[Eran]

I like to approach this from the perspective of practical thought experiments.

I would question how practical your thought experiment is. There are good reasons to expect a much smaller maximal firm size in a truly free market relative to today's hybrid system. Dis-economies of scale associated with calculation problem inherent to large firms wouldn't be offset by the political advantages very large firms enjoy today.

Moreover, no system can be guaranteed to be stable. Just imagine how easy it is to draw a thought experiment that starts with a social democracy and ends in an oppressive totalitarian regime, or a military coup.

Therefore, I simply believe that we should begin trending towards a more decentralized society.

Agreed. The differences between various shades of libertarianism typically belong in the distant speculative future. We can easily agree on the first few steps in the right direction.

to trust companies to go against their self-interest and self regulate (even if we want to say that companies will have an incentive to self-regulate, because they may be punished by consumers for failing to do so, what if they pollute secretly, who will investigate, who will prosecute, how will consumers even know who the offender is)?

The whole point of privatising the environment and allowing free competition is that we no longer expect any institution within society to go against its self-interest (a naive expectation in any case). The libertarian solution makes secret pollution much less likely than it is today, as the "policing" is done by disparate property owners, rather than a monolithic and bureaucratic federal agency.

People always look after their own property better than they look after other people's property. When a property owner realises his property is being polluted, they would have both the incentive and the legal empowerment to go after polluters. A comprehensive insurance scheme would provide economies of scale required to provide such prosecution with the necessary resources. Thus while each land-owner may only suffer minimally from air pollution, a libertarian legal regime would allow them to sell on their tort-rights to an aggregator who, owning claims from millions of separate land-owners, would have both the motivation (having already spent the funds to acquire the claims) and the means to go after polluters.

[Rich]

When a property owner realises his property is being polluted, they would have both the incentive and the legal empowerment to go after polluters. A comprehensive insurance scheme would provide economies of scale required to provide such prosecution with the necessary resources. Thus while each land-owner may only suffer minimally from air pollution, a libertarian legal regime would allow them to sell on their tort-rights to an aggregator who, owning claims from millions of separate land-owners, would have both the motivation (having already spent the funds to acquire the claims) and the means to go after polluters.

So I live in Australia and I want to sue the world's consumers / producers of CFCs for the Ozone hole. How is that gonna work? This is all just fantasy.

We can't see an an example of pure Libertarianism any more than we can see "real Communism" because such systems are utterly impossible. However we can see a good example of moving to smaller government entities with the formation of the United States. Deprived of the protection of that great liberator of Humanity the British Navy (which was later to bring an end to the Atlantic slave trade) in its early years the American government spent 20% of its revenue on paying off the Barbary pirates. That didn't work so America had to go to the even greater expense of duplicating Britain's security services and went to war against the Barbary pirates twice. We currently have a problem with the Somali pirates. This would get massively massively worse if Western States disbanded themselves. All sorts of criminal states /mafia entities would run large in the world. Be under no illusion if the West went Libertarian pirates, slavers and Islamic fanatics would run amok.

[Eran]

So I live in Australia and I want to sue the world's consumers / producers of CFCs for the Ozone hole. How is that gonna work? This is all just fantasy.

As we have seen recently, cross-border pollution control is difficult even with national governments. Or are you advocating a World Government?

We can't see an an example of pure Libertarianism any more than we can see "real Communism" because such systems are utterly impossible.

What makes you think pure libertarianism is "utterly impossible"?

We currently have a problem with the Somali pirates. This would get massively massively worse if Western States disbanded themselves.

I doubt it. Nobody is proposing that the useful services provided by Western states would cease to be provided - merely that they would be provided competitively. Protection of commercial marine transport is relatively easy to privatise. Protection of private yachts might be slightly more difficult, but not difficult to envision.

In any event, disbanding national navies would be one of the very last steps on the way towards complete market anarchy. It isn't difficult to see why you would find it hard to imagine. People in the world today have had centuries to condition themselves to looking for their national governments for protection from external attacks. There is nothing special about such protection that makes it better provided by a territorial monopoly - just force of habit.

[truth_seeker]

I would question how practical your thought experiment is. There are good reasons to expect a much smaller maximal firm size in a truly free market relative to today's hybrid system. Dis-economies of scale associated with calculation problem inherent to large firms wouldn't be offset by the political advantages very large firms enjoy today.

