Sobran - The Reluctant Anarchist

[Helm]

I don't know a worthwhile step up that exists on a geopolitical scope that isn't. We just take small easy little steps down towards easy wars, simple stupidity and common greed.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Helm

OAO, look outside of your ass for a while. The combined force of more than one human working in concert (besides being a small state in themselves) can overpower nature, and also single humen working alone. There begins both civilization, and class inequality. The State, big or small, strong or weak comes in much later. Read some Marx or even the Kropotkin you like, or something, before loudly declaring yourself an anarchist, especially such a rediculous one as a anarcho-capitalist. The will to power, control and safety is hard-coded into men, and as animals they will seek it, in unison if they have to. True market economy isn't fair and never will be. Taking the regulator out ( the state ) will only serve to make things worse. People aren't fair. They will not go by the rainbow fairlyand rule of libertarian non-agression. People who are oppressed by a system, be it by it's inherent flaws or their OWN inability to keep up with it will revolt and destroy it. Therefore there are two options, either stick to the libertarian shit to the very end, and perish along with the foolish system that JUMPS STRAIGHT from capitalism to anarcho-capitalism, without taking into account that philosophically speaking, the modern man is still a swine, or take measures to contain and control the dissident masses. Enter fascism. Even the most basic understanding of human nature, politics and economics will lead you to these probable scenarios.

The only job as "regulator" that the State truly has in our modern society is maintaining advantagous market conditions for favored actors (i.e. corporations). Other than that, it's just about throwing enough breadcrumbs to the common man to keep him from revolting, and also destroying opposition to the State. You, as a seemingly radical socialist, know this.

The thing you fail to understand is that measures are taken to control the masses. There is no utopian assumption that everyone will respect property; this is why private defense agencies (i.e. police) are contracted. They're even more effecient than the State, thanks to the subjection of force to competition. Furthermore, many anarcho-capitalists recognize the right of individuals to form collectivist societies... the point is that we shouldn't be forced to join them.

Furthermore, the very argument about the system being oppressive can be applied to socialism itself, be it in a statist or anti-statist tradition. The very inequalities of life that can result from ignoring preference in both the material and immaterial planes can lead to dissatisfaction, not to mention that people tend to desire individual ownership (as opposed to merely possession).

And finally, Marx's justification of egalitarian collectivism is flawed because it assumes a false theory of value.

Anarchism (as Kropotkin will tell you) is a byproduct of a refined society. One that abolished classes through communism, and one which gradually evolves into non-agression. And therefore, we should be more concerned with the stepping stone (socialism) than with the end result because we cannot get from here to there.

Kropotkin? What about individualist anarchists, like Tucker or Stirner? Even the ansocs don't deny their legitimacy.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Furthermore, many anarcho-capitalists recognize the right of individuals to form collectivist societies... the point is that we shouldn't be forced to join them.

And when my collectivist society has the most guns and the best enforcers, the rest of you fuckers are going DOWN.

[Helm]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The only job as "regulator" that the State truly has in our modern society is maintaining advantagous market conditions for favored actors (i.e. corporations). Other than that, it's just about throwing enough breadcrumbs to the common man to keep him from revolting, and also destroying opposition to the State. You, as a seemingly radical socialist, know this.

You mean

The only job as "regulator" that the State SHOULD HAVE[...]

don't turn your demands into presuppositions.

I am not a radical socialist, whatever that means. I am not also of the opinion that a large, bloated state machine is a good idea. I believe the state should eventually be reduced to various applicative but mobile units that loosely co-relate to directly serve the People. I believe in direct democracy rather than representative, via technological means (a terminal in every house and the such) where the political parties are reduced to propaganda suppliers, and the citizen is called to examine all different viewpoints (via said propaganda) and make up his mind and vote for each and all issues partaining to his city - state - country. As you can see, I'm in a way, a libertarian myself.

However, you cannot get here from there. For such a system to work, there's an intermediate step where the state will have to possibly get a lot larger before it can become smaller. The People should be fed, first, and foremost. To that end, I agree with any cookie-cutter variety Red. The classes will have to go, and if that has to be done in a reactionary way (extreme taxation), then so be it! Just as long as it is the will of the people, as expressed through an elected party (on that level). Then the people should be educated, to be given the means to liberate themselves from themselves. Then, when this is achieved, the state will defuse into the aforementioned structure, as it will no longer be needed to guide, but rather serve. We should not need any more leaders. Hopefully, the next few generations of them will be the last.

Socialism isn't an end in itself, it's a necessary stepping stone to something greater. Even actual Socialists will tell you that.

