capitalism implies anarchism, insofar as capitalism implies the recognition of private property (I own my own body).
Previous writers were anarchist but rejected capitalism. They contradicted themselves, since anarchism implies capitalism. They did not know about the laws of economics.
@Nick Djinn (230):
"If this was your HOME, the place where you lived, where you raised children and grew vegetables for your own consumption, then NO, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE YOUR HOME TAKEN FROM YOU OR USED BY OTHERS."
Is this your ideal society? A bunch of subsistence farmers? I know that socialism leads inevitably to primitivism, but few socialists advocate a return the penury of the past.
The reason people voluntarily exchange their labor for money is that it beats self-sufficiency. By developing different skills everyone is better off. It's called comparative advantage, you ought to real a bit about it.
@Nick Djinn (231):
"Capitalism would not exist without the state. You can pretend that it would or could, if only everyone could accept ancap philosophy….but they wont."
So we would stop exchanging? That's depressing. Good thing I don't buy your arguments because I would have to become a statist instead of an anarchist. I like trading for things I want and need.
@Nick
Wow, that's deep. So your main arguments is that anarchism means something besides anarchism? And that I'm not an anarchist because I want anarchy, rather than what people who CALL themselves anarchists wanted 100 years ago?
You people aren't anarchists. You're closet marxists. Get over yourself. What you want is to replace the tyranny of the state with your own tyranny. Of course if we ever get anarchy, you people will be slacking off and begging on the street corners, since as anti-capitalists, you don't believe in work or saving money. So I'm not really worried.
@Nick Djinn (231):
"At least your right-libertarian cousins were intelligent to realize that the state exists to PROTECT private property, not just to tax some of it from you."
No, the state exists to protect itself and to grow in power. It needs to protect enough private property to maintain the consent of the governed.
@Nick Djinn (231):
"Anarcho-Syndicalists, among other traditional Anarchists, who believe in and practice solidarity will have security in numbers and fellowship…..they wont go hungry. Nobody will be homeless. Everybody will have a place to live. You wont have to be rich to have the protection of a militia. Every individual will have access to the protection of the union militia, regardless of social status. "
You are putting forth a vision of cooperation. But that is precisely what the free market accomplishes best. Sorry anarcho-syndicalists!
@Nick Djinn (233):
"Chomsky on Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn’t the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of “free contract” between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."
Chomsky doesn't understand economics.
Following the political views of someone who is ignorant about economics is like hiring an engineer who knows nothing about mathematics to construct a bridge. Bad idea.
Ryan Allen-
Forgive me I must be selective about what I reply to. I commend you on your thorough efforts:
"Wages are low in the Third World because they have no capital. The West has hundreds of years of capital accumulation (despite socialist policies which destroy capital). "
"You are only “forced” by necessity, by nature. No person forces you to do anything as far as your employment choices."
Perhaps compelled is a better word. What are the alternatives to subjugating oneself?
"Socialism would work if you could abolish the scarcity of resources. But any problem that deals with a nonscarce resource is no longer an economic problem. And if I remember correctly there are two sides to exchange. "
There is no scarcity of resources on this planet now. There is plenty of energy to feed everyone on earth, clothe them, provide for them clean drinking water, and even things like heat, A/C, internet, and cell phones.
What is scarce? Fiat currency.
"The laborer receives wages, so their is (potential) profit in the exchange for both parties. The advantage for the laborer is that their is no risk of loss. Why do you assume that profit is a given?"
No risk of loss? Are you kidding? The wage laborer has the most to lose. They often risk their lives.
"By this definition, capitalism is a meritocracy. Those whose ability to best satisfy the wants of the consumers are appointed to the positions of entrepreneur, capitalist, manager, owner, or laborer."
Monopolies are not meritocracies in my book. Capital is attached to monopoly at the hip via the concentration of wealth. Once wealth is concentrated, merit is no longer a deal breaker.
"You are right about rank, no position is better or worse than the other, each is solely determined again by consumer preference, by how individuals choose to exchange their private property."
So it is not better to be rich than to be poor? Yes of course, poor people should understand this!
@soahc
I can declare the sky to be green, but that doesn't make it so.
Wages and bosses would still likely still exist without the state, for the simple reason that there will always be someone willing to pay someone else to do work that while they could do themselves, can be more efficiently done by a specialist. I *could* live on a farm and grow/raise all my food and make all my own clothes and such, or, I could live in the city, and buy my clothes and food, and spend my time coding software instead of concentrating on subsistence.
Would the system necessarily be hierarchical? No, but there may be a few industries where hierarchy is more efficient than the alternatives. I am not going to condemn those industries to inefficiency simply because I don't like hierarchy. I just won't work in them.
Like I said, Anna gets it. You need to earn some economics.
Marty-
I just agreed with most of what Anna says.
Wages will not exist without the State.
What’s not to get?
Be specific, because without specificity, it comes off as if you are the one who doesn’t get it.
Bleicke-
“And I still thing there’s something open here: Is property theft? I think that (and understanding of economics) is a big difference between different types of anarchists. If I believe in property and they don’t, the only way to coexist is to live on another continent and never visit each other. Because when I homestead some land, the AnSocs will come and “use” my house.”
‘Homesteading some land’ is different from retaining title to a factory or hectares upon hectares of farm land. If you are homesteading, it is being used personally, or by your family and friends.
Benjamin Tucker, an principled egoist, even called himself a socialist.
Nick, again, thanks. You are a writing machine! I agree with you principles on property vs possession, as well as hierarchy not being compatible with anarchy (let’s recreate the current system without the State!…yeah…right…)
Forrest:
"Property and hierarchy have existed since the dawn of civilization, thousands of years before anyone invented a state."
As I understood it the Sumerians were the first civilization, and State. However I do not agree that what we have come to know as civilization could not exist without the State. This is what I choose to believe.
I emphasize choice because I could easily argue that we would have no technologies because most of our technologies are rooted in State military advancements.
However I feel that true geniuses innovate by nature. I believe that there were probably leagues of Da Vinci's in history that were never able to realize their full potential due to various forms of monopoly.
Some division of labor existed prior to governments, and technologies existed prior to governments. Without States and the concomitant wars they wage, perhaps population pressures would be amble motivation to innovate.
"Personal property and capital existed before the state."
Capital in what form?
"When the state was first invented, there was a brief period when it served people as it was intended to do."
Details please. When was this golden era? Sumer? Egypt? Babylon?
"Your average ancient city-state consisted of farmers who farmed the same land for generations, and kept houses, granaries, workshops, etc. behind city walls to prevent their property from being taken by the ever present barbarians."
The city State always had a king and mercenaries. The people were taxed to pay these mercenaries to protect the king from other city States, and from the people who are being taxed. Egypt certainly operated in this manner and the data on Sumer is scant yet I think it is safe to assume it was similar.
Had there been no rich city-State with vast concentrations of wealth, it is less likely barbarians would come a knocking
"The problem came, as it always does, when this person started calling themselves the king, and developed the delusion that he had intrinsically superior powers to his fellow man."
This happened immediately.
"I fear that the system that nick and soahc are advocating is very vulnerable to the dangers of power, and are inherently unstable."
We will always be vulnerable to the dangers of power. Which is why concentration of wealth is especially dangerous.
"And soahc, even if “group consensus” is what is putting certain persons into positions of responsibility (i.e., power), you are still creating a hierarchy."
Delegating tasks according to consensus is not hierarchy.
"You cannot escape hierarchy in human society…."
Said the master to the slave…
"The best that we can do, as humans, is to manage hierarchy in a way that is as fair and just as possible."
Wait, how do people under hierarchy manage those on top?
"For ten thousand years or more, farmers have preferred whatever system allowed them to farm in as much peace as possible. If the state was too oppressive they would turn out the lord with torches and pitchforks (or sais and nunchuks, for eastern insurrections). If the state was too incompetent (too many barbarian invasions, etc.), again, insurrection."
Well, the pen is mightier than the sword. Military might is not enough to prevent the peasants from revolting. It is also necessary to maintain their ignorance.
"When you are planning your ideal society, don’t forget about the farmers. Unless farmers consent to the rule of your ideals, your society will not last long."
Numerous examples exist of farmers being forced from their land by state subsidized corporations because they can not compete.
Marty:
"Wages and bosses would still likely still exist without the state,…Like I said, Anna gets it. You need to earn some economics."
But you just disagreed with Anna.
I make a distinction between bartering and contracting, and wage slavery.
Sure, someone trading an amount of work for something will occur.
But wages are different.
You need to earn 'some' anarchism.
Oh and RE: "I can declare the sky to be green, but that doesn’t make it so."
'Green' is a word that only has meaning you consent to. If you want the sky to be green, indeed it is so, for you.
I would suggest Nietzsche for a thorough destruction of absolute meaning values.
@soahc:
What's the difference between barter and wages? I barter with my employer. He gets work from me, I get money from him. How is that slavery? How is barter not slavery? How are wages different?
this is how I am using these words:
Wage:
wage – an amount of money paid to a worker for a specified quantity of work, usually expressed on an hourly basis; To wager, bet; To employ for wages; to hire; To conduct or carry out (a war or other contest)
Barter:
Barter is a method of exchange by which goods or services are directly exchanged for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money.[1] It is usually bilateral, but may be multilateral, and usually exists parallel to monetary systems in most developed countries, though to a very limited extent. Barter usually replaces money as the method of exchange in times of monetary crisis, when the currency is unstable and devalued by hyperinflation.
Both are from wikipedia.
I like the lateral emphasis of bartering.
@soahc (208):
“Ryan Allen:
“The choice is constrained by the allocation of scarce capital and resources. Even if I want to be self-employed, I might not be able to because I do not have the capital to do so. ”
So we are to be forced into hierarchical jobs because of resource scarcity? We are to live under scarcity of resources AND share the fruits of our labor with someone who is profiting off of us?”
You are only “forced” by necessity, by nature. No person forces you to do anything as far as your employment choices. Socialism would work if you could abolish the scarcity of resources. But any problem that deals with a nonscarce resource is no longer an economic problem. And if I remember correctly there are two sides to exchange. The laborer receives wages, so their is (potential) profit in the exchange for both parties. The advantage for the laborer is that their is no risk of loss. Why do you assume that profit is a given?
In any case, the fruits of labor for a hired hand are only possible because of the savings of the capitalist, it makes no sense to talk about sharing the fruits of the worker’s labor without reference to this. There is no sharing, the owner of capital merely buys the labor power of the worker, a scarce resource.
“Doesn’t seem very anarchistic to me.”
What, realizing the fact that there are scarce resources or the idea of voluntary exchange?
@soahc:
“Ryan Allen:
“No monopoly enforcement is necessary for capital formation and concentration to take place, the free market allows individuals to choose the methods of production through their consumption.”