Moreover, no system can be guaranteed to be stable. Just imagine how easy it is to draw a thought experiment that starts with a social democracy and ends in an oppressive totalitarian regime, or a military coup.

This is true, however, laissez faire economics isn't exactly a new idea, nor is it by any means unprecedented.

Agreed. The differences between various shades of libertarianism typically belong in the distant speculative future. We can easily agree on the first few steps in the right direction.

The whole point of privatising the environment and allowing free competition is that we no longer expect any institution within society to go against its self-interest (a naive expectation in any case). The libertarian solution makes secret pollution much less likely than it is today, as the "policing" is done by disparate property owners, rather than a monolithic and bureaucratic federal agency.

People always look after their own property better than they look after other people's property. When a property owner realises his property is being polluted, they would have both the incentive and the legal empowerment to go after polluters. A comprehensive insurance scheme would provide economies of scale required to provide such prosecution with the necessary resources. Thus while each land-owner may only suffer minimally from air pollution, a libertarian legal regime would allow them to sell on their tort-rights to an aggregator who, owning claims from millions of separate land-owners, would have both the motivation (having already spent the funds to acquire the claims) and the means to go after polluters.

First, I agree, we may find (in the distant future) that something closer to a stateless society is both feasible and more desirable (none of us have a crystal ball, so of course we can't predict the distant future with any semblance of accuracy, particularly in this context).

Nevertheless, environmental harm is often not directly related to a tangible piece of property. For example, 30,000 Americans die each year from preventable respiratory illness, caused by pollution (e.g. coal fired electrical power plants emitting particulate matter). Normally, this would be a matter for common law suits under tort theory, but our regulatory regime (in many cases) acts to prohibit state court legal action against these polluters.

Furthermore, if someone is dumping or polluting on someone else's property, then it isn't exactly "secret" (secret pollution would more likely take the form of dumping toxins or garbage in oceans, air pollution, etc.).

Nevertheless, I think pitting the choice as between individual property owners protecting their interests and giant centralized bureaucracies -- is a false dichotomy. I believe the tort law should be viewed as the primary mode of regulating our environment, states and localities should play a much more profound role, and while we may need a small federal regulatory agency for coordination and research, this function should be (for the most part) decentralized.

Again, laissez faire economics is not unprecedented. When the state regulatory role was much smaller, monopolies were much more common and more likely to emerge, suggesting that monopolies, oligarchies, cartels, etc., is the natural trajectory of unregulated capitalism (it could suggest many other things, so I'm not saying my hypothetical conclusion is the only possible conclusion, however, it does logically follow).

In my view "people" have been largely removed from the equation of governance. With the dissolution of unions, exceedingly lower levels of civic participation, concentration of power in large corporations (at the expense of small companies), suburbanization (and the increasing isolation of people, which has driven us towards a sedentary and indoor lifestyle, and away from community participation), etc., the concentration and centralization of power has been much easier.

Moreover, as our world becomes more complex, regulation becomes more complex, the need for a high degree of specialization increases, etc. This makes centralization even more toxic for our society. Understanding how our society is managed becomes exceedingly impossible, so we're sort of forced to trust experts. Not in itself a big deal, except that in our current society these experts are becoming increasingly inaccessible to the average person.

For these reasons (and many others) I believe participatory democracy is what we should strive for. Keep in mind, participatory democracy is sort of a middle ground between direct & representative democracy (it borrows from the best aspects of both). It also doesn't require a "stateless" society (it could be done consistent with our Constitutional framework), and it can freely borrow from aspects of modern libertarian thought, and even other forms of anarchic thinking, without the trappings of some of the more speculative, problematic, and even (in some cases) dogmatic aspects of these philosophical systems.

[Eran]

This is true, however, laissez faire economics isn't exactly a new idea, nor is it by any means unprecedented.

And to the extent it was implemented, it resulted in rapid economic growth and prosperity.

For example, 30,000 Americans die each year from preventable respiratory illness, caused by pollution (e.g. coal fired electrical power plants emitting particulate matter). Normally, this would be a matter for common law suits under tort theory, but our regulatory regime (in many cases) acts to prohibit state court legal action against these polluters.

Then let's change are regulatory regime so as to allow court action against these polluters!

Furthermore, if someone is dumping or polluting on someone else's property, then it isn't exactly "secret" (secret pollution would more likely take the form of dumping toxins or garbage in oceans, air pollution, etc.).