The thing you fail to understand is that measures are taken to control the masses.

You think? I fail to understand this, how?

There is no utopian assumption that everyone will respect property; this is why private defense agencies (i.e. police) are contracted. They're even more effecient than the State, thanks to the subjection of force to competition.

This is laughable. Besides the actual examples of privatized policing forces (mercenaries, really) that have resulted to extremely unpleasant results, the fact and only that you're willing to put the interpretation of justice in the overzealous hands of competitive parties shows your utter lack of understanding of what justice, as a constant paradigm, is. I'll tell you what justice is not. It's not burgers. It's not different fast food joints competing for whom can make the biggest, fattest yet cheapest one. Idiot.

Furthermore, many anarcho-capitalists recognize the right of individuals to form collectivist societies... the point is that we shouldn't be forced to join them.

Is that before or after such societies (communes, really) either gradually overpower the solo guys, or the private police forces of the solo guys beat the crap out of the societies? Seriously, do you understand anything about the concept of POWER AS AN END IN ITSELF that has been the staple of human behaviour since day one? We can only outgrow this by examining human instinct and hopefully defeating it. This can only happen when people have the time to do this at their leasure, not when they're half-starving to death.

Furthermore, the very argument about the system being oppressive can be applied to socialism itself, be it in a statist or anti-statist tradition.

So is this "I know mine is, but so is yours" or what? Of course any large State construct will be oppressive. In the case of what I am describing, the idea is that you don't just end with socialism.

And finally, Marx's justification of egalitarian collectivism is flawed because it assumes a false theory of value.

I am not prepared to discuss economics, be them Marxist or not as I lack understanding of various aspects of the whole. Mainly because I find actual sterile economics very, very boring. I've read and understood parts of the Manifesto and Capital, but I haven't much looked into counterpoints and rebuttals. That Marxist politico-economical analysis is however, still very much applied in current discussions by people far more intelligent and well-read than me (be them Marxists like Hobsbawm or even complete opposite parties, everybody uses Marxist terminology) seems to suggest that you are also not exactly sure what you're talking about. But if you like regurgitating select catch phrases out of a silly primer textbook as you undoubtedly are, then go right on ahead.

Kropotkin? What about individualist anarchists, like Tucker or Stirner? Even the ansocs don't deny their legitimacy.

Haven't read these guys. Their legitimacy as to what? Anarchism comes in serveral different flavours (you've chosen the most rediculous and far-fetched one, anarchocommunism being the most possible, given communistic foundation), and most have either been tested to horrible results, or remain untested. I remain unconvinced there's a valid way to go from globalized capitalism to anarchism.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Helm

You mean

The only job as "regulator" that the State SHOULD HAVE[...]

don't turn your demands into presuppositions.

You entirely misunderstand me. What I mean is that the State is dominated by corporations seeking to manipulate the market in ways that would be advantagous to them. That, my friend, is corporatism, and it's something I'm entirely opposed.

I am not a radical socialist, whatever that means. I am not also of the opinion that a large, bloated state machine is a good idea. I believe the state should eventually be reduced to various applicative but mobile units that loosely co-relate to directly serve the People. I believe in direct democracy rather than representative, via technological means (a terminal in every house and the such) where the political parties are reduced to propaganda suppliers, and the citizen is called to examine all different viewpoints (via said propaganda) and make up his mind and vote for each and all issues partaining to his city - state - country. As you can see, I'm in a way, a libertarian myself.

In the 8th grade, we all had to make a fictional country and design a system of government for it. I designed something similar, except that I advocated voting through the Internet rather than some seperate terminal (though that was brought up when my teacher asked about ensuring the poor can vote) and maintained a national Senate. Basically, the House of Representatives in American government was replaced with direct votes, with a few key differences as far as votes were required and a few tweaks - after all, without the Senate, the populace will be constantly bombared with too many propositions to keep up with at. I'm not bringing this up as any sort of an attack on your system, but merely to illustrate that I know what you're talking about.

My problem with such systems now is that there is still an abrogation of rights. People should not be forced to have restraints on their liberty just because the majority of people wills them. A better idea is to let people establish and join communities on a basis of free choice. Those communities can organize themselves democratically if they wish, but man should not have to adopt such a sytem out of force.

