Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I don't bother with all this "market anarchist" "anarcho capitalist" babble. One can say that one is a Voluntarist and this is sufficient...
    Aye, that is the term I would apply to myself.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I enjoy your bastiat avatar.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I enjoy your bastiat avatar.
    Why thank you.

    To those who may seem confused by my sudden change of heart (and it wasn't exactly sudden; I have been researching and questioning my opinion for some time now) understand that the reason I no longer embrace socialism is simply because it would require force and coercion to maintain such a system. Socialists like to talk about democracy but in reality the plurality cannot express its opinions;it must do so through a representative body. The majority are not a decision making body, they are simply an abstract collection of individuals all be it with close relationships (in some circumstances) but with different needs, desires and moral values. The free market allows choice. You may start up a co-operative association of workers at any point you wish, in fact initiative and the ability to organise schemes is more often than not suppressed by a monopoly on coercion who always find a way to drain the overall wealth produced by society like a group of blood thirsty leeches. You may invest in capital and start up socialist schemes (and indeed it would be far easier to organise them in a free market) provided they do not suppress the liberty of others. But it is my doubt that such schemes would be the basis for an entire society; they could certainly well exist (and I think they probably would) but it is highly doubtful that everyone would wish to conform and be part of the same project. Every time socialism has been attempted it has resulted in tyranny in some shape or form.

    Stefan Molyneux gives a very good presentation about the mindset of the state and how to overcome it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNyIcJIQKV0

    In the free market individuals are incentivised to solve problems because they not only have freedom but also responsibility in that they are accountable for by the consumer; the state cannot take such responsibility or make good decisions or produce efficiently, at least not without capitalist investment of some shape or another. The state, to paraphrase Mises, is an oasis in a sea of free enterprise and commercial activity; it must feed from that freedom to produce outcomes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Why thank you.

    To those who may seem confused by my sudden change of heart (and it wasn't exactly sudden; I have been researching and questioning my opinion for some time now) understand that the reason I no longer embrace socialism is simply because it would require force and coercion to maintain such a system. Socialists like to talk about democracy but in reality the plurality cannot express its opinions;it must do so through a representative body. The majority are not a decision making body, they are simply an abstract collection of individuals all be it with close relationships (in some circumstances) but with different needs, desires and moral values. The free market allows choice. You may start up a co-operative association of workers at any point you wish, in fact initiative and the ability to organise schemes is more often than not suppressed by a monopoly on coercion who always find a way to drain the overall wealth produced by society like a group of blood thirsty leeches. You may invest in capital and start up socialist schemes (and indeed it would be far easier to organise them in a free market) provided they do not suppress the liberty of others. But it is my doubt that such schemes would be the basis for an entire society; they could certainly well exist (and I think they probably would) but it is highly doubtful that everyone would wish to conform and be part of the same project. Every time socialism has been attempted it has resulted in tyranny in some shape or form.

    Stefan Molyneux gives a very good presentation about the mindset of the state and how to overcome it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNyIcJIQKV0

    In the free market individuals are incentivised to solve problems because they not only have freedom but also responsibility in that they are accountable for by the consumer; the state cannot take such responsibility or make good decisions or produce efficiently, at least not without capitalist investment of some shape or another. The state, to paraphrase Mises, is an oasis in a sea of free enterprise and commercial activity; it must feed from that freedom to produce outcomes.
    Treacherous swine!

    I don't know how much I agree with you on this. We may have the same ideas but I haven't really thought about it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Why thank you.

    To those who may seem confused by my sudden change of heart (and it wasn't exactly sudden; I have been researching and questioning my opinion for some time now) understand that the reason I no longer embrace socialism is simply because it would require force and coercion to maintain such a system. Socialists like to talk about democracy but in reality the plurality cannot express its opinions;it must do so through a representative body. The majority are not a decision making body, they are simply an abstract collection of individuals all be it with close relationships (in some circumstances) but with different needs, desires and moral values. The free market allows choice. You may start up a co-operative association of workers at any point you wish, in fact initiative and the ability to organise schemes is more often than not suppressed by a monopoly on coercion who always find a way to drain the overall wealth produced by society like a group of blood thirsty leeches. You may invest in capital and start up socialist schemes (and indeed it would be far easier to organise them in a free market) provided they do not suppress the liberty of others. But it is my doubt that such schemes would be the basis for an entire society; they could certainly well exist (and I think they probably would) but it is highly doubtful that everyone would wish to conform and be part of the same project. Every time socialism has been attempted it has resulted in tyranny in some shape or form.

