Anarcho-capitalism
uri
where it has helped put the role of the State back on the political
agenda. It has become a major ideological challenge to the dominant
liberalism which sees a role for government in the protection of
property. The anarcho-capitalists would like to dismantle government
and allow complete laissez-faire in the economy. Its adherents propose
that all public services be turned over to private entrepreneurs, even
public spaces like town halls, streets and parks. Free market
capitalism, they insist, is hindered not enhanced by the State.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_AnarchoCapitalism.html
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html
achipin...@yahoo.com
everything else that is endemic to the capitalistic ethos? No matter
what prefix is attached to capitalism, even the appropriation of
anarchism, it will still be fundamentally about personal enrichment
over the collective good.
I can't tell from your post if you wish to advocate this or are merely
warning us of the pestilential 'vogue' this abortion of Ayn Rand poses.
Capitalism thrives off false individualization, the cult of the ego,
rampant waste, and so many more deplorable aspects. It is profit for
profits' sake, at the expense of any and all else.
uri
I absolutely agree. Capitalism is based on the flase assumption that
egoism would not result in a strong government.
James A. Donald
On 11 May 2006 18:11:28 -0700, "uri"
<dan...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
The article cited makes two errors:
1. It supposes a monopoly of force arises easily and
naturally, the stronger party simply dominates, without
the inconvenient necessity of burning towns and
massacring women and children. In practice, of course,
the establishment of a monopoly of force usually
resembles Sherman's march. You generally do not know
who is the stronger party, and finding out tends to be
stupendously costly, something a private enterprise
interested in profit and answerable to its shareholders
will not be interested in finding out.
2. It assumes the defense agency of the accuser and the
defense agency of the accused are necessarily in violent
conflict, but in fact their interests are harmonious.
As I point out in http://www.jim.com/anarcho-.htm
: : If a client has a permanent relationship with
: : his defense agency, in which the defense
: : agency, like an insurance company, bails him
: : out in trouble, then both defense agencies in
: : a conflict have an interest in justice - one
: : defense agency seeking that justice be done
: : and seen to be done for the accuser, one
: : seeking that no injustice be done nor seen to
: : be done to the accused.
: : Insurance companies will not insure you
: : against deliberately burning your own house
: : down, and if they did, it would cost too
: : much, and similarly protection agencies will
: : not protect you when you yourself start a
: : conflict. Therefore protection agencies will
: : always need to have some reasonable
: : arrangements for determining fault. They will
: : do this not out of concern for the general
: : good but out of concern for their own
: : particular good, and the good of their
: : clients or members.
: : We expect that most people, most of the time,
: : would sign up with various defense agencies,
: : who would for the most part be responsible
: : for enforcing law, that law would be enforced
: : by freely competing rent-a-cops, vigilante
: : groups, and militias.
: :
: : Signing up with an a protection agency in
: : advance is going to be like signing up with
: : an insurance company. As with medical
: : insurance, if someone has not signed up with
: : a protection agency in advance, and signs up
: : after trouble occurs, he is going to find
: : protection is limited and expensive. One
: : contracts with an agency before trouble
: : arises, in order to deter potential trouble
: : makers - as with medical insurance, one
: : contracts with an agency hoping never to use
: : its services, and the agency hoping never to
: : provide them. The agency therefore prefers to
: : lose customers who commit crimes.
: :
: : Protection agencies will want clients who are
: : peaceful, and law abiding (just as credit
: : card agencies want clients who pay their just
: : debts) and will have mechanisms in place to
: : discriminate against the lawless. One such a
: : mechanism is a system for determining justice
: : in a dispute. Such a mechanism will
: : effectively fine the somewhat lawless, and
: : will leave the intolerably lawless
: : unprotected and subject to private violence.
: : If you are determined to be at fault, you
: : will have to pay compensation or face grave
: : danger of possibly lethal violence. Of course
: : you might find a protection organization with
: : a different opinion of you, but they have an
: : incentive to form accurate opinions. Their
: : diverse institutions and procedures for
: : ensuring the accuracy of these opinions is
: : the system of justice in an anarchic society.
: :
: : If a client has a permanent relationship with
: : his defense agency, in which the defense
: : agency, like an insurance company, bails him
: : out in trouble, then both defense agencies in
: : a conflict have an interest in justice - one
: : defense agency seeking that justice be done
: : and seen to be done for the accuser, one
: : seeking that no injustice be done nor seen to
: : be done to the accused. If, however, the
: : relationship is like that between a client
: : and a lawyer, where the client hires the
: : agency after trouble arises, then the agency
: : has an excessive interest in getting good
: : results for its client regardless of justice,
: : and, like lawyers, an excessive interest in
: : trouble. I expect that in anarchism, defense
: : agencies would usually be based on long term
: : relationships, rather than charging by the
: : incident, because someone who relied on
: : by-the-incident defense would be vulnerable
: : to someone with superior resources. When he
: : really needed defense, no one would want to
: : provide it. Payment-per-incident creates an
: : dangerous incentive for the defense agency to
: : defend its client even when he is in the
: : wrong, but it also creates a dangerous
: : incentive for the client to refrain from
: : seeking punishment for those who have wronged
: : him even when he is in the right, and thus
: : makes it likely that others will believe they
: : can wrong him with impunity. An insurance
: : type defense contract, where the defense
: : agency does not charge for particular
: : incidents, however costly they may be, will
: : get you a little decal to put on your
: : property and your contracts and so forth, a
: : decal which will deter evildoers because the
: : contract it represents deters evildoers. Such
: : a contract represents determination to be
: : avenged, payment in advance committing
: : oneself and one's defense organization to
: : future vengeance.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
n8Fel/uYx8yf2R0gAshED6SqK+zF63J7LNIPL+jx
4YKDDSKjAOliztduWUcjDTKHD0sZcwfQSxi8nlPQo
electro
tyranny or of one gaining dominance over the other is obviously false.
anarc...@gmail.com
> Your conclusion that egotistic/aggressive behaviour will not result in
> tyranny or of one gaining dominance over the other is obviously false.
The problem is not aggression but _submission_ to aggression.
That results in tyranny with or without a government, with or
without capitalism, and whether or not the aggression is egoistical,
altruistic, communal or ambiguous.
electro
> The problem is not aggression but _submission_ to aggression.
> That results in tyranny with or without a government, with or
> without capitalism, and whether or not the aggression is egoistical,
> altruistic, communal or ambiguous.
Aggression or coercion is never altruistic.
anarc...@gmail.com
> > The problem is not aggression but _submission_ to aggression.
> > That results in tyranny with or without a government, with or
> > without capitalism, and whether or not the aggression is egoistical,
> > altruistic, communal or ambiguous.
electro wrote:
> Aggression or coercion is never altruistic.
Perhaps not, but those who practice them often say they
are, and I tend to take people at their word. And I see no
reason why they shouldn't be: people have altruistic desires,
and people often pursue their desires by means of coercion
or aggression.
Michael A. Clem
"Considerable vogue"? And here I thought I was in the minority of a
minority in my beliefs--warms the heart.
The rest of the description seems pretty accurate, especially that
last sentence.
I dunno about the "dominant liberalism" part, though. If our current
administration is a good example of the protection of property, then
we're in serious trouble.
Will read the articles later, when I have more time.
Michael A. Clem
Profit for profit's sake? What constitutes "profit", and how is profit
achieved? By ignoring the constituents of profit, you're simply making
an emotional statement, not a meaningful one.
Wouldn't it be better for the collective good if certain individuals
didn't speak up too loudly? Or does collectivism require strong,
individualistic leaders to work well?
electro
a physical thing. In reality there is only natural resources which all
living beings use and consume all the time (like water,
nutrition/minerals and electricity).
James A. Donald
"electro"
> Aggression or coercion is never altruistic.
Aggression and coercion is almost always altruistic -
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were trying to save the
world.
The Soviet version of their motives, and Kennan's
account of their motives in his famous "long telegram"
"The Sources of Soviet Conduct" were pretty much
identical, except that Kennan considered them demented
and obstinately blind to empirical reality
Similarly It is clear that Pol Pot was indeed a saint,
as everyone who knew him perceived him, and that is
precisely the reason that Cambodia was such an appalling
hell hole. By and large, the more saintly the rulers,
the greater the horror
In the twentieth century altruism directed at strangers
far away in places one cannot find on a map manifested a
concentration camp guards exterminating jews for the
greater good of the race, and idealistic young
communists holding a kulak's child in the fire to force
the mother to reveal where the seed corn is hidden.
The problem is not that such cold and distant charity is
likely to be hypocrisy and self deception. The problem
is that when they quite obviously sincerely intend all
that altruism, as for example Heng Samrin, their
behavior is even worse. They commit greater horrors
carry them out with greater determination, and greater
disregard for personal safety. Recollect all those
young communists, willing to die, and willing to kill.
Today, observe the suicide bombers.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
PjIZBWW0TMPxgusv16MfXh/52gKbEWvtzogBi0P/
4mlJsqkMXkJSqImzdSCyyNngcZ5e/a4Z5THMYE496
efa...@gmail.com
I wonder what students of Max Stirner would say to that.
Dan Clore
> uri wrote:
>>achipinthear...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>I absolutely agree. Capitalism is based on the flase assumption that
>>egoism would not result in a strong government.
>
> I wonder what students of Max Stirner would say to that.
If they follow Stirner, they would say that capitalism does
not really involve egoism. They would include capitalists
among the "possessed".
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
mowhak
James A. Donald schrieb:
> --
> "electro"
> > Aggression or coercion is never altruistic.
>
> Aggression and coercion is almost always altruistic -
> Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were trying to save the
> world.
-according to you, they were all alike anyway, but what exactly did
Capitalism do to save the world instead, or do to hinder both
superpowers from gaining power?
Where were all those better-knowing capitalists when they could as well
have risen against the cruelties of Stalinism and Fascism, so suddenly
aroused and unbound, with no ties to capitalism where- and whatsoever?
;-)
Were they aggressively busy trying to convince Stalinists and Fascists
or busy counting money, (lost or) gained? If Capitalism could have
saved the world, it would already have done so, given its long history,
but -alas! we are still far from it.
Capitalists survived both systems, but you seem to mistake that for
"survival of the fittest", which does only sound good as long as you
include yourself in the ranks of the survivors. If you stumble and
fall, you will only be helped if you pay for it.
Brave New World. Sorry, no need for it. We already have this.
mowhak
Michael Price
achipin...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What about accumulation of wealth, and hoarding, and greed, and
> everything else that is endemic to the capitalistic ethos?