However, you cannot get here from there. For such a system to work, there's an intermediate step where the state will have to possibly get a lot larger before it can become smaller. The People should be fed, first, and foremost. To that end, I agree with any cookie-cutter variety Red. The classes will have to go, and if that has to be done in a reactionary way (extreme taxation), then so be it! Just as long as it is the will of the people, as expressed through an elected party (on that level). Then the people should be educated, to be given the means to liberate themselves from themselves. Then, when this is achieved, the state will defuse into the aforementioned structure, as it will no longer be needed to guide, but rather serve. We should not need any more leaders. Hopefully, the next few generations of them will be the last.

Aside from the economic inefficiency (which I realise you don't want to debate), the State will never permit this to occur. It invariably serves the existing hierarchy; it will certain not dissolve itself.

Socialism isn't an end in itself, it's a necessary stepping stone to something greater. Even actual Socialists will tell you that.

For some it's an end in itself.

You think? I fail to understand this, how?

You said that anarcho-capitalism would be smashed by those who weren't content with it.

This is laughable. Besides the actual examples of privatized policing forces (mercenaries, really) that have resulted to extremely unpleasant results, the fact and only that you're willing to put the interpretation of justice in the overzealous hands of competitive parties shows your utter lack of understanding of what justice, as a constant paradigm, is. I'll tell you what justice is not. It's not burgers. It's not different fast food joints competing for whom can make the biggest, fattest yet cheapest one. Idiot.

Actually, private defense forces in the context of a pseudo-ancap society have been fairly successful, such as in medieval Iceland.

You obviously don't understand how ancap conceptions of private defense is supposed to work if you think that each competiting firm represents a variety of justice. Justice is put into the context of human rights - nothing more, nothing less. Beyond that, polycentric legal codes and multiple defense agencies allow individuals to choose how to live their own lives. It's quite possible that a community of, say, hardcore Christians, might choose to hire Archangels Inc. to protect them from outside forces and hire the Shepards Corp. to bring offenders of the community laws to a private court.

Is that before or after such societies (communes, really) either gradually overpower the solo guys, or the private police forces of the solo guys beat the crap out of the societies? Seriously, do you understand anything about the concept of POWER AS AN END IN ITSELF that has been the staple of human behaviour since day one? We can only outgrow this by examining human instinct and hopefully defeating it. This can only happen when people have the time to do this at their leasure, not when they're half-starving to death.

Ya know, most people I know don't seek power so much as they seek a happy, enjoyable life. Funny how that goes. Regardless, I don't think that you can change human instinct, and I think that ancap is more than able to handle it. I seriously doubt communes would have the economic power necessary to defeat the "solos."

So is this "I know mine is, but so is yours" or what? Of course any large State construct will be oppressive. In the case of what I am describing, the idea is that you don't just end with socialism.

You're assumption is still that human nature can be changed to a great extent through socialist nurturing, something which I strongly disagree with.

I am not prepared to discuss economics, be them Marxist or not as I lack understanding of various aspects of the whole. Mainly because I find actual sterile economics very, very boring. I've read and understood parts of the Manifesto and Capital, but I haven't much looked into counterpoints and rebuttals. That Marxist politico-economical analysis is however, still very much applied in current discussions by people far more intelligent and well-read than me (be them Marxists like Hobsbawm or even complete opposite parties, everybody uses Marxist terminology) seems to suggest that you are also not exactly sure what you're talking about. But if you like regurgitating select catch phrases out of a silly primer textbook as you undoubtedly are, then go right on ahead.

All I'm going to say is look up the labor theory of value, and the subjective theory of value, and tell me which one makes more sense.

Haven't read these guys. Their legitimacy as to what? Anarchism comes in serveral different flavours (you've chosen the most rediculous and far-fetched one, anarchocommunism being the most possible, given communistic foundation), and most have either been tested to horrible results, or remain untested. I remain unconvinced there's a valid way to go from globalized capitalism to anarchism.

Their legitimacy as to being anarchists. Right now there is a huge debate with the socialists as to whether ancaps are truely anarchist at all; they view anarchism to be inherently anti-capitalist.

[Spectre X]

Human nature is malleable and therefore does not 'exist'.

It's a cultural thing, you see.

[Helm]

Whoa this changes everything


EDIT: okay, besides the sarcasm because you probably really ment that and think it was correct. In a (fairly generic and probably full of holes) nutshell: There's instinctual directives that exist in animals, mainly urging them to create progeny, protect it, protect themselves, exert control and dominance over their immediate surroundings, and so on. Life exerting control, natural selection, you know the drill. Don't ask me why, take your pick: because god intended it to be so, or because QM infinite fault emulation led to such a progressive universe randomly, because there's a universal design of non-deific origin, whatever. I don't really bother with ontology and 'the big start of everything' anymore.

