[Husky]

Probably the absence of states not relegating their duties directly to property owners. If you want anarchy, become a communist. If you want rule of property, become an 'anarcho-capitalist'. It's simple.

I want anarchy.

I want no one to harm me. If they do, I want consequences for the person and/or restitution.

Do you believe man is the exclusive controller of his own body and life?

Do you believe man owns his actions?

I believe so: therefore I believe man owns resources he helped improve or create.

Anarcho-capitalism is a term I don't really like. Who's to say a voluntary society wouldn't produce a collectivist society? As long as it is voluntary. The market will decide if co-ops or privately held businesses are more effective, and the successful model will attract people. Just as long as man can own his body and actions, and protect his peaceful projects, I'm happy.

[Rei Murasame]

You say that the market would decide, but a market set up and established by who? And defended by who? Even if you say that market socialism would emerge, that is still not anarchy.

[Husky]

You say that the market would decide, but a market set up and established by who?

If people desire things other people produce, and terms and conditions that both sides agree to are formed, then a market is formed. All it takes to establish a market is a desire for products and service that you cannot make for yourself. I know it sounds simplistic, but this is true not just in theory, but looking back at markets being formed in history.

Competing currencies could easily be established, backed by commodities or not. (think Bitcoin)

Trade is inevitable so long as humans are free.

And defended by who?

I'm not sure whether you're asking who would defend the existence of a market or who would defend private property? If the latter, then competing private defense agencies (PDAs) would defend their clients in disputes. They have a direct incentive to be reputable and reliable, due to the fact that assessment agencies and ranking scores would be made available to the public and would influence their choice in choosing their protection agency.

If you're referring to who would defend a market, I'm not sure what this means. Markets are ever changing, evolving and fusing with other markets. Think about trade through the internet.

Even if you say that market socialism would emerge, that is still not anarchy.

I'm not sure how market socialism is compatible with anarchism. I want human interactions and decisions to be based on voluntary decisions made by individuals. I didn't state market socialism would emerge, but if co-ops and worker-controlled enterprises were more efficient, then more of them would be seen in the market.





What does anarchy mean to you, Rei?

[Turning Point]

Abolishing private property destroys the self-ownership principle and enslaves man to his community.

How so?

First of all, private property under socialism wouldn't be abolished outright; In revolutionary China housing taken from the land lord and/or rich peasant classes was divided up amongst multiple families while land set aside for farming was given to both men and women.

Furthermore, cooperatives and collectives were set up across China after the 1949 Chinese Revolution wherein around 5,000 households were organized around 25,000 communes (taken from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Agricultural_collectives_and_other_social_changes)

I don't understand what you mean by 'enslaving man to his community' in relation to the abolition of private property. This hasn't been the case in revolutionary China or in the Soviet Union (in the Soviet Union there were early attempts in the 1920's to make available housing to multiple working-class families through the formation of communal apartments to be centered in working-class districts).

Both of these revolutionary societies sought to create new property relations amongst the masses, as such through the creation of housing and/or land held in-common which eventually culminated in the establishment of communes, collectives, and cooperatives.

The police are useless and crime is rampant

And eliminating the police, however ineffective and/or corrupt, and replacing it with a private security force (basing itself off of protection of local communities in exchange for money) would be better in the long run?

; in India in the slums private schools exist. Think about how cheap it would be to run a school in poor countries. Look at what teachers get in terms of salaries. In my country you can attend a good private school for $100 a month. And with the rise of technology, soon teachers won't be needed to teach a class. Think about how cheap it would be. In extreme cases, a charitable organization would help out poor kids. It happens today - and people often want their taxes to go to the poor - so imagine how efficient private charitable organizations would be.

At least where I live (in the United States), private schools aren't cheap and a far from being affordable for the vast majority of people. Most attend public schools, while concerning private schools only those with a decent income can afford to send their family members to private schools.

And a charitable organization is supposed to provide for the poor in the absence of affordable, public schooling in this ideal society?

Currently private institutions (be they high schools, colleges, etc.) cater to only those who can afford the education with few exceptions. To be honest I've known people who've come from private (high ) schools. The difference between what they and their family have at their disposal (not just income-wise but also in access to technology i.e. computers, cellphones, access to better teachers, private tutors, etc.) and what the average student at a public school has is staggering; Many people I've known coming out of public schools could only dream of owning their own computer, having their own private tutor, and/or receiving a one-on-one teacher-to-student education, etc.

The crux of the matter is that private schools inevitably give one a higher advantage that public schooling simply can't provide for.