Anarchy allows individuals to choose the method of production through their production.”
Ok… anarchy is what I’m advocating.
So how is it slavery if I exchange work for wage, but not if I exchange item for item or item for work? Money is just another item.
@soahc (253):
"The bar is lowering…"
I agree with you here. When the discussion veers towards insults, there isn't anything more to discuss!
"Barter usually replaces money as the method of exchange in times of monetary crisis, when the currency is unstable and devalued by hyperinflation."
This part of the definition on Wikipedia makes a number of assumptions. First of all, commodity money cannot be inflated. In that sense it is truly money (the most marketable commodity). Barter of goods leads to the establishment of money. Whatever is the good that is most easily exchanged in trades, that becomes money. Fiat currency works as a monetary substitute only because of the monopoly of legitimate violence held by the state.
Bleicke:
“You people aren’t anarchists. You’re closet marxists. Get over yourself. What you want is to replace the tyranny of the state with your own tyranny.”
How is the absence of authority equal to tyranny?
You want to replace the State with hierarchy?
“Of course if we ever get anarchy, you people will be slacking off and begging on the street corners, since as anti-capitalists, you don’t believe in work or saving money. So I’m not really worried.”
The bar is lowering…
Property and hierarchy have existed since the dawn of civilization, thousands of years before anyone invented a state. Personal property and capital existed before the state. When the state was first invented, there was a brief period when it served people as it was intended to do. Your average ancient city-state consisted of farmers who farmed the same land for generations, and kept houses, granaries, workshops, etc. behind city walls to prevent their property from being taken by the ever present barbarians.
Coordination of the farmers’ efforts to maintain and staff the city wall was of paramount importance to the ancient farmers (and the farmers were of paramount importance to society for reasons which should be painfully obvious), and they vested authority in a military chieftain who had the primary responsibility for the community’s security. When this person behaved like the manager of a private security firm who was beholden to his customers, the system worked fine.
The problem came, as it always does, when this person started calling themselves the king, and developed the delusion that he had intrinsically superior powers to his fellow man.
This is always the danger of power, and the source of all evils that are associated with government.
I fear that the system that nick and soahc are advocating is very vulnerable to the dangers of power, and are inherently unstable.
And soahc, even if “group consensus” is what is putting certain persons into positions of responsibility (i.e., power), you are still creating a hierarchy. You cannot escape hierarchy in human society. The best that we can do, as humans, is to manage hierarchy in a way that is as fair and just as possible.
One last thing about agriculture:
Napoleon said, “An army marches on its stomach.” In the same way, and for the same reason, a society lives or dies by its farmers. For ten thousand years or more, farmers have preferred whatever system allowed them to farm in as much peace as possible. If the state was too oppressive they would turn out the lord with torches and pitchforks (or sais and nunchuks, for eastern insurrections). If the state was too incompetent (too many barbarian invasions, etc.), again, insurrection.
When you are planning your ideal society, don’t forget about the farmers. Unless farmers consent to the rule of your ideals, your society will not last long. I
@soahc (252):
“Forgive me I must be selective about what I reply to. I commend you on your thorough efforts:”
Likewise. I am just glad that we are having a discussion, others on here have descended to personal attacks and shouting matches.
–“Wages are low in the Third World because they have no capital. The West has hundreds of years of capital accumulation (despite socialist policies which destroy capital). ”
–“You are only “forced” by necessity, by nature. No person forces you to do anything as far as your employment choices.”
“Perhaps compelled is a better word. What are the alternatives to subjugating oneself?”
I agree that a person may be compelled. If I become shipwrecked on an island, I am compelled to begin setting about satisfying my needs. I may prioritize them: 1) build a fire to dry my clothes and keep warm, 2) find water to satisfy my thirst, 3) find food to satisfy my hunger.
However, if there are other survivors we can increase our chance of survival by dividing the tasks, even more so if they go to those most capable. The free market system settles the question of who is most capable by rewarding those most capable, so long as instruments of force organized (government) or not do not interfere.
The person with capital can compel the laborer to work, but to the same extent the laborer can compel the owner of capital to offer more money. The price they agree upon (the wage) is determined by how much the product or service is demanded by the consumer.
–“Socialism would work if you could abolish the scarcity of resources. But any problem that deals with a nonscarce resource is no longer an economic problem. And if I remember correctly there are two sides to exchange. ”
“There is no scarcity of resources on this planet now. There is plenty of energy to feed everyone on earth, clothe them, provide for them clean drinking water, and even things like heat, A/C, internet, and cell phones.”
There is plenty of scarcity. Labor is always scarce, and necessary to extract oil or fell trees for lumber. Those resources exist in limited quantities. Yes, what has currently been produced for consumption could be produced again, as long as conditions remain the same (this is the hypothetical evenly-rotating economy).
But the reason individuals exchange commodities is to improve their condition, and in seeking an improvement in their condition they reward with profits those who produce that which leaves the consumer with more unspent money, or capital. All individuals, to the extent to which they seek to improve their material well-being, try to accumulate capital (or avoid capital consumption).
You say that there are plenty of resources, enough to provide a high standard of living for all people on the planet. This may or may not be true, but it implies that there is a great deal of word to be done. In other words, if humanity wants a high standard of living, then it must work to bring about that high standard of living. The question then is how the work should proceed. Again, there is definitely a scarcity of labor. All of our lives are limited in duration, yet there are many things that individuals want. Now even if a non-capitalistic mode of production were possible, the question should be, whether or not it is desirable.
I believe that if we (you and I) agree that the most desirable outcome would be for everyone to be as well off as possible, then the best mode of production to achieve that outcome is capitalism, because under capitalism those that produce what the consumers demand the most are rewarded the most with high profits. Other individuals and firms enter the industry and compete, lowering the cost of the product and benefiting the consumer further. Over time, the product is replaced by new innovations because entrepreneurs are always seeking to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs (as dictated by the choice of consumers in the market).
Under any other system an authority exists, and the will of the authority directs or influences production. It does not matter whether you have a dictator, a democracy, a republic or some other centralized state, the laws of economics hold: price controls lead to scarcity, regulation leads to monopoly or oligopoly, or misallocation of resources and destruction of capital.
“What is scarce? Fiat currency.”
Only arbitrarily so, the Federal Reserve can create as much or as little as it wants. In the same way, the Federal Government can create as much or as little unemployment as it wants (subject to environmental conditions) by setting minimum wage and passing regulations on business.
–“The laborer receives wages, so their is (potential) profit in the exchange for both parties. The advantage for the laborer is that their is no risk of loss. Why do you assume that profit is a given?”
“No risk of loss? Are you kidding? The wage laborer has the most to lose. They often risk their lives.”
I was referring to monetary loss. In a free market, the risk to one’s life is but another factor in bargaining with the employer for wages. For instance, if I am required to drive a great deal I am obviously at greater risk of being involved in an auto accident, and can demand a wage that I feel is appropriate having taken such a risk into consideration. Of course, for extremely dangerous jobs the employers would have to offer higher compensation, other things being equal, to compensate the worker for the dangers encountered. In the real world some firms can circumvent this due to their alliance with the state. They can abuse workers by using the guns of the state to force workers into dangerous conditions at low pay. But this is precisely why I oppose the state and am an anarchist.
–“By this definition, capitalism is a meritocracy. Those whose ability to best satisfy the wants of the consumers are appointed to the positions of entrepreneur, capitalist, manager, owner, or laborer.”
“Monopolies are not meritocracies in my book. Capital is attached to monopoly at the hip via the concentration of wealth. Once wealth is concentrated, merit is no longer a deal breaker.”
In a free market monopolies would be short lived or not arise at all. Government post offices exist because of the guns of the state. Passports exist because of the guns of the state. Governments make monopolies possible and durable.
–“You are right about rank, no position is better or worse than the other, each is solely determined again by consumer preference, by how individuals choose to exchange their private property.”
“So it is not better to be rich than to be poor? Yes of course, poor people should understand this!”
I was referring to the position of different individuals in the economy, their roles, not their wealth. The fact that it is preferable to be rich (or better off than one currently is) is what impels individuals to improve the conditions of their fellow human beings. If one produces what others most desire, others will exchange their wealth for what you produce.
@soahc (260):
“this is how I am using these words:
Wage:
wage – an amount of money paid to a worker for a specified quantity of work, usually expressed on an hourly basis; To wager, bet; To employ for wages; to hire; To conduct or carry out (a war or other contest)
Barter:
Barter is a method of exchange by which goods or services are directly exchanged for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money.[1] It is usually bilateral, but may be multilateral, and usually exists parallel to monetary systems in most developed countries, though to a very limited extent. Barter usually replaces money as the method of exchange in times of monetary crisis, when the currency is unstable and devalued by hyperinflation.
Both are from wikipedia.
I like the lateral emphasis of bartering.”
So are you arguing that wages be replaced with bartering? Can you give a brief explanation why?
(This is an honest question, I haven’t been following the other discussions…)
@soahc
So, If I sign a work contract to receive X amount of silver/gold per hour of work performed for someone, I'm a slave?
Even if it's an at-will contract, with no termination penalties, that I can leave any time I want, that both the employer and I agreed upon?
Ryan Allen:
Here are some abbreviated responses:
“The person with capital can compel the laborer to work, but to the same extent the laborer can compel the owner of capital to offer more money. The price they agree upon (the wage) is determined by how much the product or service is demanded by the consumer.”
I think that power struggles are instrumental in the human drama. The person with capital and the laborer are at odds. One will have to concede defeat. I don’t see the person even being able to accrue concentrated capital without monopolized force and media to act on their behalf.
Something’s gotta give.
“There is plenty of scarcity. Labor is always scarce, and necessary to extract oil or fell trees for lumber. Those resources exist in limited quantities. Yes, what has currently been produced for consumption could be produced again, as long as conditions remain the same (this is the hypothetical evenly-rotating economy).”
I believe that the only scarcity is artificial. Again, there is ample resources for everyone. Certainly for the bare necessities like food, shelter, and clean drinking water. Still, people starve and die of dysentery. Why? Enforced scarcity. Innovation is stifled. Property is hoarded.
“But the reason individuals exchange commodities is to improve their condition, and in seeking an improvement in their condition they reward with profits those who produce that which leaves the consumer with more unspent money, or capital. All individuals, to the extent to which they seek to improve their material well-being, try to accumulate capital (or avoid capital consumption).”
Globally the consumer is not, on a per capita basis, gaining more unspent money. The poor are indeed getting poorer. Capitalism has failed. Upward income mobility is dropping. And every single State on this planet is in debt, the interest is paid for by the consumer via increased taxation and perpetual inflation.
It would be a surprise to me if we were able to recreate anything resembling the current fiat currency system if we adopted a more material standard of exchange like gold.