The air I breath in my land is my property, and polluting it is an aggression I should be able to sue over. Similarly, as somebody who uses the ocean (for fishing, transport or recreation), I can again sue, either as a violation of my easement (use-rights) or, potentially, as property owner (I imagine ocean-based fish-farms, for example, giving people actual property rights in an ocean area).

I believe the tort law should be viewed as the primary mode of regulating our environment, states and localities should play a much more profound role, and while we may need a small federal regulatory agency for coordination and research, this function should be (for the most part) decentralized.

We both agree on the general direction. I don't see a need for a federal regulatory agency for coordination and research - a non-profit organisation would be more appropriate.

When the state regulatory role was much smaller, monopolies were much more common and more likely to emerge

That depends on how one defines monopoly. A monopoly today is typically defined as a single company (or a cartel of closely-coordinated companies) with a large fraction of market share. The identification of monopolies depends sensitively on what one views as a "market". Should we look at music players? mp3 players? iPods? Should we look at soft drinks? carbonated soft drinks? Cola carbonated soft drinks? Should we look at movie theatres around the country? In a given state? In a given city? In a given neighbourhood?

But setting aside definitional issues, why are we worried about monopolies? Who cares if a single company has a large market share? The answer is that mainstream economies predicts that a monopoly would be able to abuse their position by setting prices at a level higher than they would take in a competitive market. This raises another problem with the mainstream treatment of monopolies: how can one determine what prices would be set in a competitive market? One thing is clear, though. Mainstream theory would predict that as the number of market participants is reduced, and a single participant has a very large market share, prices will start going up.

There is NO historic evidence that that ever happened

Even in the height of the era of robber barons, with the likes of Standard Oil occupying a large market share, consumer prices continued to drop. There is absolutely no evidence of a free-market monopoly resulting in increasing prices.

For these reasons (and many others) I believe participatory democracy is what we should strive for.

The question of which type of democracy, or even which type of government is, in my mind, secondary.

Most of what you said suggests that the focus of change should be away from a central government (regardless of how constituted), with progressive empowerment of individual property owners to both determine how to use their property, and use an effective court system to defend it.

[truth_seeker]

And to the extent it was implemented, it resulted in rapid economic growth and prosperity.

Our post-war economic "golden era" saw more growth, and especially, more economic stability, compared to earlier periods; so I have to disagree here.

The air I breath in my land is my property, and polluting it is an aggression I should be able to sue over. Similarly, as somebody who uses the ocean (for fishing, transport or recreation), I can again sue, either as a violation of my easement (use-rights) or, potentially, as property owner (I imagine ocean-based fish-farms, for example, giving people actual property rights in an ocean area).

We agree on this.

We both agree on the general direction. I don't see a need for a federal regulatory agency for coordination and research - a non-profit organisation would be more appropriate.

In principle, yes, a non-profit would be more desirable. I would simply view this as longer range thinking.

As long as we have a state that is allowed to consider itself a "sovereign" (in my view, only the individual is sovereign) ... the state will likely *always* preserve a coordination role for itself.

That depends on how one defines monopoly. A monopoly today is typically defined as a single company (or a cartel of closely-coordinated companies) with a large fraction of market share. The identification of monopolies depends sensitively on what one views as a "market". Should we look at music players? mp3 players? iPods? Should we look at soft drinks? carbonated soft drinks? Cola carbonated soft drinks? Should we look at movie theatres around the country? In a given state? In a given city? In a given neighbourhood?

But setting aside definitional issues, why are we worried about monopolies? Who cares if a single company has a large market share? The answer is that mainstream economies predicts that a monopoly would be able to abuse their position by setting prices at a level higher than they would take in a competitive market. This raises another problem with the mainstream treatment of monopolies: how can one determine what prices would be set in a competitive market? One thing is clear, though. Mainstream theory would predict that as the number of market participants is reduced, and a single participant has a very large market share, prices will start going up.

There is NO historic evidence that that ever happened

Even in the height of the era of robber barons, with the likes of Standard Oil occupying a large market share, consumer prices continued to drop. There is absolutely no evidence of a free-market monopoly resulting in increasing prices.

There's plenty of economic research showing how monopolies distort price, and how efficiency is reduced by monopolies. Moreover, anarchism has traditionally (throughout the vast majority of its history) argued against centralization -- in virtually all forms (which in my view, is one of anarchism's greatest features).

Corporations do not get a special pleading in anarchism. The core premise of anarchism, is the undesirability of power relationships.