If every last school was privatized in this ideal society, who's to say that it will be affordable for the vast majority of students who under the present society would more then likely be crammed into a 40-50+ class (or classes) staffed by one (or possibly two if students are lucky) underpaid teachers?

Your ideal society seems to assume that be it through private charity or other means private schooling would be made accessible to the many and not the few as-is the case currently.

[Rei Murasame]

If people desire things other people produce, and terms and conditions that both sides agree to are formed, then a market is formed. All it takes to establish a market is a desire for products and service that you cannot make for yourself. I know it sounds simplistic, but this is true not just in theory, but looking back at markets being formed in history.

History shows me that this does not happen. In the United Kingdom, the market was created and defended by the aristocracy who appropriated lands by writing up land titles for themselves and marching columns of soldiers over anyone who disagreed. In Japan, the market emerged by having the Imperial court, or a Shogunate, choose a bunch of people who they would recognise as merchants, and listen them on how to build an economy. Oh, and also lots of security agencies, which back then were just heavily armed families.

I'm not sure whether you're asking who would defend the existence of a market or who would defend private property? If the latter, then competing private defense agencies (PDAs) would defend their clients in disputes.

Well, both, since you can't have a market without private property. PDAs are basically the same as feudal warlords, they are one step away from becoming a state, since their wealthy clients can one just absorb them.

I'm not sure how market socialism is compatible with anarchism. I want human interactions and decisions to be based on voluntary decisions made by individuals. I didn't state market socialism would emerge, but if co-ops and worker-controlled enterprises were more efficient, then more of them would be seen in the market.

Fair enough. But they might not be able to dislodge the large capitalist companies that have the advantage of having accumulated a lot of wealth in the preceding period. If Co-ops played by the rules set out by capitalists, they'd be defeated purely on the fact that a giant company can stay in business selling items at a loss to undercut you, for longer than a co-op can survive while being undercut.

Barriers to entry, basically. Can a co-op defeat Mitsubishi while accepting the 'do not use political force' rules of the game, if Mitsubishi can borrow money from itself (many large manufacturing companies operate their own little banks for just such a purpose) and operate at a loss to defeat the co-op as soon as it opens its doors for sales?

Knowing that, I can understand why the leftists - if they were to have a problem with such companies - would understand that they would have to use some kind of political force to promote a co-op, if none of these companies agree to transform any part of themselves into co-ops.

What does anarchy mean to you, Rei?

I don't know, since I don't know if it's possible to really have a society where no one is in charge of anything.

[Husky]

Turning Point,

Do you agree man owns himself and his actions? Denying this is enslavement.

So land was issued by decree in your examples? Can you claim someone's body by decree?

I find it interesting you referred to the USSR and revolutionary China. Are these examples of what you wish to achieve?

And eliminating the police, however ineffective and/or corrupt, and replacing it with a private security force (basing itself off of protection of local communities in exchange for money) would be better in the long run?

Making communities safer is not appealing to you? Remember, I live in the situation we are talking about. My defense agency has saved me from about 2 burglaries so far; they detained the criminal, secured the situation, all before the police arrived. At $50 a month.

Imagine 20 of these agencies competing against one another, the efficiency created.

At least where I live (in the United States), private schools aren't cheap and a far from being affordable for the vast majority of people. Most attend public schools, while concerning private schools only those with a decent income can afford to send their family members to private schools.

Well, it's very cheap to create a private school. Let's say a teacher's salary averages $40,000 a year in the U.S. 20 kids per class, so that's $2,000 per student per year. And as I said, rising technology would further diminish this cost, saving book fees etc. I'm sure most American families could afford <$2000 for a year's education; remember, no longer paying taxes would increase the median income tremendously.

And a charitable organization is supposed to provide for the poor in the absence of affordable, public schooling in this ideal society?

"Affordable public schooling"? Public schools are terribly inefficient and drive up costs.

Regarding your question; is it not true people give charity, voluntarily, today? Americans give about $220B to charity (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... y/1728027/) and with more disposable income in absence of taxes the number will further increase. Many hospitals and schools would also be charity run and admit people for free.

Currently private institutions (be they high schools, colleges, etc.) cater to only those who can afford the education with few exceptions. To be honest I've known people who've come from private (high ) schools. The difference between what they and their family have at their disposal (not just income-wise but also in access to technology i.e. computers, cellphones, access to better teachers, private tutors, etc.) and what the average student at a public school has is staggering; Many people I've known coming out of public schools could only dream of owning their own computer, having their own private tutor, and/or receiving a one-on-one teacher-to-student education, etc.