Well they're all good. Accumulation of wealth is good because wealth
is good
and therefore getting more of it is good. We know wealth is good
because if it
wasn't it wouldn't be what people want and therefore would not be
wealth. Of
course there are people who say too much wealth doesn't make you
happier,
but such decisions are best left to individual. Hoarding is good
because it
allows you to survive periods of shortages without inconvenience, even
if the
hoarding is not your own.
> No matter
> what prefix is attached to capitalism, even the appropriation of
> anarchism, it will still be fundamentally about personal enrichment
> over the collective good.
No it's fundamentally about deciding what you want and providing
other
people with what they want so you can get it. The "collective good" is
in
fact what many people want.
> I can't tell from your post if you wish to advocate this or are merely
> warning us of the pestilential 'vogue' this abortion of Ayn Rand poses.
Actually Ayn Rand was specifically against it.
> Capitalism thrives off false individualization,
How is it false? We are all individuals! YES WE ARE ALL
INDIVIDUALS!
> the cult of the ego, rampant waste,
Actually capitalism tends to punish waste.
> and so many more deplorable aspects. It is profit for
> profits' sake, at the expense of any and all else.
Why would anyone in capitalism profit for profits sake? Profit is
generally
used to get things other than profit. If someone profitted just
because they
like profitting how is that bad?
Michael Price
> Your conclusion that egotistic/aggressive behaviour will not result in
> tyranny or of one gaining dominance over the other is obviously false.
That was not his conclusion, his conclusion was that it won't result
in
tyranny or of one gaining dominance of the other in an anarchy. It
obviously
results in such under a State. Simply stating that a conclusion is
false is
not an argument, it is even less valid if you say the conclusion is
"obviously
false".
Michael Price
You only just figured this out????? ;>
Marc Welch
> Where were all those better-knowing capitalists when
> they could as well have risen against the cruelties
> of Stalinism and Fascism
The Kadets in Russia and Liberals in Germany were busy
being vilified and banned by Bolsheveks and Nazis.
thok
> If Capitalism could have
> saved the world, it would already have done so, given its long history,
> but -alas! we are still far from it.
Well, the great advantage af capitalism is its simpleness. Capitalism
was not based upon the writings of great philosophers or theorists (i
cannot count Lock or the Enlightment group as philosophical founders of
capitalism). That's why there is no telology (at least explicitly) in
capitalism. Capitalists never claimed they will save the world. In
addition every other system was formulated on a critique of capitalism,
judging what is good or bad. As of the cruelties, where oppresion
and/or exploitation survives, cruelty reigns.
Alex Russell
Capitalism is a way of running an economy. Some governments support
capitalism, other do not, but the capitalists in general leave ruling to
government except to bribe the local government into passing laws that
are "good for business".
Western democracies, funded by capitalism, did try to 'fight' oppresive
dictatorships. The targets chosen to fight indicate that money is more
important than idealogy to many western democracies.
Capitalism has nothing to say about how a society should help the poor.
Whether private donations to charity or government funded help is the
best way is a decision made by society and the government. Even in
governments that claim to support pure capitalim and free trade they
fund many programs to help the poor: welfare, medi-care, free education,
free roads, etc...
If YOU feel that more should be done for the poor then YOU should help
fund the efforts to help them. It is nice to help the poor, but they do
not have any right to this help.
Alex Russell
Michael A. Clem
> Michael A. Clem wrote:
>> I dunno about the "dominant liberalism" part, though. If our current
>>administration is a good example of the protection of property, then
>>we're in serious trouble.
>
>
> You only just figured this out????? ;>
>
Well, it's clear that the original poster hasn't figured this out...
Michael Price
> James A. Donald schrieb:
>
> > --
> > "electro"
> > > Aggression or coercion is never altruistic.
> >
> > Aggression and coercion is almost always altruistic -
> > Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were trying to save the
> > world.
>
> -according to you, they were all alike anyway, but what exactly did
> Capitalism do to save the world instead, or do to hinder both
> superpowers from gaining power?
> Where were all those better-knowing capitalists when they could as well
> have risen against the cruelties of Stalinism and Fascism, so suddenly
> aroused and unbound, with no ties to capitalism where- and whatsoever?
> ;-)
>
> Were they aggressively busy trying to convince Stalinists and Fascists
> or busy counting money, (lost or) gained? If Capitalism could have
> saved the world, it would already have done so, given its long history,
And it did. While capitalism flourished it made people healthier,
richer and
even wiser. Everyone alive in the west today has an ancestor who lived
to
breed because of capitalism.
> but -alas! we are still far from it.
Far from capitalism? Well yes.
> Capitalists survived both systems, but you seem to mistake that for
> "survival of the fittest", which does only sound good as long as you
> include yourself in the ranks of the survivors. If you stumble and
> fall, you will only be helped if you pay for it.
To the extent capitalism survived it did so because it was the
fittest.
It produced the goods that even it's enemies required.
Joseph K.
It can be, as in 'altruistic punishment', where cooperators punish
fre-riders assuming the cost of punishment upon themselves.
mowhak
Michael Price wrote:
> mowhak wrote:
> > If Capitalism could have
> > saved the world, it would already have done so, given its long history,
>
> And it did. While capitalism flourished it made people healthier,
> richer and
> even wiser. Everyone alive in the west today has an ancestor who lived
> to
> breed because of capitalism.
-I don't say that everything about capitalism ever was/is bad, but I
notice that people living nowadays in former "socialist" countries have
ancestors, too. Their "socialism" also let that happen.
> > but -alas! we are still far from it.
>
> Far from capitalism? Well yes.
-strange, the wonders capitalism worked, though we are still far from
it...
mowhak
mowhak
Marc Welch wrote:
-so you mean to state that organized capitalism already had its army
together, but the bad Nazis and the bad Bolsheviks just prohibited
intervening. Aha. And a liberal Russian Kadet was a typical capitalist.
I think you are wrong in both your assumptions.
mowhak
James A. Donald
mohawk:
> > > Where were all those better-knowing capitalists
> > > when they could as well have risen against the
> > > cruelties of Stalinism and Fascism
Marc Welch
> > The Kadets in Russia and Liberals in Germany were
> > busy being vilified and banned by Bolsheveks and
> > Nazis.
"mowhak"
> -so you mean to state that organized capitalism
> already had its army together
There is no such thing as organized capitalism.
However, organized political parties that were somewhat
tolerant of capitalism were murdered by the commies and
nazis.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
xuvhFSeWg89W0yyNK+QHv39wRexg3TN9bvLSXJI3
4ip33vEpRbct3WGTElNmoSVVK3vnD3R83oRFPMrfE
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
>
> > mowhak wrote:
>
> > > If Capitalism could have
> > > saved the world, it would already have done so, given its long history,
> >
> > And it did. While capitalism flourished it made people healthier,
> > richer and even wiser. Everyone alive in the west today has an
> > ancestor who lived to breed because of capitalism.
>
> -I don't say that everything about capitalism ever was/is bad, but I
> notice that people living nowadays in former "socialist" countries have
> ancestors, too. Their "socialism" also let that happen.
>
socialism, many because of capitalism.
> > > but -alas! we are still far from it.
> >
> > Far from capitalism? Well yes.
>
> -strange, the wonders capitalism worked, though we are still far from
> it...
We are now far from it, we weren't always.
>
> mowhak
achipin...@yahoo.com
to.
i also have only rude things to say about michael price's chasmic
aporias.
capitalism and anarchism are fundamentally incompatible. anarchism as
i know and practice it is not shameless self-aggrandizement at the
expense of others. that would be infantile rebellion without direction
and the result of a socially retarded 'will to power' that foolishly
believes one can escape the reciprocal demands of communal obligation
by a priori negation. capitalism as an economic system, and therefore
capitalists as a class (of individuals?), is infatuated with its
self-referential ideology which provides a veneer of social
justification (i.e. survival of the fittest, ad nauseum) and thus
functions as a legitimating cloak for bald exploitation. it is the
chief cop out of conformists to automatically respond to valid
criticisms of institutional constraints on individuality with 'we are
all individuals.' it seems that bodily space is enough to certify
autonomous thought.
i suppose i'm done now.
achipin...@yahoo.com
capitalism does not, and never has, PRODUCED what its citizenry, much
less its enemies, require. it steals. it holds hostage. the master's
whip has been replaced by the wage.
Michael Price
> i don't have the patience to cut and paste the texts i wish to respond
> to.
Which is unneccesary with any news or email program I know of. In
any case you're saying you'd rather save 10 seconds or less than
actually respond to a point in way that let's people know what you've
responded to.
> i also have only rude things to say about michael price's chasmic
> aporias.
As opposed to, say, intelligent things.
> capitalism and anarchism are fundamentally incompatible. anarchism as
> i know and practice it is not shameless self-aggrandizement at the
> expense of others.
Neither is capitalism.
> that would be infantile rebellion without direction
> and the result of a socially retarded 'will to power' that foolishly
> believes one can escape the reciprocal demands of communal obligation
> by a priori negation.
What communal obligation? Where does it come from? If it comes from
agreement then it is entirely consistent with anarcho-capitalism, if
not it is
bare slavery.
> capitalism as an economic system, and therefore
> capitalists as a class (of individuals?), is infatuated with its
> self-referential ideology which provides a veneer of social
> justification (i.e. survival of the fittest, ad nauseum) and thus
> functions as a legitimating cloak for bald exploitation.
Capitalism is not justified by "the survival of the fittest" nor
could
it be as it allows the less fit to survive.
> it is the chief cop out of conformists
How the hell do you get me being a comformists from me being an
anarcho-capitalist? It's the least conformist political theory I could
believe
in absent racist fascism.
> to automatically respond to valid criticisms of institutional constraints
> on individuality with 'we are all individuals.'
Well aren't we? As for valid criticisms of institutional constraints
on
individuality I believe I make them not respond to them.
> it seems that bodily space is enough to certify
> autonomous thought. i suppose i'm done now.
I think you always were.
Michael Price
achipin...@yahoo.com wrote:
> ok, ok. one more thing.
> capitalism does not, and never has, PRODUCED what its citizenry, much
> less its enemies, require.
A plain lie that is promulgated on some of what capitalism has
produced.
> it steals. it holds hostage. the master's whip has been replaced by
> the wage.
In other words interaction by fear has been replaced by interaction
by
mutual interest. Go away schoolboy, having read the Communist
Manifesto doesn't qualify you to debate in this company.
achipin...@yahoo.com
... well, me is just ungood with kompooter. bored bored BORED now with
schoolboy antics. must return to reading credible.blogspot with
english tutor.
arguing with an 'anarcho-capitalist' who apparently understands neither
the 'anarcho' or 'capitalist' descriptors, as evidenced by his allusion
to da kommunist manifest-OH (i think?), is about as fruitful as eating
bricks.
i am not here to get mired in message board psychobabble.
anarcho-capitalism quite simply belongs to such vaunted traditions as
'military intelligence'
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote.
