[Nunt]

Technology builds on itself; there is nothing to suggest that capitalism is any better at promoting that. If anything intellectual property gets in the way of technological development in capitalist societies.

Capitalism doesn't have to have the intellectual property rights we have today.

[mum]

Technology builds on itself; there is nothing to suggest that capitalism is any better at promoting that.

So if I put "a" technology on the table, it advances itself ?

I used to design "technology". We worked on projects for customers for a profit. We also worked on other projects simply for the "advancement" of technology.

When you work for a customer, there specific deadlines and goals the customer requires so they can go on with their on profit making schemes.
As a result, those projects get done quickly, efficiently and with a high attention to quality.
When work is done for the sake of it, or even for something usefull "in house" (we all enjoyed the work) it was never the same. The attention to the final quality of the product was never there, as long is it "pretty much worked".

This is a good example of how technology may improve in some collectivist regime, however technology will always advance orders of magnitude faster in a capitalist economy. It simply must to meet customer demand. It is all about customer demand. That is what drives innovation and quality and progress.

Imagine if NASA were soley responsible for technology. We would have lots of incredibly expensive, practically useless projects that only serve to absorb the natural excess of production that humans are capable of (under the continuing division of labour). No entity can dictate what is usefull or "correct" to the people, in any situation!

[mum]

That doesn't mean that technological advancement requires capitalism. IIRC, Socialist Countries also developed lots of technology (at a pretty much comparable rate).

Do you have any sources for this so called "fact" ??

It would be quite beneficial to your argument if your sources included an argument about the technology actually being useful and also that it could not possibly have been produced more efficiently by private industy.

[Eran]

mum has made an excellent point. It is true that some forms of technology (e.g. military or space) were developed with comparable effectiveness in the East and the West.

The stark difference between the economic systems is in the degree to which technological development is directed at satisfying consumer preferences.

[Someone5]

So if I put "a" technology on the table, it advances itself ?

Technological development as a whole often produces results that accelerate further developments. For example, the development of computers accelerated the development of everything else--including future computers.

I used to design "technology". We worked on projects for customers for a profit. We also worked on other projects simply for the "advancement" of technology.

So what? Any technology that can be used in a capitalist mode can also be used in a socialist mode with the possible exception of management-related "technologies." That's about organizational methodology--not about the actual work that people do.

When you work for a customer, there specific deadlines and goals the customer requires so they can go on with their on profit making schemes.
As a result, those projects get done quickly, efficiently and with a high attention to quality.

Yeah, because projects never have cost overruns and never miss a deadline. Customers never revise requirements after you've already started development, thereby requiring you to start from scratch and waste time. Because, of course, companies always make the right choices when it comes to speeding along the development of products. Yeah, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying...

When work is done for the sake of it, or even for something usefull "in house" (we all enjoyed the work) it was never the same. The attention to the final quality of the product was never there, as long is it "pretty much worked".

So what? If it's done to the satisfaction of the people making the product, that's all that matters. When I develop my own toolkits, I make them only as robust as I need them to be for my own use. I would expect no one else to operate differently, nor even particularly desire them to do so. Because unlike some people, I don't have a compulsion to dominate others or make them my servants.

This is a good example of how technology may improve in some collectivist regime, however technology will always advance orders of magnitude faster in a capitalist economy. It simply must to meet customer demand.

Customer demands are, themselves, an inefficiency as often as not. They pass on bizarre nonsensical requirements, then revise them after work has already commenced. It wastes time. A lot of time. Hierarchies are also an incredibly inefficient method of organizing production or development. The notion that profit drives efficiency is absurd, and self-evidently untrue given the abysmal performance of so many wildly successful corporations.

It is all about customer demand. That is what drives innovation and quality and progress.

It's just as easy for me to handwave and insist that it's all about producer desire; that is what drives innovation and defines quality and establishes progress.

Imagine if NASA were soley responsible for technology.

NASA is an example of a capitalist institution financing the development of technology. Any government agency operated by the US government is an example of a capitalist institution, because the US is itself a capitalist institution. Capitalism and governments are intrinsically and inescapably linked.

We would have lots of incredibly expensive, practically useless projects that only serve to absorb the natural excess of production that humans are capable of (under the continuing division of labour). No entity can dictate what is usefull or "correct" to the people, in any situation!

The exact same thing can be said about profit-"creating" organizations. Profit is itself an inefficiency--it is nothing but economic rent that capitalists would rather not describe as such.

Capitalism doesn't have to have the intellectual property rights we have today.