Technology's quality is increasing and prices are decreasing. Most Americans access the internet. Private education would only improve, even at the cheap level, scholarships would be very present, as would bursaries. Talented poor kids would manage to overcome their poverty more effectively than today, instead of being stuck in a cycle of poverty and ending up depending on welfare.

Don't tell me what U.S public students have is bad; I live in the third world and see what it means to be really badly off and underprivileged.

The crux of the matter is that private schools inevitably give one a higher advantage that public schooling simply can't provide for.

This is a separate issue; but if all education was private the rock-bottom option would be better than today.

If every last school was privatized in this ideal society, who's to say that it will be affordable for the vast majority of students who under the present society would more then likely be crammed into a 40-50+ class (or classes) staffed by one (or possibly two if students are lucky) underpaid teachers?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is unlikely, privatized education would improve teacher quality, and give more value for money.

Your ideal society seems to assume that be it through private charity or other means private schooling would be made accessible to the many and not the few as-is the case currently.

If Indian slums can arrange private schooling, I could only imagine the U.S incorporating the latest technology into their private schooling, bringing down costs, improving education quality and decreasing (relative) poverty.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History shows me that this does not happen. In the United Kingdom, the market was created and defended by the aristocracy who appropriated lands by writing up land titles for themselves and marching columns of soldiers over anyone who disagreed. In Japan, the market emerged by having the Imperial court, or a Shogunate, choose a bunch of people who they would recognise as merchants, and listen them on how to build an economy. Oh, and also lots of security agencies, which back then were just heavily armed families.

Who's going to defend internet trade? Who established it? The blackmarket for marijuana, who established it? A free market = trade unobstructed by 3rd parties. You make shoes, I make bread. There's a floating silver-backed currency that values your shoes at 1 silver coin. I need shoes so I sell my excess bread and then use some of the revenue gained to purchase your shoes. We both gain. Who defended that market? Who created it? A market requires a supplier and a desire (demand) of a product.

Well, both, since you can't have a market without private property. PDAs are basically the same as feudal warlords, they are one step away from becoming a state, since their wealthy clients can one just absorb them.

PDAs work within the prevailing, respected legal framework of the society. They rely on being reputable and efficient to maintain business. It is unprofitable to go to war, or slip up in detaining people.

Fair enough. But they might not be able to dislodge the large capitalist companies that have the advantage of having accumulated a lot of wealth in the preceding period. If Co-ops played by the rules set out by capitalists, they'd be defeated purely on the fact that a giant company can stay in business selling items at a loss to undercut you, for longer than a co-op can survive while being undercut.

What is capital, Rei? Savings. Delayed consumption. If workers pool their delayed consumption, I do not see a problem in raising capital. After all, wage slavery is unethical and criminal according to some people here, so let's rather invest in a co-op rather than use our money on something that "exploits" workers.

But, capitalist mode of production is an efficient way of organizing capital, so it's unlikely co-ops would be more efficient and provide greater returns to equity. But, hey, each to his own.

Barriers to entry, basically. Can a co-op defeat Mitsubishi while accepting the 'do not use political force' rules of the game, if Mitsubishi can borrow money from itself (many large manufacturing companies operate their own little banks for just such a purpose) and operate at a loss to defeat the co-op as soon as it opens its doors for sales?

Why don't the co-op workers boycott Mitsubishi cars? Capitalist mode of production puts the power in the consumers hands. Don't like the fact that Mitsubishi exploits workers and raises artificial capital? Don't buy their products. That will, literally, force them to restructure their business or go bankrupt. And if people continue to buy their cars; well, who are you to say that I cannot shop there.

Knowing that, I can understand why the leftists - if they were to have a problem with such companies - would understand that they would have to use some kind of political force to promote a co-op, if none of these companies agree to transform any part of themselves into co-ops.

These companies are alive because of workers everywhere consuming their products. As stated above, capitalist mode of production is more democratic than anything imaginable in this respect.

I don't know, since I don't know if it's possible to really have a society where no one is in charge of anything.

What about a voluntaryist society where everything is voluntary? No council communism, vanguard party, republican government. No one telling you what to do other than abiding to a legal framework put in place to protect you from your own demise and savagery.

[mikema63]

Rules always evolve in any social setting that can be enforced by nothing more than the displeasure of your peers. Anarchy seems to be the loss of de jure social law and controls on your actions by society in favor of a pure set of de facto laws on your behavior by society.

Since humans can't live outside of society, which is a product of our evolution and the reason for our success, it is impossible to remove some form of social control by society.

If it isn't in the form of an organized government it will still come.

[work-in-progress]

I am of the opinion that fascism is in many ways a radical endpoint of capitalism.

