Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Bagration)
    The first step for all Anarchists must be to persuade the people as a whole that State action is illegitimate. We can make communes - we can engage in counter-economics, we can reject the Police and the State, we can teach our children at home and privately, we can evade taxes - but until the People as a body are willing to overthrow their rulers then there can be no future for Anarchy.
    I disagree.

    The only persuasion I would make to people is that the free-market can do everything more efficiently and provide an optimal supply, of those things they want. That is all. Since people act purposefully then they'll be driven towards freedom, not because it is moral or virtuous, but because it provides the best results possible.

    I think that socialists, libertarians and anarchists are driven through the pursuit of improving man's standards of living, the world around him and so forth. So, my position is exactly that. I think relying on moral standards - as a reason for anarchism - is largely useless. There are socialists, for instance, who don't think you claim ownership over yourself.

    This is one thing I don't understand about market anarchism (Even as a voluntarist I refuse to use the term 'anarcho-capitalism'.) You suppose that when the State disappears, capital will simply shrug its shoulders and continue, when its very institutions are protected by the State? Look at capital today and you will see that it is in their direct interest for the state to exist. Does capital really want a mass of people organised, possessed of arms, and ready to defend their liberty, or would they prefer a subjugated mass of humanity that will constantly buy their products and keep them rich? Any man that subjugates another is a tyrant, whether he is a capitalist, a socialist party leader, or a trade unionists.
    I don't think the state will simply disappear. It would exist but it would be competing with the free-market. I would gradually privatise everything monopoly the government has - including the legal system, so people will choose the kind of law they wish to live under and deal with others.

    I don't really understand your point about captial though.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    How is a profit to be made from street cleaning? What if people decide not to pay private businesses to clean their streets and take away rubbish? With my system you join up to a commune and part of the arrangement is you pay taxes voluntarily.
    Profit: people pay to have their street cleaned and companies employ people to do so, leaving room for profit. People would pay for it because they have an incentive to do so - nobody wants rubbish piling up in the street as it devalues the property around.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    This is one thing I don't understand about market anarchism (Even as a voluntarist I refuse to use the term 'anarcho-capitalism'.) You suppose that when the State disappears, capital will simply shrug its shoulders and continue, when its very institutions are protected by the State? Look at capital today and you will see that it is in their direct interest for the state to exist. Does capital really want a mass of people organised, possessed of arms, and ready to defend their liberty, or would they prefer a subjugated mass of humanity that will constantly buy their products and keep them rich? Any man that subjugates another is a tyrant, whether he is a capitalist, a socialist party leader, or a trade unionists.
    I understand - I don't like using the term "anarcho-capitalist" or even "market anarchist" because anarchism is seen as a dirty word, mainly due to violent faux-anarchists and lefty wackos. I don't think that the state would disappear as such. It would be gradually broken down through privatisation and regulation, and businesses would adjust to this over time. Eventually we would privatise those institutions that are central to the state - the police, courts and army. Companies would make more profit under a capitalist system rather than a corporatist one and it wouldn't throw them too off balance if their subsidies went down, considering the tax they pay would also go down. I know that anarchism would not come about overnight. It will take generations and generations to break the trend of state indoctrination through public schooling and their friends in the corporatist media. It's a theory that won't be put into practise in our lifetime, however it's the theory I care about and most deontological libertarians care about it also, perhaps shown by the fact that most of us dedicate such time and thought to a thing that we'll never see happen.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Profit: people pay to have their street cleaned and companies employ people to do so, leaving room for profit. People would pay for it because they have an incentive to do so - nobody wants rubbish piling up in the street as it devalues the property around.
    Would argue this is a form of slavery/exploitation. People have to have their streets cleaned and therefore, it would be quite easy to hold the public to ransom on this, wouldn't it?

    Also, what do you think of people not having permanent property but instead utilising property in an area for a time and then moving on to another place when they see fit? A pseudo nomadic lifestyle I suppose.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Again, how would you prevent companies collabarating to form a state?
    They couldn't. A state is defined as a monopoly on the legal right to initiate force. Monopolies don't come about in the free market.