“You say that there are plenty of resources, enough to provide a high standard of living for all people on the planet. This may or may not be true, but it implies that there is a great deal of word to be done. In other words, if humanity wants a high standard of living, then it must work to bring about that high standard of living.”
I agree. But I do not believe that humans need capital as a motivation. Many geniuses have died poor only to be recognized long after their deaths. Had capital been unconcentrated, their contributions and those of many others would have likely hastened progress.
“The question then is how the work should proceed. Again, there is definitely a scarcity of labor. All of our lives are limited in duration, yet there are many things that individuals want. Now even if a non-capitalistic mode of production were possible, the question should be, whether or not it is desirable.”
I believe it is. Capitol is more scarce than labor.
“I believe that if we (you and I) agree that the most desirable outcome would be for everyone to be as well off as possible, then the best mode of production to achieve that outcome is capitalism, because under capitalism those that produce what the consumers demand the most are rewarded the most with high profits.”
I disagree. Because under anarchy small businesses will be able to produce whatever the individual consumer demands. Concentration of wealth will be impossible.
“Other individuals and firms enter the industry and compete, lowering the cost of the product and benefiting the consumer further.”
If it is that much more easy to compete, why work for someone else when you can start your own business? i just don’t think anyone will choose hierarchy and wage labor.
“Over time, the product is replaced by new innovations because entrepreneurs are always seeking to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs (as dictated by the choice of consumers in the market).”
Agreed.
“Under any other system an authority exists, and the will of the authority directs or influences production. It does not matter whether you have a dictator, a democracy, a republic or some other centralized state, the laws of economics hold: price controls lead to scarcity, regulation leads to monopoly or oligopoly, or misallocation of resources and destruction of capital.”
Not sure where you went with that but without the State fiat currency would not exist. What sort of capitol are you talking about?
“Only arbitrarily so, the Federal Reserve can create as much or as little as it wants. In the same way, the Federal Government can create as much or as little unemployment as it wants (subject to environmental conditions) by setting minimum wage and passing regulations on business.”
Everything about the government is arbitrary.
“I was referring to monetary loss. In a free market, the risk to one’s life is but another factor in bargaining with the employer for wages.”
What sort of wages would exist in a free market?
“For instance, if I am required to drive a great deal I am obviously at greater risk of being involved in an auto accident, and can demand a wage that I feel is appropriate having taken such a risk into consideration. Of course, for extremely dangerous jobs the employers would have to offer higher compensation, other things being equal, to compensate the worker for the dangers encountered. In the real world some firms can circumvent this due to their alliance with the state. They can abuse workers by using the guns of the state to force workers into dangerous conditions at low pay. But this is precisely why I oppose the state and am an anarchist.”
Wage slavery is an abuse that would not exist without the State. Except perhaps for isolated role players who experience sexual gratification from being bossed around.
“In a free market monopolies would be short lived or not arise at all. Government post offices exist because of the guns of the state. Passports exist because of the guns of the state. Governments make monopolies possible and durable.”
I agree.
“I was referring to the position of different individuals in the economy, their roles, not their wealth. The fact that it is preferable to be rich (or better off than one currently is) is what impels individuals to improve the conditions of their fellow human beings.”
Reciprocal altruism is widely accepted as a working theory of why people help eachother.
"You are only “forced” by necessity, by nature."
Right. So the capitalist class does not force you to get a job, but the consequence of not working for a corporation is eviction by the landlord, starvation and death.
So, those who are in a position of economic power, can dictate and control those who have material need…..they are exploiting the needs of humans to have food and shelter…..they claim the food and shelter as their property, through whatever twisted ideas entitle them to claim anything their labor contacts….then by "owning" it themselves, others find themselves without….and that is a hierarchal relationship, where the wealthy can dictate and control those who are poor….and pay them a mere fraction of what their labor would be worth under the labor theory of value.
If ancaps were capable of critical thought, they would realize that portions of their own philosophy actually support Anarcho-Socialism.
For example….the idea that things belong to you when you mix your labor with them….well, what happens when a laborer mixes their labor with a factory? Do they own the factory then? By your own standards, without some clever manipulations of that principle, yes, the workers would all be entitled to a share of the factory equal to their contributions. Their share would not only include their wages, but the profits and holdings of the factory as well.
Those who worked harder and longer should be entitled to a greater share, but all workers would be given a bigger slice of the pie rather than slaving away for a capitalist class who collects the vast majority of the product of their labor without engaging in labor themselves.
So here we can use Rothbards own words, yet come to a very different conclusion…..that yes, we can "own" things by mixing our labor with them, so when the workers work for a corporation or co-op, they earn a share of the company above and beyond their wages……somebody who works for 1 company for 50 years should be entitled to more than a person who worked for 50 companies for 1 year….at least from each company, though he may perhaps have a roughly equal total from his life work.
Funny how that works out. We can use Rothbards own words, keeping his presumptions while throwing out his conclusions, and end up with a case for Anarcho-Syndicalism.
@Nick:
"Right. So the capitalist class does not force you to get a job, but the consequence of not working for a corporation is eviction by the landlord, starvation and death."
If it were not for the capitalists, there would be no shelter or food. The socialist myth is that when people don't want to give you things for free, you're being exploited.
If by giving someone what he wants I am exploiting him, so be it. Because then you're just twisting words.
The labour theory of value is just wrong. It's been refuted over 100 years ago. Adam Smith was wrong about it, plain and simple. And Marx was wrong to copy him without critical thought.
The idea that purely mixing your labour with something makes it yours isn't AnCap and it's been refuted by AnCaps many times, e.g. by Rothbard. If you mix your labour with unowned land it doesn't become yours because you mixed your labour with it, but because it was unowned in the first place! If I steal your car and mix my labour with it by sledging it with a hammer, it doesn't become my car. That's just vandalism.
You're confusing Rothbard with Locke, who said the Mixing Labour With The Land thing. Rothbard explicitly refuted the scenario you mention as his idea.
"Those who worked harder and longer should be entitled to a greater share, but all workers would be given a bigger slice of the pie rather than slaving away for a capitalist class who collects the vast majority of the product of their labor without engaging in labor themselves."
Those who work longer and harder will be paid more, if their work was actually productive. That's how the market works. Why wouldn't the capitalists get profits? They supplied the factory, they did the marketing, contracts, they found the customers, bought the resources, put up the machines, probably even found the workers. They'll pay the truck that delivers the goods. Without capital, workers could barely produce anything of value. They'd have no tools, and using your bare hands to work is very unproductive. They'd have no resources, having to use the things that happen to be around them at the time.
LOL @ the idiots who say “Chomsky doesnt understand economics”. Chomsky, one of the most brilliant professors at MIT, one of the most brilliant linguists of all time, political writer and author of several dozen books critiquing capitalism and western governments.
Chomsky knows a whole hell of a lot more about capitalism and Anarchism than anybody in this thread. Dont be an idiot. Get a new/better argument besides telling your critics that they must not understand capitalism or else they would agree with your position. Its complete and utter bullshit.
“So, If I sign a work contract to receive X amount of silver/gold per hour of work performed for someone, I’m a slave?”
The term is ‘wage slave’.
The way you pose your example lacks sophistication. When you own a small business, like if you were a blacksmith and you worked out of a metal-shop extended from your home garage…..and you have a Merchant-Customer relationship, or a Service-Client relationship like the blacksmith has with people who need something fixed, that is NOT ‘wage slavery’. You are free to contract your Labor as you see fit.
It becomes wage slavery when there is a concentration of wealth, a division of class between workers and corporations…..A single factory may not necessarily have a complete monopoly on jobs, but a minority capitalist class will combined have a de facto monopoly or near monopoly on the vast majority of jobs, as well as the resources and start-up capital for opening a competing business. This division of class, where we went from a society of individual artisans who contracted with each other as equals, into a society where extreme concentration of wealth means that the vast majority are employed by the few…..this is what creates an economic hierarchy which we call wage slavery…..people are free to choose masters, but they are not free to choose not to work for a corporation….for it they do they will be evicted by the landlord, or be denied groceries from the market. It is a situation where they must work for a corporation or die, free only to choose masters but not to be equal. The “choice” to open your own business is not a realistic one, outside of very rare rags to riches stories, and then they simply join the capitalist class and further exploit the majority of wage laborers.
So, if we were to talk about an ‘ideal capitalism’, under the circumstances envisioned by Admin Smith….a pre-industrial vision where there was the perception of near unlimited land for anyone to homestead, and trade would be between individuals who had about the same amount of land but different skills…..free trade in a society like that would lead to what he called ‘perfect liberty’…..upon closer examination of Admin Smith, we was against the concentration of wealth by corporations, and feared the effects of these hierarchal relationships.
Today we do NOT have unlimited land for anyone to homestead a farm for free. We instead have a monopoly on land ownership….Rothbards reality was over 100s of years ago, long before he was even born, and even then his concept of ‘homesteading’ was merely the theft of land from the natives by white invaders…..he claimed he could claim native land by mixing his labor with it, ignoring that this displaced nomadic societies who roamed these lands for hundreds of thousands of years.
So, when two individuals who are members of the same artisan class decide to trade their efforts and resources, this is compatible with Anarchism.
When a mega-corporation or a large factory owner employs hundreds or thousands of workers, with a hierarchal management system requiring long hours of hard labor, while giving them compensation far below the value of what they produce, this is wage slavery.
I heard the most idiotic brain damaged argument the other day…..that the labor theory of value has been ‘disproved’. Some people are so stupid it just makes my eyes hurt and I almost want to cry. Im not sure if I should feel more anger or pity when this level of ignorance is displayed. Its a sad sight indeed.
Of course in capitalism, as taught in the type of Econ classes that you will find in US colleges, you will find that the price of things is not determined by the amount of labor but by supply and demand…..this is obvious. The fact that people would repeat this as an argument shows that they do not understand, at all, what they are arguing against. Its really sad. Im not sure whether I should laugh or cry…..by obviously they missed the point entirely.
Volontaryism within a hierarchal society is nothing more than the freedom to choose masters.
The “volontaryism” which occurs between a capitalist and his starving job applicants is nothing more than a sick joke.
Fortunately, Anarcho-Capitalism is not possible, not only because its a contradiction in terms (for reasons that are opposite to what the OP is suggesting), but because for practical reasons such a society could never come about.
Capitalism can only flourish when there is a state with a strong police force ready to enforce the property of the rich….either these “private security forces” would become the new sate, exercising a monopoly of violent force……and we are just supposed to trust them, that they will follow a certain set of ideas in an Anarchist society, in a society without judges or a constitution, where the power of their boots and rifles are executioner/judge and jury……yeah, that sounds just great. Not.
Now, if there ISNT some strong armed police force to enforce the so called property rights of the privileged class, then the rest of us will simply take the property of the rich by force. Even non-Anarchists will use violence against property owners, and the wealthy will be robbed and/or dead. Relatively quickly.