I'm late to this thread, so I wanted to start right at the beginning because I agree with the premise, but I'm not sure if it was for the reasons you mentioned....and apologies to those who have made similar points already, but I wanted to put my own thoughts on this one because I don't see it as all that complicated and in need of complex political theorizing.

To me, fascism is what we can usually expect from allowing business and the government-protected marketplace to dictate the terms that we all have to live with. Even if we accepted the libertarian premise of a multitude of self-employed and small business owners all competing equally in the marketplace; the market is about survival of the fittest -- so some of those businesses will grow, while others will subside and even go bankrupt, forcing the unsuccessful small businessman back into the role of wage earner for someone else.

I think that where fascism begins is when the majority of people begin to realize that they don't live in a meritocracy where everyone can become Bill Gates or Steve Zuckerberg, and that the rules of business are stacked in favour of those who already have money....especially those born into money, and against outsiders trying to challenge the established businesses. When people realize that the capitalists are only paying them a fraction of what their labour is worth and pocketing the rest , and using the threat of outsourcing to armtwist them into accepting even less money for their work, then the capitalist has to fear the populist uprising that could challenge the rules of the game that favour the rich minority. This is where I believe capitalism turns into fascism, because first, the capitalists may try a subtler, less oppressive form of fascism (conservatism) to brainwash the masses to accept their lot in life, attempting to shift focus with appeals to race, religion and national identity....and when this appeal to identity over class has to be imposed by force, then we have fascism.

So, capitalism is incompatible with democracy (and it is, because inequalities are a natural progression), and when a capitalist economy is unable to continue growing, the wealthier classes take a greater share of the wealth for themselves, and the declining standards of living for lower classes starts to create resentment. If the oligarchs cannot keep enough people in line with the typical right wing social agenda and the promise that they might strike it rich becomes as real as winning a million dollar lottery ticket, then the regime will impose itself in as brutal and oppressive manner as needed....unless it is overthrown....which doesn't happen very often if we look at the examples comparing populist revolts with fascist dictatorships!

[Rei Murasame]

--------------------------------------------------- [and a lot more dashes]

Can you edit out those dashes and use a lot less of them to divide your post? For some reason, having that many dashes actually breaks PoFo in Opera browser as soon as it reaches the end of the line. It basically distorts the page.

Who's going to defend internet trade? Who established it?

I'm pretty sure that it was some kind of governing body. Chamber of commerce in various countries? Visa and Mastercard?

The blackmarket for marijuana, who established it?

Columbian and Mexican crime lords, seriously.

A free market = trade unobstructed by 3rd parties. You make shoes, I make bread. There's a floating silver-backed currency that values your shoes at 1 silver coin. I need shoes so I sell my excess bread and then use some of the revenue gained to purchase your shoes. We both gain. Who defended that market? Who created it? A market requires a supplier and a desire (demand) of a product.

I agree that it works that way, but these people you are talking about then acquire an interest in sustaining their own business. That's when they start securing supply routes and waterways and so on, and that's when you have a government.

No matter whether it's a so-called 'free market' or a controlled market of some sort, there is no way than unarmed group of people will be able to keep it running. I don't disagree that your logic makes sense, I just don't know how it can be associated with the type of liberty that you're talking about.

What is capital, Rei? Savings. Delayed consumption. If workers pool their delayed consumption, I do not see a problem in raising capital. After all, wage slavery is unethical and criminal according to some people here, so let's rather invest in a co-op rather than use our money on something that "exploits" workers.

But, capitalist mode of production is an efficient way of organizing capital, so it's unlikely co-ops would be more efficient and provide greater returns to equity. But, hey, each to his own.

Well, it's not like their delayed consumption will be enough to face off against one of the largest conglomerates in the world.

Why don't the co-op workers boycott Mitsubishi cars?

I assume it would be pointless, Mitsubishi makes a lot of things other than cars. They might have to boycott roads (literally), the entire defence ministry, hospitals, televisions and home appliances, etc.

Capitalist mode of production puts the power in the consumers hands. Don't like the fact that Mitsubishi exploits workers and raises artificial capital? Don't buy their products. That will, literally, force them to restructure their business or go bankrupt. And if people continue to buy their cars; well, who are you to say that I cannot shop there.

I do not agree that power lands in the hands of consumers, but I also don't think that their capital is artificial. After all, borrowing money from people is subject to interest rates, maybe they give out a nice low interest rate to themselves because they trust in their own ability to see off the competition, but there's nothing inherently law-breaking about that.

These companies are alive because of workers everywhere consuming their products. As stated above, capitalist mode of production is more democratic than anything imaginable in this respect.