    There wasn't a system of wage-labour (for the most part). 80% of Americans were self-employed. Again, I define capitalism by the accumulation of private property, not so much free trade.
    That's maybe where we're getting confused. Yet free trade leads to accumulation of property so I understand. You can't just think of accumulation of private property on its own: think of how people accumulate private property (free trade).

    And I explained your question. You may be able to form your own systems which allow free trade etc. but I doubt that they would be isolated from the rest of the world (with your own extensive knowledge of economics you must know how difficult it would be to restart a society from scratch without trade links, etc. from the rest of the world).
    Well I think your whole system of communes relies pretty much on the extensive knowledge of the workers, else nothing would actually function.

    In any case you may be able to get away with free trade (though it is also possible that the workers in your commune would prefer to co-operate and take from a pool of wealth according to need) but you probably won't be able to get away with private property: members of your society would probably not wish to work as wage-labourers for a capitalist who would like to take away a percentage of their product. They would therefore have the choice of leaving said commune in favour of a commune which does not have private property.
    Of course they would have the choice. All I was asking was if a group of like-minded libertarians wanted to have a fully free commune, based on private property and the capitalist mode of economic function, could we do so? I think your answer is fine (i.e. that we can) although I very much doubt people will go to one of your communes because I don't think the economics behind your style of commune actually works. But that's a different argument.

    Or alternatively, you could be entirely successful and initiate a counter-revolution in which case capitalism would be proven to be the superior system as to have a counter-revolution you would require enough members of society on your side. It wouldn't be "easy" to reinstall capitalism: there would have to be want amongst society to bring it back. In any case, you are free to try but not to impose private property upon others.
    Forcing private property on others is not an easy thing to do anyway. As I say, under a voluntarist society (I'm going to use the term 'voluntarist' to refer to anarcho-capitalist now) you'd have the freedom to set up communes based on how you want them to work.

    I think that undoubtedly you would have to force people to voluntarily work as wage-labourers under anarchism but I could be wrong.
    What does this mean? How can you force people to work voluntarily?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    They couldn't. A state is defined as a monopoly on the legal right to initiate force. Monopolies don't come about in the free market.
    I don't think it is the monopoly part that is the fault (because it is theoretically possible, and there is nothing wrong with that*), but rather the concept that businesses will violence and force against the customers? How long do they think they'll be able to sustain that kind of activity?

    The wondrous beauty of the free-market, in my opinion, is that it creates incentives for people to respect the non-aggression principle. Not because it is moral, justified or virtuous - but simply because it is in their interest.

    I made a blog Profit & Human Action, where I pointed out that all human action is profit-based. People seek to exchange a less favourable circumstance for a more favourable one - with a maximum gain & minimum loss. The use of force and violence obviously increases costs on private individuals and businesses.

    *Since even if a monopoly could arise in the free-market, the only power it has is the power to produce something of value to people - and NOT the power of violence & force.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Would argue this is a form of slavery/exploitation. People have to have their streets cleaned and therefore, it would be quite easy to hold the public to ransom on this, wouldn't it?
    No. People don't have to clean their streets - nobody is forcing them to. If they want rubbish piled up in the streets then that's their prerogative, however it isn't in their best interest to do so. Slavery is when people are forced to work. This case is quite obviously not force or slavery.

    Also, what do you think of people not having permanent property but instead utilising property in an area for a time and then moving on to another place when they see fit? A pseudo nomadic lifestyle I suppose.
    I don't have a problem with it provided they either, a) owned the land they used or b) the owner didn't have a problem with them using it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I don't think it is the monopoly part that is the fault (because it is theoretically possible, and there is nothing wrong with that*), but rather the concept that businesses will violence and force against the customers? How long do they think they'll be able to sustain that kind of activity?
    I don't think that a company which owned 100% of the market share would be a monopoly. I subscribe to the Hoppeian view that monopoly is an exclusive power of the government, and it can only be defined as a monopoly if it uses force to exclude other competition. So a situation where one company owned all the market share would not be a monopoly, per se - just a very big company.