As animals, we also have these instinctual directives, and we're urged to fulfill them as we can via our biochemistry (read: base feelings). There is nothing 'cultural' about the fear of death, the need to procreate and the avoidance of danger. In fact, culture is built around these primordial urges, fortifying their recurrence. It is those cultural fortifications that, through time transmutate into different shades (of essentially the same thing) as you correctly suggest, not the basic instinctual drives, which remain the same and unaltered. The way I deal with the fact that I get hard-ons and desire to make Helm babies might change, the mating rituals I have to go through might change, but the hard-on is ever-present through time.

All this is a completely different topic and thread, and if you feel like persuing it, make it and I'm there. Right here though, the point is to make OAO feel stupid

[ziggytrix]

You deny the existence of human instinct?! I should beat the crap out of you.

[Helm]

haha ziggy

[Emu]

Every psych and sociology class I've had denies the existence of human instinct (or called them "drives" or some such drivel), but every class and book I've read on biology, chemistry, etc. says that we do have instinct. I'm inclined to side with the latter. As humans, we hold ourselves to such a standard that separates us from the rest of life, like we're something special, exempt from the laws that apply to everything else, which is utterly retarded and big-headed of us.

I hope this thread goes on forever. I'm really fascinated by it.

[The One and Only...]

Helm, please read this. It articulates much of the anarcho-capitalist position better than I have.

http://www.explore-government.com/go...apitalism.html

A similar philosophy is that of agorism, which I am trying to find more information on as it has been appealing to me lately.

http://www.explore-dictionary.com/ec...A/Agorism.html

[Helm]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Helm, please read this. It articulates much of the anarcho-capitalist position better than I have.

http://www.explore-government.com/go...apitalism.html

No.

[AChimp]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

A similar philosophy is that of agorism, which I am trying to find more information on as it has been appealing to me lately.

Ah, so this whole anarchy thing is just your teenage flavour of the month. You are filled with so much angst.

[Helm]

the fact that you fish out your flavour of the month from internet philosophy databases means if nothing else, that you definately aren't ready to call yourself anything that ends with an -ist, yet. The point of having a political and philosophical position is manyfold, but simply using them to impress people, or to fortify yourself against your cruel mom, or to divert your teenage angst isn't what I'd call valid.

Left libertarian, Anarchist Libertarian, Agorist, Anarcho-capitalist... whatever you think is cooler

[Emu]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Helm, please read this. It articulates much of the anarcho-capitalist position better than I have.

http://www.explore-government.com/go...apitalism.html

What's the point in reading this? I know that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally flawed as a viable way of society. Within capitalism, power always becomes concentrated among the few--it's why a large percentage of the income in our coutry is managed by the top 1%. When power becomes concentrated, rulers emerge. It's a fact of human nature. In fact, without the necessary stepping stone of socialism, like Helm said, if our form of government moved from the democracy we have now to the anarchist state, the people who didn't already HAVE the wealth would never have a chance. I don't know about you, but even if wealth was no longer measured in capital but in possessions(since it COULDN'T be measured in capital, because capital requires a government agency, and even gold would have no definite value in an anarchic state), I think Bill Gates would still have a much better chance than Joe Blue down the street. But good ol' Bill needs workers, and if there's no law to stop him, what's going to keep him from annexing land and goods from the people around him, until he becomes the king of a serfdom?

It seems to me an anarchocapitalist is just someone who really, really doesn't want to pay taxes.

[Emu]

Originally Posted by That site he linked

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree. Minarchist libertarians wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain vital functions that they believe the private sector cannot adequately provide, like police, courts and the military. Anarcho-capitalists believe these should be privately owned, operated and funded.

Even in that paragraph alone you should be able to see the flaw. If the police become privately owned, the owner can make them take down whoever the hell he wants until he becomes the (say it with me kids) government himself. And then there's no more capitalism -- only monopolies, to put it lightly.

Anarcho-capitalists differ from left anarchists in that they do not oppose private property (including private ownership of the means of production), they believe that contractual relationships between employers and employees are voluntary (including profit arrangements), and they are not motivated by egalitarian concerns. According to "mainstream" anarchists, the terms anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-capitalism are contradictions, because they claim capitalism is inherentially hierarchical and as such is opposed to anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists reject mainstream anarchism.

I like how the argument put against that is "Anarcho-capitliasts reject mainstream anarchism." Well, obviously.

Anarcho-capitalism IS a contradiction. It's true that capitalism works "better" with less government, but it doesn't work at all in the absence of it. The government is what sets the definite value of your capital. A dollar is worth the same amount of Ho-Hos no matter where you go. A chicken is not.