So the outcome of “anarcho” Capitalism can only turn out 1 of 2 ways…….
The corporations seize a monopoly on violence, owning the only meaningful police and military factions, which answer to them and them alone with no democratic influence by the people. They attain fascist totalitarianism.
Or
They are simply overrun, robbed or eliminated by the poor, who are the vast majority in capitalist societies.
In either instance, “anarcho” (snicker) Capitalism wont last. It will either be quickly and soundly defeated, or the very wealthy will have a monopoly (or close to it) on the things which people need, and a monopoly on violence….essentially making them the sate, like private monarchs immune from democratic intervention….
Democracy is MUCH better than private monarchy, though participatory democracy is better than majority rule which extends beyond those directly involved.
Anarcho-Syndicalism, for example, has PROVEN that it can self manage. An Anarcho-Syndicalist society offers more freedom (for everyone but the capitalist class), more security (offered to everyone in solidarity, not just to those who can afford it), and is just all around better in every way than the ideological abomination which is “anarcho” Capitalism.
@soahc (266):
Interesting that we agree on some points. On the others:
–“I believe that if we (you and I) agree that the most desirable outcome would be for everyone to be as well off as possible, then the best mode of production to achieve that outcome is capitalism, because under capitalism those that produce what the consumers demand the most are rewarded the most with high profits.”
"I disagree. Because under anarchy small businesses will be able to produce whatever the individual consumer demands. Concentration of wealth will be impossible."
What you are proposing might be the case. Concentration of wealth might be hampered or impossible, but that would not invalidate capitalism or any of the laws of the market, simply because profits are short lived and innovations spread more quickly under real capitalism (not the phony capitalism that people call capitalism today). It might be the case that the largest business unit is a small or local business, but again this would have arisen only because it it was the people demand, not because private property has been abolished.
–“Other individuals and firms enter the industry and compete, lowering the cost of the product and benefiting the consumer further.”
"If it is that much more easy to compete, why work for someone else when you can start your own business? i just don’t think anyone will choose hierarchy and wage labor."
I posted about this above (203):
The choice is constrained by the allocation of scarce capital and resources. Even if I want to be self-employed, I might not be able to because I do not have the capital to do so.
Capital and private property are not inherently evil, it is only through government privileges that individuals can use private property and capital to abuse others (wage slavery, sweatshops, abusive hierarchy).
Private property extends from the fact that I own my body. Because I own my body I own the fruits of my labor. That which I do not consume is capital savings. Now if you are going to attack capitalism you must put forth an argument against saving, against owning what I produce or exchange my labor for, or against owning my body.
@Nick Djinn (268):
"LOL @ the idiots who say “Chomsky doesnt understand economics”. Chomsky, one of the most brilliant professors at MIT, one of the most brilliant linguists of all time, political writer and author of several dozen books critiquing capitalism and western governments."
Anarchism is anti-authoritarian. It doesn't matter what credentials a person has, what position he has in society. The important thing, if we are interested in truth, is whether an individual advances the body of knowledge. Chomsky might know a few things about language, he might even know a little history, but prodigious writing on a subject doesn't pass as expertise on that subject (economics or capitalism or anarchism). In any case, listing a persons credentials doesn't impress me, it shouldn't impress anyone who is opposed to authority.
"Chomsky knows a whole hell of a lot more about capitalism and Anarchism than anybody in this thread. Dont be an idiot."
You make a number of claims that you cannot support. You claim to know how much Chomsky knows about capitalism and anarchism. Further, you claim to know how much everyone else on this thread knows about the two topics. Now that is a poor argument. It is really hard to even take seriously.
"Get a new/better argument besides telling your critics that they must not understand capitalism or else they would agree with your position. Its complete and utter bullshit."
I am not asking anyone to agree with me, what I am saying is that if a person dismisses capitalism out of hand they do not understand economics or what capitalism is. Your argument was to go and quote an expert, an authority on the subject. Such appeals to authority are fallacious and can be dismissed out of hand without impairing my position in any way.
@Nick Djinn (268):
"Now, if there ISNT some strong armed police force to enforce the so called property rights of the privileged class, then the rest of us will simply take the property of the rich by force. Even non-Anarchists will use violence against property owners, and the wealthy will be robbed and/or dead. Relatively quickly."
If you consider such actions legitimate then what you are describing is just another state, one where the mob has the legitimate use of force. This is just what happened during the Russian Revolution. Maybe they should have called their government "anarchy" instead of "communism" or a "people's republic."
@Nick Djinn (269):
"They are simply overrun, robbed or eliminated by the poor, who are the vast majority in capitalist societies. "
No, they are the majority in non-capitalist societies. You're telling me that the third world is wealthier and has fewer poor than the rest of the world?
@Nick Djinn (269):
–“You are only “forced” by necessity, by nature.”
"Right. So the capitalist class does not force you to get a job, but the consequence of not working for a corporation is eviction by the landlord, starvation and death."
No, in anarchist society the options for work are whatever arises on the free market. Thus work relations are determined by the modes of production that allocate scare resources such that the marginal product, that which would take resources away from another product demanded more by consumers, is not produced. Corporations exist to the extent that individuals demand their production, in their totality (that is, taking into account the morality of the actions of the corporations).
People would be free to labor for themselves, to be an entrepreneur, to work for a corporation, to join a collective or commune, to work for a small business. These freedoms do not exist today because the state protects corporations with limited liability, prevents people from becoming entrepreneurs with "consumer protection," and taxes the wealth of individuals who would otherwise be able to amass capital and put that capital towards expanding production, towards competition with established firms.
"For example….the idea that things belong to you when you mix your labor with them….well, what happens when a laborer mixes their labor with a factory? Do they own the factory then? By your own standards, without some clever manipulations of that principle, yes, the workers would all be entitled to a share of the factory equal to their contributions. Their share would not only include their wages, but the profits and holdings of the factory as well."
Capitalism does not claim that simply mixing labor and other factors of production leads to ownership of whatever is produced, in any case whatsoever. When a person works in a factory they are laboring for wages, not mixing their labor with anything that they own. An example of mixing one's labor with other material factors that one owns would be felling trees and building a log cabin on land that the individual owns. If you believe that the wage laborers should attain some ownership of the factory in which they work, then you are rejecting private property (for the previous owners of the factory). But then you must reject it for the laborers also, as they are also human. But then how can they gain ownership if there is no right to private property? Can you give a reasonable explanation?
"Those who worked harder and longer should be entitled to a greater share"
Your use of "should" suggests that you consider this a morally defensible position. But you cannot make anyone do anything without using force or threatening force. Is that your solution, to threaten force against individuals who do not give a "greater share" to those who work "harder and longer?"
"…but all workers would be given a bigger slice of the pie rather than slaving away for a capitalist class who collects the vast majority of the product of their labor without engaging in labor themselves."
Any widespread abuses that occur in the market result from government interference. In order to force anyone to do anything requires the use of force, and only government can legitimately use force. No capitalist can abuse anyone without the guns of state. There is a monopoly of force, called THE STATE.
Orwell hit the head with a nail when he said that contradiction, even backwardness, is the essence of tyranny, i.e., freedom is slavery, knowledge is ignorance, war is peace… poverty is wealth. Anyone who deals in contradictions should be avoided.
soahc,
Reality does exist outside your consciousness. How can you know? Simple. You are conscious that you are conscious. That is to say, you are self-aware, are you not? But before you can be aware that you are conscious, you must be conscious of *something*, whether it is your mother's smiling face, a timber wolf, or a jar of pickles.
Peoples' perceptions of certain objects will all be different, of course, as no two perspectives can be identical. But when two or more observers regard a visible object -like an elephant- all of them can agree that it has certain properties -such as floppy ears, flat feet, and tusks. If some crank comes to this conclave, observes the elephant and declares, "This beast has eight spindly legs and is covered with feathers," reasonable men can rightly regard him as unserious. Ditto the bumpkin who sees the elephant at the zoo and says, "There ain't no sich animal."
Forrest-
I am not going to get into a tit for tat philosophical discussion with you on the nature of truth. There is a long history of relativists, skeptics, and existentialists that support my views.
I believe the regress argument applies to all matter. All particles are waves. What we know of as reality is an illusion.
Ryan Allen:
"Private property extends from the fact that I own my body. Because I own my body I own the fruits of my labor. That which I do not consume is capital savings. Now if you are going to attack capitalism you must put forth an argument against saving, against owning what I produce or exchange my labor for, or against owning my body."
I make a distinction between possessions (personal property) and private property.
I do not believe that in the absence of legal claim (the State) you would be able to retain private property as we know it today.
@soahc:
Reality is an illusion? So the exploitation of workers is all in your head? I knew it.
"Reality is an illusion? So the exploitation of workers is all in your head? I knew it."
Sorry, OBJECTIVE reality is an illusion. The observer IS the observer's reality.
@soahc:
Oh, so if I perceive being exploited by my workers, that's alright then? Can I act upon my illusion? Because, clearly, those nasty workers aren't leaving me the full product of my capital investment. It's practically theft.
soahc,
"I am not going to get into a tit for tat philosophical discussion with you on the nature of truth. There is a long history of relativists, skeptics, and existentialists that support my views."
If by "tit for tat" you mean exhausting and fruitless, I agree. I'm sure a long history of etc, etc, does support your views, I just wonder if you can. Plato's construction of the world as shadows on the wall of a cave is the basis for most of these views, yet this construction still relies on the concept of real light shining behind real objects casting real shadows on the wall of a real cave. Plato did not say the real world didn't exist, he just said we couldn't see it because our perception was only oriented to see the shadows; we could not turn our heads to see the light behind us.
As per quantum physics, etc. just because we cannot have "perfect" perception of an object does not mean that we can't prove it exists. As Samuel Johnson said to Bishop Berkeley about the theory of non-existence, "I refute it thus!" (he kicked a stone to illustrate his point). As per the nature of matter, if our observations indicate that matter has both particle and wave properties, it does *not* mean that it is two different things at the same time, c'est impossible. Rather, it just means that we do not quite know exactly what it is. But we know it's there.
To paraphrase Francis Bacon, "A little philosophy leadeth man to the theory of non-existence, a depth in philosophy brings him back."
@soahc (278):
–“Private property extends from the fact that I own my body. Because I own my body I own the fruits of my labor. That which I do not consume is capital savings. Now if you are going to attack capitalism you must put forth an argument against saving, against owning what I produce or exchange my labor for, or against owning my body.”
"I make a distinction between possessions (personal property) and private property."
I can make that distinction as well. But where you draw the line and where I draw the line is arbitrary. What distinguished one from the other? Is there an empirical or deductive way to determine if property falls into one category or the other?
If I take off my shirt because I am hot and set it down, but someone comes along and snatches it, is it justifiably theirs because it was not on my person when they took it?