    The wondrous beauty of the free-market, in my opinion, is that it creates incentives for people to respect the non-aggression principle. Not because it is moral, justified or virtuous - but simply because it is in their interest.

    I made a blog Profit & Human Action, where I pointed out that all human action is profit-based. People seek to exchange a less favourable circumstance for a more favourable one - with a maximum gain & minimum loss. The use of force and violence obviously increases costs on private individuals and businesses.

    *Since even if a monopoly could arise in the free-market, the only power it has is the power to produce something of value to people - and NOT the power of violence & force.
    I've read it. :yy: Very good. I can't help but notice that you put a Biblical quote in. Are you feeling okay?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    No. People don't have to clean their streets - nobody is forcing them to. If they want rubbish piled up in the streets then that's their prerogative, however it isn't in their best interest to do so. Slavery is when people are forced to work. This case is quite obviously not force or slavery.
    Of course this is true but in most cases, I'd assume people would want their streets clean, would they not? I can't personally think of a case where your prerogative would make you think otherwise but I could be wrong.

    I don't have a problem with it provided they either, a) owned the land they used or b) the owner didn't have a problem with them using it.
    Sure. I meant that nobody owns any land though. Anyone can reap the benefits from the land however.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I would reject the notion that trade unionism is a very effective strategy. In some instances, trade unions are just in fighting their employers and the State. But too often they are state socialists and not anarchists. What is the point in working with trade unions if all they achieve is the protection of the law? It is a sellout. Trade unionists who are not anarchists are sellouts, there can be no collaboration with them. I don't understand anarchists who side with gradualists who want a bigger state.

    The first step for all Anarchists must be to persuade the people as a whole that State action is illegitimate. We can make communes - we can engage in counter-economics, we can reject the Police and the State, we can teach our children at home and privately, we can evade taxes - but until the People as a body are willing to overthrow their rulers then there can be no future for Anarchy.
    I agree: basically there is a need for trade unions to be under democratic worker control. People to often think of the trade unions during the eras of prime ministers like Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher and not so much the revolutionary trade unions of Spain. I also think that trade unions should work in allegiance with anarchist groups which may be against the beliefs of other anarcho-syndicalists but I don't really care

    Also I realise that the people as a whole must desire anarchism, I just advocate unionism as one strategy.

    This is one thing I don't understand about market anarchism (Even as a voluntarist I refuse to use the term 'anarcho-capitalism'.) You suppose that when the State disappears, capital will simply shrug its shoulders and continue, when its very institutions are protected by the State? Look at capital today and you will see that it is in their direct interest for the state to exist. Does capital really want a mass of people organised, possessed of arms, and ready to defend their liberty, or would they prefer a subjugated mass of humanity that will constantly buy their products and keep them rich? Any man that subjugates another is a tyrant, whether he is a capitalist, a socialist party leader, or a trade unionists.
    Agreed. Look at the history of the uprising of capitalism and you will see that the state enforced it. Get rid of the present state and the "free market" will form its own state.


    (Original post by JakePearson)
    They couldn't. A state is defined as a monopoly on the legal right to initiate force. Monopolies don't come about in the free market.
    Yes I agree with that definition but how would you prevent a monopoly on coercion of companies (well they’d became corporations but of course that word is sacrilege to you, is it not? ). How do you know that they wouldn’t impose their own trade blockages, tariffs, through a monopoly of private protection agencies and essentially form their own state?

    That's maybe where we're getting confused. Yet free trade leads to accumulation of property so I understand. You can't just think of accumulation of private property on its own: think of how people accumulate private property (free trade).
    My point is that in America, before the state enforced capitalism there was barely any private property in the sense of wage-labour and private ownership of transport (roads, railways, etc.) and unused land (farming land owned by the family unit does not count as each member has an equal share). I think your confusing private property for personal property. In any case, I would replace property-rights for use-rights.

    Well I think your whole system of communes relies pretty much on the extensive knowledge of the workers, else nothing would actually function.
    It is easier to manage labour if it is a collective rather than individual effort. In any case syndicates would place importance upon worker education before the overthrow of capitalism: following on from this system with anarchism the individual can only grow when he or she must learn to manage his or her own labour.