> > you'd rather save 10 seconds...
> ... well, me is just ungood with kompooter.
No, you're just arrogant and stupid.
> bored bored BORED now with schoolboy antics.
We stop producing them then.
> must return to reading credible.blogspot with
> english tutor.
You need a logic tutor more.
>
> arguing with an 'anarcho-capitalist' who apparently understands neither
> the 'anarcho' or 'capitalist' descriptors, as evidenced by his allusion
> to da kommunist manifest-OH (i think?),
I merely assumed that was the only thing you read. With someone of
such little knowledge it usually is. I fail to see how claiming you
read the
communist manifesto shows I'm ignorant, particularly as you couldn't
fault
a single claim of mine.
> is about as fruitful as eating
> bricks.
>
> i am not here to get mired in message board psychobabble.
>
Why are you here? Not to respond to anything or present a cogent
argument apparently.
> anarcho-capitalism quite simply belongs to such vaunted traditions as
> 'military intelligence'
Well that's your claim. Around here unsupported claims treated as
evidence
the author doesn't have a clue.
Marc Welch
There can be no anarchism without capitalism. The "anarchists" of Spain
had a go at property-free "anarchy" in Catalonia and failed famously.
Marc Welch
When given a choice between a whip and a wage, most people can tell the
difference.
thok
preach freedom of the individual. The fundamental difference is that,
freedom in anarchy is accompanied with social consciousness but in
capitalism is absent. Social consiousness in capitalism is limited to
charity. Don't even try to mention the public sector as a substitute.
Public sector is channeling wealth to the upper class and leaves the
underclass with crumbs.
It is "natural" for anarchists to fail in their effort to organize
"anarchic" communities, since everything that surround us is
non-"anarchical" (or better anti-anarchical).
>From my point of view capitalism is evolving into new communism.
Capitalism is becoming (or already is) a dogma especially in the
States.
Marc Welch
> Anarchy and capitalism are similar, on the outside, concepts. They
> both preach freedom of the individual. The fundamental difference is
> that, freedom in anarchy is accompanied with social consciousness
> but in capitalism is absent
This is the New Socialist Man theory that rationalized the murder of
millions during the 20th Century.
Will those who do not make the grade be sent to the Gulag for
"re-education"? Without a state, who will guarantee this "social
consiousness" and how?
achipin...@yahoo.com
compared, much less compressed (not without egregious distortions) into
a singular viewpoint. syndicalism, primitivism, urban insurrection,
semiotic guerilla tactics, sure. perhaps. but capitalism? and worse,
the audacity to posit 'anarco-capitalism!' this mutant notion is a
beguiling facelift on neoliberalism. let me simplify: capitalism is,
has, and always will be the coercive enslavement of the many by the
few, perpetuated only by the lurking violence of the police state. oh,
and fuck communism, for the record. all that deliberate
centralization. though i'm not sure which is worse: a centralized,
determinately hierarchical State terrorizing its populace, or the
global, amorphous, obfuscated tyranny of multinationals. humanist
socialism, as outlined by marx in his philosophical manuscripts and
elaborated quite brilliantly by succeeding generations of
post-marxists, and anarchism do share correllary idealistic impulses.
however, ask makhno about trusting diehard marxists. as for
're-education' or the scary ol' idea of liquidating the borgeoisie by
any means necessary, i think both can be dismissed. poof. like that.
consciousness raising is an activity requiring clear communication by
all those involved, ultimately aiming at a LOCAL, small scale,
non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian consensus which can only flourish
once the apparatuses of false consciousness (ie state, corporate,
media, etc) are demolished. the capitalist economy and its imperial
tools of the state and transnational organizations (ie, UN, NAFTA, and
co.) does not guarantee a social consciousness but rather the compliant
indoctrination of an artificially isolated, insulated, and mediated
lonely crowd.
as for historical massacres, specifically ww2, the capitalists
(politicians) turned a blind eye to hitler's known and ongoing
atrocities. the nazi regime was quite amiable to the interests of
american financiers. but hitler, like saddam and the rest of the
litany of forgettable dictators, was deposed only once he threatened
the vested interests of capital. this is what is meant by profit for
profits sake, michael. there are no overarching humane principles to
steer capitalism. it is a system of selective enrichment that sees the
world as mere resources to privatize, pave, and plunder as befits the
whims of the power elite. before anybody considers
'anarcho-capitalism' as anything beyond a laughable oxymoron i would
suggest a long excursion into proudhon's nearly flawless exegesis 'what
is property?'
i'll spoil the ending for you though:
IT'S THEFT.
Michael Price
> Anarchy and capitalism are similar, on the outside, concepts. They both
> preach freedom of the individual. The fundamental difference is that,
> freedom in anarchy is accompanied with social consciousness but in
> capitalism is absent.
How do you figure? I mean capitalism seems to have a lot of social
consciousness. People are very conscious of society in capitalism,
they can't seem to shut up about it.
>Social consiousness in capitalism is limited to
> charity.
What else can "social consciousness" mean but charitable endevours
to assist others?
> Don't even try to mention the public sector as a substitute.
> Public sector is channeling wealth to the upper class and leaves the
> underclass with crumbs.
> It is "natural" for anarchists to fail in their effort to organize
> "anarchic" communities, since everything that surround us is
> non-"anarchical" (or better anti-anarchical).
Non sequitur.
> >From my point of view capitalism is evolving into new communism.
> Capitalism is becoming (or already is) a dogma especially in the
> States.
Well no, state capitalism is.
Michael Price
> i find it unfathomable that anarchy and capitalism are even being
> compared, much less compressed (not without egregious distortions) into
> a singular viewpoint. syndicalism, primitivism, urban insurrection,
> semiotic guerilla tactics, sure. perhaps. but capitalism? and worse,
> the audacity to posit 'anarco-capitalism!' this mutant notion is a
> beguiling facelift on neoliberalism. let me simplify: capitalism is,
> has, and always will be the coercive enslavement of the many by the
> few, perpetuated only by the lurking violence of the police state.
Claims without evidence are nonpersuasive. You claim that it is
unfathomable that people relate capitailsm and anarchy, but then
refuse to show a single difference between them.
And when exactly has capitalism been perpetuated by the violence of
the State, lurking or not?
> oh, and fuck communism, for the record. all that deliberate
> centralization. though i'm not sure which is worse: a centralized,
> determinately hierarchical State terrorizing its populace, or the
> global, amorphous, obfuscated tyranny of multinationals.
Well let's see, 170 million dead versus basically none. Which is
better?
> humanist socialism, as outlined by marx in his philosophical
> manuscripts and elaborated quite brilliantly by succeeding
> generations of post-marxists, and anarchism do share correllary
> idealistic impulses.
How so? Marx was anti-anarchist all his life.
> however, ask makhno about trusting diehard marxists. as for
> 're-education' or the scary ol' idea of liquidating the borgeoisie by
> any means necessary, i think both can be dismissed. poof. like that.
> consciousness raising is an activity requiring clear communication by
> all those involved, ultimately aiming at a LOCAL, small scale,
> non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian consensus which can only flourish
> once the apparatuses of false consciousness (ie state, corporate,
> media, etc) are demolished. the capitalist economy and its imperial
> tools of the state and transnational organizations (ie, UN, NAFTA, and
> co.) does not guarantee a social consciousness but rather the compliant
> indoctrination of an artificially isolated, insulated, and mediated
> lonely crowd.
Note that there is no indication of what "social consciousness" is.
>
> as for historical massacres, specifically ww2, the capitalists
> (politicians) turned a blind eye to hitler's known and ongoing
> atrocities.
Well no, the politicians did that. The capitalists in Gernmany
didn't
trust Hitler. He was elected by the working class, who turned far more
of a blind eye to his atrocities than capitalists did.
> the nazi regime was quite amiable to the interests of
> american financiers.
Umm... how? I mean he was a protectionist who basically bankrupted
his country making it impossible for bankers to get their money back.
> but hitler, like saddam and the rest of the
> litany of forgettable dictators, was deposed only once he threatened
> the vested interests of capital.
He threatened the vested interests of capital from the moment he
began
campaigning.
> this is what is meant by profit for
> profits sake, michael.
Well no, that's not what is meant by profit for profit's sake,
because "profit
for profit's sake" references motives not means.
> there are no overarching humane principles to steer capitalism.
No but people have their own overarching humane principles.
Attempting
to impose the same ones on all of society has historically been
disasterous.
> it is a system of selective enrichment
Well actually capitalism tends to enrich everyone, if anything the
poor more
than others.
> that sees the world as mere resources to privatize, pave, and plunder as
> befits the whims of the power elite.
Well no, that's the State. Capitalism doesn't see the world as
anything.
Capitalism allows people to use the world as resources whether they
are part of the "power elite" or not.
> before anybody considers 'anarcho-capitalism' as anything beyond a
> laughable oxymoron i would suggest a long excursion into proudhon's
> nearly flawless exegesis 'what is property?'
>
> i'll spoil the ending for you though:
> IT'S THEFT.
Proudhon's "What is property" far from being flawless, was the worst
thing
he ever wrote.
Proudhon is absurd.
By Michael Price.
> http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/ProProp.html
Bad definition, bad reasoning and bad (not to mention foreordained)
conclusions. For a start I have never heard anyone else say that
property is the "right of increase" and even Proudhon admits there is
other rights inherent in it, meaning that the definition is incomplete.
The right of property is the right to control a thing and deny others
such control. From this the fictional "right of increase" arises
because the owner has the right to demand payment or refuse to allow
the productive use of his property. He does not however have the right
to demand any increase due to his ownership of a thing, only to deny
it's use if he doesn't get it. Captain Boycott can demand all the rent
he wants, if people refuse to work his lands he'll get nothing. Thus
Proudhon is shown to be just plain wrong.
Secondly it can be proved that the "right of increase" is not the power
to produce without labour and I will do so. Consider self-employed
workers who produce a capital good with their own labour and rent it
out. While the machine is being rented they are recieving what Proudhon
calls the "right of increase", yet they do not recieve it without
labour, merely without _present_ labour. Since there is no reason why
present labour should be rewarded and past labour ignored they have as
much right to reward as those using their machine.
Now suppose a labourer, Mr Thrifty worked hard and saved up to buy
their machine then rented it out to others. The purchase price comes
from his labour and so therefore does his right of ownership and the
rewards of such. Now consider he retires and lives off the rent/profits
from the capital good. He finds that he can save up enough to buy a
bigger machine and rent it out. Remember the money he buys it with is
the result of his labour as I point out above. Is not the rent from
this bigger machine not also the result of his labour? If he had not
laboured surely he would not have the machine to gain an income to buy
the second machine. So when is the ownership of capital property
actually the power to produce without labour? Only when the original
amount is not the result of labour i.e. when it was stolen. So property
is theft only when stolen.