    Stefan Molyneux gives a very good presentation about the mindset of the state and how to overcome it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNyIcJIQKV0

    In the free market individuals are incentivised to solve problems because they not only have freedom but also responsibility in that they are accountable for by the consumer; the state cannot take such responsibility or make good decisions or produce efficiently, at least not without capitalist investment of some shape or another. The state, to paraphrase Mises, is an oasis in a sea of free enterprise and commercial activity; it must feed from that freedom to produce outcomes.
    Well this is fun. I'm not sure that minimal states are coherent and in line with the non-aggression principle - what of someone who wants to voluntarily and peacefully set up a competing court system? Why should the "rights respecting" minimal state initiate force against this act, and enforce its violent monopoly? Anyway, I hope you come to the voluntarist side. Also, stay away from the Molyneux crowd if you can.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Treacherous swine!

    I don't know how much I agree with you on this. We may have the same ideas but I haven't really thought about it.
    Hi. I recommend you look into this: http://mises.org/econcalc.asp. Its a fairly straightforward argument against socialism. It was when I was debating against it and arguing how it would still be possible to calculate under socialism that I realised I was just trying to mimic market structures. And that is essentially what the idea of community banks, collectivist labour vouchers and so forth try to do; mimic the efficiency of the price mechanism as a system for efficient economic calculation. Or, alternatively, just take a simple look at how living standards have improved with the expansion of capitalism...

    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Well this is fun. I'm not sure that minimal states are coherent and in line with the non-aggression principle - what of someone who wants to voluntarily and peacefully set up a competing court system? Why should the "rights respecting" minimal state initiate force against this act, and enforce its violent monopoly? Anyway, I hope you come to the voluntarist side. Also, stay away from the Molyneux crowd if you can.
    Haha I am listening to a Molyneux podcast now as it happens! I need to learn more about the libertarian divisions...I don't know what the sides are, let alone the "right" side. I know I'm a voluntaryist now but I would still be interested in hearing your response to the post about stocks, if you can be bothered. I also wrote a blog a while back on the "horrors" of the free market on environmentalism, haha. http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blo...mentalism.html
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Haha I am listening to a Molyneux podcast now as it happens! I need to learn more about the libertarian divisions...I don't know what the sides are, let alone the "right" side. I know I'm a voluntaryist now but I would still be interested in hearing your response to the post about stocks, if you can be bothered. I also wrote a blog a while back on the "horrors" of the free market on environmentalism, haha. http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blo...mentalism.html
    I just think that Molyneux is a pretend philosopher who has ideas that fail at the most basic level. Even people on the Mises Institute say his understanding of Austrian economics is incredibly simple. He did a podcast on the business cycle and got the economics of it so wrong it was astounding. His ridiculous foreign policy stance is quite disgraceful to say the least, but I'll let you find this out yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    I'm not sure that minimal states are coherent and in line with the non-aggression principle - what of someone who wants to voluntarily and peacefully set up a competing court system? Why should the "rights respecting" minimal state initiate force against this act, and enforce its violent monopoly?
    This point sort of went over my head before. What I meant was, that groups of individuals would be free (and find it far easier in an absence of state regulation) to non-coercively establish their own commune. Obviously they would need to invest in capital. I don't think this goes against the non-aggression principle as long as individuals are free to leave at any point, also they can't organise a court system on someone else's land (without the land owner's/owners' permission). I think mini-state would be a strange word to use here if the system is non-coercive. I would hope that most people would focus their energies on market activity, though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Hi. I recommend you look into this: http://mises.org/econcalc.asp. Its a fairly straightforward argument against socialism. It was when I was debating against it and arguing how it would still be possible to calculate under socialism that I realised I was just trying to mimic market structures. And that is essentially what the idea of community banks, collectivist labour vouchers and so forth try to do; mimic the efficiency of the price mechanism as a system for efficient economic calculation. Or, alternatively, just take a simple look at how living standards have improved with the expansion of capitalism...
    I'll try to take a look at that when I can. What I think is a good idea is, whether you want to use labour vouchers or currency, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to have any kind of tax/restrictions/whatever on the market. That's basically what I agree on.

    The only problem I find with cash is that it encourages wage slavery, right? As far as I know, gift economies using vouchers give currency or credit to a person, simply because they've done work. Is this possible with currency too?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I'll try to take a look at that when I can. What I think is a good idea is, whether you want to use labour vouchers or currency, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to have any kind of tax/restrictions/whatever on the market. That's basically what I agree on.
    Thing is, you are going to have restrictions on market based activity when everything is a decision of the plurality and not the decision of the individual over his own life, possessions and property. The more and more you deviate from recognition of the individual's right over his own life and the more and more you believe every decision ought to be that of the "community" (which by the way can only exercise its powers of disposal through some representative board of such when all property is under the collective ownership of "the community"). This leads one to the question; must the individual really sacrifice himself for "the greater good" or "the good of the collective"? Socialism has everyone co-operate; by chaining them to one another in an abstracted collective (which ignores their individuality) that can only be controlled by an individual slave driver with a whip.