The entire notion of intellectual property is problematic for development, even were the terms shortened and fair use expanded. If anyone can ever own the usage or distribution of an idea, for any substantial length of time, it will slow down technological development.

[Someone5]

Double Post

[mum]

Technological development as a whole often produces results that accelerate further developments. For example, the development of computers accelerated the development of everything else--including future computers.

Yes that is true. But you are missing the point, it is terribly inefficient to work that way.
That is like saying digging holes and filling them back up again leads to better shovels and digging methods.
Or deciding to create a black hole in a lab, that will also have other tech spin offs, which may or may not be useful to anyone
Whats the point?

Yeah, because projects never have cost overruns and never miss a deadline. Customers never revise requirements after you've already started development, thereby requiring you to start from scratch and waste time. Because, of course, companies always make the right choices when it comes to speeding along the development of products. Yeah, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying...

Companies are in competition with each other, which means they get better and better at doing things, they have to otherwise they will fail (unless the govt is helping them, which doesn't count) If the state runs something it almost always costs more and takes way longer than what private industry would manage.

So what? If it's done to the satisfaction of the people making the product, that's all that matters. When I develop my own toolkits, I make them only as robust as I need them to be for my own use. I would expect no one else to operate differently, nor even particularly desire them to do so. Because unlike some people, I don't have a compulsion to dominate others or make them my servants.

Again, missed the point. If everything is only done half assed with no real requirements from paying customers, it is inconceivable that technology would advance anywhere near as fast as in a consumer driven market. We don't make things because we ourselves want them, if we did that we would still be living in grass huts fighting for life. Thats the whole idea behind the division of labour, it is more efficient if we do what we are good at, and do only that. Hence the customers.

Customer demands are, themselves, an inefficiency as often as not. They pass on bizarre nonsensical requirements, then revise them after work has already commenced. It wastes time. A lot of time. Hierarchies are also an incredibly inefficient method of organizing production or development. The notion that profit drives efficiency is absurd, and self-evidently untrue given the abysmal performance of so many wildly successful corporations.

That is up to the business to manage, all the companies I have worked for make sure they are not taken for a free ride, and vice versa. Good companies will do this well, bad ones will get weeded out. This creates more "efficiency"

It's just as easy for me to handwave and insist that it's all about producer desire; that is what drives innovation and defines quality and establishes progress.

But it doesn't drive innovation and quality like private industry does. It is unbelievably obvious if you compare say electronics hobbyists to electronics design companies. The difference in quality and innovation is so incredibly vast I can't believe I'm actually debating this point.

NASA is an example of a capitalist institution financing the development of technology. Any government agency operated by the US government is an example of a capitalist institution, because the US is itself a capitalist institution.

You are totally wrong. "Private ownership of the means of production" and "for creating goods and services for a profit" I think you will find that is probably the main meaning of capitalism.
So if the US Govt owns and runs NASA that means it is not privately owned and it is not run for profit and so is not capitalist, in any sense of the word. wtf?

Capitalism and governments are intrinsically and inescapably linked.

No. They are not, at all. A libertarian world would mean little or no government. Pre 1913 America had a significantly smaller government, are you saying they had significantly less capitalism? Communism is only government and there is zero capitalism there...

The exact same thing can be said about profit-"creating" organizations. Profit is itself an inefficiency--it is nothing but economic rent that capitalists would rather not describe as such.

Compared to the inefficiencies, poverty and sheer waste of every example of any other system, its the best humans have ever come up with (not including some hypothetical utopia that can't exist without mandatory lobotomies)
Profit provides the motivation that allows everyone to (in their own self serving) serve the needs of the community. Isn't that great, by serving youself you are actually serving everyone else! Its brilliant!

[SolarCross]

Bob Diamond breaks into eran's house and steals his tv set and then sells it to mikem and then blows the cash on cocaine. So who owns the TV set? Eran or mikem? What has this got to do with anything anyway? Land, the ownership of land is a fiction. All land is stolen goods just like the TV set so who can really say they 'own' it even if in good faith they made an fair exchange with the previous possessor? Mikem thinks he owns his land because he gave some paper to the previous possessor but go back far enough along the chain of possessors and you will find someone who stole it through coercion or fraud.

[Kman]

Bob Diamond breaks into eran's house and steals his tv set and then sells it to mikem and then blows the cash on cocaine. So who owns the TV set? Eran or mikem? What has this got to do with anything anyway? Land, the ownership of land is a fiction. All land is stolen goods just like the TV set so who can really say they 'own' it even if in good faith they made an fair exchange with the previous possessor? Mikem thinks he owns his land because he gave some paper to the previous possessor but go back far enough along the chain of possessors and you will find someone who stole it through coercion or fraud.