Of course ownership of capital goods is not the only form of property.
There is such a thing as cash. Suppose the capital good owner above was
unable to afford to invest in a bigger piece of capital equipment,
having only 50% of the purchse price. He could decide not to order it
resulting in one less piece of capital being created or he could borrow
the difference. He goes to see another worker Miserly, who lends him
the rest of the money. Miserly of course does not do this for free, and
why should he? The money is the result of his labour and therefore he
has the right to any benefit the money brings or at least such share of
the benefit as may satisfy him. He settles on 5% (it's a fully secured
loan so little risk). Thrifty recieves payment for his past labour in
the form of rental payments and out of that pays Miserly who payments
called interest as a result of the money that is the result of his
labour. In short Miserly recieves payment for past labour.
I could go on to mention all the types of property except perhaps
unimproved land value[*] I shall sumerise. 1) All property that can
acquired through money can be acquired through labour. 2) All revenues
derived from property acquired through labour are rewards for labour.
3) All revenues derived from revenues described in the above point 2
are also the result of labour and so on ad infinitum. 4) This means
that property can only be theft if the "seed money" from perhaps
centuries ago was stolen.
However not content with the ridiculous idea that the right of property
rests in one aspect of it (ignoring the more fundamental qualities). He
makes even more ridiculous claims. That capital is both an arithmetic
and a geometric series. That the payments of rents is a dead loss to
the renter, which is a strange way to think of the only means in have
of not freezing to death as a homeless person. If paying rent is a dead
loss so is buying food, for do I not have to buy more the next day?
He claims that "The right of increase oppresses the proprietor as well
as the stranger.". This seemed strange untill I read further and
realised the "oppression" was that if the proprietor did not act in a
certain way he would get less money. Oh, the horror! It ranks up there
with the Holocaust and the Spanish Inquistion, NOT!
He askes stupid questions (that he intends to be rhetorical) like
"What! if the husbandman forfeited his right to the land as soon as he
ceased to occupy it, would he become more covetous?". In short "HELL
YES!". Under land-ownership and rents you can leave the land for a
year, come back and know that it you could still use it. In the
abscence of property you'd better not have a long honeymoon or you'll
come back to see find while you were ploughing your bride your
neighbours were ploughing your fields.
"Would laboring men, who respect -- much to their own detriment -- the
pretended rights of the idler, violate the natural rights of the
producer and the manufacturer?" again HELL YES! The producer has maybe
a couple of shotguns and maybe a .308, the "idler" is backed by a
government with tanks, aircraft and artillery. Which would you rather
fuck with? And how are "natural rights" to a piece of land supposed to
help retain possession without a right of property? The law he proposes
is in effect, you have right of occupation, unless someone pushes you
off.
He implies that a system where "the husbandman forfeited his right to
the land as soon as he ceased to occupy it" would not result in "taxing
another's labour" but think. If you worked the best land in the county
wouldn't people want to work it instead? After all by definition it
produces more for the same labour. Couldn't you easily demand payment
for ceasing work on the land and allowing someone else to work it?
Would there be any other way to get good land? So in the end his system
would end up with land ownership with the paralysing proviso "use it or
lose it". People would be unable to use good land unless they acquired
property to pay for the transer fee. Property he says does not exist.
He claims that "The proprietor who asks to be rewarded for the use of a
tool, or the productive power of his land, takes for granted, then,
that which is radically false; namely, that capital produces by its own
effort,". When did anyone claim that? Tools by definition add to
productive power of the labour they are added to.
He contines, " -- and, in taking pay for this imaginary product, he
literally receives something for nothing.". If the increase in
productive power tools give is nothing I would like to see his idea of
"something". If he thinks that he can produce as much without an anvil
as I can with a foundry then let him refuse payment for all tools and
see how much wealthier he becomes. He has committed the old socialist
blunder of saying "This cannot produce without help, therefore this
cannot produce". In fact tools produce an increase in production and
this increase is valuable. I hate having to say this but it seems
socialists have not learned what savages in the jungles knew since
before they contacted civilisation.[**] This is because savages are
uneducated in western thought, but still capable of it, whereas
socialists are educated in it, but not capable of it.
He goes on to postualate that "Property is impossible, because, with a
given capital, Production is proportional to labor, not to property."
In other words, given that there is a certain amount of capital,
production changes with labour not capital. I could as easily say
"Labour is impossible, because, with a given labour, Production is
proportional to capital, not to labour.". It would make as much sense.
I could go on but I'm sick of it. This man talks crap and I've read too
much crap on usenet to mine the literature of centuries for more of it.
[*] This deserves it's own post, hell it's own thread - and it probably
has one going at any given moment. [**] I am thinking here of the
tribes the Leahry brothers contacted in PNG who were smart enough to
invest in steel tools without ever contacting white men. They
understood the value of tools and trade, why can't socialists?
James A. Donald
On 17 May 2006 17:43:30 -0700, achipin...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> i find it unfathomable that anarchy and capitalism are
> even being compared, much less compressed (not without
> egregious distortions) into a singular viewpoint.
> syndicalism, primitivism, urban insurrection, semiotic
> guerilla tactics, sure. perhaps. but capitalism?
Relevant dictionary definitions from www.webster.com
anarchism:
: : a political theory holding all forms of
: : governmental authority to be unnecessary and
: : undesirable and advocating a society based
: : on voluntary cooperation and free
: : association of individuals and groups
Capitalism
: : : an economic system characterized by private
: : : or corporate ownership of capital goods, by
: : : investments that are determined by private
: : : decision, and by prices, production, and
: : : the distribution of goods that are
: : : determined mainly by competition in a free
: : : market
Obviously, if you do not have a state, stuff is going to
privately owned, investments (and everything else) are
going to be determined by private decision, and so on
and so forth.
So anarchism necessarily implies capitalism - at least
by the dictionary's definitions, and if you argue it
does not, you are using a different definition of either
anarchism or capitalism - to judge by what happened in
Catalonia, probably a different definition of anarchism.
What makes anarcho capitalists different is, as I say in
my web page, "Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism"
http://jim.com/anarcho-.htm
: : Anarcho Capitalists argue that private
: : enterprise can provide law enforcement, and
: : the market place can resolve disagreements
: : about what the law is and what the law means.
: :
: : Anarchists are not opposed to leaders and
: : leadership, nor to law and laws - What
: : anarchists oppose is that certain leaders
: : should have a special privilege to use force,
: : a privilege to coerce, to compel others to
: : submit to their leadership, to use force in
: : ways that would be impermissible for other
: : people to use force. Anarchists favor there
: : being more leaders, not no leaders - as many
: : leaders as can find followers. Similarly,
: : anarchists do not oppose law, but rather
: : oppose the existence of any body of men with
: : the power to make law by merely decreeing it
: : to be law.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
d8ao+nUqNv0TiljaDvxUebdcX2ZpMhztncLeIkI3
4WCzfJB5OZ21Ch4h5ADDI15m54+tU4f+V53bhWlsJ
G*rd*n
> > i find it unfathomable that anarchy and capitalism are even being
> > compared, much less compressed (not without egregious distortions) into
> > a singular viewpoint. syndicalism, primitivism, urban insurrection,
> > semiotic guerilla tactics, sure. perhaps. but capitalism? and worse,
> > the audacity to posit 'anarco-capitalism!' this mutant notion is a
> > beguiling facelift on neoliberalism. let me simplify: capitalism is,
> > has, and always will be the coercive enslavement of the many by the
> > few, perpetuated only by the lurking violence of the police state.
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> Claims without evidence are nonpersuasive. You claim that it is
> unfathomable that people relate capitailsm and anarchy, but then
> refuse to show a single difference between them.
I would say the critical thing would be the
establishment, enforcement, maintenance and discipline
of the sort of property system necessitated by
capitalism, which implies, for many anarchists, some
kind of state, regardless of whether it is called a
state or not. I am speaking of course of capitalism
as we know it, not some idealized and tranformed
future kind of capitalism.
The question is unlikely to be resolved because
different people have radically different ideas
about such basic terms as state, coercion, law,
violence, capitalism, property, and so on.
To some extent it is theological: one believes
in this, the other in that, nothing is done on
earth in a practical sense, and we'll all get
pie in the sky when we die.
> And when exactly has capitalism been perpetuated by the violence of
> the State, lurking or not?
It is rather rare to find capitalist enterprises of
any significant size operating outside of a state
framework. Occasionally they have _become_ states,
e.g. Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company.
Michael Price
> achipin...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > i find it unfathomable that anarchy and capitalism are even being
> > > compared, much less compressed (not without egregious distortions) into
> > > a singular viewpoint. syndicalism, primitivism, urban insurrection,
> > > semiotic guerilla tactics, sure. perhaps. but capitalism? and worse,
> > > the audacity to posit 'anarco-capitalism!' this mutant notion is a
> > > beguiling facelift on neoliberalism. let me simplify: capitalism is,
> > > has, and always will be the coercive enslavement of the many by the
> > > few, perpetuated only by the lurking violence of the police state.
>
> "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> > Claims without evidence are nonpersuasive. You claim that it is
> > unfathomable that people relate capitailsm and anarchy, but then
> > refuse to show a single difference between them.
>
> I would say the critical thing would be the
> establishment, enforcement, maintenance and discipline
> of the sort of property system necessitated by
> capitalism, which implies, for many anarchists, some
> kind of state, regardless of whether it is called a
> state or not.
Well how does it imply it? The State only ever endangers the sort
of property
system necessitated by capitalism, never defends it..
> I am speaking of course of capitalism
> as we know it, not some idealized and tranformed
> future kind of capitalism.
>
In other words "State Capitalism" which is to say not capitalism at
all.
> The question is unlikely to be resolved because
> different people have radically different ideas
> about such basic terms as state, coercion, law,
> violence, capitalism, property, and so on.
>
> To some extent it is theological: one believes
> in this, the other in that, nothing is done on
> earth in a practical sense, and we'll all get
> pie in the sky when we die.
>
> > And when exactly has capitalism been perpetuated by the violence of
> > the State, lurking or not?
>
> It is rather rare to find capitalist enterprises of
> any significant size operating outside of a state
> framework.
Which would be relevent if it was not rather rare to find anything
operating outside of a State framework. In fact where there is anarchy
there is capitalistic enterprises.
> Occasionally they have _become_ states,
> e.g. Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company.
But always with the help of States.
brique
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e4gpuc$84p$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Both operated under a state-granted monopoly, otherwise they couldn't have
thrived to the extent they did. The EIC, particularily in India itself, was
soon placed under political control, the state appointed Governor-General,
and it's army was commonly commanded by state appointed officers, rather
than 'company men', especially at high ranks. Of course, the actual
directors themselves usually owed their appointments to state largesse, came
from the same rank of society which controlled the state and thus to all
intents and purposes, the EIC was little more than a semi-privatised adjunct
of the british state.