    Of course they would have the choice. All I was asking was if a group of like-minded libertarians wanted to have a fully free commune, based on private property and the capitalist mode of economic function, could we do so? I think your answer is fine (i.e. that we can) although I very much doubt people will go to one of your communes because I don't think the economics behind your style of commune actually works. But that's a different argument.
    Thus, we are agreed.

    Forcing private property on others is not an easy thing to do anyway. As I say, under a voluntarist society (I'm going to use the term 'voluntarist' to refer to anarcho-capitalist now) you'd have the freedom to set up communes based on how you want them to work.
    It is worth noting that social anarchists and individualist anarchists also consider themselves voluntarists, however we do not believe that voluntarism alone is enough: social equality in addition to voluntarism would be the most powerful combination as we see it.
    I think that undoubtedly you would have to force people to voluntarily work as wage-labourers under anarchism but I could be wrong.
    What does this mean? How can you force people to work voluntarily?
    I phrased the sentence wrong, my apologies. I meant that you may be able to set up a factory (though you need help from society to build this, as you do under any system really – and part of the agreement would most likely be communal ownership) but you may find workers are unwilling to work as wage labourers for you voluntarily.

    Let me make sure I get it. So you're saying a group of nomads who don't own any land, should they be allowed to settle on whatever property they want?
    Not exactly. Property-rights would be replaced with use-rights.

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Then, they’ll leave in a pile of ****. I can’t imagine humanity doing that? Do you?[
    What if the whole neighbourhood pays for the streets to be cleaned except one family. Is it fair that they should be the only ones to not have to pay and scrounge off the money that other families in the neighbourhood have paid for them. Alternatively, the area infront of their house does not get cleaned and diseases spread. This is why I advocate voluntary taxation: you live in the neighbourhood boundaries of a commune and either you contribute/join the commune or you must pay for certain services (e.g. street cleaning) – it is fair for the majority to enforce this otherwise it would be an infringement upon their civil liberties to live in a dirty area.

    This sounds great. Unfortunately, I haven't yet heard you give me a decent argument as to how the commune will set-up factories and businesses without any under-consumption or risk-taking. How does democracy help here?
    There is under-consumption and risk-taking, however it is shared by all members of the commune as a group effort. If a business does not succeed, there will be no coal, no oil, no gas, etc. so it is in their interests to make it succeed. Under communism, if one member of the commune suffers, the whole commune suffers: no one is left behind. Similarly, if one commune suffers, then other communes miss out on valuable trade links. You see, I do not just blindly accept that people will work solely for the best interests of others.

    I just don't see any economic reality in the communes idea. You're more than welcome to try it, and set it up. It may well work, and I might look like an idiot. But in anarcho-capitalism there is no majority, no government and very little coercion - so you'll be free to setup the commune.
    As explained in other posts, the coercive power of private capital would destroy communes.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Of course this is true but in most cases, I'd assume people would want their streets clean, would they not? I can't personally think of a case where your prerogative would make you think otherwise but I could be wrong.
    I know. People want their streets clean because clean streets are nicer and more valuable than dirty streets. I don't see how this amounts to "slavery/exploitation" when these people pay others to clean the streets - both parties are acting in self-interest. The people want a clean street and the workers want a wage.

    Sure. I meant that nobody owns any land though. Anyone can reap the benefits from the land however.
    Let me make sure I get it. So you're saying a group of nomads who don't own any land, should they be allowed to settle on whatever property they want?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I don't think that a company which owned 100% of the market share would be a monopoly. I subscribe to the Hoppeian view that monopoly is an exclusive power of the government, and it can only be defined as a monopoly if it uses force to exclude other competition. So a situation where one company owned all the market share would not be a monopoly, per se - just a very big company.
    Oh we agree then. It's question of how defines a monopoly ...

    I've read it. :yy: Very good. I can't help but notice that you put a Biblical quote in. Are you feeling okay?
    ... and Michael Moore.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Would argue this is a form of slavery/exploitation. People have to have their streets cleaned and therefore, it would be quite easy to hold the public to ransom on this, wouldn't it?
    Yes, I am being forced to have my house clean. But who is doing the forcing?