"I do not believe that in the absence of legal claim (the State) you would be able to retain private property as we know it today."
Why not? I am sure entrepreneurs would be interested in enforcing property claims to the extent that individuals want their property protected, just like every other good or service on the market.
Ryan Allen:
"I can make that distinction as well. But where you draw the line and where I draw the line is arbitrary. What distinguished one from the other? Is there an empirical or deductive way to determine if property falls into one category or the other?
If I take off my shirt because I am hot and set it down, but someone comes along and snatches it, is it justifiably theirs because it was not on my person when they took it?"
Good questions. No, I do not think there is any empirical way to cement a dichotomy between possessions and property. That is why I (try to) always say 'I' make a distinction between property and possession.
And I believe that under anarchy, people will respect possessions, but not property.
Sure, there will probably be a continuum. But the longer an 'owner' or landlord is absentee and not involved with their property, the less they possess it, and the more likely someone is to come along and make use of it.
I do not think that people will willfully enter a hierarchical business or living araingment unless denied the alternative of living alone or in a community that is much more directly democratic and where each person has a voice and vote that counts equally to everyone elses (barring ostracism).
And in the interim, I do not see anything wrong with the re-appropriation of what is now considered property.
"Why not? I am sure entrepreneurs would be interested in enforcing property claims to the extent that individuals want their property protected, just like every other good or service on the market."
Then so will entrepreneurs be interested in refuting property claims to the extent that individuals have a dispute on said property. Call in the lawyers…
Forrest:
" I’m sure a long history of etc, etc, does support your views, I just wonder if you can."
You're the one who has been paraphrasing…not me.
"Plato’s construction of the world as shadows on the wall of a cave is the basis for most of these views, yet this construction still relies on the concept of real light shining behind real objects casting real shadows on the wall of a real cave. Plato did not say the real world didn’t exist, he just said we couldn’t see it because our perception was only oriented to see the shadows; we could not turn our heads to see the light behind us."
I'm sure a long history supports your views too, I just wonder if you can.
"As per quantum physics, etc. just because we cannot have “perfect” perception of an object does not mean that we can’t prove it exists."
It doesn't mean that it exists either.
" As Samuel Johnson said to Bishop Berkeley about the theory of non-existence, “I refute it thus!” (he kicked a stone to illustrate his point). As per the nature of matter, if our observations indicate that matter has both particle and wave properties, it does *not* mean that it is two different things at the same time, c’est impossible."
??? Prove it.
"Rather, it just means that we do not quite know exactly what it is. But we know it’s there."
It's there AND it isn't there. Scholars and scientists argue endlessly about what matter is or is not. Once something is 'proven' it is refuted shortly after.
Anything that anyone claims is a fact can be argued against by any logical rules. Thus I am left with the presumption that we live in a consensus reality…that only exists because I consent to it.
?To paraphrase Francis Bacon, “A little philosophy leadeth man to the theory of non-existence, a depth in philosophy brings him back.”
You have done a lot of paraphrasing. However all these philosophers you listed are not ones that I admire. Plato is the father of modern political philosophy, which thinks it can reconcile the conflict between the moral authority of the State and the autonomy of the individual.
Impossible in my opinion.
@soahc (284):
Ryan Allen:
–“I can make that distinction as well. But where you draw the line and where I draw the line is arbitrary. What distinguished one from the other? Is there an empirical or deductive way to determine if property falls into one category or the other?
–If I take off my shirt because I am hot and set it down, but someone comes along and snatches it, is it justifiably theirs because it was not on my person when they took it?”
"Good questions. No, I do not think there is any empirical way to cement a dichotomy between possessions and property. That is why I (try to) always say ‘I’ make a distinction between property and possession.
And I believe that under anarchy, people will respect possessions, but not property."
Some people might do this. Suppose government is abolished. Now what is to prevent people from respecting property? People will respect property for all of the reasons they do now (and to the extent that they do, until individuals in the market see profits in entering the business of protecting property). And to a large extent many people do not respect property, but the actions of individuals towards those who do not respect property (such as ostracism or cutting them off economically) will alter and influence the behavior of many. Thus individuals realize that ultimately, peaceful cooperation is in their best interest.
"Sure, there will probably be a continuum. But the longer an ‘owner’ or landlord is absentee and not involved with their property, the less they possess it, and the more likely someone is to come along and make use of it."
Yes, I accept the properties of abandonment and homesteading to gain ownership.
"I do not think that people will willfully enter a hierarchical business or living araingment unless denied the alternative of living alone or in a community that is much more directly democratic and where each person has a voice and vote that counts equally to everyone elses (barring ostracism)."
Democracy isn't anarchy.
"And in the interim, I do not see anything wrong with the re-appropriation of what is now considered property."
You're talking about initiating violence against individuals. That kind of "anarchy" leads to what most people imagine anarchy to be (chaos). For if Mark can take from John because John has more than Mark, then Bob, who has even less, can take from Mark for the same reason. Such re-appropriation becomes a war amongst all, a kind of civil war. And if it is decided democratically, then it differs even less from what exists in Western countries today.
–“Why not? I am sure entrepreneurs would be interested in enforcing property claims to the extent that individuals want their property protected, just like every other good or service on the market.”
"Then so will entrepreneurs be interested in refuting property claims to the extent that individuals have a dispute on said property. Call in the lawyers…"
Only one law is needed in anarchy. The inviolability of the person. Lawyers (as we understand them today) are unnecessary. Individuals might be called upon to present facts and argue whether in fact a person (and by extension, his property) was violated, but since no polity exists, there would be no need to determine whether rule X was broken or not. But anarchy is only possible if a sufficient number of people adhere to this law. It is like the chicken/egg problem. Anarchy exists to the extent that the inviolability of the person is accepted among the populace. A world with no government but where this principle is not widely held would indeed be a world of chaos.
From reading and responding in this thread, the idea that I have formed of anti-capitalistic "anarchism" is this: A system or society where direct democracy is used to seize wealth and decide, again democratically, how that wealth is to be used. In this direct democracy if anyone obtains "excessive" wealth the polity will act to remove such "inequality."
First of all, in such a society there are rules or democratic decisions that are enforced by someone, otherwise the decisions of the majority/plurality/unanimity would be without force (and how is it decided whether decisions require a majority as opposed to unanimous vote? By plurality?). Thus the enforcing individual has power vested in them by the polity, they are a ruler (even if there are no other recognized "heads of state"). If a rule of the polity is broken, the enforcing individual has a mandate to carry forth a punishment or to imprison the individual awaiting trial. I could continue to elaborate, but it should be clear that this society, even if there is no private property, is hardly anarchistic.
About anarchism, Noam Chomsky writes:
"Anarchy as a social philosophy has never meant 'chaos'–in fact, anarchists have typically believed in a highly organized society, just one that's organized democratically from below."
Think of Ancient Greek city-states minus private property (who knows, such an "anarchy" might still vote for slavery).
The second point to mention (and you're only going to get this if you have a basic understanding of economics) is that capital in a free market goes to the individual or firm that produces what the consumer wants. If I make shoes better than John, and I sell them at the same price, and they are otherwise identical (in style, etc), and we are geographically in similar positions (both selling to the same market of consumers), consumers will buy more of my shoes. If my costs are the same, I will profit more than John.
If John and I are competing in the anarcho-socialist society described above, the populace would democratically vote to confiscate my wealth and holdings, or at least enough to "level the playing field." This intervention (by the state that isn't a state) would harm the consumers, since I would not be able to expand my operations with my profit, thus making even more cheap shoes. Or else I would close up shop and go elsewhere, so they would have to pay more for shoes from John. Others, who had plans to compete with me by making even cheaper shoes, are discouraged from doing so, having witnessed or heard about the confiscation of profit.
In a free society, profit means that people are being helped, the more profit the more they are benefiting.
Obstructing profit means obstructing progress.
"Democracy isn’t anarchy."
So if a group of people get together and decide how the group is going to move forward that is not anarchism?
"You’re talking about initiating violence against individuals."
Taking a factory that is held by a multinational corporation is violence against and individual?
"Anarchy exists to the extent that the inviolability of the person is accepted among the populace. A world with no government but where this principle is not widely held would indeed be a world of chaos."
Which brings me pretty full circle. We pretty much live in anarchy right now. Might certainly makes right, as governments have proven.
I really don't have much more to say. You seem to want to defend government, while I find it indefensible. It's like a cultural divide.
soahc:
Democracy is the RULE of the people. If it's voluntary, and thus anarchy, it's not rule and therefore not democracy. Now you may voluntarily form a group that makes decisions via a majority vote, but that's technically not democracy.
'A government by the people' well more with the semantics. If you insist, I will abstain from using it.
I think democracy can exist in a small unit like a family or tribe, which is consistent with anarchy.
soahc:
So you propose having force and enforced hierarchy? Statist!
Bleicke:
I believe tha State has no value for me.
Should I be interested in retaining property above and beyond my personal use, I might be a minarchist.
Anyone who thinks they can replicate corporatism in absence of the State is delusional methinks.
I believe the state has no value to me, either.
Should I be interested in stealing other people's property, I might be a statist.
Anyone who thinks they can replicate legalized theft in the absence of a state is delusional.
@soahc (288):
–“Democracy isn’t anarchy.”
"So if a group of people get together and decide how the group is going to move forward that is not anarchism?"
What you have just described is hierarchy, that is, "deciding how the group is going to move forward." First we should note that groups do not have needs, only individuals have needs. If everyone in the population is equal materially (in talent, position, wealth, etc) then what purpose would forming a democratic polity serve? What need of every individual does forming the polity satisfy? Since the non-material aspects of the population are likely to be diverse, we can assume that there will be a variety of preferences held among the members of the group. The only reason such a democratic polity would form is if the members are basically clones or identical, in addition to being social (like ants).
The only purpose for forming such a political arrangement is if there are differences among the members in talent, wealth and so on. The majority/plurality/unanimity decision is obtained only by coercion of some of the members of the population, who would be acting against their own interests in associating with the polity. Democratic organization among humans necessarily involves the coercion of some by others. Such coercion begets hierarchy. Political hierarchy is just that: the legitimization of coercion and justifiable violence by a group. In democracy it is often the majority.
The reason given is often some such statement: "all men are created equal." While the statement appears to be a statement of fact, used rhetorically it is actually a promotive utterance (it is normative, to be interpreted as what ought to be done). If taken as a statement it is clearly false on the biological level. The promotive interpretation might be: "Behave as though other men were your equal."
–“You’re talking about initiating violence against individuals.”
"Taking a factory that is held by a multinational corporation is violence against and individual?"
How can anything be taken without violence? "Taking a factory" implies a transfer of ownership and control. The operative work is "taken," which implies that it is taken from some person (or group) by some other person (or group). Unless by "taking" you mean "taking photos."