I just think that the story is more complicated than, "people bought their product and that's how they survived". It's never that simple.

I didn't raise Mitsubishi because I have a severe problem with them or anything. As far as large conglomerates go, I have no particular problem with how Mitsubishi does business, they tend to act socially responsibly, which is more than can be said for a lot of them. But to refer to them as voluntaryist or democratic would be very far from the truth.

A conglomerate like Mitsubishi is probably the most non-democratic force I can think of on the earth. The workers I am sure have some say in what is happening because they accept worker criticism as well as constructive input, but Mitsubishi has a CEO and is run by a tightly knit group of families who have been essentially prolific 'initiators of force' (to use your anarcho-capitalist terminology) for about 400 years (literally) now.

What about a voluntaryist society where everything is voluntary? No council communism, vanguard party, republican government. No one telling you what to do other than abiding to a legal framework put in place to protect you from your own demise and savagery.

But that is the creation of a government. Using eastern countries as the example, most eastern countries that exist today, were founded on the idea that someone with lots of weapons will come and set up some laws, and that everyone must follow those laws so as to prevent chaos. That is actually the founding story of most countries in the world.

So it's like you are creating a form of government and then calling it not-a-government.

[Husky]

I'm pretty sure that it was some kind of governing body. Chamber of commerce in various countries? Visa and Mastercard?

The internet is a confluence of routers, cables, ports, etc. Anyone could create their own Paypal equivalent for payment. Or use a free floating currency (Bitcoin). The anonymity means it is hard to trace/shut down this activity. I disagree that someone is currently "defending" the internet. It's a market place. Broadband companies have an interest in keeping the internet alive. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide routers and cables in their interest. I purchased a cologne from some dodgy men's style website using Bitcoin. Who facilitated/protected that trade?

Columbian and Mexican crime lords, seriously.

Yeah. And? They supply something, I demand it. If other competitors start supplying pot cheaper and they put an icepick in the competitor's head, well, of course I don't defend that. My point is any market is sourced to a demand and supply of something, and nothing defends/establishes this market other than individual preference, maximizing utility etc.

I agree that it works that way, but these people you are talking about then acquire an interest in sustaining their own business. That's when they start securing supply routes and waterways and so on, and that's when you have a government.

A government is a monopoly on force that is not consensual (involuntary). Securing supply routes? I suppose you meant with force? Well of course that's not what I am advocating.

No matter whether it's a so-called 'free market' or a controlled market of some sort, there is no way than unarmed group of people will be able to keep it running. I don't disagree that your logic makes sense, I just don't know how it can be associated with the type of liberty that you're talking about.

The internet is another a great example. No one can use illegitimate force (in cyberspace that is - ignore hacking) to make you purchase something, can they? Who holds an AK/47 to my head and the cologne suppliers head to "establish"/"defend" the trade?

Well, it's not like their delayed consumption will be enough to face off against one of the largest conglomerates in the world.

I was talking about the principle... Large conglomerates provide consumers with what they want. People here claim workers would fare better democratically controlling the workplace. If this is true then co-ops will flourish by providing consumers with what they want. if it is false then co-ops will be rare.

I assume it would be pointless, Mitsubishi makes a lot of things other than cars. They might have to boycott roads (literally), the entire defence ministry, hospitals, televisions and home appliances, etc.

No one forces someone to buy Mitsubishi's products. They win because they provide cheap/high quality (or whatever their target market desires) products.

I do not agree that power lands in the hands of consumers, but I also don't think that their capital is artificial. After all, borrowing money from people is subject to interest rates, maybe they give out a nice low interest rate to themselves because they trust in their own ability to see off the competition, but there's nothing inherently law-breaking about that.

Why do you feel the power is not in the consumers' hands?

And do you agree with the fact that trade is mutually beneficial, btw?

I just think that the story is more complicated than, "people bought their product and that's how they survived". It's never that simple.

Maybe not for conglomerates.

But small capitalists thrive from providing consumers with their wants (direct feedback) as well as undergoing ethical business practices (being environmentally friendly or selling organic products).

I didn't raise Mitsubishi because I have a severe problem with them or anything. As far as large conglomerates go, I have no particular problem with how Mitsubishi does business, they tend to act socially responsibly, which is more than can be said for a lot of them. But to refer to them as voluntaryist or democratic would be very far from the truth.

How so? Who forces their employees to work for them; or who forces consumers to buy their products??

A conglomerate like Mitsubishi is probably the most non-democratic force I can think of on the earth. The workers I am sure have some say in what is happening, but Mitsubishi has a CEO and is run by a tightly knit group of families who have been essentially prolific initiators of force for about 400 years (literally) now.