And if there IS no government, the capitalist nature of the society will produce one, whether you like it or not.

Anarcho-capitalists oppose coercion, which they (like other libertarians) commonly define as the act of preventing one from having the willful use of their person or property by employing physical force, the threat of such, or fraud. Any action that is made of one's own free will (i.e., not as a result of force or fraud) is considered by anarcho-capitalists to be "voluntary".

More contradictions. You oppose coercion, yet you don't want someone there to stop the coercion. You might say that the police will be there, but what if the person who owns the police is doing the coercion? Then what are you gonna do?

Private property and the idea of self-ownership are central to anarcho-capitalism. As a rule, anarcho-capitalists believe that property is not to be recognized as being legitimately-obtained unless it has been acquired through trade or gift.

In my social studies class, I think they called that "bartering," and it was characteristic of feudal societies.

Anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few parcels of land left on Earth that have not been coerced from their original possessors (some who may have staked claims millions of years ago), but they do not believe that the past can be remedied by forcefully taking the property from someone today who has acquired it in a consensual transaction.

Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.

(Also, agriculture hasn't even existed for "millions of years"...Homo sapiens as a speices hasn't even existed a million years. If that's not a clue, then I don't know what is.)

[Spectre X]

I don't deny the existence of human instinct, I deny the existence of human nature as a fixed thing.

Helm summed it up pretty nicely. I didn't mean the instinctual urges we have, but the emphasis put on them by whichever culture one is a part of.

[Helm]

I actually missed the whole of your rebuttal before.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

You entirely misunderstand me. What I mean is that the State is dominated by corporations seeking to manipulate the market in ways that would be advantagous to them. That, my friend, is corporatism, and it's something I'm entirely opposed.

I did not misunderstand you. What you posted was not what you had in your mind. To this newer point I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not bringing this up as any sort of an attack on your system, but merely to illustrate that I know what you're talking about.

You know what you're talking about because in 8th grade you shared my opinion on how a properly democratic goverment would work?

My problem with such systems now is that there is still an abrogation of rights. People should not be forced to have restraints on their liberty just because the majority of people wills them. A better idea is to let people establish and join communities on a basis of free choice.

Absolutely nobody is stopping you from leaving such a democratic country and persuing your freedom in greener pastures.

Aside from the economic inefficiency (which I realise you don't want to debate), the State will never permit this to occur. It invariably serves the existing hierarchy; it will certain not dissolve itself.

Of course this will be economically inefficient. For a duration. Economy should serve man, not shackle him and be strawmanned into every political argument as "omg what would happen to the economy!". The disadvantage can be managed. As to the State not permitting it to occur, last time I checked, you control the various aspects of state through the power of voting. Wee. The State cannot 'stop' something from happening if it's the will of the people. In the case somebody tries, he's attempting a coup, and as is the usual case, the people go off with his head in a pinch.

[quoteFor some it's an end in itself.[/quote]

I am prepared to align even with such people since we share the same intermediate goal.

You said that anarcho-capitalism would be smashed by those who weren't content with it.

Yes, and this displays my failure to understand what, how?

Actually, private defense forces in the context of a pseudo-ancap society have been fairly successful, such as in medieval Iceland.

medieval Iceland? Are you retarded?

Justice is put into the context of human rights - nothing more, nothing less.

Boy, are you completely unread. First of all a system of Justice a living, dynamic thing that changes with the times. New bills are suggested and passed every day. It's not just about 'human rights'. And justice is as much as to the actual constant word of the law as it is the interpretation of it. It is in the latter that privatized forces would fail completely. A private enterprize only has one goal, and that is to enmass the biggest amount of profit and cut back on it's losses. The model of the conglomerates that you yourself said have reached within the State and are wrestling control of in the name of profit. Are you sincerily telling me that you'd be happy with Policing Companies, that you'd entrust them with the duty of interpreting the law?

Beyond that, polycentric legal codes and multiple defense agencies allow individuals to choose how to live their own lives. It's quite possible that a community of, say, hardcore Christians, might choose to hire Archangels Inc. to protect them from outside forces and hire the Shepards Corp. to bring offenders of the community laws to a private court.

I'm sure your Paladin character will roll perfect twenties in his Divine Intuition rolls.

Ya know, most people I know don't seek power so much as they seek a happy, enjoyable life. Funny how that goes. Regardless, I don't think that you can change human instinct, and I think that ancap is more than able to handle it. I seriously doubt communes would have the economic power necessary to defeat the "solos."