–“Anarchy exists to the extent that the inviolability of the person is accepted among the populace. A world with no government but where this principle is not widely held would indeed be a world of chaos.”
"Which brings me pretty full circle. We pretty much live in anarchy right now. Might certainly makes right, as governments have proven."
No, most people conduct most of their lives free from violence, even though it is conceivable that every stranger you pass on the street might try to kill or rob you. This is due to people respecting private property, and is achieved in spite of the governments actions or prohibitions. I think you may have misread my statement, which was conditional:
World with no government + no/insufficient recognition of private property = world of chaos (NOT anarchy)
World with no government + universal/widespread recognition of private property = anarchy/capitalism
Of course, I consider private property to begin with the person/body.
If you believe that might makes right then your "anarchism" must advocate nothing more than oppression of the weak by the strong, which is the accomplishment of all governments since the beginning of time. The only changes have been what counts as STRENGTH.
"I really don’t have much more to say. You seem to want to defend government, while I find it indefensible. It’s like a cultural divide."
Interesting, since my reading of all of your arguments lead me to conclude that you are defending government, or the replacement of current government with your own preferred government. But you are right, it is "like a cultural divide." I cannot advocate any form of violence against any individual that has not threatened or attempted to use violence against me. You support the formation of gangs in order to threaten and attack peaceful individuals. What can I say, when violence enters the picture the discussion is over. War is abhorrent whether it is initiated by the state or by so-called "anarchists."
A cat approaches a dog and says "Meow." The dog looks confused. The cat repeats, "Meow!" The dog still looks confused. The cat repeats, emphatically, "MEEOW!!!" Finally, the dog ventures, "bow-wow?" The cat stalks away indignantly, thinking "Dumb dog!"
Ryan Allen:
A group of people agreeing to who will take on what task is not hierarchy.
"How can anything be taken without violence? “Taking a factory” implies a transfer of ownership and control. The operative work is “taken,” which implies that it is taken from some person (or group) by some other person (or group). Unless by “taking” you mean “taking photos.”"
The factory was taken to begin with. Whether or not you support insurrection, the fact remains that factory owners and property owners as they exist now thieved what they own from the populace by accepting government subsidy.
"No, most people conduct most of their lives free from violence, even though it is conceivable that every stranger you pass on the street might try to kill or rob you. This is due to people respecting private property, and is achieved in spite of the governments actions or prohibitions. I think you may have misread my statement, which was conditional:"
Wrong. I certainly do not avoid hurting people and causing suffering because I 'respect their private property'. I do it because I respect them as an individual. Don't reduce the terms of the discussion to property. A person's body is not the same as a factory held by a corporation.
"If you believe that might makes right then your “anarchism” must advocate nothing more than oppression of the weak by the strong, which is the accomplishment of all governments since the beginning of time. The only changes have been what counts as STRENGTH."
Might just is. I think you are confusing the phrase might makes right. It is not about right and wrong. It just happens. And I believe it happens MORE because we live in artificial scarcity. There is ample resources on this planet to feed everyone. What keeps them from getting fed? Seems like property ain't helping.
"Interesting, since my reading of all of your arguments lead me to conclude that you are defending government"
Yeah. Self government.
"I cannot advocate any form of violence against any individual that has not threatened or attempted to use violence against me."
You are not a factory. You are not an apartment building. I repeat…you are not a factory…
"You support the formation of gangs in order to threaten and attack peaceful individuals."
An individual is not a factory…and individual is not an apartment building…
"What can I say, when violence enters the picture the discussion is over. War is abhorrent whether it is initiated by the state or by so-called “anarchists.”
Nice try. No Ryan, I do not support war as you are defining it.
Tit for tat.
Nothing will change my mind. Property is theft, and under anarchy, it won't exist. Personal property will exist, or 'possessions'.
Notice how my arguments have stayed very simple and succinct. I have been clear in my viewpoints.
You on the other hand are doing rhetorical backflips to try and justify capitalism.
Good luck with that,.
Bleicke:
"Should I be interested in stealing other people’s property, I might be a statist."
Wel all property that exists now, for the most part, was stolen with the help of the State.
soahc:
"Wel all property that exists now, for the most part, was stolen with the help of the State."
To a large degree, yes. But that doesn't make property inherently evil, just the stealing of property. And since the democratic state has its fingers everywhere you can't just say that corporations' property was stolen and yours wasn't. The state's mixed everything up. Poor people's property was stolen for them by the state, too.
@soahc (296):
“A group of people agreeing to who will take on what task is not hierarchy.”
That’s called management, and it isn’t exactly democracy or any sort of cohesive social system. Everyone is free to leave the group of managers, it is voluntary. What makes capitalism work is the free flow of capital. What makes your idealized system work??
–“How can anything be taken without violence? “Taking a factory” implies a transfer of ownership and control. The operative work is “taken,” which implies that it is taken from some person (or group) by some other person (or group). Unless by “taking” you mean “taking photos.””
“The factory was taken to begin with. Whether or not you support insurrection, the fact remains that factory owners and property owners as they exist now thieved what they own from the populace by accepting government subsidy.”
This is nonsense. First you are assuming that the government subsidizes all factories, or at least most. I won’t deny that the government subsidizes many businesses and individuals, and such measures are anti-capitalistic in the extreme, but that argument is poor even from a socialist viewpoint. Most socialists accept some variation of a labor theory of value under which the workers are exploited.
–“No, most people conduct most of their lives free from violence, even though it is conceivable that every stranger you pass on the street might try to kill or rob you. This is due to people respecting private property, and is achieved in spite of the governments actions or prohibitions. I think you may have misread my statement, which was conditional:”
“Wrong. I certainly do not avoid hurting people and causing suffering because I ‘respect their private property’. I do it because I respect them as an individual. Don’t reduce the terms of the discussion to property. A person’s body is not the same as a factory held by a corporation.”
Hahaha, c’mon. So you make individual determinations of each stranger you encounter whether or not you respect them as an individual? Then if you meet someone who you do not respect as an individual (say, the owner of a factory or a large shareholder in a multinational corporation) you attack them? Do you interrogate every person that you cross paths with?
You are right, even though a body and a factory are both property, one is capable of doing much more work than the other. The operating factory is generally more capitalized, it has more capital.
–“If you believe that might makes right then your “anarchism” must advocate nothing more than oppression of the weak by the strong, which is the accomplishment of all governments since the beginning of time. The only changes have been what counts as STRENGTH.”
“Might just is. I think you are confusing the phrase might makes right. It is not about right and wrong. It just happens. ”
Not in the least, I understand fully. If I can dominate another then I can control them, enslave them, etc. There is no moralizing there. It is analogous to: if the lion can catch and kill the gazelle, it can eat it. I do not doubt the truth of the statement as it applies to myself and others. But there are ways of interacting with your fellow humans other than dominating them, such as cooperation. Given that cooperation benefits all parties involved, it is rational (that is, a better choice) to cooperate than it is to dominate.
“And I believe it happens MORE because we live in artificial scarcity. There is ample resources on this planet to feed everyone. What keeps them from getting fed? Seems like property ain’t helping.”
Your argument here seems to be:
1) We have resources to feed every person on the planet
2) There exists private property
3) Many people starve
Conclusion: Private property is a barrier to feeding the people of the world
First look at #1. Who does we refer to??? It is an ambiguous statement. I think the statement means:
1*) Human beings are aware of the existence of a minimum amount of resources on the planet. It is a generally accepted fact that at least some amount of resources exists. These resources can be used as factors of production in the creation of products which will be sufficient in quantity that no person on the planet will ever go involuntarily hungry.
Then:
2*) Private property is a widely accepted social institution.
3*) Many people starve.
Conclusion*: Private property (as a social institution) is a barrier to feeding the people of the world
Having tried to clear up the inherent ambiguity of #1, the conclusion still does not follow from the premises, of which I accept only #3/3* as they are. There are still problems with both 1* and 2*, but I will await your reply before commenting further, as you can perhaps clarify what you meant.
–“Interesting, since my reading of all of your arguments lead me to conclude that you are defending government”
“Yeah. Self government.”
Right on, brother.
–“I cannot advocate any form of violence against any individual that has not threatened or attempted to use violence against me.”
“You are not a factory. You are not an apartment building. I repeat…you are not a factory…”
Violence action is any use of the property of another in any way other than that to which the other consents. If you come into my house, even though I left the front door unlocked, give yourself a tour and leave, that is an abuse of force.
–“You support the formation of gangs in order to threaten and attack peaceful individuals.”
“An individual is not a factory…and individual is not an apartment building…”
See about violence above. Any abuse of force is violent.
–“What can I say, when violence enters the picture the discussion is over. War is abhorrent whether it is initiated by the state or by so-called “anarchists.”
“Nice try. No Ryan, I do not support war as you are defining it.”
Yes, you support using force and you legitimate it with democracy. You consider it legitimate because it is what the group decides.
“Nothing will change my mind. Property is theft, and under anarchy, it won’t exist. Personal property will exist, or ‘possessions’.”
This is where we differ. I am always willing to change my mind when a superior argument is presented. I have no allegiance to any ideology, capitalism or otherwise. I support capitalism only because no better argument has been presented to me. My goal is not to convince you or anyone else. I would be happier if you proved me wrong, since this would imply that what I knew was incorrect, but I would be more enlightened than before. Maybe we should focus on “property is theft,” since we keep returning to that.
“Notice how my arguments have stayed very simple and succinct. I have been clear in my viewpoints.”
I do appreciate the clarity and staying on topic, as much as has occured.
“You on the other hand are doing rhetorical backflips to try and justify capitalism.”
I am hoping for strong refutations of my argument, but I am still waiting.
Good thought-provoking piece, Anna. And great comments from Less. I appreciate the intellectual stimulation! I favor anything that advances a dialog among genuine anarchists. We can only gain by that.
Ryan Allen:
“That’s called management, and it isn’t exactly democracy or any sort of cohesive social system. Everyone is free to leave the group of managers, it is voluntary. What makes capitalism work is the free flow of capital. What makes your idealized system work??”
The individual.
“This is nonsense. First you are assuming that the government subsidizes all factories”
Name one factory on in the USA that does not benefit from government.
” I won’t deny that the government subsidizes many businesses and individuals, and such measures are anti-capitalistic in the extreme, but that argument is poor even from a socialist viewpoint. Most socialists accept some variation of a labor theory of value under which the workers are exploited.”
I am not a socialist.
“Hahaha, c’mon. So you make individual determinations of each stranger you encounter whether or not you respect them as an individual?”
Yes.
“Then if you meet someone who you do not respect as an individual (say, the owner of a factory or a large shareholder in a multinational corporation) you attack them?”
Stealing from a government subsidized factory is not attacking a person.