    Reality is the horrible oppressor. Reality creates harsh situations and forces people to have to work long hours, go and see the doctor, get a vaccine, and worst-of-all suffer paper-cuts!

    The Capitalist is the person who recognises a need in society. Your house is full of ****. He comes up with a system to help you, but asks for something in return. That is fair - since he has to make his own living somehow. If he goes around cleaning people's ****, then he ought to get something in return. The Capitalist has to eat and drink too.

    In short, the Capitalist is the person who provides society with something of value. They are no the oppressors, but rather the liberators!

    Also, what do you think of people not having permanent property but instead utilising property in an area for a time and then moving on to another place when they see fit? A pseudo nomadic lifestyle I suppose.
    Concentration camps me thinks ...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Agreed. Look at the history of the uprising of capitalism and you will see that the state enforced it. Get rid of the present state and the "free market" will form its own state.
    You see, I'm not against private property in a future stateless society. I'm not against, for instance, a baker owning a shop and baking goods to be exchanged, nor am I against accountants or doctors offering their services. I don't fully believe that the denial of a good is an imposition so long as that good can be obtained elsewhere at any given cost. Markets are generally a better way of distributing goods, so long as they are actually markets, and not fishing zones for super-capital backed by the State. You could scarcely call the IT software market a market, because intellectual property has been enforced so viciously.

    I don't believe that all private businessmen would form their own state. For instance, the high street in my small town which consists of a cinema, some pubs, some restaurants, newsagents, delis, etc, would not try and establish their own state. They are as much a part of a future stateless society as the individual in his house or the commune in the factory. They might conglomerate to provide militia security for that particular street, as it is a market town and is busy; but I don't believe they would have the strategic desire to establish statehood.

    They are, however, capitalists. They do own private property - ovens, buildings, vans, property that they use to engage in profit-making activities, and they do exclude the use of their land from others (but so do communes; they exclude the use of their factory from a commune in another country, for instance.) The problem isn't in my view private property by its nature.

    It isn't even capital, by its own nature. Capital can co-exist with the people in justice and freedom. The problem lies flatly and solely with people who intend by any means to subjugate the people. Present big capital, I believe, would probably do this. Given the destruction of the state, capital would act coercively to enforce its ill-gotten gains.

    It is of course possible - given the views that I have aired earlier - for there to be capital that does not have ill-gotten gains. I can not think of any on the top of my head; most capital collaborates with Government. In the event of a stateless society their property should be handed to the workers as reparations for their collaboration.

    Suppose that one by one, the businesses I spoke of earlier were taken over by say, the cinema, and eventually, the owner of the cinema owned the entire road. I don't see a problem with this, really. But if he were to use his property in a way that violates natural justice, it should be redistributed to the people as part of reparations.

    http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/Lord-Sug...bour-Party.750

    According to this page, Lord Sugar has donated, in total, £750,000 to the Labour Party. This is blatant and clear collaboration with the ruling class. If a stateless society was erected tomorrow, I would not be in favour of taking away all his property - only that £750,000 worth of his property should be given in reparations for his crime of collaboration. In some instances, the form of collaboration will be immeasurable, but it will be up to revolutionary committees to decide (although personally I think they should be modelled somewhat similar to English courts and not kangaroo courts) the facts, and how much should be given in reparations.

    Well, that's my view anyway. That's how I reconcile being a property-believing voluntarist with anarchism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    You see, I'm not against private property in a future stateless society. I'm not against, for instance, a baker owning a shop and baking goods to be exchanged, nor am I against accountants or doctors offering their services. I don't fully believe that the denial of a good is an imposition so long as that good can be obtained elsewhere at any given cost.
    I don't see private property rights like that though. None of the examples you gave were what I would consider examples of private property. I think private property exists when you have private ownership of transport facilities, unused land or means of the production (which must operate upon wage systems and not be owned by a family unit to be considered private property). What you have described, a baker owning his shop and freely trading his goods, well the business is owned either by a self-employed individual (a member of the petit-bourgeosie, as I see it) or a small family unit. There is no problem here.