Oh, proof by sincere doubt. Consider me covered.

You're assumption is still that human nature can be changed to a great extent through socialist nurturing, something which I strongly disagree with.

Whoa, proof by strong disagreement. Case closed!

Also, I never said human nature can be fundamentally altered. The jury's still out on that one, but probably, it can only happen naturally through many such 'nurtured' generations. I was/am saying that it's workings can and should be explored to the point where they're made transparent for all, and controlled. This is not happening right now. Nobody is trying. Everybody is being automatic. I had this discussion with the Apportioner in this forum 3 years ago and when he first suggested that man goes to war because of his instinctual leanings, I considered it absurd and fought the notion well into my following study of determinism before I decided to stop lying to myself. Most people, even to suggest that they're not IN COMPLETE CONTROL of themselves flinch and kneejerk all over the place. Nobody is trying. We have to try.

All I'm going to say is look up the labor theory of value, and the subjective theory of value, and tell me which one makes more sense.

I have a general understanding of both terms. Of course labour value is for most intents and purposes the most socially viable. Labour value should be constant for anyone more advanced economical framework (multinational trading, for example) to work. I can understand how subjective labour costs might make sense if you're living in a commune and you buy chickens for two sets of shoes, but clearly applying subjective values to labour in any level over that is retarded.

Their legitimacy as to being anarchists. Right now there is a huge debate with the socialists as to whether ancaps are truely anarchist at all; they view anarchism to be inherently anti-capitalist.

Of course 'ancaps' are not anarchists. They're 'ancaps'. Just as anarcho-communists are not communists. Names are just names. Trying to keep people from using the name of something you hold dear so they don't spoil it into their ( admittedly stupid, in this case) version is pointless. Things are better measured in examination of their parameters, not their names. Though, I'd choose a less misleading name for anarchocapitalism, personally, like 'hahaha'.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Helm

the fact that you fish out your flavour of the month from internet philosophy databases means if nothing else, that you definately aren't ready to call yourself anything that ends with an -ist, yet. The point of having a political and philosophical position is manyfold, but simply using them to impress people, or to fortify yourself against your cruel mom, or to divert your teenage angst isn't what I'd call valid.

Left libertarian, Anarchist Libertarian, Agorist, Anarcho-capitalist... whatever you think is cooler

I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.

What's the point in reading this? I know that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally flawed as a viable way of society. Within capitalism, power always becomes concentrated among the few--it's why a large percentage of the income in our coutry is managed by the top 1%.When power becomes concentrated, rulers emerge. It's a fact of human nature. In fact, without the necessary stepping stone of socialism, like Helm said, if our form of government moved from the democracy we have now to the anarchist state, the people who didn't already HAVE the wealth would never have a chance. I don't know about you, but even if wealth was no longer measured in capital but in possessions(since it COULDN'T be measured in capital, because capital requires a government agency, and even gold would have no definite value in an anarchic state), I think Bill Gates would still have a much better chance than Joe Blue down the street. But good ol' Bill needs workers, and if there's no law to stop him, what's going to keep him from annexing land and goods from the people around him, until he becomes the king of a serfdom?

We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

It seems to me an anarchocapitalist is just someone who really, really doesn't want to pay taxes.

Theoretically, you can have a state without taxation. That is what I used to advocate.

Even in that paragraph alone you should be able to see the flaw. If the police become privately owned, the owner can make them take down whoever the hell he wants until he becomes the (say it with me kids) government himself. And then there's no more capitalism -- only monopolies, to put it lightly.

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).

I like how the argument put against that is "Anarcho-capitliasts reject mainstream anarchism." Well, obviously.

Anarcho-capitalism IS a contradiction. It's true that capitalism works "better" with less government, but it doesn't work at all in the absence of it. The government is what sets the definite value of your capital. A dollar is worth the same amount of Ho-Hos no matter where you go. A chicken is not.

And if there IS no government, the capitalist nature of the society will produce one, whether you like it or not.

You realize that there is such a thing as commodity money, right?

More contradictions. You oppose coercion, yet you don't want someone there to stop the coercion. You might say that the police will be there, but what if the person who owns the police is doing the coercion? Then what are you gonna do?

A firm which extorts money from it's customers isn't going to get very far... unless that firm is a monopoly called the State.

Remember that these defense agencies do have to compete with one another.

In my social studies class, I think they called that "bartering," and it was characteristic of feudal societies.

Except for the fact that you can have currency in the absense of a Sate.

Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.

Isn't that a perfect example of why the hell not?