If I identify them breaking the law, I can sue for fraud/damages/whatever the problem was.

Otherwise, if they are providing high quality or cheap products, and treat their employees according to the contract signed at the time of employment, I do not see the problem.

But that is the creation of a government. Using eastern countries as the example, most eastern countries that exist today, were founded on the idea that someone with lots of weapons will come and set up some laws, and that everyone must follow those laws so as to prevent chaos.

So it's like you are creating a form of government and then calling it not-a-government.

I understand your concern(s).

A government is a monopoly of force.

A legal framework based on the NAP prevents force.

Making society abide to the legal framework (that prohibits force) or face punishment is neither creating a government nor being coercive toward that person.

[Rei Murasame]

The internet is a confluence of routers, cables, ports, etc. Anyone could create their own Paypal equivalent for payment. Or use a free floating currency (Bitcoin). The anonymity means it is hard to trace/shut down this activity.

I'll agree that it is difficult to regulate.

I disagree that someone is currently "defending" the internet. It's a market place. Broadband companies have an interest in keeping the internet alive. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide routers and cables in their interest. I purchased a cologne from some dodgy men's style website using Bitcoin. Who facilitated/protected that trade?

Well, that trade had to take place on servers and across communications infrastructure that physically exists somewhere in the world within someone's government jurisdiction. For example, the fibres passing through the United Kingdom, are simply privatised ventures that once upon a time had state funding, and are now in the hands of private companies which are regulated by OFCOM.

Yeah. And? They supply something, I demand it. If other competitors start supplying pot cheaper and they put an icepick in the competitor's head, well, of course I don't defend that. My point is any market is sourced to a demand and supply of something, and nothing defends/establishes this market other than individual preference, maximizing utility etc.

I agree that supply and demand of a product is part of the creation of a market, but the force element is there. For example, in the case of the drug dealers, you simply choose to ignore the icepick, and say that you do not approve of the icepick.

But in order to get lower prices, there must someone following economy of scale. And sometimes to get economy of scale it involves taking over the competition by force. But you would see lower prices on your end and not question who shot who to make that happen.

I was talking about the principle... Large conglomerates provide consumers with what they want. People here claim workers would fare better democratically controlling the workplace. If this is true then co-ops will flourish by providing consumers with what they want. if it is false then co-ops will be rare.

Well, workers and consumers might not be the same group of people in some cases. What if it's an export product?

No one forces someone to buy Mitsubishi's products. They win because they provide cheap/high quality (or whatever their target market desires) products.

I agree that people have a tendency to buy the product that looks like it's good value for money in the store. However, the force involved in that is structural, since it's applied in non-obvious ways, and some of it involves 'legacy accumulations'. For example, investments produce more investments and more wealth gains. To what extent does Mitsubishi's historical force-based wealth accumulating behaviour, impact its present ability to simply present products in stores?

Why do you feel the power is not in the consumers' hands?

Because consumers don't usually boycott life necessities. For example, let's say you need a car to drive to work in the morning. Your choice of cars is limited by the number of car companies in the world and the models that they create. If they all suddenly started making bad cars, you'd still have to choose between them anyway.

And do you agree with the fact that trade is mutually beneficial, btw?

Theoretically it is. After all, if I sell you a can of Pocari Sweat for 250 yen and you disagree with the price by saying 'no', I might mark it down slightly and try to sell it to you again at 240 yen. Maybe you accept at 240 yen because you are thirsty and really want that nice taste with the ion supply in it, so in that moment a can of Pocari is worth 240 yen to you, and in that moment, I want the 240 yen more than I want the can of Pocari.

A trade emerges, based on our subjective view at the time, and the trade is mutually beneficial because we both got what we wanted from the transaction.

Until you go further down the road and perhaps realise that everyone else is selling that drink between 150 and 190 yen, and you realise that in retrospect you could have kept bidding it down lower. If you weren't thirsty and in a hurry at the time.

It could be said that you ended up paying a premium because you were in a hurry, so the theory holds.

But once it goes beyond basic level selling-things-in-stores, it can become more complicated.

But small capitalists thrive from providing consumers with their wants (direct feedback) as well as undergoing ethical business practices (being environmentally friendly or selling organic products).

Maybe, but it's not like the whole world can run on just having small capitalists, right?

How so? Who forces their employees to work for them; or who forces consumers to buy their products??

Well, did consumers ever do defence spending of their own volition?

I understand your concern(s).

A government is a monopoly of force.

