[Potemkin]

The Foundation belief that somehow interferring Governments and Capitalism are in some way opposed to each other. Capitalism requires central authority.

Indeed. This was the basis of Ayn Rand's criticisms of Libertarianism when it first emerged as a movement in the 1960s:

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Link

[copaceticmind]

Can someone please tell me why people assume a perfect capitalist society means everyone is so selfish as to not want to help anybody? Why do these people assume that capitalism means all individuals will let the community suffer? Let me please explain some very simple logic.
thi
Let's take a perfect communist society where no force is required for citizens to consider the needs of the community before their own - where selfish, personal needs take no precedence over the needs of others. Take these very same people and put them in a capitalist society. The economies may function differently, but every individual still has the opportunity to make the very same decisions.

Let's take a capitalist society where the individualism has been taken to an extreme and selfishness reigns supreme. The general feeling is that those who suffer from poverty do so because they deserve it, and so they receive no assistance from those who can help. Put these same people into a communist society and force will be required for cooperation.

Capitalism is not the antithesis of cooperation between individuals - it is the epitome of it.

[Joben]

copacetic, I'd hazard a guess that you're a reader of Ayn Rand. Am I correct?

[Melodramatic]

Can someone please tell me why people assume a perfect capitalist society means everyone is so selfish as to not want to help anybody?

Not really an answer to your question, but people mean different things by capitalism. You refer to the free market (which I deem incorrect terminology), I refer to state capitalism (active state intervention to create a hierarchical "free" market and exploit the working class) and other refer to how the means of production are owned (meaning a private worker cooperative is not part of capitalism).

The advocates of neither of the three are necessarily selfish although those who advocate the second are certainly servants of those who are, knowingly or not.

Let's take a perfect communist society where no force is required for citizens to consider the needs of the community before their own - where selfish, personal needs take no precedence over the needs of others. Take these very same people and put them in a capitalist society. The economies may function differently, but every individual still has the opportunity to make the very same decisions.

Let's take a capitalist society where the individualism has been taken to an extreme and selfishness reigns supreme. The general feeling is that those who suffer from poverty do so because they deserve it, and so they receive no assistance from those who can help. Put these same people into a communist society and force will be required for cooperation.

This is correct, in general.

copacetic, I'd hazard a guess that you're a reader of Ayn Rand. Am I correct?

I hope not...

[lucky]

There are a couple ways of handling defense. One would be through the hiring of a mercenary force paid for by those who desire to contribute.

What do you see as the difference between a tax-paid army and a privately paid or privately formed army?

The problem with this individual voluntary defense spending plan is that a defensive army has an enormous positive externality and thus the army funding would be a lot smaller than optimal.

[copaceticmind]

I have never read Ayn Rand, but I would like to. I have a long list of books I want to read, and unfortunately, Ayn Rand is not a high priority.

Positive externality just sounds like an excuse, albeit a legitimate one, "smart" people come up with in order to force others to "contribute to society." It's the same old ends justifies the means. There are ways to provide incentives for people to contribute to the common good without threats.

Employees are not necessarily the servants of corporations. I would only consider it to be so if the employee has a servants attitude. It's completely possible for a "servant" who is bitter about his job and his luck in life to be working right next to someone doing the very same job who is fully liberated and working only because he realizes the mutual benefits of his employment.

Melo, you and I have very similar opinions (almost exact). We use different words, but I'm starting to get the hang of it. I happen to think an an-cap society is very conducive to the type of unstate you are looking for. I'll try to provide some details as far as execution goes as our forum participation continues.

[lucky]

an excuse, albeit a legitimate one

Isn't that an oxymoron?

"smart" people come up with

Are the quotes an insult?

There are ways to provide incentives for people to contribute to the common good without threats.

Perhaps there are. I was commenting purely on what you had described as a "way of handling defense" and that one lacked such a mechanism.

[copaceticmind]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

I define "excuse" as a general reason, sometimes legitimate, sometimes not, typically used to color over ulterior motives. Regardless of how you define the word, inefficiency is not, in my book, a good enough reason to substitute individual liberty with coercion through legislation.