I did not misunderstand you. What you posted was not what you had in your mind. To this newer point I agree wholeheartedly.

Then I miscommunicated. Either way, it doesn't really matter now.

You know what you're talking about because in 8th grade you shared my opinion on how a properly democratic goverment would work?

I know what you're talking about. It was a statement meant to show you that I understood the system you proposed.

Absolutely nobody is stopping you from leaving such a democratic country and persuing your freedom in greener pastures.

There are rights violations virtually everyone. Even Somalia is subject to the will of the illegitimate multinationals, and governments generally won't allow you to succeed.

Of course this will be economically inefficient. For a duration. Economy should serve man, not shackle him and be strawmanned into every political argument as "omg what would happen to the economy!". The disadvantage can be managed. As to the State not permitting it to occur, last time I checked, you control the various aspects of state through the power of voting. Wee. The State cannot 'stop' something from happening if it's the will of the people. In the case somebody tries, he's attempting a coup, and as is the usual case, the people go off with his head in a pinch.

What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations? And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent? You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.

I am prepared to align even with such people since we share the same intermediate goal.

You stated that all Socialists view socialism as a stepping stone. Now you admit that some view it as an end?

Yes, and this displays my failure to understand what, how?

It illustrates your failure to understand that anarcho-capitalist societies have mechanisms for defense and that anarcho-capitalism, by nature, is panarchic.

medieval Iceland? Are you retarded?

Do you have any idea to what I'm referring to?

Boy, are you completely unread. First of all a system of Justice a living, dynamic thing that changes with the times. New bills are suggested and passed every day. It's not just about 'human rights'. And justice is as much as to the actual constant word of the law as it is the interpretation of it. It is in the latter that privatized forces would fail completely. A private enterprize only has one goal, and that is to enmass the biggest amount of profit and cut back on it's losses. The model of the conglomerates that you yourself said have reached within the State and are wrestling control of in the name of profit. Are you sincerily telling me that you'd be happy with Policing Companies, that you'd entrust them with the duty of interpreting the law?

First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do. Second of all, a mutally-accepted court would have to be hired for disputes between two involved parties, something which would be done as fighting is undesireable on a multitude of levels. Due to the nature of the court system, I think it would be a better alternative to the current system in which there is no choice.

Oh, proof by sincere doubt. Consider me covered.

...

Whoa, proof by strong disagreement. Case closed!

You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.

Also, I never said human nature can be fundamentally altered. The jury's still out on that one, but probably, it can only happen naturally through many such 'nurtured' generations. I was/am saying that it's workings can and should be explored to the point where they're made transparent for all, and controlled. This is not happening right now. Nobody is trying. Everybody is being automatic. I had this discussion with the Apportioner in this forum 3 years ago and when he first suggested that man goes to war because of his instinctual leanings, I considered it absurd and fought the notion well into my following study of determinism before I decided to stop lying to myself. Most people, even to suggest that they're not IN COMPLETE CONTROL of themselves flinch and kneejerk all over the place. Nobody is trying. We have to try.

1) Even assuming human nature can be altered, humanity is so complex that I don't see how you can find the right process to alter in a specified, exact manner.

2) Why would you want to alter human nature anyway? What real purpose does it serve without an objective moral basis?

I have a general understanding of both terms. Of course labour value is for most intents and purposes the most socially viable. Labour value should be constant for anyone more advanced economical framework (multinational trading, for example) to work. I can understand how subjective labour costs might make sense if you're living in a commune and you buy chickens for two sets of shoes, but clearly applying subjective values to labour in any level over that is retarded.

Well, your view is slightly off. The LTV and STV are both statements of value about the product of labor, not labor itself. The LTV asserts that the value of a given product is based on the amount of labor required to make it. The STV asserts that value can only be assigned to the products of labor in the human mind; there is no intrinsic value.

I think that the LTV is fundamentally disproven by the price system. Prices reflect, in part, the value that is given to products by human minds. Assuming that supply is the same, most people would pay more for a computer than a toothpick even if the amount of labor required to make them was the same. Thus, they are valued on a subjective level.

[kellychaos]

Is this becoming a nature versus nurture argument? Am I to be believe that people would behave differently sans the oppressive state? How could you, OAO, possibly know human nature in a stateless society with no successful examples ... least-wise, none that have run their developmental course? At best, it would be an educated guess. Moreover, it would be YOUR educated guess ... and that doesn't exactly build any condidence in me given that you're citing 8th grade political science projects.