    Markets are generally a better way of distributing goods, so long as they are actually markets, and not fishing zones for super-capital backed by the State. You could scarcely call the IT software market a market, because intellectual property has been enforced so viciously.
    Note that not all (left-wing) anarchists are opposed to the markets or even free trade as such. I personally see the abolition of private property to be the first and foremost ideal. The abolition of money, markets, etc. can come once society is settled into the system and sees a need for it (assuming we already have an efficient way of distributing goods via free associations). I don't know if the latter will ever happen (in fact getting rid of money could well be a very stupid idea) but I personally think that private property must go first and foremost.

    It isn't even capital, by its own nature. Capital can co-exist with the people in justice and freedom. The problem lies flatly and solely with people who intend by any means to subjugate the people. Present big capital, I believe, would probably do this. Given the destruction of the state, capital would act coercively to enforce its ill-gotten gains.
    No, capital itself is not evil: I merely believe that capital should be owned communally so all citizens may reap its many diverse and wonderful benefits. In the case of capitalism, only a few own it and therefore only a few really benefit from it. Who knows, with all capital socialised there may not be any real need for labour any more (though I am by no means 100% on this idea). What I do know is that through private ownership of capital a lot of produce is wasted to meet the laws of supply and demand and maximise profit (not that I am necessarily opposed to supply and demand).

    It is of course possible - given the views that I have aired earlier - for there to be capital that does not have ill-gotten gains. I can not think of any on the top of my head; most capital collaborates with Government. In the event of a stateless society their property should be handed to the workers as reparations for their collaboration.

    Suppose that one by one, the businesses I spoke of earlier were taken over by say, the cinema, and eventually, the owner of the cinema owned the entire road. I don't see a problem with this, really. But if he were to use his property in a way that violates natural justice, it should be redistributed to the people as part of reparations.
    The problem here is that with private capital still at large, I suspect the capitalists would bide their time, be nice to society then with the majority of capital still privatised, society would not have the strength (as capital can be very easily used as a weapon) to overthrow the system.

    I will check this over in a sec. My apologies if it is extremely relevant to your points.

    According to this page, Lord Sugar has donated, in total, £750,000 to the Labour Party. This is blatant and clear collaboration with the ruling class. If a stateless society was erected tomorrow, I would not be in favour of taking away all his property - only that £750,000 worth of his property should be given in reparations for his crime of collaboration. In some instances, the form of collaboration will be immeasurable, but it will be up to revolutionary committees to decide (although personally I think they should be modelled somewhat similar to English courts and not kangaroo courts) the facts, and how much should be given in reparations.

    Well, that's my view anyway. That's how I reconcile being a property-believing voluntarist with anarchism.
    Hm. I wonder to what extent corporatism benefits Lord Sugar, then, if he is contributing money to Labour rather than the Tories (I know other businessmen have contributed far more to the Tories). So you only favour assuming "ill-gotten gains". The fact is, that this is a very subjective viewpoint: how are members of society to collectively decide what is ill-gotten and what is not. In any case, as explained above, capitalists would probably be left with the majority of capital under their possession and would thus be in a position of power over society.

    I would like to ask you if you have any particular opposition to the state or if the post I have quoted is merely how you would hope society would organise in the event of the states' abolition. If you actively oppose the state, what sort of adjective would you attach to your propertarian(ish) anarchism? Actually, you sound quite close to individualist anarchism to me.

    Cheers.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    The problem here is that with private capital still at large, I suspect the capitalists would bide their time, be nice to society then with the majority of capital still privatised, society would not have the strength (as capital can be very easily used as a weapon) to overthrow the system.
    Well this is relative to the strength of the people (I dislike the terms working class or the workers - since I am neither and don't advocate societies designed along collective class lines). The whole body of the people must believe in the ideology and must be possessed of arms to raise in its defence, or it simply won't work. Whether private capital exists or not, if the ideology is not widely supported, it can be usurped by anyone, foreign or domestic, so this is a particular problem of all anarchism, and not specifically market-anarchism.