Are the quotes an insult?

I added the quotes to show my opinion that the elitists that come up with these rationales typically think of themselves as smarter than the average citizen who is generally too stupid to think of this sort of thing himself.

I was commenting purely on what you had described as a "way of handling defense" and that one lacked such a mechanism.

No one really asked. Consider a parallel situation: someone asks, "How will food be provided." I answer with, "Someone will grow it." Would you seriously argue that this system lacks a mechanism to control food-borne illnesses?

If there is the demand for it, it will be provided. This is the basis of the free market. If there is a demand for defense, defense will be provided no matter the system of government and no matter the means of funding. If there is a demand to live in a community devoid of freeloaders who benefit from the defense without contributing to it, it will be provided.

[pugsville]

How can anyone be that naive to believe in "the Free Market". I guess it's undying and widely accepted but really it's a quick test about who's paying attention about the world works. Capitalism abhors risk and competition. Throughout history any group the reaches a position of privileged position will very quickly get used to the state of affairs, produce all sorts of justifications why this is just, natural and proper and then use whatever means necessary to maintain that state of affairs. Capitalism is run by Capitalists people by definition who have a lot to lose. In a Free Market they will be subject to risk and loss, it is inherently to their advantage to seek ways of manufacturing a situation where the dice are loaded. And generally having large amounts of Capital will give you a wide range of ways of influencing and controlling Market in a Capitalist society. Markets are always lumpy, some more than others, but all things are not equal. There are Market entry and setup costs etc. In Capitalism, money = power. In competition between the rich and poor, the poor lose, badly. Large companies crush small ones in all sorts of ways.

Go read up of the early history of the Oil Industry for example.

[Melodramatic]

Positive externality just sounds like an excuse, albeit a legitimate one, "smart" people come up with in order to force others to "contribute to society." It's the same old ends justifies the means. There are ways to provide incentives for people to contribute to the common good without threats.

He is correct that without incentive to make people to contribute to the collective, the individual will more likely contribute to himself, even if helping the collective will be more effective. Leeching is just too good an option, unless his goal is to help to collective, something one cannot rely on.

the solution is to create an incentive, you can use state violence (similarity to what the socialists do in other cases, naturally I don't advocate it) or you can excommunicate people who do not pay. The latter is just as effective in many cases and makes sense, If you don't help society, society won't help you. and god knows people need society...

Employees are not necessarily the servants of corporations.

No, but I would doubt they aren't. The hierarchy of capitalism is unnecessary, ineffective and helps only the top. Without a state to enforce such a hierarchy it will fall.

Melo, you and I have very similar opinions (almost exact). We use different words, but I'm starting to get the hang of it.

I agree, which is why your self labeling might be incorrect lets put it to the test.

I happen to think an an-cap society is very conducive to the type of unstate you are looking for.

It does not, for a simple reason. When faced with the question of property a-caps fail repetitively to give a logical explanation (and no alchemical soul binding is not logical), and try to preserve status quo instead. this distortions the entire market, forcefully preserving the ineffective capitalist mode of production to an extent, and preventing abolition of the state.

How can anyone be that naive to believe in "the Free Market".

Capitalism != Free market. Only corporatist statists and ignorant liberals preserve bullshit such as state capitalism.

[copaceticmind]

I'm too tired and in too much of a hurry to put my thought into a single cohesive post with flowing transitions full of quotes to reference the posts I am responding to. All who have been following should be able to figure it out.

When I speak of capitalism I speak nothing of capitalist association with the state. Yes, it is absolute that companies with huge amounts of capital have a high potential of abusing their power. This usually happens by getting into bed with whatever government they happen to be under the jurisdiction of. This is not a case against capitalism. It is a case against governments.

I can't think of any practical way of implementing anarchy without taking the status quo into consideration. The only thing I can come up with is to forcefully strip all citizens of all possessions and say, "Have at it." Add "If you can use it then it's yours," if you are trying to establish mutualism.