[Chojin]

OAO, you're reading replies and then trying to figure out why they're wrong instead of actually considering anything. That makes you a psuedo-intellectual. And now you just had a knee-jerk reaction that I was threatening you, so you'll disregard everything I say. Likewise, I'm going to pick through part of your post and ignore all the supposed content while making fun of it - not because I'm a psuedo-intellectual seeking an intellectual victory, but because I am an asshole who sees derision as a means unto itself. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

So, great. Their guns won't be worth anything either, but they still fire bullets. Corporations wield incredible power without needing to spend money. Money is the means, not the process in and of itself.

Theoretically, you can have a state without taxation. That is what I used to advocate.

Theoretically, you can give everyone in the world a kitten without spending a dime. But it isn't too feasible, and it's stupid.

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).

Yeah, because this is exactly what happens to the mafia.

You realize that there is such a thing as commodity money, right?

So, you prefer a system of currency that is dynamic, obsolete, complicated, and confusing. This is better than our current system of currency (which is only dynamic) how? Isn't this sort of shit what society has evolved past, anyway?

Isn't that a perfect example of why the hell not?

No?

I'd read and respond to the rest of it, but it's like arguing with a 5-year-old that insists he's tall enough to ride the rollercoaster. Only he uses the socratic method (Michael ).

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Chojin

OAO, you're reading replies and then trying to figure out why they're wrong instead of actually considering anything.

I wasn't aware that you could read my mind.

So, great. Their guns won't be worth anything either, but they still fire bullets. Corporations wield incredible power without needing to spend money. Money is the means, not the process in and of itself.

Most corporate assets are at least indirectly tied to money. The actual amount of real material that it has is much smaller, especially ones that it can offer employees as payment for their services. No employees = no services to provide = collapse.

Theoretically, you can give everyone in the world a kitten without spending a dime. But it isn't too feasible, and it's stupid.

I fail to see how giving everyone a kitten for free is a good analogy to a state that sustains itself on the production of it's own currency, kept in line with population growth in an attempt to end inflationary booms and recessions.

It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).

Yeah, because this is exactly what happens to the mafia.

The mafia works in the underground crime scene. It's hardly analogous to PDAs, which would defend against extortion. It's all about the market - anywhere there is a high number of criminal activities, including extortion, the demand for a strong PDA will grow. All this works quickly; I don't see how a PDA would be any less able to handle a such an organization any less effectively than Statist police.

So, you prefer a system of currency that is dynamic, obsolete, complicated, and confusing. This is better than our current system of currency (which is only dynamic) how? Isn't this sort of shit what society has evolved past, anyway?

We didn't get rid of the gold standard until Nixon, and that was only because it was creating an economic problem. Do you really believe that currency would be liquidated for the commodity frequently in a stateless market economy?

No?

Am I correct in thinking that he was referring to when American settlers forced Native Americans off their land? Why would we want to repeat such an atrocity?

[Chojin]

Because this isn't a perfect society, and human nature will undo even the best-laid plans. "Why would we want to repeat that atrocity?" You would not control this society you propose. People would do it. All an AC system would do - provided you found enough simple-minded idiots to go along with it - is weaken people for predators to take advantage of them.

The rest of that post was either I DISAGREE or YOUR JOKE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN A REAL-WORLD CONTEXT.

Except for this line:

"Do you really believe that currency would be liquidated for the commodity frequently in a stateless market economy?"

...which just makes no sense, but slowly and sensually strokes your terribly oversized member.

I also enjoyed your bit about the Mafia falling against the forces of Public Displays of Affection. I think you should create a movie about that, or at least an anime.

At any rate, Spongebob, you're just a kid. You'll never make it to Shell City, let alone create an ANARCHO CAPITALIST SOCIETY THAT HAS FENCING AS THE NATIONAL SPORT ONLY THERE IS NO NATION SO THE TERM NATIONAL IS QUITE REDUNDANT PFAH PFAH HA HA YES OH DEAR HOW CLEVER OF ME

[Emu]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Am I correct in thinking that he was referring to when American settlers forced Native Americans off their land? Why would we want to repeat such an atrocity?

It's not that we'd WANT to, it's just that it would happen. There's nothing to stop anyone from just TAKING anyone else's land. I said it worked for the settlers just to illustrate that "good" can come of it.

[FS]

Originally Posted by glowbelly

sobran sounds like a type of cereal old people would eat with prune juice

haha

And I love how through his 'ideological changes', the core of OAO's view of the ideal world is still one where he doesn't have to be bothered by other people's misfortunes.

Didn't you ever see Robocop, OAO?