A legal framework based on the NAP prevents force.

Making society abide to the legal framework (that prohibits force) or face punishment is neither creating a government nor being coercive toward that person.

But isn't the threat of force necessary to prevent people from arbitrarily using force? The NAP has to be enforced by someone. Otherwise it would like you saying to the village people, "do not initiate force", and some person in the crowd yells back, "or else you'll do what?"

NAP, the 'non-aggression principle', is clearly something that actually requires enforcement, so it's like a contradiction in terms, I think. Someone has to initiate force to create the social and economic circumstances in which those same persons can then have the power to create laws about non-aggression (or, 'aggression that we do not find to be amenable to the public order which has been established', or 'actions which threaten the hegemony of such-and-such').

[Husky]

Well, that trade had to take place on servers and across communications infrastructure that physically exists somewhere in the world within someone's government jurisdiction. For example, the fibres passing through the United Kingdom, are simply privatised ventures that once upon a time had state funding, and are now in the hands of private companies which are regulated by OFCOM.

I agree here. But I don't think this supports your original statement from which this aspect of our conversation evolved from

No matter whether it's a so-called 'free market' or a controlled market of some sort, there is no way than unarmed group of people will be able to keep it running. I don't disagree that your logic makes sense, I just don't know how it can be associated with the type of liberty that you're talking about.

I agree that supply and demand of a product is part of the creation of a market, but the force element is there. For example, in the case of the drug dealers, you simply choose to ignore the icepick, and say that you do not approve of the icepick.

I think discussing an illegal product is a bad example. Let's say meth was legalized, destroying the criminal warlords' monopoly. What 'force element' would be there? The trade of beef or wheat today - where's the force element?

But in order to get lower prices, there must someone following economy of scale. And sometimes to get economy of scale it involves taking over the competition by force. But you would see lower prices on your end and not question who shot who to make that happen.

Well, taking competition by force would be illegal under what I am advocating, so I don't see the relevance.

Well, workers and consumers might not be the same group of people in some cases. What if it's an export product?

How do capitalists manage export products? Research? Co ops could employ similar (or superior ones they come up with) strategies in such cases. Since workers would run r/d departments of capitalist enterprises, who's so say they could not run a more efficient system? The market will sort this out though.

I agree that people have a tendency to buy the product that looks like it's good value for money in the store. However, the force involved in that is structural, since it's applied in non-obvious ways, and some of it involves 'legacy accumulations'. For example, investments produce more investments and more wealth gains. To what extent does Mitsubishi's historical force-based wealth accumulating behaviour, impact its present ability to simply present products in stores?

Capital investment is risky. If an enterprise garners a legacy of providing good service and products, and this influences its sales, I do not see a problem. The capital employed developing an enterprise could have been consumed (hence its delayed nature), gifted to someone, given to charity, etc. Using savings to invest as a capitalist does is risky. A capitalist looks at a situation in society and says "society really needs/wants more cologne- i'm going to provide it". What if no one wants the cologne? Your savings are lost.

Because consumers don't usually boycott life necessities. For example, let's say you need a car to drive to work in the morning. Your choice of cars is limited by the number of car companies in the world and the models that they create. If they all suddenly started making bad cars, you'd still have to choose between them anyway.

If all cars are bad the likelihood of more competitors entering is high, in fact very high.

I don't like your first point of boycotting "life necessities". A car is not a necessity, for starters. And if a consumer cannot boycott his need for, say, bread, then he should thank the capitalist for providing it.

Theoretically it is.

I agree entirely. Obviously using economic models to determine this is problematic as economic models make some assumptions which in theory are valid but not always true. E.g: the cornerstone of neoclassical economics is that rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value, individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits, people act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.

Maybe, but it's not like the whole world can run on just having small capitalists, right?

small capitalists are the backbone of the U.S's (and even more emphatically so in poor countries') economies.

Well, did consumers ever do defence spending of their own volition?

Not sure I understand you here.

But isn't the threat of force necessary to prevent people from arbitrarily using force? The NAP has to be enforced by someone. Otherwise it would like you saying to the village people, "do not initiate force", and some person in the crowd yells back, "or else you'll do what?"

NAP, the 'non-aggression principle', is clearly something that actually requires enforcement, so it's like a contradiction in terms, I think. Someone has to initiate force to create the social and economic circumstances in which those same persons can then have the power to create laws about non-aggression (or, 'aggression that we do not find to be amenable to the public order which has been established', or 'actions which threaten the hegemony of such-and-such').

The NAP justifies force in defense from force. If you attack me I have the right to self-defense. It's not a contradiction, as it states aggression to my person or ongoing peaceful projects (property) is illegitimate. Therefore, defending myself does not breach the moral principal.