I am a wage laborer. I am not a slave. I work for my employer because they needed an employee, and I wanted a job. I asked if they would hire me, and they did so. It is my option to show up at work every day. It is their option to ask me to return the next day. This is all more of a reality to me because I work construction. Each and every day I work as hard as I can to work myself out of my own job.

It is quite unfortunate that many I work with are what you would call "wage slaves." They hate their job. They come to work each and every day only because they feel there is no other choice. They speak of their employer with resentment in their voice. It is even more unfortunate that they will more than likely never ever come the realization of their full potential. That's what it means to be a wage slave. It is only perspective that will set you free. It is only the realization that when someone hires you it is because you have value.

It is true that I feel more valuable than my pay, but the reason I don't see all this is because my unrealized value is in my unrealized potential. I have abilities that I don't use or need at work. The market price for what I am paid to do has been set, and if I disagreed with it I would quit my job and look for the person who agreed with me on the worth of my labor. If nobody agrees with me then I'm probably wrong about the worth of my labor. (Would you ever buy gas at the single station amidst dozens within a square mile which was charging 10 cents more because "this is what it's really worth.")

Perhaps I'll start a thread on economics and the free market.

[Joben]

Copacetic, you wrote my ideals so beautifully. I truly cannot believe that you have yet to read Rand. If/when you do, start with The Fountainhead. I guarantee you will love it.

[ingliz]

It is a case against governments

Is it?

Identical economic conditions produce identical social relationships.

Property rights and obligations in an anarcho-capitalist society, a capitalist bundle of rights and obligations, would necessarily produce an authoritarian institutional framework to enforce them similar to that of the state you wish to dismantle.

[pugsville]

Large corporations do manipulate Governments, but there are and have been all sorts of ways of "abusing" the power without getting into bed with governments. Because some corporate "abuses" use government does not make ALL corporate abuse a product of government. Common tactics or buying out competition to create a monopoly or a large business running at a loss till smaller competitors fold , this enabling monopoly pricing do not require government assistance.

[copaceticmind]

Identical economic conditions produce identical social relationships.

You'll have to support this for me to believe it, but even if it were absolutely true it is absolutely irrelevant to me. To use this statement in any sort of logic in an attempt to justify or invalidate a particular economic system is to say that the ultimate means of an economy is to provide the greatest possible benefit to social relationships.

This is like saying that the primary purpose of vehicles is to keep everyone on the road as safe as possible. If fact, the primary purpose of any vehicle is to transport people and goods from one point to another. Safety is a natural consequence of efficiently accomplishing this purpose.

Property rights and obligations in an anarcho-capitalist society

I'm interested on how you define this. Here's my personal take:

Property rights: The right to use legitimately owned property according to the will of the owner. This is not prohibitive and, therefore, needs no enforcement.

Obligations: The only obligations in an an-cap society are the obligations individuals assign themselves in the contracts they sign. Enforcement is necessary in cases of noncompliance, but it's not hard to see that without a state, this enforcement would come about by a third-party mentioned in the contract. Any who refuse to comply not only to the obligations they set forth for themselves in a contract but also evades the consequences he agreed to, will find it difficult to get a contract with favorable terms in the future.

[ingliz]

legitimately

"Being in compliance with the law"

If you believe in the rule of law (That individuals shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action), you need a legislature to make the law, a judiciary to interpret the law, and an executive to administer it. You need the 'third-party mentioned in the contract' to have a monopoly on legitimate violence within a given territory.

You need the State!

[Melodramatic]

When I speak of capitalism I speak nothing of capitalist association with the state. Yes, it is absolute that companies with huge amounts of capital have a high potential of abusing their power. This usually happens by getting into bed with whatever government they happen to be under the jurisdiction of. This is not a case against capitalism. It is a case against governments.

This confuses me. If capitalism can create big corporations, and big corporations can hurt liberty, can't capitalism hurt liberty? it is a case against capitalism...

I can't think of any practical way of implementing anarchy without taking the status quo into consideration

I have. in status quo the workers are being exploited by the state using false land titles... what is my motive in wanting this to continue?