Marc Welch
> though i'm not sure which is worse: a centralized, determinately
> hierarchical State terrorizing its populace, or the global, amorphous,
> obfuscated tyranny of multinationals
When McDonald's says, "You deserve a break today," they do not mean
the rack. When was the last time that McDonald's sent someone to the
Gulag for failing to buy a happy meal?
> however, ask makhno about trusting diehard marxists
Makhno's communes were despotic and unequal. He was not above
thuggishness to raise consciousness. If that was "anarchy", no
thank you. The blandishments of Madison Avenue are preferable.
> consciousness raising is an activity requiring clear communication
> by all those involved, ultimately aiming at a LOCAL, small scale,
> non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian consensus which can only flourish
> once the apparatuses of false consciousness (ie state, corporate,
> media, etc) are demolished
You are not proposing to abolish NPR or the BBC. You are proposing
to monopolize the media in the name of The People ... for their own
good.
G*rd*n
>>>> i find it unfathomable that anarchy and capitalism are even being
>>>> compared, much less compressed (not without egregious distortions) into
>>>> a singular viewpoint. syndicalism, primitivism, urban insurrection,
>>>> semiotic guerilla tactics, sure. perhaps. but capitalism? and worse,
>>>> the audacity to posit 'anarco-capitalism!' this mutant notion is a
>>>> beguiling facelift on neoliberalism. let me simplify: capitalism is,
>>>> has, and always will be the coercive enslavement of the many by the
>>>> few, perpetuated only by the lurking violence of the police state.
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
>>> Claims without evidence are nonpersuasive. You claim that it is
>>> unfathomable that people relate capitailsm and anarchy, but then
>>> refuse to show a single difference between them.
G*rd*n:
>> I would say the critical thing would be the
>> establishment, enforcement, maintenance and discipline
>> of the sort of property system necessitated by
>> capitalism, which implies, for many anarchists, some
>> kind of state, regardless of whether it is called a
>> state or not.
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> Well how does it imply it? The State only ever endangers the sort
> of property
> system necessitated by capitalism, never defends it..
There is a huge amount of law practice by and about
corporations and other businesses. Much of the law has been
created at the behest and for the benefit of the owners and
other stakeholders of businesses. One of the more famous
examples is the radical extension and expansion of copyright
and related intellectual-property laws in the last twenty or
thirty years, a process in which an enormous amount of
material which would previously have been considered public
domain and common heritage was made private and thus the
subject of law and litigation.
The functions which the State is performing in such cases is
obviously something desired by capitalists, even needed for
the continued practice of capitalism. If what we call the
State is dissolved, what social bodies will perform these
functions? How will they be performed? How will the more
traditional forms of property be maintained?
G*rd*n:
>> I am speaking of course of capitalism
>> as we know it, not some idealized and tranformed
>> future kind of capitalism.
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> In other words "State Capitalism" which is to say not capitalism at
> all.
This is what I mean below by different definitions
of capitalism and other things. Before we could discuss
the relation between state, anarchy and capitalism we
would have to come to an agreement on what these three
terms meant (without defining them in terms of one
another). I don't see any such agreement.
G*rd*n:
>> The question is unlikely to be resolved because
>> different people have radically different ideas
>> about such basic terms as state, coercion, law,
>> violence, capitalism, property, and so on.
>>
>> To some extent it is theological: one believes
>> in this, the other in that, nothing is done on
>> earth in a practical sense, and we'll all get
>> pie in the sky when we die.
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
>>> And when exactly has capitalism been perpetuated by the violence of
>>> the State, lurking or not?
G*rd*n:
>> It is rather rare to find capitalist enterprises of
>> any significant size operating outside of a state
>> framework.
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> Which would be relevent if it was not rather rare to find anything
> operating outside of a State framework. In fact where there is anarchy
> there is capitalistic enterprises.
It would be interesting to have some detailed accounts
of these enterprises.
G*rd*n:
>> Occasionally they have _become_ states,
>> e.g. Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company.
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> But always with the help of States.
Exactly.
Alex Russell
> G*rd*n wrote:
>
>>achipin...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>i find it unfathomable that anarchy and capitalism are even being
>>>>compared, much less compressed (not without egregious distortions) into
>>>>a singular viewpoint. syndicalism, primitivism, urban insurrection,
>>>>semiotic guerilla tactics, sure. perhaps. but capitalism? and worse,
>>>>the audacity to posit 'anarco-capitalism!' this mutant notion is a
>>>>beguiling facelift on neoliberalism. let me simplify: capitalism is,
>>>>has, and always will be the coercive enslavement of the many by the
>>>>few, perpetuated only by the lurking violence of the police state.
>>
>>"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>> Claims without evidence are nonpersuasive. You claim that it is
>>>unfathomable that people relate capitailsm and anarchy, but then
>>>refuse to show a single difference between them.
>>
>>I would say the critical thing would be the
>>establishment, enforcement, maintenance and discipline
>>of the sort of property system necessitated by
>>capitalism, which implies, for many anarchists, some
>>kind of state, regardless of whether it is called a
>>state or not.
>
>
> Well how does it imply it? The State only ever endangers the sort
> of property
> system necessitated by capitalism, never defends it..
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/govt.html
There is an old school of thought that the MAIN purpose of government is
to protect property rights. The above link has a few old quotes on the
subject.
Many early democracies limited the vote to property owners - I don't
think they voted too often against their own wants.
As anyone who has lurked here for a bit know, the anarcho-capitalists
are equally convinced that any form of socialism requires a government
to reallocate property. Both sides sincerely believe the other is deluded.
James A. Donald
> to protect property rights.
Did not work.
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Michael Price
founding
fathers of the USA. However I am not aware of any particular evidence
for it.
The State supplies no protection of capitalism that could not be
purchased
cheaper on the market. The State itself is the most frequent danger to
property
rights and they most frequent assautler of capitalism. It is like an
abusive
boyfriend who insists that without him the woman would be repeatedly
raped.
Michael Price
class, which are usually only granted quid pro quo. However usaully
these same efforts harm the interests of other sections of the
capitalist
class. For instance the extension of the intellectual property laws
harmed
everyone else who wanted to make a fortune out of Donald Duck.
> The functions which the State is performing in such cases is
> obviously something desired by capitalists, even needed for
> the continued practice of capitalism.
It's obviously desired by some capitalists and obviously neccesary
for the continued success of their business plan. I am far from sure
it
that the intervention on balance is prefered by capitalists or
neccesarily
for the average business plan.
> If what we call the
> State is dissolved, what social bodies will perform these
> functions? How will they be performed? How will the more
> traditional forms of property be maintained?
>
>
> G*rd*n:
> >> I am speaking of course of capitalism
> >> as we know it, not some idealized and tranformed
> >> future kind of capitalism.
>
> "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> > In other words "State Capitalism" which is to say not capitalism at
> > all.
>
> This is what I mean below by different definitions
> of capitalism and other things. Before we could discuss
> the relation between state, anarchy and capitalism we
> would have to come to an agreement on what these three
> terms meant (without defining them in terms of one
> another). I don't see any such agreement.
>
Well I'm using the fairly standard definition of private ownership
and
control of the m.o.p. and freedom of contract.
>
> G*rd*n:
> >> The question is unlikely to be resolved because
> >> different people have radically different ideas
> >> about such basic terms as state, coercion, law,
> >> violence, capitalism, property, and so on.
> >>
> >> To some extent it is theological: one believes
> >> in this, the other in that, nothing is done on
> >> earth in a practical sense, and we'll all get
> >> pie in the sky when we die.
>
> "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> >>> And when exactly has capitalism been perpetuated by the violence of
> >>> the State, lurking or not?
>
> G*rd*n:
> >> It is rather rare to find capitalist enterprises of
> >> any significant size operating outside of a state
> >> framework.
>
> "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> > Which would be relevent if it was not rather rare to find anything
> > operating outside of a State framework. In fact where there is anarchy
> > there is capitalistic enterprises.
>
> It would be interesting to have some detailed accounts
> of these enterprises.
>
Well for instance Somalia has the best mobile phone rates in Africa.
>
> G*rd*n:
> >> Occasionally they have _become_ states,
> >> e.g. Hudson's Bay Company, East India Company.
>
> "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com>:
> > But always with the help of States.
>
> Exactly.
But capitalism would have come to India without the help of
Redcoats. It is only
mercantilism and monopoly that required the intervention of the Brown
Bess.
uri
anarchism.
My beautiful revenge
CORPORATIONS AND TO THE ELITE AND YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT!
Kill the rich
Kill the pigs
Smash the State
Build a better one
Marc Welch
Building a better state is not anarchy.
achipin...@yahoo.com
posting on an anarchist board that ascertains the lunacy of linking
anarchy and capitalism. conflicting definitions, salient but by no
means decisive, can only excuse so much.
let me one more time play the pedant: there is no such thing as
'anarcho-capitalism.' there's anarchy, and WAY over there is
capitalism. 'anarcho-capitalism' is capitalism. to repeat myself, it
is neoliberalism with a facelift. 'anarcho-capitalism' takes the vain
'me-ism' that is its only fuel and turns it into ME-ism. anarchy is
nothing without a thorough critique of the pseudo-individualist
ideology that capitalism sells as liberty. anarchy is nothing without
the thorough rejection of the monstrous, reified bureaucracies and
militaristic apparatus called the State, as necessitated by the dogmas
of capitalism and socialism alike. capitalism is rhetorical politics
stemming from the detached economics of profit. politics and economics
are power trips for cowardly sado-masochists. i want nothing to do
with either. anarchy is orgasmic bliss. capitalism is the cum stain
left by a necrophiliac in the fetid crotch of a venereal whore's
cadaver. if anyone objects to this metaphor, i'll politely substitute
something about fecal smears.
please, 'anarcho-capitalists'... drop the prefix. it is not fooling
either side, and both are better off neglecting the hypocritical
notion. to revise a cherished slogan: humanity will not be free until
the last 'anarcho-capitalist' is hung with the guts of the last
charitable fascist.
the specific posts are simply no longer worth responding to. i was
going to try, but, to repeat myself, it would be as fruitful as eating
bricks. why? 'anarcho-capitalism,' like all good little ideologies, is
stultified within the strictures of its own tautologies. especially
you, Mr. Price. the best thing you could do is rename your vapid,
vacuous, ignored blog 'the price is right.' that would be sublimely
amusing. taking a cue from the other posters here as well as your
invisible cadre of readers, i will henceforth also ignore the
'i-don't-make-trash-i-burn-it' style ravings that are your
unintentionally hilarious efforts to mask the (dys)lexical diarrhea of
a rabid ideologue as relevant, radical diatribes. yu are nw free to
hve the last wrd.