    Look at Makhno. If all Ukraine was behind him, he may have been rather more successful.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Hm. I wonder to what extent corporatism benefits Lord Sugar, then, if he is contributing money to Labour rather than the Tories (I know other businessmen have contributed far more to the Tories). So you only favour assuming "ill-gotten gains". The fact is, that this is a very subjective viewpoint: how are members of society to collectively decide what is ill-gotten and what is not. In any case, as explained above, capitalists would probably be left with the majority of capital under their possession and would thus be in a position of power over society.
    I don't agree that it's impossible to decide on how much would be given as reparations and how much they can keep. I mean there isn't a formula, obviously, but Courts are good at approximating this sort of thing. And yes, I only favour reparations from companies that have actually collaborated.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I would like to ask you if you have any particular opposition to the state or if the post I have quoted is merely how you would hope society would organise in the event of the states' abolition. If you actively oppose the state, what sort of adjective would you attach to your propertarian(ish) anarchism? Actually, you sound quite close to individualist anarchism to me.

    Cheers.
    I actively oppose the state and would call myself any of the following adjectives; "anarchist," "individualist anarchist," "voluntarist."
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    Hey, huge posts. I am kind of busy at-the-moment and our discussions take a while. So, I'll get back to you in a few days.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Capital can co-exist with the people in justice and freedom. The problem lies flatly and solely with people who intend by any means to subjugate the people. Present big capital, I believe, would probably do this. Given the destruction of the state, capital would act coercively to enforce its ill-gotten gains.
    You are right that the libertarian non-aggression principle would crumble the moment people wish to use force & violence on individuals.

    However, you have to appreciate the beauty of the free-market - which is a tendency to reduce costs. If I own a stretch of road, and I start charging ridiculous prices or shooting random people who use my road, then that increases the costs on my part - I'd have to pay damages or whatever. If my costs increase, then so does my prices. When prices increase, then someone will undercut me and re-introduce sensible policies.

    Capital in laissez-faire society move to where there is an increase in efficiency, despite its original distribution.

    Edit: Incidentally, I am pro-Intellectual property rights on the free-market.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I know. People want their streets clean because clean streets are nicer and more valuable than dirty streets. I don't see how this amounts to "slavery/exploitation" when these people pay others to clean the streets - both parties are acting in self-interest. The people want a clean street and the workers want a wage.
    OK. That sounds fair enough to me to be honest.

    Let me make sure I get it. So you're saying a group of nomads who don't own any land, should they be allowed to settle on whatever property they want?
    I'm saying nobody in the entire land mass owns any land and that you would simply utilise the land for whatever you need and then move on. Obviously there might be some exceptions to the rule but I'm solely talking about residents here.

    (Original post by LordHysteria)
    es, I am being forced to have my house clean. But who is doing the forcing?

    Reality is the horrible oppressor. Reality creates harsh situations and forces people to have to work long hours, go and see the doctor, get a vaccine, and worst-of-all suffer paper-cuts!

    The Capitalist is the person who recognises a need in society. Your house is full of ****. He comes up with a system to help you, but asks for something in return. That is fair - since he has to make his own living somehow. If he goes around cleaning people's ****, then he ought to get something in return. The Capitalist has to eat and drink too.

    In short, the Capitalist is the person who provides society with something of value. They are no the oppressors, but rather the liberators!
    OK. As with the above post, I agree that if both parties are co operating mutually for their own interests, then there is nothing wrong in terms of this. However, I would argue to what extent capitalists and capitalism is the liberator. The value attributed to an object would presumably be standardised (because at some point, all of the undercutting would reach roughly the same amount) or at the very least, an artifice? If that's so, surely you're merely enforcing an abstract 'state' which takes the form of capital and the prevalence of it.

    Concentration camps me thinks ...
    How do you mean?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I'm saying nobody in the entire land mass owns any land and that you would simply utilise the land for whatever you need and then move on. Obviously there might be some exceptions to the rule but I'm solely talking about residents here.
    If all land was 'unowned' and you simply utilised the land for whatever purposes suited you, it wouldn't work. The incentive problem would rise soon enough.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.