“You are right, even though a body and a factory are both property, one is capable of doing much more work than the other. The operating factory is generally more capitalized, it has more capital.”
Which is why capitalism is bullshit. A factory is NOT more valuable than ANY individual.
“But there are ways of interacting with your fellow humans other than dominating them, such as cooperation. Given that cooperation benefits all parties involved, it is rational (that is, a better choice) to cooperate than it is to dominate.”
But capitalism, with ANY concentration of wealth, inhibits cooperation. Just like having a State subsidized police force inhibits communities from cooperating to sustain their own security.
“First look at #1. Who does we refer to???”
The world. The earth. Concentrated wealth forces scarcity on the earth because it creates scarcity of currency, which is always fiat.
“1*) Human beings are aware of the existence of a minimum amount of resources on the planet. It is a generally accepted fact that at least some amount of resources exists. These resources can be used as factors of production in the creation of products which will be sufficient in quantity that no person on the planet will ever go involuntarily hungry.”
Yes.
“2*) Private property is a widely accepted social institution.”
Which relies on the concentration of wealth. Any anthropologist or sociologist would agree that under abundance the desire for private property evaporates.
“Conclusion*: Private property (as a social institution) is a barrier to feeding the people of the world”
Yes. Thanks.
“Violence action is any use of the property of another in any way other than that to which the other consents.”
If you do not make a distinction between personal (possessions, that which you actively possess, occupy, and mix your labor with) and private property, this debate will go nowhere.
“If you come into my house, even though I left the front door unlocked, give yourself a tour and leave, that is an abuse of force.”
Stop equating your personal house with a house you do not live in or work at that you expect to extract rent profits from. They are not the same.
“Yes, you support using force and you legitimate it with democracy. You consider it legitimate because it is what the group decides.”
There is no legitimate or non-legitimate. That is a false dichotomy.
“This is where we differ. I am always willing to change my mind when a superior argument is presented. I have no allegiance to any ideology, capitalism or otherwise.”
I have allegiance only to myself, my own subjective, conditional values, and my own relative convictions. For this I take full responsibility. I have no desire to tell anyone else what they should value, and I am not trying to convince you not to value corporate held factories and real estate.
I am just saying, without government aid, these things would not exist. Of course, I could be wrong. I am fallible.
I think the best argument against my views is that without private property, innovation would not exist, because concentration of wealth (which thus far has only been enabled by force backed monopoly) may be what prompts high sum investments.
I have argued that without the government, (any monopoly on violence and also monopoly on minds via media and ignorance), concentration of wealth would not exist, because there has been no examples of this occurring in history.
But this is where my steadfast optimism comes in. I know Leonardo Da Vinci and Einstein were not curious because they were profit motivated. I know humans are inherently inquisitive and will always tinker, should they be given the opportunity.
Thus innovation would occur (perhaps faster. remember electric cars were invented alongside gas cars, but oil companies had the lobby) regardless of the lack of profit margins and class stratification.
Capitalist propertarians seem to have no such faith in humanity.
@soahc:
“This is nonsense. First you are assuming that the government subsidizes all factories”
“Name one factory on in the USA that does not benefit from government.”
Name one worker or homeless person in the USA that hasn’t benefitted from government subsidies. If you’ve set foot on a government street, you did.
“Stealing from a government subsidized factory is not attacking a person.”
So stealing from a government subsidized worker isn’t attacking a person either?
“You are right, even though a body and a factory are both property, one is capable of doing much more work than the other. The operating factory is generally more capitalized, it has more capital.”
“Which is why capitalism is bullshit. A factory is NOT more valuable than ANY individual.”
1.He didn’t claim that. He claimed is more capitalized, which it certainly is.
2.How can you say that? Value is completely subjective. Maybe I value factories more than individuals.
So capitalism is bullshit because you don’t listen to what he says and don’t get economics? That is what I thought.
“But capitalism, with ANY concentration of wealth, inhibits cooperation. Just like having a State subsidized police force inhibits communities from cooperating to sustain their own security.”
Exactly the opposite! Cooperation is only done if there are differences. If we all have the same capital and are otherwise the same, there’s no reason to cooperate. Everything you can do, I can do equally well. Everything you can bring to the table in terms of capital, I also have. If capital is concentrated, on the other hand, cooperation is suddenly good for both of us. I can work at a more capitalized level, thus being more productive, and you get to leverage your capital. Both gain.
“Concentrated wealth forces scarcity on the earth because it creates scarcity of currency, which is always fiat.”
Currency isn’t always fiat. Food can be a currency. Cigarettes.
“Which relies on the concentration of wealth. Any anthropologist or sociologist would agree that under abundance the desire for private property evaporates.”
And every sane being would agree that there is no objective abundance possible. Even if every single being on earth was rich and had a yacht, they’d want space ships and their own planet. We always want more than we have – and it’s a good thing. It drives capitalism and thus the rising of the level of wealth of everyone.
There is relative abundance. If you take a starving african child and bring him to Europe, he’d probably think of it as abundant. He’ll get more welfare in a month than his family would’ve earned in a year back home. Food is very cheap. Nobody starves. Relative to his starving home region, it is full of abundance. But after he lives here for a while, he’ll want a car. And a nicer house. And more clothes. Abundance can never be reached.
You also don’t seem to understand where the relative abundance comes from. It’s not like there’s food, shelter and cars lying around, waiting to be split up evenly amongst people. Someone made that stuff. And he owns it. So if you forbid private property, people have no incentive and no capital to create this stuff. You’re right that DaVinci would probably try to invent stuff even without recompensation. But without capital, he can’t. Because he can’t build the tools or get the resources.
“If you do not make a distinction between personal (possessions, that which you actively possess, occupy, and mix your labor with) and private property, this debate will go nowhere.”
It’s completely arbitrary. When does something become “private” and not “personal”? The two words mean the same thing.
“Stop equating your personal house with a house you do not live in or work at that you expect to extract rent profits from. They are not the same.”
Not the same. But they’re both his property. You’re arbitrarily saying it isn’t his because you don’t want him to. You’re the one making the mistake.
“I have argued that without the government, (any monopoly on violence and also monopoly on minds via media and ignorance), concentration of wealth would not exist, because there has been no examples of this occurring in history.”
There’s also no example in history of peace existing without a government. Does this prove peace can’t exist without government? No. It just proves there’s always been government.
And I think you’re wrong. Medieval Iceland. Somalia, e.g. now. There’s no government, but people concentrate capital and wealth.
“Capitalist propertarians seem to have no such faith in humanity.”
Exactly the opposite! They believe humans are awesome and nice for the most part. Which is why they don’t want to keep them in line by stealing their stuff. You, on the other hand, seem to think that everyone who gets capital will use it to hurt others. Therefore you want to force everybody not to own capital. That’s not only evil and will lead to doom, it’s also a very fearful image of human beings you seem to have.
All other anarchists besides An-Caps have very little to no knowledge of any economics. Just look at this 'post-scarcity' Venus Project non-sense. If I wish for a coke in my hand right now, or if I wish or go look to buy 500,000 cokes, and everyone on the Earth did the same, it is impossible. Therefore, there will always be scarcity because resources are not infinite. There is not an infinite mass, and similarly human demand is infinite. It is the great analysis by Rothbard that even in the so-called post-scarcity utopia of Adam and Eve, that there was still scarcity. (It is in his introductory to Austrian Economics part 1 lecture) Without an understanding of economics the rest of your philosophical and ideological thought process is worthless.
Just because you proclaim there is now post-scarcity, doesn't make it so. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate there isn't such a thing. If I steal all the cokes in the world, then it implies that cokes are scarce for everyone else. I suppose you also think oil is infinite? Or that the sun will produce infinite energy? Equally absurd. Besides, that all by-passes the point if you do not have an understanding of how things are actually produced, then you cannot claim to say anything with any certainty.
In any event I hope that all anarchists can agree upon fundamentals of private property. That allows everyone to have their own society of their own choosing. Without this basis understanding us Capitalists will be constantly fighting syndicalists and communists who steal our property. We will let you live in peace if you let us live in peace. Capiche?
"post-scarcity" just means that there are plenty of resources for everyone to have the basics, food, shelter, education, health care, etc. "Scarcity" does not refer to swimming pools full of solid-gold Porsches except to capitalist economists, who don't live in the real world. If you ask 100 people what "scarcity" means, 99 of them will talk about starvation and homelessness, and only the capitalist economist will think "scarcity" means "resources aren't infinite".
Syndicalists and communists will always be trying to take "your" property if you think you have any kind of right to land, buildings, tools, and machines which you don't use, aren't involved in, and possibly have never even seen. Property should be owned by those who use it, and no other people or organizations.
So, there will be no more vacations in the world of the communists and syndicalists? You have to work and never enjoy being away from your domecile for fear it will be stolen from you? What about cruise ships? The workers must live on the ship? The factory workers building the ship own it? How do they even know how to operate it, market it, captain a vessel, etc.?
If property cannot be traded, then you cannot say you own it. If I cannot voluntarily trade my log cabin in the mountains to an investor who wants to market it for vacationers, then how can you say I own it? It's completely absurd. Property rightfully understand comes about through the homesteading of land. Once homesteaded, the homesteader can sell the title to who he or she wishes for whatever purposes they wish. Once the new owner has the title, whether he lives there or not, sees it or not, is the rightful owner of the property. There is no other viable system of property, because it is incoherent. Of course, no one is saying that if you abandon your property that you still own it — no one says that. What I and other capitalists say is that you do not need to be on the same continent, nor do you personally have to use it, etc. to justly own something.
Do the factory workers have to sleep in the factory for fear of squatters? Do the loggers have to live in the forest? What happens if the loggers finish one area, re-plant it, and never go back there for 40 years? Can you honestly tell me the loggers do not own that area because they aren't involved in, or have any use for that area for 40+ years? Any other system of property besides the capitalist one is like I said, incoherent.
Even if there are enough foodstocks and building materials for everyone on the planet, there'll still be scarcity. You have to distribute the stuff. You have to put it together. You have to cook it. You have to clean the dishes. Without a djinni fulfilling everyones wishes, scarcity is impossible.
Now, a high standard of living for most people, that's very possible. And the best way to get there is private property and capitalism, as history and economics have shown.
"So, there will be no more vacations in the world of the communists and syndicalists? You have to work and never enjoy being away from your domecile for fear it will be stolen from you?"
No, for the same reason as when you leave your house now it doesn't immediately become regarded as being abandoned. You're still going to be personally using it in a specific way in the near future.
"What about cruise ships? The workers must live on the ship? The factory workers building the ship own it? How do they even know how to operate it, market it, captain a vessel, etc.?"
I sincerely doubt there would be the most ostentatious luxuries like cruise ships; but just to get to the point, Anarchists are not capitalists; goods and services should be distributed as gifts, not in trade. I suggest you learn at least one thing about Anarchism before you start railing against it.