'anarcho-capitalism' will be rush limbaugh's next addiction. the
existent status of capitalism as a state (legislative, judicial,
military) aided gargantua is the inevitable result of its own internal
logic. privatization of the land, sea, and sky is theft. privatizing
my toothbrush is personal property. when valorizing property as the
panacea for all social ills, this distinction between private and
personal must be held at the fore. but in the miasma of
'anarcho-capitalism' it is not. unforgivable historical expropriation
is reduced to infantile darwinian rationalizations. for a classic
counterpoint, see kropotkin's mutual aid, and Mr. Price's perspicuous
'nuh-uh' retort gilded in the deified jargon of economics.
i abandon this thread until vile curiosity gets the best of me.
ultimately, the best i can hope for is that if the 'revolution'
envisioned by 'anarcho-capitalism' ever occurs, which in itself would
amount to a mere intensification of the present circumstances of
imperial globalization (thus 'anarcho-capitalism' is conformist)-- if
any of your feigned knowledge of the 'anarcho' is to be upheld, you
will stay the fuck away from me. and mine. mine. mine. mine. oh
god, i'm a capitalist...
Marc Welch
> there is no such thing as 'anarcho-capitalism.'
> there's anarchy, and WAY over there is capitalism.
So says a guy who praises a poster who conflates
state building with anarchy.
achipin...@yahoo.com wrote:
> unforgivable historical expropriation is reduced
> to infantile darwinian rationalizations.
So says a guy who calls for the lynching of his
Usenet interlocutors after praising a rant in all
caps that calls for mass murder.
achipin...@yahoo.com wrote:
> for a classic counterpoint, see kropotkin's mutual
> aid,
The Pilgrims at Plymouth tried that. They nearly
starved to death until they started recognizing
each other's private ownership.
achipin...@yahoo.com wrote:
> if any of your feigned knowledge of the 'anarcho'
> is to be upheld, you will stay the fuck away from
> me. and mine. mine. mine. mine. oh god, i'm a
> capitalist...
Now you are starting to get the picture.
brique
<achipin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148168985.5...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bravo!
The small consolation is that if 'anarcho-capitalism' ever achieved
hegemony, it would rapidly devour itself and implode in an high-minded orgy
of blood-letting over who owns the crimbs remaining.
Marc Welch
> > 'revolution' envisioned by 'anarcho-capitalism' ever occurs,
> > which in itself would amount to a mere intensification of the
> > present circumstances of imperial globalization (thus
> > 'anarcho-capitalism' is conformist)-- if any of your feigned
> > knowledge of the 'anarcho' is to be upheld, you will stay the
> > fuck away from me. and mine. mine. mine. mine. oh
> > god, i'm a capitalist...
brique:
> Bravo!
> The small consolation is that if 'anarcho-capitalism'
> ever achieved hegemony, it would rapidly devour itself
> and implode in an high-minded orgy of blood-letting over
> who owns the crimbs remaining.
So says a person while praising a poster who has just finished
advocating the murder of his Usenet opposites.
uri
groups have a specific command structure or leadership. Families,
gangs, vigilantes and corporations all have bureaucracies.
Marc Welch
> Humans naturally join into groups and all groups have a
> specific command structure or leadership.
Which would mean that a territorial monoply on the use of
force is dangreously needless and "egalitarianism" is a lie.
James A. Donald
> Anarchism is also imaginary. Humans naturally join
> into groups and every group has a command structure or
> leadership.
A football team is not a state.
What makes a state is a monopoly of legitimate force -
that they can hit you, and you are not allowed to hit
them back.
--
Michael Price
My beautiful revenge wrote:
> FUCK YOUR PHONY COMMENTS, GREEDY FUCKERS!! YOU WANT JUST MORE MONEY TO
> CORPORATIONS AND TO THE ELITE AND YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT!
>
the "reasoning" shall we?
1) Fuck your phony comments.
What evidence do you have that anarcho-capitalists are "phony", i.e.
that their designs hide
something? You provide none.
2) Greedy fuckers!
What evidence do you have that anarcho-capitalists want
anarcho-capitalism so they can be richer? For that matter what
evidence do you have that anarcho-capitalists would benefit materially
from anarcho-capitalism, other than the claims of A-Cists that the
population in general would
materially benefit, a claim you presumably do not believe?
3) You want just more money to corporations and to the elite.
How would anarcho-capitalism funnel money to the elite? If anything it
would draw it away as
the ability to produce became more important than links to other
members of the elite.
>
> Kill the rich
> Kill the pigs
> Smash the State
> Build a better one
There is no better State. There is only a different State. Meet the
new boss same as
the old boss.
Alex Russell
While I agree that the economic system of free-trade and capitalism is
more likely to function under anarchy, and is the system I would support
this conclusion does not rule out small scale socialism.
If a group of people all agree to pool their resources, and run their
enterprise as a commune I certainly would not try to oppose them, and I
would trade with them as long as none of their members were being forced
to be part of the commune.
With our current level of technology capitalism works much better than
any other economic system people have tried at allocating resources and
setting prices for both goods and labour. Capitalism will likely be the
dominant economic system.
But for some "goods", there may be enough people who agree that funding
them for everyone makes good sense that the price of these goods will be
lower than the normal market price - for example medical care or
education. The great thing about anarchy is that the people who do NOT
want to fund this charity do not get forced to by any government. And it
is CHARITY. No one has a right to the fruits of others labour.
Alex Russell
electro
> >>i find it unfathomable that anarchy and capitalism are
> >>even being compared, much less compressed (not without
> >>egregious distortions) into a singular viewpoint.
> >>syndicalism, primitivism, urban insurrection, semiotic
> >>guerilla tactics, sure. perhaps. but capitalism?
The word capital is derived from Latin (caput), means head and is
usually refered to a city serving as a seat of government. So by this
definition, anarchism is anti-capitalist.
James A. Donald
"electro"
> The word capital is derived from Latin (caput), means
> head and is usually refered to a city serving as a
> seat of government. So by this definition, anarchism
> is anti-capitalist.
Bullshit.
The word "capital" to refer to wealth and valuables that
can produce more wealth and valuables is derived from
"head of cattle", the method of counting cattle in a
herd, not head of state.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
50V9FsfljsMthISZOFrPGiX14zvGIlDuwsoSKRb6
4r9vLOtZE5DG2CRI+92WqCAkJHU+gs22UQTDF3xz8
Michael Price
The old "reason from the root of the word not it's meaning" trick,
and I fell for it. Oh wait, no I didn't.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capital
brique
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:oj57729mjpm3874re...@4ax.com...
> --
> "electro"
> > The word capital is derived from Latin (caput), means
> > head and is usually refered to a city serving as a
> > seat of government. So by this definition, anarchism
> > is anti-capitalist.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> The word "capital" to refer to wealth and valuables that
> can produce more wealth and valuables is derived from
> "head of cattle", the method of counting cattle in a
> herd, not head of state.
Websters strikes again..... and for years us poor un-educated fools have
been labouring under the misapprehension that the capital city was were the
king kept all the cattle....
Marc Welch
>>> The word capital is derived from Latin (caput), means
>>> head and is usually refered to a city serving as a
>>> seat of government. So by this definition, anarchism
>>> is anti-capitalist.
James A Donald:
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> The word "capital" to refer to wealth and valuables that
>> can produce more wealth and valuables is derived from
>> "head of cattle", the method of counting cattle in a
>> herd, not head of state.
brique:
> Websters strikes again..... and for years us poor un-educated
> fools have been labouring under the misapprehension that
> the capital city was were the king kept all the cattle....
"Anti-capitalist" is not commonly used to mean opposition to
a city serving as a seat of government, and never has been.
Paul Bramscher
> I'm well aware of that school of thought, which included most of the
> founding
> fathers of the USA. However I am not aware of any particular evidence
> for it.
> The State supplies no protection of capitalism that could not be
> purchased
> cheaper on the market. The State itself is the most frequent danger to
> property
> rights and they most frequent assautler of capitalism. It is like an
> abusive
Ain't that funny. So if the state is a DANGER to property rights, then
who ultimately has the right to defend property? Or provide
justification for its ownership? Only the owner himself?
If the state's job isn't to defend the very system that has created
gross inequality, enforce property laws, the economic grid that provides
justification for ownership & title of property, then YOU have a problem.
Namely, without a "state" there would be no reason that person A
couldn't simply take person B's property by force. If B can't defend
it, and the state is only a threat to property, then B is SOL.
The entire economic grid, property system/titles, etc. is the domain of
the state. If it weren't for reprisal from State, the masses would
simply swell into a poorly-defended gated community and take the
over-sized McMansions by force. Affordable housing, grassroots style.
But no -- it's not the owner with a shotgun pointed at a crowd of 50
gangstas keeping them at bay, now, is it? Just what is, Mr. Price, if
it's not State?
mowhak
Paul Bramscher schrieb:
> Michael Price wrote:
>
> > I'm well aware of that school of thought, which included most of the
> > founding
> > fathers of the USA. However I am not aware of any particular evidence
> > for it.
> > The State supplies no protection of capitalism that could not be
> > purchased
> > cheaper on the market.
[...]
> But no -- it's not the owner with a shotgun pointed at a crowd of 50
> gangstas keeping them at bay, now, is it? Just what is, Mr. Price, if
> it's not State?
-Lefties. They make capatilism so vulnerable it almost becomes
invisible.
=;-)
möwhäk
James A. Donald
> So if the state is a DANGER to property rights, then
> who ultimately has the right to defend property? Or
> provide justification for its ownership? Only the
> owner himself?
And whoever the owner authorizes - but no others.
> If the state's job isn't to defend the very system
> that has created gross inequality, enforce property
> laws, the economic grid that provides justification
> for ownership & title of property, then YOU have a
> problem.
The state was created to smash property rights, not to
uphold them. Observe, for example, the long struggle
between the pioneers and the state over land ownership.
Only the state is powerful enough to smash property
rights, and then only with great difficulty. Observe
the enormous and incredibly bloody struggles wherever
the state attempted to collectivize property. The
state could not change property rights with a mere
stroke of a pen but only by engaging in systematic mass
murder, terror, employing torture and artificial famine.
Compare on the other hand, with what happens when the
state merely declines to protect property, without
aggressively launching major efforts to smash property,
as happens in most of the third world.
In most of Latin America, the state does not defend
private property rights in land, and criminalizes
efforts by the owner to defend his own property in land,
and periodically attacks private property in land using
methods less extreme than those used by the communist
regimes, yet private property in land has not
disappeared.