Is land still considered stolen in your book if it has been traded fairly for lets say 30 generations or 2000 years?

[SolarCross]

I'm saying that ownership of anything is essentially a fiction, this goes especially for land. How can an individual claim to own somthing that pre-exists his existance by billions of years and will continue to exist billions of years after he is worm food. Land is best considered as something to be utilised by a community. Anything else is tyranny and absurdity.

[Kman]

I'm saying that ownership of anything is essentially a fiction, this goes especially for land. How can an individual claim to own somthing that pre-exists his existance by billions of years and will continue to exist billions of years after he is worm food. Land is best considered as something to be utilised by a community. Anything else is tyranny and absurdity.

Everything in this universe pre-exists humans by billions of years, the molecules in your car existed before humans ever walked the earth so clearly nobody can own a car either right?

[SolarCross]

Yes that is right. One can use things even have temporary possession but really all ownership is a fiction. It doesn't matter that much for cars, tv-sets and tv dinners; you can pretend ownership then and no-one is bothered. But claiming personal ownership of land, of anything more than an acre is an out an out absurdity and tyranny. Such things should be managed communally. In an anarchy we are trying to make a society that is free from tyranny so it follows that land at least needs to be under communal democratic management to prevent a minority of sociopaths from claiming to own all the land, writing up pieces of paper that 'proves' their ownership, hiring mercenaries to enforce their claim and making the rest of us rent-slaves. In effect recreating the same fucking tyrannical 'society' we are hoping to abolish.

[Eran]

I will ask again - why are you guys so obsessed with land? This is so pre-19th century!

Wealth in our society is not in land, as it used to be until about 200 years ago. It is in owning capital equipment and intangible assets like knowledge and expertise.

As long as land ownership is fairly broadly divided (as it had always been in America, and is becoming in Europe too), such that land-owners have to compete just as do owners of all other means of production, what's so special about land?

[SolarCross]

That may be so in the US but in europe the reverse is true especially in the UK. But if, as an anarcho-capitalist, land is inconsequential to you then you will not mind all the land, as a common resource, being democratically managed by the community.

Land is special because all else rests on it, and it is something that ordinarily can't be made more of. For 10 milenia it has been the favourite resource for tyrants to monopolise for the purpose of parasitising the working people. Anarchy's number one goal is the end of tyranny thus the liberation of land should be a primary objective.

[mikema63]

I'm fine with democratic control of an area of land as long as its in voluntary agreement of everyone involved.

I'm a little sick at the moment so I'm probably not going to give the explaination on why I think you can own land but I'll give it a shot and look it over again later.

I believe you own your own labor, you may trade it or sell it but its yours and you cant not own it at its very beginning simply due to the very nature of labor. Its not so much the land that is owned but the labor you have put into the land, that effort is your's (this isn't how the current system operates this is my particular view of land and property).

Now when I say you own land I mean that you have the right to exclude others from it and the right not to have it interfered with without your permission. This is because, and can only exist when, your current project excludes someone else doing something with the land, for instance if your farming it then someone else cant build a parking lot on it.

The labor of creating the farm is what you own and not so much a geographical area, as such when the farm is gone you can no longer claim ownership.

Also, I think government facilitates the rule of the moneyed I don't support ancap because I think it will help out the rich people.

[Eran]

That may be so in the US but in europe the reverse is true especially in the UK.

Even in the UK, the value of land continues to drop as a fraction of the total wealth of society. There are a few large land-owners remaining, but they no longer dominate either the political or the economic life of the nation.

Land is special, but so are water and food, housing and clothing, energy and education. And gold.

It is misleading to claim that land is something that ordinarily we can't make more of. In that respect, land is no different from, say, oil. WE cannot make more oil, but we can make more oil be economically available. Same with land. We cannot make more land, but we can certainly make more land economically viable through development. More to the point, removing zoning restrictions would make much more land available for its most urgent needs - housing.



Land is indeed a critical resource. As such, its monopolization is particularly dangerous. Once government restrictions on transferring land (laws of entail) were removed, large land-holdings started to break up naturally. Experience shows there is nothing to be feared from a private land monopoly, and everything to be feared from a public (government) control.

[SolarCross]

Ok I have no problem with joe bloggs claiming some exclusive monopoly on a acre of land, building a house on it and otherwise minding his own business. Or indeed I no problem with joe bloggs claiming some exclusive monopoly on the tools he works with to earn his living. And if that is what an-caps hope for from the fall of the state then an-caps are ok in my book. However that is not really what we are talking about.