If you want an incoherent system of property, it's title. Who tracks title? Who enforces title? Most of the US's land is stolen; do you recognize those titles? I agree that homesteading gives a person ownership; but why shouldn't they lose it again if they abandon the property? Title-based property ownership leads to wealth concentration that enriches a few people to the detriment of the vast majority of humanity; if good process leads to bad ends, is it a good system? (is this the part where you blame the victims for not being bootstrappy?)
"Of course, no one is saying that if you abandon your property that you still own it — no one says that."
What does "abandon" mean to a capitalist? Is there an expiration date on titles?
"Can you honestly tell me the loggers do not own that area because they aren’t involved in, or have any use for that area for 40+ years?"
No. There is no time limit to determine abandonment. As long as there is still some way to make sure people know that land is being used, and the rest of the community finds that use to be legitimate (which they will determine fairly in a healthy, functioning community), then it's not abandoned.
"Even if there are enough foodstocks and building materials for everyone on the planet, there’ll still be scarcity."
Assuming there's distribution, which is also easily within our abilities, then having enough for everyone is the definition of post-scarcity.
“Name one worker or homeless person in the USA that hasn’t benefitted from government subsidies. If you’ve set foot on a government street, you did.”
Yeah except only the difference is that wealthy corporate heads are have disposable ‘income’ and freedoms of mobility and scheduling in their life.
“So stealing from a government subsidized worker isn’t attacking a person either?”
Stealing from a corporation is not stealing from an individual. I repeat, a corporation is NOT an individual.
“2.How can you say that? Value is completely subjective. Maybe I value factories more than individuals.”
I agree, value is subjective. And I have no value for absentee ‘ownership’ and corporate personhood. And I am far form alone in these convictions. Without State subsidy, there would be no one to protect your property ‘rights’. You would be forced to do so yourself.
“So capitalism is bullshit because you don’t listen to what he says and don’t get economics? That is what I thought.”
All of the economic theories of ancaps come from a history of fiat currency. Hardly a compelling argument for what the world would look like post-State.
“If we all have the same capital and are otherwise the same, there’s no reason to cooperate.”
Some people actually enjoy cooperating. Thankfully, everyone in the the world is not like you Bleike.
“Everything you can do, I can do equally well.”
I never said this at all. People always find was to compete on some level. If we are not competing economically for mythically ‘scarce’ resources, then we will compete in art and recreation. Instead of want and desperation, we will compete as good sportsmen.
“Everything you can bring to the table in terms of capital, I also have.”
That is not true. Artisans can create beautiful things but not all of us will be as talented.
“If capital is concentrated, on the other hand, cooperation is suddenly good for both of us. I can work at a more capitalized level, thus being more productive, and you get to leverage your capital. Both gain.”
Right, because a football team is competing for capital always, rather than the status of being a winner.
“Currency isn’t always fiat. Food can be a currency. Cigarettes.”
So you are going to base a large economy on food and cigarettes, with multinational corporations and their property ‘rights’? Come on Bleike. You are living the fiat fantasy. Without government standardization of currency, your economic model fails.
“And every sane being would agree that there is no objective abundance possible.”
There is plenty of resources on this planet right now to feed, house everyone, provide clean water, a/c, cell phones and internet access.
“Even if every single being on earth was rich and had a yacht, they’d want space ships and their own planet. We always want more than we have – and it’s a good thing. It drives capitalism and thus the rising of the level of wealth of everyone.”
Good is subjective.
“Abundance can never be reached.”
Wishful thinking.
“So if you forbid private property, people have no incentive and no capital to create this stuff.”
Some people enjoy creation. Da Vinci was not into art for the money, but for the love of creation. Again, not everyone is only motivated by profit like you Bleike. Some people have more aesthetic motivations.
“You’re right that DaVinci would probably try to invent stuff even without recompensation. But without capital, he can’t. Because he can’t build the tools or get the resources.”
I am sure Da Vinci could have done just fine in a world free of absentee ownership. People would still trade goods and services.
“It’s completely arbitrary. When does something become “private” and not “personal”? The two words mean the same thing.”
Okay Bleike, fine. I’ll just revert to ‘possession vs. property.’
“There’s also no example in history of peace existing without a government. Does this prove peace can’t exist without government? No. It just proves there’s always been government.”
Are you kidding? The only peace there ever has been has been without government.
“And I think you’re wrong. Medieval Iceland. Somalia, e.g. now. There’s no government, but people concentrate capital and wealth.”
Until I go to Somalia, I will abstain from commenting on the situation there. I assume you have never been.
“Exactly the opposite! They believe humans are awesome and nice for the most part. Which is why they don’t want to keep them in line by stealing their stuff. You, on the other hand, seem to think that everyone who gets capital will use it to hurt others. Therefore you want to force everybody not to own capital. That’s not only evil and will lead to doom, it’s also a very fearful image of human beings you seem to have.”
Look Bleike, an absentee landlord, or a boss looking to profit off the labor of others, is a lazy ass. Mmmkay? A lazy vampire.
Mass accumulation of wealth only happens if one provides goods and/or services the people want at the best price. It's a democracy where people vote with their wallets. In an anarcho-capitalist world competition would be rife, not suppressed by the state, and so monopolies would be rare and short lived.
And this talk about slave wages is utter garbage. No one would be holding a gun to anyone's head. If people don't like a wage they can carry on as if that employer does not exist
There are numerous other errors in this piece, but really, I think it best to just send people to good Rothbardian websites like Mises.org and LewRockwell.com.
This negative view of capitalism is exactly what the oligarchs want. They know that free enterprise has drastically reduced world poverty and greatly empowered the people as a whole, and they see that as a threat. Hence all this Marxism in state schools, and misguided anarchists like you find here.
Wage slavery is not a feature of capitalism. This article is horrid. I'm sad to see it on C4SS.
"this just rubbed me a little the wrong way- 'under anarchy' is a nonsensical statement, and I can't imagine there would be money without government to ensure its value and to make it necessary via property taxation. Without government, syndicalism/communism is inevitable. But I guess your statement makes more sense if by 'money' you mean 'capital' i.e. tools, machines, land, skills, etc."
Money does not need a government to guarantee it's value. Only Fiat currencies need that. Sound money, monies that are backed by commodities, are not valued because someone says they are, they are valued because they buy things. There is no way to get rid of money from a society, because people will always find a common medium of exchange that they will trade with.
Your fundamental assumption is that government is needed to have capitalism. It is not, the government just protects the super rich who can't protect all their shit themselves, and under AnCaps I can have my property and house and business. And you know what, YOU can have your commune with the machines being owned by everyone, no bosses, profit sharing, all that fun stuff. But in a system where all property is "communally" owned I can't own my own shit. I am an AnCap because it allows for all types of voluntary societal skeletons.
Anna, if you define anarcho-capitalism as a society of private property, then there doesn't have to be billionaires before it can be considered capitalist. If the marginal costs of protecting a marginal accumulation of property outweigh the benefits, and we see a "cap" on each individual's wealth acquiring capacity, then the society will still be capitalist. It would still be capitalist even if it becomes difficult or impossible for individuals to do what they can do now under a state, which is accumulate a vast fortune without any additional costs of protection. For they could just incur the additional costs of protection if their revenues from selling goods is sufficient. It would be theoretically possible for billionaires to form as long as they produce more than the costs they incur, including costs of protection. You are hastily dismissing this possibility and imagining some sort of artificial "cap" on individual earning capacity. Yes, each individual is capped in terms of earning potential, but there is nothing like "$10 billion in wealth is the maximum that people can afford to protect." It might make it harder for individuals to accumulate vast fortunes without a state, but that doesn't mean they will never. It might make billionaires start appearing in 2100 AD instead of 1914 AD, or whatever.
Now, even the voluntary, more rigid socialist communities of "communal property" would still be capitalistic, vis a vis the rest of the world. For those individuals NOT in the community, who are NOT entitled to any ownership rights, are still defended against just like they would in the fact of a capitalist community. There is no difference to the individual if a community in which they have no rights of ownership over is owned by one or by a million individuals. It doesn't matter if the community's members are profit sharing, or if the community is a more fluid and dynamic individual-based wage and profit earning community. The individual non-owner still has to ask for permission from "the property owners." Individuals in both types of communities, like you said, cannot exercise property rights over the property that is legitimately owned by the members of the other community.
Otherwise, decent article. Much better that the tripe that typically accompanies critiques of AnCapism.
Yes, but some types of "anarchists" (anarcho-communists, for instance) believe in the violent usurpation of property. For that reason, they should not be considered anarchists at all.
Thank You!!
Only Lockean property can be considered real property under AnCap.
This is where I turn to AnCap too. Under AnarchoSyndicalism we are forced to give up money and porperty in roder ot conform to the stateless "order" imposed by the Syndicates. In AnCap we are truly free to decide our own fate.
I find it unlikely that the middle-class and poor would simply "defend themselves" under AnCap. Wouldn't it be more likely that the police and army would seize their workplaces and sell their services in the free-market? Perhaps they could sell subscriptions to protect various locations or specific property. The more property you own, the more subscriptions you would have to buy for the various locations. It would become expensive as you owned more property, but that would place the real value on protection, instead of the state pegging the price at taxes and then wasting it left-right-centre.
I think it depends on how you define capitalism. If it is wage labor – there clearly will be wage labor in a free society – like cleaning my home. Or building my house. There will be money – simply as a tool for simplification of exchange, as it appears automatically on free markets. There will be lending for a rent. And there will be subdivision of labor between whose who decide what to produce with a given set of machines and raw materials and those who do the actual hard work.
So all what defines capitalism in principle, as a concept, will be there. Even if free markets will be very different from actual society, where the state does everything to support large firms.
"Under anarchy, anyone could lend money to anyone, there would be no special thing known as a “bank” per se (or to put it a different way, anyone could put up a shingle that said “bank”). Without legal tender and the ability to create large amounts of money out of thin air (the threat of “bank runs” and/or devaluation of bank notes would effectively limit this to a very small level, enough to minimally pay for itself at most), the money supply would no longer be in the hands of a cartel. Borrowing would become rare, and saving would become widespread, distributing capital more and more widely, rather than more and more narrowly, thus diluting the price of capital. Under such a system, any shift in demand would be met by a vast array of competitors, driving profits back down to the average."
THIS, is what I define as capitalism. A system based on capital as money , and not imaginary number,
Anarcho Capitalism is as impossible as abolitionism!
Just kidding!
We ended slavery because slavery it is immoral and contrary to self ownership.
The government too will end because it is immoral and contrary to self ownership.
the "money" will go back to what it was long before we had centralized states. Precious metals like gold and silver and to a lesser extent, copper. Itis likely that there will be many media of exchange, but these will be the most prevalent because they are efficient.