> Namely, without a "state" there would be no reason
> that person A couldn't simply take person B's property
> by force.
Except, of course, that without a state, the probability
of dying while doing so is extremely high. The weakest
man can kill the strongest.
uri
to enforce, there would be no ownership.
anarc...@gmail.com
Not necessarily. People can enforce laws directly. In
fact I think that is the predominant case in pre-civil
polities.
However, the concepts of property and ownership in a
modern state are certainly artifices requiring police,
courts, and so on.
Marc Welch
uri wrote:
> The concept of "ownership" is itself a legal fiction so without police
> to enforce, there would be no ownership.
Ownership precedes the state, and often exists in opposition to the
state. Just ask your local drug dealer.
uri
> Not necessarily. People can enforce laws directly. In
> fact I think that is the predominant case in pre-civil
> polities.
Anarchy means the absense of laws. Of course everyone can try to
enforce his private laws but these are not laws in the normal sense. A
law can only be social, it cannot be private.
gmga...@gmail.com
IF humans *naturally* form into groups, then where is the necessity for
a STATE to enforce the formation and organization of those groups, at
gunpoint? Anarchism simply says let nature do what it does best. Let
people voluntarily join the groups they choose to join.
Sid9
Then they can go on and kill people who are not in their home
group..something like Iraq today
uri
contradiction. Capitalism is anti-libertarian. The concept of 'survival
of the strongest' goes very much against liberty, equality and social
justice. Personally i prefer a government which protects human rights
over several mafias competing for power.
anarc...@gmail.com
A word means whatever you want it to mean, but if you go
by etymology, _anarchy_ means "no rulers" _an_ (not) +
_arkh-_ (lead, rule) + _-ia_ (state or condition).
There are many examples of stateless polities having and
enforcing laws, usually said to be prescribed by tradition,
the ancestors, or the gods. And then there are the people
who believe in "Natural Law" which is mysteriously given
by nature, a related opinion, perhaps. Of course you can
say that these weren't true anarchies, etc. A word means
whatever you want it to mean.
Marc Welch
> I think i wrote it in a different forum but libertarian
> capitalism is a contradiction. Capitalism is
> anti-libertarian
There can be no liberty without property, for liberty is
a property of man.
uri:
> The concept of 'survival of the strongest' goes very
> much against liberty
The concept of "survival of the strongest" also goes
very much against equality. Yet the history of the 20th
Century demonstrates that "survival of the strongest"
happens more often under conditions of "equal ownership"
than under conditions of individual ownership. Compare
North Korea with South Korea, where the Cold War still
chills.
uri:
> Personally i prefer a government which protects human
> rights over several mafias competing for power.
This is not an argument against anarchy but an argument
against all government but one, from which there would
be no escape nor hope of any beyond violent and bloody
revolt.
mowhak
Marc Welch wrote:
> uri:
> > Personally i prefer a government which protects human
> > rights over several mafias competing for power.
>
> This is not an argument against anarchy but an argument
> against all government but one, from which there would
> be no escape nor hope of any beyond violent and bloody
> revolt.
-maybe you want to explain how we could escape from your version of
anarchy if it does not quite fit into our notion of anarchism; after
all, it does not sound like a cosy place to be in.
mowhak
Marc Welch
> > > Personally i prefer a government which protects human
> > > rights over several mafias competing for power.
Marc Welch:
> > This is not an argument against anarchy but an argument
> > against all government but one, from which there would
> > be no escape nor hope of any beyond violent and bloody
> > revolt.
mowhak:
> -maybe you want to explain how we could escape from your
> version of anarchy if it does not quite fit into our notion of
> anarchism
Join a commune.
James A. Donald
Police did not exist in Britain until about 1850, did not
exist in California until about 1900.
Yet property existed.
Property existed on the American frontier, where the
pioneers preceded the reach of the state.
Police exist primarily to protect the criminal, rather
than the property owner - that was the stated
justification of the introduction of police in
California - to ensure fair trial, due process, and
proportionate punishment, though, of course, the real
motive was to give officers of the state immunity from
fair trial, due process, and proportionate punishment.
Criminals always find themselves outnumbered, for a
criminal is a threat to everyone, while an honest
peaceable person is not.
Frank
Ownership is derived from the labor that is invested in improving the
land and making it productive.
uri
> Police did not exist 1850, did not
> exist in California until about 1900.in Britain until about
>
> Yet property existed.
>
> Property existed on the American frontier, where the
> pioneers preceded the reach of the state.
>
> Police exist primarily to protect the criminal, rather
> than the property owner - that was the stated
> justification of the introduction of police in
> California - to ensure fair trial, due process, and
> proportionate punishment, though, of course, the real
> motive was to give officers of the state immunity from
> fair trial, due process, and proportionate punishment.
>
> Criminals always find themselves outnumbered, for a
> criminal is a threat to everyone, while an honest
> peaceable person is not.
>
You're full of shit. Democracy exists to protect human rights and to
prevent violent conflict.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> However, the concepts of property and ownership in a
> modern state are certainly artifices requiring police,
> courts, and so on.
Recall De Soto's review of the emergence of American
property law. He concludes it arose because he pioneers
won their confrontation with the state - that American
property law is good because it is in large part an
accommodation and acceptance of the pioneer's property
law.
Obviously Disney's copyright only exists by power of the
state, but the broadcasting cartel reflects socialism,
not capitalism, a state seizure of private property, and
most ordinary property, cars, houses, farms, and stuff,
reflect individuals hanging on to their stuff with
sufficient vigor that the state is somewhat circumspect
in seizing it, and reluctant to give too much protection
to criminals who threaten it.
James A. Donald
> > People can enforce laws directly. In fact I think
> > that is the predominant case in pre-civil polities.
uri
> Anarchy means the absense of laws.
As I say in my web page: http://www.jim.com/anarcho-.htm
: : Anarchists are not opposed to leaders and
: : leadership, nor to law and laws - What
: : anarchists oppose is that certain leaders
: : should have a special privilege to use force,
: : a privilege to coerce, to compel others to
: : submit to their leadership, to use force in
: : ways that would be impermissible for other
: : people to use force. Anarchists favor there
: : being more leaders, not no leaders - as many
: : leaders as can find followers. Similarly,
: : anarchists do not oppose law, but rather
: : oppose the existence of any body of men with
: : the power to make law by merely decreeing it
: : to be law.
uri:
> Of course everyone can try to enforce his private laws
> but these are not laws in the normal sense. A law can
> only be social, it cannot be private.
Most law in the world is customary law. It was not
until the nineteenth century that legislative law
claimed supremacy, and became the routine source of law:
If people tend to succeed in enforcing certain private
laws, for example the laws against murder and robbery,
then the laws become customary, their success sets a
precedent. Correspondingly, their failure will also
set the reverse precedent - that what they failed to
prohibit is legal, a right, and attempting to suppress
it a crime.
As I say in my web page "Law in Anarchy"
http://www.jim.com/anarchy/law_in_anarchy.htm
: : The creation of law from above, centrally
: : planned law, only became a major part of
: : lawmaking in the english speaking world in
: : the nineteenth century.
: :
: : In many places and times, law, for example
: : the English Common Law, started with crimes
: : and punishment, and then, from the efforts to
: : ensure that one judge's rulings are
: : consistent with another, lawyers constructed
: : precedent, and then, from precedent, they
: : discovered a legal framework.
: :
: : Well respected lawyers would examine the
: : decisions of well respected judges, and write
: : books analysing those decisions, formulating
: : an account of those decisions in terms of
: : laws that explained their decisions and
: : rendered them consistent with each other.
: : Then if some judge deviated from this law,
: : this law discovered and expressed by a lawyer
: : with no official capacity, the lawyer
: : pleading the case could complain, and did
: : complain, that the judge violated precedent.
: :
: : If the common law of england was actually
: : written down anywhere as words on paper, it
: : was written down in Blackstone's
: : “Commentaries on the Laws of England” - but
: : the laws he was commenting on were for the
: : most part not documents issued by judges or
: : legislators but interpretations of the
: : conduct of judges whose conduct was widely
: : accepted as right and just, much as Newton's
: : laws are interpretations of the behavior of
: : moving objects.
: :
: : In an anarchic society, the nearest thing to
: : legislation would be when one bunch of people
: : made a compromise with another, to agree on
: : rules convering conflicts between them.
: :
: : The argument that you need law to be decreed
: : from above, centrally planned law, has been
: : used as an argument against anarchy, as in
: : Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia". It is a
: : silly argument, no different from the
: : argument that you need the state to issue
: : paper money, etc. The state does lots of
: : stuff today, that it has not always done in
: : the past, and one of the things it did not
: : always do in the past was legislate.
: :
: : Today the state does X, therefore we cannot
: : have anarchy, for in anarchy no one would do
: : X. Argument from ignorance. Nozick suggests
: : that in an anarchic society, the only way we
: : can have law, consistent rules, between
: : people protected by one defense agency, and
: : people protected by another is for one agency
: : to impose its rules on the other by fire and
: : steel.
: :
: : What kind of laws would exist in an anarchic
: : society?
: :
: : In an anarchic society public good laws would
: : be under provided, and private good laws
: : would be adequately provided.
: :
: : A private good law is a law where it is in
: : the interests of a particular person to have
: : the law enforced against a particular
: : offender, for example the laws against
: : robbery, rape and so forth. A public good law
: : is a law where it is arguably in everyone's
: : interest that it be enforced in general, but
: : it is not in the particular interest of any
: : particular person that it be enforced against
: : any other particular person.
: :
: : Most private good laws are uncontroversial,
: : universally accepted, and almost universally
: : enforced. Public good laws tend to be
: : somewhat controversial, selectively enforced,
: : and far from universally accepted, and the
: : many infamous governmental crimes, for
: : example the Jim Crow laws, were enforcement
: : of public good laws. Laws prohibiting racism
: : are also public good laws as much as laws
: : commanding racism, but prohibiting racism
: : tends to have effects curiously similar to
: : commanding it.
: :
: : One example of a fairly uncontroversial
: : public good law is the law requiring cars to
: : limit their pollution. A particularly
: : offensive car would offend particular people
: : enough for them to harass the owner, but many
: : mildly polluting cars would not, even if
: : their combined effect was intolerable. So in
: : an anarcho capitalist society, cars might
: : well be more polluting than they are at
: : present. On the other hand, rivers and the
: : like would be owned by particular small
: : groups of people, who would likely be willing
: : to defend their condition, whereas
: : governments have been notoriously unwilling
: : to protect a river against a concentrated
: : interest, so rivers would probably be less
: : polluted. Most communist countries had far
: : more severe levels of pollution than most
: : capitalist countries, because it was not in
: : the interests of any particular person to
: : defend any particular property against any
: : particular pollution. Even when the state is
: : present, private good laws tend to be
: : enforced, and public good laws not enforced,
: : thus the absence of the state is unlikely to
: : make as large a difference in practice as it
: : does in theory.