    Britain's system is fairly democratic (although it is actually more of a representative democracy), sure, but it doesn't own all the land and capital as such (although the state has been growing and growing in size, especially under New Labour; this could pose an enormous threat for people's liberties one day if something is not done to prevent this and I thought this even when I was a socialist). If it did, the issues of rampant authoritarianism would soon manifest themselves. That said, the state bureacrats and the bank have often realised that free enterprise generates more wealth and thereby more wealth for them to get their grubby hands on. Periods of free enterprise and economic growth are often followed by crushing busts once these people realise they can get their hands on all this wealth, so even the most ridiculously statist of societies will, after a time, begin to implement free market policies.

    The only problem I find with cash is that it encourages wage slavery, right? As far as I know, gift economies using vouchers give currency or credit to a person, simply because they've done work. Is this possible with currency too?
    I don't see anything wrong with "wage slavery" (otherwise known more accurately as wage labour) as long as it is a voluntary relationship; the employer actually helps the employee by providing him with the means to improve the market value of his labour. For instance, a farmer can produce £5 on his own per hour. Then, one day the "evil entrepeneur" :eek: comes along and gives him the tyrannical deal of working on his farm (which has better machinery); on his farm, with the combination of labour and machinery, the farmer can now produce £15 worth of commodities per hour! But, shock, horror, in exchange for his time investing in the machinery, the "evil entrepeneur" asks for £5 per hour deducted from his salary. In reality, this is a mutually beneficial arrangement: both parties are £5 better off as a result. Also, the "wage slave" gets to "order" the entrepeneur to stick to the contract and give him wages just as much as the entrepeneur gets to "order" the "wage slave" to stick to the contract and work for him. What's more is the underconsumption and risks the entrepeneur must undergo to organise this arrangement; the wage labourer gets a regular market wage based on supply and demand while the entrepeneur has to settle for a non-consistent flow of money so as to (a) keep his worker well-paid and (b) keep money flowing into the business (at least while the business is starting up). The entrepeneur did not force the wage labourer to work; he did not put a gun to his head and say "work for me... or die!" At the best, the socialist argues "well threat of starvation is coercion" but it is no more coercion than me telling some stranger that I do not wish to let them sleep in my living room or that they may not simply walk into my house and take whatever they need. The state is the great endeavour in which everybody tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

    Also, capitalists are just people who have managed to save enough resources - they are simply savers - and often (although maybe driven by profit or greed) have to find a way to channel those resources in a way which is beneficial for everyone. I think that socialists just get way too caught up on the "oh its immoral" when really and truly, it makes everyone's lives a lot easier.

    People like to think its a good thing to tax that greedy capitalist and feed some poor starving children in Africa; but this is the broken window fallacy.

    What's to say that the capitalist wouldn't have invested in something even better like machinery that could produce food without any human labour (or very little human labour) at all, motivated by the simple desire to sell that machinery for profits. Instead the state decides how that money would be best spent and does so without any regards for the consumer: the consumer has no choice over what goods and services he is paying for (the state must tax him to fund those goods and services). This means that the business that gets funded for by the state does not have to produce in a way which is beneficial to the consumer.

    The democratic socialist argument to this would be "Yah but people get to decide democratically". This makes no difference whatsoever. If the state/community/whatever controls 100% of the economy, it can't possibly decide what services would be maximally beneficial to each and every consumer (and each and every consumer has different needs and preferences). The entrepeneur, however, can evaluate business trends in his own market and think "ah yes, when I do this, I get good business" and "ah no, when I do this, I lose business"; in this way the entrepeneur must produce to please his own customers. And if there is a minority group of customers that prefer a slightly different service, there will be a new demand for that produce in the market; a new business will develop to cater to their differences in preference. This way, everyone get's what they want and it doesn't matter if different people have different needs or preferences. The state can't possibly calculate everyone's needs or preferences. People can't just get together and "vote" on every single business in the UK that they thing is "good" or "necessary" (subjective values); what about the minority who like (or need, even) slightly different services?