Here is a hypothetical scenario; somehow the state suffers a total melt down.. in the political vacuum all sorts are trying to make a new state but lets say by then the majority of people are ready for anarchism and no new state emerges. Who owns what? The fiat money is now actually worthless as well as intrinsically worthless. The land register is no longer a recognised authority on who owns what and anyway there is no police to enforce claims. In the absence of the state people might possess stuff but nobody owns anything. An-caps agitate for a resumption of ownership, everyone should buy stuff so we can all own stuff and have all the stuff owned by someone, because owning is important! But who can buy if there is no currency and since no one owns anything who can honestly sell it?

I suppose it is sort of return of the wild west, everyone frantically running around claiming to own rocks, trees, rivers and drawing up papers to 'prove' it and nevermind the indians. In the end the claims are meaningless unless they are recognised and enforced by some entity with a local monopoly on violence in effect a proto state in the making.

Anarchists without a property fixation will be working together to build a new society but sooner or later some an-cap is going to show up waving a piece of paper he drew up himself proclaiming himself the owner of all the land the other anarchists are working and living on. He will say "ok, ok you don't have to move off my land but you will all just have to pay rent to me, say 10% of your production, there now you can stay on my land and I don't have to do any work, everyone's a winner!". Of course the other anarchists will politely show the lunatic the door and life will carry on.

[Eran]

Who owns what?

This is a conversation I would love to have. Having agreed that market anarchism is the only system of organising society with the potential (though no guarantee) of being just, we can discuss how we make the transition. Obviously, we want to start off our anarchy with distribution of property rights that minimises injustice.

My (not original) suggestion is to adopt the following principle:
Every piece of property shall belong to the person who is in the best position to argue for just ownership of said property.

What does that mean?
1. People who clearly obtained their property using unjust means (e.g. government fiat, not to mention government itself) will lose their property.
2. People who can show better title to a property than the person currently holding the title will be given the title (e.g. people who lost their homes to unjust government confiscation, even if the person currently owning it isn't at fault).
3. Government property will be privatised, with the proceeds distributed amongst taxpayers, government employees and (some) government bond-holders.


I am open-minded about the details.


Your specific concerns are unfounded. The transition is never going to take place as a sudden "melt down". If the majority of people are ready for anarchism, government has been peacefully shrunk for years. That majority will take time to consolidate, and, in the process, politicians appealing to that growing majority will have no choice but to scale back the state.

Thus government fiat money would have already been replaced by market-generated currency (probably, but not definitely, gold-backed). The land register is not a recognized authority, but is a recognized valuable source of information (just as the Common Law ceased being an authority, but was still often consulted in US jurisprudence). Private alternatives will sprout, but will clearly refer to the historic information in the legacy registry.

Conflicting property claims will be decided by competent (private) courts - those whose judgement is acceptable to the community. There is no reason for geographic monopoly over either arbitration (judicial) or enforcement (executive) services.

Some pieces of paper are justly informative (e.g. signed contracts). Unlike the situation under government, however, nobody can claim ownership merely by "Waving a piece of paper", least of all a piece of paper you drew yourself. Any evidence of ownership has to be accepted by society's institutions, and those are unlikely to respect any piece of paper.

Rather, the piece of paper has to have evidentiary value, relating to objective events pointing to a just ownership claim. In other words, the piece of paper has to acceptably prove that the person claiming ownership has purchased (or homesteaded) the land fairly. It is at best a prima-facia evidence, open to contestation.

[mikema63]

Eran covered it pretty well, waving around wild pieces of paper and simply claiming things wont work for ancaps, you really do have to build the house first not just build a fence around a few acres.

Now any sudden meltdown of the country wouldn't be pretty for anybody, but if a majority of the people are ready for anarchism, and enough for ancap of course, then we are mostly agreeing to what constitutes property and could certainly set up arbiters to review claims for currently existing property.

[SolarCross]

Ok I'll go along with that. I tend to favour anarcho-communism or at least anarcho-syndicalism because a substantial amount of human wealth production requires large numbers of people cooperating in their work and it seems self-evident that those who do the work should control it. But in the post state anarchy there is room for all kinds of anarchies and with a bit of ingenuity we can all get along.

States have been known to go into rapid meltdown before, usually with some revolutionary pressure being applied; it does happen. There might be room for anarchies to emerge even before the collapse of the state. In europe a number of governments have been effectively looted by the global financial system. When government can't pay for police, administrators and soldiers it will have to withdraw its 'services' to the point where in some areas there is defacto no government and people will have to find their own solutions.