http://anti-state.com/forum/index.ph...threadid=17059
I'm sure that most of you have, by now, noticed friction with much of the accepted anarcho-capitalist norms from my person. Due to this, I find it important to question exactly what my status is for the sake of clarity.
1) Property.
I am no longer of the opinion that any one means of appropriation is just, and hold a view akin to Bastiat's perspective in that "he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object." (See here.) I further this conceptualization with Stirner's view that what is "rightly" my property is that which I can defend. Consequentally, there are no static laws of property, but rather an ever-evolving social arrangement.
My argument for anarchism is, then, essentially based on the idea that this arrangement can be furthered in the general interest with the abolition of the State. Whether or not an individual receives the full benefit of his labor is irrelevant at this point; that very notion is exceedingly cluttered.
As I have expressed in the past, I consider that wills (i.e. heirlooms) will be eradicated in an anarchic society.
2) Ideology.
It is appropriate here to explain that I seek more than the mere end of Statism: I wish for a realization of the ego by all individuals. Only with the awakening of egos will ever a new era without exploitation dawn, for exploitation is the product of false understanding, the imposition and impressment of ideas alien to our natural inclinations.
3) Hierarchy.
Many of you know of my hostility towards corporations. This is due to my belief that, in a truly free market, hierarchial firms would necessarily be at a disadvantage to decentralized, voluntary assocations. My concept of the latter is quite distinct from democratically-run cooperatives - I propose the end of all management in firm structure, with various workers establishing de facto relations amongst one another for mutual benefit. These relationships could be secured by means of internal contracts.
This structure provides several benefits, verified by proper economic reasoning. For instance, it enables each worker to react to the individual fluctuations in supply and demand for his person. It creates a more dynamic means of establishing payment for services. It removes stagnancy in the enterprise's mode of operation. Essentially, this theoretical firm acts akin to a free market composed of individual actors, whereas the modern corporate hierarchy acts similar to a centralized State.
Corporations retain dominance in our era due to form restrictions present in corporate charters. For instance, in order to attain one, a firm must have a board of directors. The advantages of incorporation are enormous: greater access to capital and limited liability effectively allow competition to be squashed. Without limitation, corporate structure would be forced to radically alter over time.
.....
Well, I suppose that just about covers my break from typical anarcho-capitalist ideology. What is your verdict?
Threaded Mode