    Also, Mises explains why socialism is necessarily state control of the economy in that link I suggested:

    "Under socialism all the means of production are the property of the community. It is the community alone which can dispose of them and which determines their use in production. It goes without saying that the community will only be in a position to employ its powers of disposal through the setting up of a special body for the purpose. The structure of this body and the question of how it will articulate and represent the communal will is for us of subsidiary importance. One may assume that this last will depend upon the choice of personnel, and in cases where the power is not vested in a dictatorship, upon the majority vote of the members of the corporation.

    ...

    It is characteristic of socialism that the distribution of consumption goods must be independent of the question of production and of its economic conditions. It is irreconcilable with the nature of the communal ownership of production goods that it should rely even for a part of its distribution upon the economic imputation of the yield to the particular factors of production. It is logically absurd to speak of the worker's enjoying the "full yield" of his work, and then to subject to a separate distribution the shares of the material factors of production. For, as we shall show, it lies in the very nature of socialist production that the shares of the particular factors of production in the national dividend cannot be ascertained, and that it is impossible in fact to gauge the relationship between expenditure and income."

    Socialism is just a bad idea; 90% of our lives, however is free market. If you don't like restaurant A because it sells bad food, you can go to restaurant B. Restaurant A is punished for its bad business making (it loses customers). If your worksite does not implement correct health and safety procedures, leave and work somewhere else. The other worksite no longer has any employers as a result and goes bust. You are living in the free market now and probably don't recognise it!

    If the state owns businesses, it doesn't matter whether or not you like the service; you still have to pay for it!
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I don't bother with all this "market anarchist" "anarcho capitalist" babble. One can say that one is a Voluntarist and this is sufficient...
    Anarcho-capitalist is the first word coined.

    Voluntarist sounds like you run a charity shop.


    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Why thank you. Would you be prepared to consider socialism now? (Just kidding).

    The free market is laissez-faire capitalism no?

    Yes, I support laissez-faire capitalism now. I would like to take a slow and steady approach to it, though, making sure that there is a tried and tested free market scheme in place before we abolish a given government strategy.

    For instance, it was my opinion that a recognised private regulation agency could strike deals with restaurants and inspect the restaraunt for hygiene/cleanliness and give them a certificate to place in the shop window so that the consumer knows this restaurant is hygienic. Once it was proved that such a scheme worked, we could remove the government regulation scheme. That way, it is possible to ensure that a tried and tested scheme is working that is even better than what the government can provide; there'd be far less risk involved that way. The best time to try this sort of thing out is probably when the economy is moving (i.e. not during a recession).

    True, and I am considering the system. I would like to read a book or two though, as opposed to a forum post, if you catch my meaning

    Do you and LH ever feel like forum nerds? I do, lol.
    Laissez-faire capitalism is more small government. Free-market is just trading between people voluntarily.

    I think you can still decent restaurants and hotels without some government regulation. You could – quite easily – setup a star system with restaurant critiques and hotel experts ranking hotels and so forth.

    I don't see anything wrong with "wage slavery" (otherwise known more accurately as wage labour) as long as it is a voluntary relationship [...] but this is the broken window fallacy.
    :eek: :eek2:

    I am just trying to get over the shock!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Anarcho-capitalist is the first word coined.

    Voluntarist sounds like you run a charity shop.
    I personally prefer the word voluntarist/voluntaryist (I don't think there is a difference between the two?) simply because of the confusion with social anarchism.

    Laissez-faire capitalism is more small government. Free-market is just trading between people voluntarily.
    Hmm...well I am still learning but surely reduced government means freer trade (unless you accept the socialist dogma that there would be no underground market under community ownership :rolleyes:)?

    I think you can still decent restaurants and hotels without some government regulation. You could – quite easily – setup a star system with restaurant critiques and hotel experts ranking hotels and so forth.
    Indeed. My idea was that private "regulation" schemes could provide businesses with certificates; for instance a restaurant could hire a private agency to check the hygiene of the place and give them a certificate to place in the shop window to show that the restaurant is hygienic by their standards. That way, the consumer knows it's safe to eat there. If the regulation service did a bad job of monitoring hygiene, then the consumer would not trust their label anymore.

    I think this is more efficient than a critique system, because the consumer can simply look on the shop window.

    Products could also get the "environmental" stamp for their products so the consumer knows it is an environmentally friendly product. He can also check the star system to make sure that its standards are also his standards.

    Thinking more and more about this, it just makes me think that government regulation is completely unnecessary and not something we need.

    There is no way banks could get away with their system of fraud if only their was such a privatised regulaton scheme that monitors their levels of risks, printing of extra notes and so forth. The federal reserve would simply be abolished by consumer choice; no consumer would carry on using the same old banking system. What a con.