Actually, denying the NAP is a performative contradiction. Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a creative justification of the NAP.

Other than that I justify its existence on a deontological basis and a consequentialist (or rule utilitarian) basis.

[Conscript]

I want anarchy.

I want no one to harm me. If they do, I want consequences for the person and/or restitution.

So...you want a state? You sound more like a libertarian.

Do you believe man is the exclusive controller of his own body and life?

Not entirely, but nothing wrong with it as a principle.

Do you believe man owns his actions?

I have no idea what this means.

I believe so: therefore I believe man owns resources he helped improve or create.

That has little to do with property and works against you. It is an argument against wage-labor and ownership in general, seeing as capitalists accumulate not with their own labor but with others and wage-labor entails getting less than the value of your labor.

This is an argument for common ownership and working class dictatorship.

[Husky]

I disagree Conscript. That argument is clearly for private ownership. Basically, no one is entitled to the fruits of another man's labor. Capitalists own the factories and employ workers through terms agreed upon before employment. Employees are guaranteed a wage while the capitalist risks his savings in opening the factory, thus his remuneration for being bold (identifying a need in the market) and allocating resources efficiently is profit. If he cannot sell his products his savings are burned. Obviously the final cost of the product will be highly related to the cost of the wage laborer, but this does not mean the capitalist is wrong in paying the employee less than the product he made. Someone had to buy the machinery etc. Profit is simply the return to an owner of capital goods or natural resources in any productive pursuit involving labor, or a return on bonds and money invested in capital markets. Considering the employee knows this and benefits from receiving a fixed wage without the risk of losing additional money, I see no problem.

@Rei: the core of our argument was a disagreement about markets: you claimed markets needed force to remain established. I think I have shown fairly, using the internet as an example, that markets can easily be uncoercive. Think about auctions, currency markets, some bond and stock markets, futures markets, etc. Markets can easily be established without external interference.

The other part of our argument was about co-ops vs traditional business structures. I repeatedly have said that the market would sort this out and the more successful model would prevail.

And then I think I explained the NAP fairly. You said it was a contradiction but I explained above that it is not as you can use force to defend yourself from force.

[Conscript]

Basically, no one is entitled to the fruits of another man's labor.

You seem to contradict yourself, as you go on about how nice wage-labor is because of risks.

Capitalists own the factories and employ workers through terms agreed upon before employment. Employees are guaranteed a wage while the capitalist risks his savings in opening the factory, thus his remuneration for being bold (identifying a need in the market) and allocating resources efficiently is profit.

Risk creates no value, and the belief it deserves whatever profit margin achieved is just arbitrary. All work is being done by labor, the feeding, clothing, and sheltering of all is done by labor in a form of socialized production. Regardless of the presence of the capitalist the need would be met, as it is human nature to produce. He is only relevant in the first place because capital owns everything.

If he cannot sell his products his savings are burned. Obviously the final cost of the product will be highly related to the cost of the wage laborer, but this does not mean the capitalist is wrong in paying the employee less than the product he made.

Of course not, it is not 'wrong' it is only natural for the capitalist. Exploitation is not a moral concept, it is used as evidence that the working class has no interest in engaging in wage-labor.

Considering the employee knows this and benefits from receiving a fixed wage without the risk of losing additional money, I see no problem.

Irrelevant. The employee and the wider working class shoulders all financial burdens while striving to be productive, and since they double as the majority of the consumers they double dip in that burden. If being a capitalist is such a risk, all the more reason to get rid of the class so people don't have to pin their livelihoods on them.

[Husky]

Risk creates no value

Risk creates no value

Risk creates no value

Risk creates no value

I'm done. This is absurd.

So innovation, breakthroughs in science etc, all risks, all provided by initial capital, add no value???

[Conscript]

Why don't you take the risk of setting up a mud pie shop and let me know how it goes.

[Husky]

The entrepreneurs initial investment and his ideas are what creates the value that allows the business to exist.

If I knew of a brilliant mud-pie recipe that would wow people, maybe I would. Then I would be rolling in sales, all due to the value my idea created.

[Conscript]

And where did that capital come from? Thin air? What replenishes it after the investment? More air?

The root of it all is labor, and labor deserves the better consideration. The capitalist is only relevant by virtue of private property, which is only relevant (and around) by virtue of the state.

[Husky]

Capital is savings- delayed consumption.

It compounds are grows when successfully is invested. Venture capital is a very risky thing; imagine investing in something that completely fails? The risk of providing this initial money is what creates value.