The Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
The Creator of the Market Anarchist FAQ wrote:Market anarchists generally reject all forms of paternalism which deny the ability of free people to make reasonable decisions about their own lives. If someone wishes to trade their labor for a price they find acceptable, we wouldn’t use force to prevent it.
However, market forces naturally undermine exploitation. Market anarchists tend to see economic domination of working people as the product of statism and not the market. In a free society without Benjamin Tucker’s Four Monopolies over land, currency, patents and tariffs, the economic dependency proletarians have upon capitalists is virtually destroyed. Capitalism, in the sense of an unjust status quo characterized by state-driven monopolization of capital, depends upon a captive labor force whose better options are destroyed or precluded by state intervention in the market on behalf of a parasitic elite.
When people can work for themselves or in a horizontally organized workplace, they generally prefer it. Wouldn’t all of us prefer colleagues over bosses? In order for a capitalist firm to exist in a free society it would typically need to offer a much better deal to its workers, who would otherwise flock to better opportunities elsewhere — opportunities that are currently strangled in the cradle by the state.
So while market anarchists typically do not have an a priori moral opposition to wage labor, we have strong moral objections to the currently existing statist monopoly capitalism which makes wage labor a nearly inescapable trap.
In other words, opposition to the wage system in the sense of an unjust system of oppression doesn’t mean that some sort of anarcho-cops have to arrest people that voluntarily agree to work for or hire somebody else. By abolishing the state, we abolish state-driven monopolization of capital so that there would no longer be a “wage system” in which one’s only choices are working for somebody else or starving
Benjamin Tucker wrote:It should be stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual occupancy and use.
emmitt wrote:Well, there's one major difference. Tuckerite market anarchists are generally in favor of abolishing private property in land. It would be replaced with an occupancy and use system.
Paradigm wrote:Indeed. And this change in property relations is why capitalists as we know them today would not exist. Workers could, if they chose, pick a manager to run the workplace. But the manager would be accountable to the workers rather than to some absentee capitalist owner.
Husky wrote:How do you intend to implement this?
If workers want to work for someone in a way that you do not permit, what would you do?
Husky wrote:But how will you prevent people from engaging in 'capitalist property relations'?
Husky wrote:So you hypothesize that, in absence of a state, there would no longer remain private property?
Husky wrote:Ok I understand your position mate.
Can a person opt to not participate in a workers co-operative and instead start his own venture?
Eran wrote:I have several questions.
First, why do you suppose land is so important? Land has stopped being the dominant mean of production during the 19th century. We are almost 150 years beyond that point.
You argue that without state support, capitalist property relations couldn't exist. I disagree. But set my disagreement aside, and accepting your point, is there any mechanism in the society you propose that enforces any property relations?
For example, you seem to support land rights associated with use and occupancy. Who protects those rights?
How about rights in movable property, either personal or productive? Any protections there? Or could anybody enter my house (correction - the house I happen to sleep in) and take my possessions (corrections - articles I used the day before, but now, being asleep, I am not using)?
Where do you draw the line on use and possession? Are hotels allowed? What about short-term vacation rentals? Would you allow furnished accommodations for students, or would each student have to buy an apartment before they can leave their parents' home?
Benjamin Tucker wrote:Mr. Herbert must remember that under Anarchism all rules and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries, and that all disputes, whether about land or anything else, will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the facts, but the law, the justice of the law, its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction. What better safeguard against rigidity could there be than this? Machinery for altering the law, indeed! Why, under Anarchism the law will be so flexible that it will shape itself to every emergency and need no alteration. And it will then be regarded as just in proportion to its flexibility, instead of as now in proportion to its rigidity
Benjamin Tucker wrote:Mr. Herbert must remember that under Anarchism all rules and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries, and that all disputes, whether about land or anything else, will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the facts, but the law, the justice of the law, its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction.
Competing defence associations would be used to enforce occupancy and use rights.
Actually, Special Olympian already provided video[…]
That really means that carbon dating will not d[…]
1. I'm a pragmatist and not a tribalistic, infight[…]
Algeria has had a brain-dead vegetable for a pres[…]