    My other thoughts were that education could still be provided for free; entrepeneurs could manage a business academy which trains poor students to become entrepeneurs in return for a future share in their business. This would also create massive growth in the market with a whole new wave of entrepeneurs.

    :eek: :eek2:

    I am just trying to get over the shock!
    Haha. It is always worth debating statists (well, sometimes, anyway).

    p.s. Did you get my PM?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hello,

    I am a new subscriber here.
    Just needed to say hello there to everybody.

    I am from The united kingdom and only just found this internet site.

    Very good to determine a lot of other men and women with the same passions.
    Offline

    13
    Jesus Christ ... AnarchistNutter has become more right-wing than I am. He probably views me as a coercive socialist! I love it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Jesus Christ ... AnarchistNutter has become more right-wing than I am.
    I prefer ze term of "increased liberty", with interventionist conservatives on the right, socialists on the left and us fellows not being found anywhere on the chart, hehe.

    He probably views me as a coercive socialist! I love it.
    Damned Stalinist!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KessePludge)
    Hello,

    I am a new subscriber here.
    Just needed to say hello there to everybody.

    I am from The united kingdom and only just found this internet site.

    Very good to determine a lot of other men and women with the same passions.
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    Hey man.

    Good to know. Hopefully you're finding the site and thing alright but feel free to ask questions if you don't.

    Would you like to talk about anarchy (or whatever; I don't know what this thread is about anymore really but it seems pretty cool to me)? This thread's pretty good for discussing political theory/philosophy.

    By the way, if you're reading this AnarchistNutter, I'll reply to your quote in full soon but one thing I should say quickly is my understanding of wage slavery. I thought it was only applied in the case where the workers involved had no choice but to work for one company in the area i.e. a monopoly. Wage labour as an idea doesn't seem so bad to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    By the way, if you're reading this AnarchistNutter, I'll reply to your quote in full soon but one thing I should say quickly is my understanding of wage slavery. I thought it was only applied in the case where the workers involved had no choice but to work for one company in the area i.e. a monopoly. Wage labour as an idea doesn't seem so bad to me.
    Wage slavery is where the worker must work (economic "coercion" - threat of starvation) for no more than the basic means of subsistence (basic living standards). Wage labour is work for decent pay.

    But if you ask me to work for 9 hours on, say 5p, and I agree its a voluntary agreement; I've agreed to do it. Its my own fault for making that choice (especially in the free market where there is lots of choice).

    In the free market, however, the labourer can sell his labour-power to whomever he wishes; there is competition for his goods and services and this pushes his wages and working conditions up. So wage "slavery" is not a reality anyway.

    If I agree to work indefinitely, lets say on your plantations, picking cotton for the rest of my life, we can say I am in indefinite servitude but I can leave that arrangement. Since I have signed a contract and then broken it, you can have a claim on my assets (my house, furniture, money, etc.) but you can't use force to detain me.

    As for enforced slavery, private protection agencies will provide much better protection against that sort of thing than the state solely because they are accountable for by the consumer (or, rather, lack of consumers when they do bad business). The state is a body which can forcefully exercise its coercion over a geographical location, taxing its citizens to pay for goods and services they don't even want. This way, businesses are no longer accountable for to the consumer.

    This is why the police often (not always, lets escape any antagonism, here) do such a bad job; they get paid anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What are your opinions on the Zapatistas of Chiapas?
    Are they a true anarchist society?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samg123)
    What are your opinions on the Zapatistas of Chiapas?
    Are they a true anarchist society?
    This is quite a funny question because the old me would have said yes adamantly. Now I no longer come to advocate that strand of anarchism, especially given the inherent diversion from the non-aggression principle that is consistent with Rothbardism (I am a voluntaryist).

    Even in the socialist sense though, it is still by no means a full blown (social) anarchist society. Rather, they (the social anarchists) would describe it as an ongoing process to achieve anarchy. But it would not be a society I would want to live in.

    Nonetheless, the Zapatistas are an interesting topic to read more into.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    This is quite a funny question because the old me would have said yes adamantly. Now I no longer come to advocate that strand of anarchism, especially given the inherent diversion from the non-aggression principle that is consistent with Rothbardism (I am a voluntaryist).

    Even in the socialist sense though, it is still by no means a full blown (social) anarchist society. Rather, they (the social anarchists) would describe it as an ongoing process to achieve anarchy. But it would not be a society I would want to live in.

    Nonetheless, the Zapatistas are an interesting topic to read more into.
    You mention the non-agression principle, but the contempary Zapas are entirely peaceful, having renounced violence after seeing it was counterproductive.

    How do you think Zapatismo and Rothbardism are different?
 
 
 
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
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.