: :
: : If a crime has a specific identifiable
: : victim, who is the victim of a specific
: : identifiable act, then that law is a private
: : good, because each particular individual will
: : have reason to enter into arrangements to
: : ensure that such crimes are punished or
: : avenged when committed against himself.
: :
: : In order to suppress drugs, or exterminate
: : Jews, you have to appeal to people's altruism
: : and self sacrifice. People are very willing
: : to be altruistic when they are voting,
: : because they are mostly voting someone else's
: : money. They are a lot more selfish when they
: : are paying with their own money.
: :
: : I will be willing to do what is necessary to
: : obtain a defense contract that says that if I
: : am robbed or murdered, I will be avenged. I
: : will not be willing to do the same for a
: : defense contract that says some stranger far
: : away will be avenged, still less a defense
: : contract that says some stranger far away
: : will be punished for taking unapproved drugs.
: :
: : In anarcho capitalism, private goods get
: : supplied, because it is in the interest of
: : particular people or small groups to supply
: : them. For example there is usually someone
: : who wants particular vengeance against a
: : particular mugger. Public goods are under
: : supplied, because although it might
: : supposedly be in the interests of "everyone"
: : that they be supplied it is not in the
: : interest of any particular person or small
: : group that they be supplied.
: :
: : The under supply of public goods is often
: : argued as a defect of anarcho capitalism, but
: : during the twentieth century, the most
: : important public goods provided were
: : aggressive war, genocide, artificial famine,
: : and mass murder, so if we lack those, I will
: : not much miss the others.
: :
: : Even if ninety percent of the population
: : support a public good law, it will not be
: : effectually enforced because it will not be
: : in the interest of any one person to enforce
: : it, but if a substantial minority support a
: : private good law, it will be enforced,
: : because it is in the interest of each
: : particular person to enforce it as it affects
: : himself.
: :
: : A public good is something that is supposedly
: : good for everyone, perhaps really is good for
: : everyone, but does not directly benefit
: : particular individuals, so there is no one
: : individual who has a direct personal interest
: : in doing something about this public good in
: : any one particular case. A private good is
: : something where in each particular case, much
: : of the benefit goes to a particular person or
: : quite small group, so that in each particular
: : case, there is a particular person or small
: : group who has good reason to make this good
: : thing happen, good reason to themselves bear
: : the costs of making this good thing happen.
: :
: : If someone buys or snorts cocaine, there is
: : no pissed off victim, there is no one pushing
: : hard to make enforcement happen in any one
: : particular case, so enforcement against
: : liquor or cocaine generally would not happen,
: : and so in an anarchist society such laws, by
: : custom and precedent, would cease to be
: : socially acceptable grounds for using force
: : against someone, and thus cease to be laws.
: :
: : Those offenses that would make any man use
: : force in response will be illegal. Those
: : offenses that would not make most people use
: : force in response will be legal.
: :
: : Doubtless some public good laws really are
: : good, but the vast majority have been either
: : bad or very bad. For example in an anti
: : semitic society a law against Jews would be a
: : public good law.
: :
: : Collecting money and manpower to enforce a
: : law against burglary would be like selling
: : insurance. "If you contribute, you can put a
: : sticker on your house that says protected by
: : XYZ". Collecting money and manpower to
: : enforce a law against prostitution or
: : abortion would be like collecting money for
: : charity, or manpower for a neighborhood clean
: : up. It could be done, it often would be done,
: : but the amount of money available would be
: : considerably less, and the willingness to
: : engage in violent confrontation, the
: : willingness to hurt, upset, and anger people,
: : would be vastly less. Observe how no one
: : wants to enforce the law against pedophilia,
: : if the pedophile is someone they recognize,
: : and the child is the child of a stranger.
: :
: : The average person is willing to bring out
: : his gun and look for trouble if his next door
: : neighbor is being burgled. A similar
: : enthusiasm for trouble about a dirty book
: : store seems unlikely, because the dirty book
: : shop does not threaten any particular
: : individual the way a burglar next door
: : threatens someone. If you are a long way from
: : the dirty bookshop, you probably do not care
: : very much. If you are right next door to the
: : dirty bookshop, then you still do not care
: : the way you care about robbery, murder, and
: : rape, and in addition the proprietor and some
: : of the regular customers are real people to
: : you, and you would not want to make them
: : unhappy.
: :
: : Burglary would be illegal in anarchist
: : society, and dirty bookstores legal, because
: : lots of people are willing to shoot burglars,
: : whereas only a dangerous nut would be willing
: : to shoot a proprietor of a dirty book store.
: :
: : If John caused violence to be done against
: : someone who was proven to have burgled him,
: : this would not make people fear John, this
: : would not make people wish to protect
: : themselves against John. Thus John's action
: : would be treated as legal, and thus burglary
: : treated as illegal. Because John gets away
: : with treating the burglar as a criminal, the
: : burglar is a criminal. (I assume that John or
: : his insurance company goes to the trouble of
: : arranging a trial that is likely to persuade
: : the burglar's friends, relations, and militia
: : association that John has good cause to
: : believe the burglar guilty.)
: :
: : If Peter caused violence to be done against a
: : dirty book store proprietor, this would make
: : people fear Peter, this would make people
: : wish to protect themselves from Peter,
: : perhaps by causing him to be imprisoned, or
: : forbidden to bear arms. Thus attacking owners
: : of dirty books stores would tend to be
: : regarded as illegal, and so selling dirty
: : books would tend to be regarded as legal.
: :
: : A person who attacks the owner of a dirty
: : book store might attack me. A person who
: : sells dirty books is unlikely to attack me.
: : Thus I would be motivated to support using
: : force against someone who used force against
: : the proprietor of a dirty bookstore, and
: : would not be motivated to use force or
: : support the use of force against someone
: : selling dirty books.
: :
: : That use of force that most ordinary
: : peaceable individuals are inclined to employ
: : will be legal, and thus the activities they
: : use it against illegal. That use of force
: : that only weird, scary, dangerous, aggressive
: : people are inclined to employ will be
: : illegal.
: :
: : The age of consent would become a matter of
: : parental discretion, which does not much
: : resemble today's written law, but does
: : resemble today's practice.
: :
: : If there were important issues of law where
: : the answer is unclear, and also large numbers
: : of people were likely to care passionately
: : about these issues and be willing to kill and
: : die over issues, then anarcho capitalist law
: : would not converge. I do not see this. All
: : issues of law that are genuinely open to
: : question are either obscure and complex
: : things that most people are unlikely to get
: : very excited about, or even comprehend, or
: : they are public good laws that just will not
: : get enforced very effectively anyway.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
wyWu/XH5NzuEgyu27o+seippbsvuNBTgEBhli2qQ
4Jpglp8BKAPfjbz+3CBVa2WhbZxq9424d/wgYk/Ww
Marc Welch
> Democracy exists to protect human rights and to prevent
> violent conflict.
Democracy exists to violate the human rights of minorities.
Ask a Nazi German. Ask a Weimar Jew. Does not prevent
violent conflict.
anarc...@gmail.com
That is one case out of several thousand. I think we need a
bit more evidence than that.
Marc Welch
> > > Democracy exists to protect human rights and to prevent
> > > violent conflict.
Marc Welch:
> > Democracy exists to violate the human rights of minorities.
> > Ask a Nazi German. Ask a Weimar Jew. Does not prevent
> > violent conflict.
anarc...@gmail.com wrote:
> That is one case out of several thousand. I think we need a
> bit more evidence than that.
Pick an example of democracy and you will find an example of
systematic rights violations.
Start with Athens.
James A. Donald
>
Marc Welch wrote:
> > Democracy exists to violate the human rights of minorities.
> > Ask a Nazi German. Ask a Weimar Jew. Does not prevent
> > violent conflict.
> That is one case out of several thousand. I think we need a
> bit more evidence than that.
Google for "illiberal democracy"
The first hit on google is
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html
Which gives quite a few more cases.
uri
of the antisocial actions of individuals.
Marc Welch
> Social justice doesn't work not because of the government but because
> of the antisocial actions of individuals.
Politicians are people too. And how.
Paul Bramscher
There are many possible variants to this theme. For instance,
community-level laws which result from concensus decision-making. For
instance -- "No distantly-owned big box corporation such as Walmart can
build in this community. Instead, we shall encourage locally owned
businesses."
This sort of law doesn't need enforcement if the people in the
community, genuinely, have their say on the matter. Nor does it need a
leader. If their hands are tied by the next (non-local) tier of
government higher up, forced into changing their rules because of
outside influence, etc. then you don't have anarchy.
You don't have democracy either.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Money is also an emotional/psychological/spiritual construct.
Communist nonsense. Money is a tool of exchange that facilitates the
division of alabor, thus enabling the explosive rise in living standards
we have seen over the last centuries.
>It's not
> a physical thing.
Yet, this coin seems oddly physical.
> In reality there is only natural resources which all
> living beings use and consume all the time (like water,
> nutrition/minerals and electricity).
Enter commodity money.
--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk - http://liberterran.org - http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/ -
http://planetarybillofrights.org/ - http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> What about accumulation of wealth, and hoarding, and greed, and
> everything else that is endemic to the capitalistic ethos? No matter
> what prefix is attached to capitalism, even the appropriation of
> anarchism, it will still be fundamentally about personal enrichment
> over the collective good.
And who, I aske, will define what the collective good is? You?
> I can't tell from your post if you wish to advocate this or are merely
> warning us of the pestilential 'vogue' this abortion of Ayn Rand poses.
Ayn Rand was a minarchist, not an AnCap.
> Capitalism thrives off false individualization, the cult of the ego,
> rampant waste,
How does capitalism in a free market thrife from wasting resources? Go
on, do tell.
> and so many more deplorable aspects. It is profit for
> profits' sake, at the expense of any and all else.
No - it is profit for HUMANS sake.
uri
>
> Yet, this coin seems oddly physical.
>
The coin is natural but the value behind it is not. Money is more like
a license or permission granted by the government to use something.
achipin...@yahoo.com
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
> And who, I aske, will define what the collective good is? You?
the collective
> > I can't tell from your post if you wish to advocate this or are merely
> > warning us of the pestilential 'vogue' this abortion of Ayn Rand poses.
metaphor.
> How does capitalism in a free market thrife from wasting resources? Go
> on, do tell.
planned obsolescence.
Michael Price
Which consists of saving your consumers money by making every part
of the machine last the same amount of time. There was a myth that
manufacturers deliberately made their products last less time so that
people would be forced to buy more of their products, but common sense
would tell you that would make them buy the competitors products.