The only thing I can come up with is to forcefully strip all citizens of all possessions and say, "Have at it."

Why should I do that? any existing title could simply be deemed invalid by proof of non usage, of illegitimate possession. Just like possession of a stolen item makes a title invalid, today...

"If you can use it then it's yours,

That is not my definition. my definition is if you are using it, or have intention of using it, it is yours...

I am a wage laborer. I am not a slave.

Such possible without a state (and therefore no invented land titles, which require a state to be maintained). it is natural, however, that most workers will find no sense in becoming such...

I work for my employer because they needed an employee, and I wanted a job.

You could have gotten a better one, working for yourself, without a state.

It is quite unfortunate that many I work with are what you would call "wage slaves." They hate their job. They come to work each and every day only because they feel there is no other choice. They speak of their employer with resentment in their voice. It is even more unfortunate that they will more than likely never ever come the realization of their full potential. That's what it means to be a wage slave. It is only perspective that will set you free. It is only the realization that when someone hires you it is because you have value.

They are slaves. Slaves to the state, who sold them to the capitalists. the state has created a long series of rules and monopolies who prevent the worker form getting the value of his labor, instead he gets a sum decided upon by his master. you call this choice, but when the other choices are made irreverent by the state such a word looses its meaning...

It is true that I feel more valuable than my pay, but the reason I don't see all this is because my unrealized value is in my unrealized potential. I have abilities that I don't use or need at work. The market price for what I am paid to do has been set, and if I disagreed with it I would quit my job and look for the person who agreed with me on the worth of my labor. If nobody agrees with me then I'm probably wrong about the worth of my labor. (Would you ever buy gas at the single station amidst dozens within a square mile which was charging 10 cents more because "this is what it's really worth.")

What a distorted view...

Your value is the value of any laborer, whether CEO or window scrubber. its simple economics really...

Copacetic, you wrote my ideals so beautifully. I truly cannot believe that you have yet to read Rand. If/when you do, start with The Fountainhead. I guarantee you will love it.

Property rights and obligations in an anarcho-capitalist society, a capitalist bundle of rights and obligations, would necessarily produce an authoritarian institutional framework to enforce them similar to that of the state you wish to dismantle.

I agree on the property rights, while probably not on yout alternative, but I wonder what is the case against obligations...

The right to use legitimately owned property according to the will of the owner. This is not prohibitive and, therefore, needs no enforcement.

But what defines ownership? I own your car. would you agree to that? I own the that mountain over there. how about that? define what makes ownership valid.

[ingliz]

what is the case against obligations...

Social actors undertake reciprocal obligations and create social relations in ways that are socially recognised.

The only obligations in an an-cap society are the obligations individuals assign themselves in the contracts they sign.

A system of social relations presupposing the autonomy of individuals in reality presupposes the existence of a state, i.e. a legal-political entity which is capable of producing laws and enacting them and which is external to and autonomous from civil society.*


* Ernesto Screpanti, The Fundamental Institutions of Capitalism

[copaceticmind]

If capitalism can create big corporations, and big corporations can hurt liberty, can't capitalism hurt liberty?

This logical statement is true but inconsequential and indeterminate in whether or not corporations should be allowed to exist. I'll demonstrate by using a parallel line of logic.

If procreation creates individuals, and individuals can hurt liberty, can't procreation hurt liberty?

This statement is just as true as the one you presented, but I doubt any (except for eugenicists) would support this as an argument against procreation.

any existing title could simply be deemed invalid by proof of non usage, of illegitimate possession.

Please provide an example. I'm confused as to how this works. Every person and company who owns a title to land is currently using or intends to use it. If not, it would be a waste of capital to own it. You would have to somehow define "use" in a way that excludes a title owner's definition of use. Doing so would push someone else's definition of right and wrong onto another (which is a primary argument against a state). Then you would have to confiscate that land from the current "illegitimate" owner, requiring the initiation of the use of force (another primary argument against the existence of a state).

[ingliz]

the ultimate means of an economy is to provide the greatest possible benefit to social relationships.

Gobbledygook!

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.