Even Hayek argues against centralization, but not based on a theory involving coercion (which would preclude all but the state), rather, based on an "information problem" theory. Using Hayek's economic calculation argument, it's hard to see how corporations can qualify for a special pleading? There are exceptions to this rule, but those exceptions can apply to a state agency just as they can apply to a company.

The logical basis for my belief that only the individual can be considered "sovereign" ... is my objection to power relationships (unless they can meet a high bar of justification). I extend this to virtually all power relationships (boss/subordinate, personal relationships to the extent feasible, social relationships, etc.).

The question of which type of democracy, or even which type of government is, in my mind, secondary.

When I say "participatory democracy" ... I don't assume a conventional state apparatus upholding it, but in my view, the people controlling their own society is of paramount importance (although I extend this into the economic sphere as well as the political ----> in other words, we would strive to minimize power relationships as much as humanly possible, in all contexts). The classic anarchist idea ... "no masters"!

I acknowledge, this is a philosophical preference, only partly concerned with economics (for me, economics does not guide my thinking, it is one of many factors that go into the calculus .... but I believe thinking should be guided by values). Behind virtually all the values I identify with, is the idea that power relationships are undesirable. On a side note, I don't believe breaking down power relationships needs to come at the expense of economic abundance.

Most of what you said suggests that the focus of change should be away from a central government (regardless of how constituted), with progressive empowerment of individual property owners to both determine how to use their property, and use an effective court system to defend it.

I take a somewhat different view of property. For instance, I would say most banks should be socialized (when I say socialized, I mean that in a libertarian context), and other similar deviations from the conventional view of property (consistent with my general distaste for centralization, affinity for participatory democracy, etc.).

[Eran]

There's plenty of economic research showing how monopolies distort price, and how efficiency is reduced by monopolies.

There is theoretical research. As far as I know, there isn't a single historic case in which a monopoly has resulted in higher prices to consumers.

Moreover, anarchism has traditionally (throughout the vast majority of its history) argued against centralization -- in virtually all forms (which in my view, is one of anarchism's greatest features).

Anarchism opposes coerced centralisation. In a free market, if a single company does such a great job satisfying consumer preferences that no other competitors manage to acquire significant market share, what of it? The critical point is that entry into the market is free (from artificial barriers). Thus if, at any point, the "monopoly" ceases to do a great job satisfying consumer preferences, competitors will be able to step in.

The core premise of anarchism, is the undesirability of power relationships.

Not of market anarchism. "Power relations", broadly defined, will always exist. What market anarchists (or voluntaryists) reject is the use of force to acquire or violate property rights. We reject the use of physical force or invasion (or threat thereof) as a legitimate component in human relations.

The "power" of the market is the power of persuasion and temptation. Bill Gates has much power because he has the resources with which to tempt people to do as he wishes. He doesn't have the authority (nor would he under market anarchism) to force others to do his will.

The same holds for a free market monopoly. It might be very well positioned to offer its products to consumers, but, at any points, consumers may choose to stop doing business with it. This is a legitimate form of power.

Even Hayek argues against centralization, but not based on a theory involving coercion (which would preclude all but the state), rather, based on an "information problem" theory. Using Hayek's economic calculation argument, it's hard to see how corporations can qualify for a special pleading?

Hayek's information problem (and Mises's related but distinct calculation problem) are positive, not normative statements. What both say is that a large organisation will tend to do a poor job of economic planning due to either absence of access to local information (Hayek) or price signals (Mises).

These problems will tend to create dis-economies of scale, whereby large corporations (not to mention governments) are automatically "penalised". That is why small, local, nimble, adaptable, non-vertically-integrated competitors are likely to have an edge over a large, global, vertically-integrated corporation.

There is no need for government intervention - the market will automatically penalise such corporations.

The balance between economies of scale and dis-economies of scale will vary by industry, technology and forms of internal organisation. If a large corporation is able to out-compete smaller competitors in the free market, it will have proven that economies of scale, in its particular case, outweigh dis-economies of scale. Forcing it to break down will harm, not help consumers.

The logical basis for my belief that only the individual can be considered "sovereign" ... is my objection to power relationships (unless they can meet a high bar of justification). I extend this to virtually all power relationships (boss/subordinate, personal relationships to the extent feasible, social relationships, etc.).

There is no contradiction between individual sovereignty and the existence of power relationships. I have freely chosen, as a sovereign individual, to subject myself to the commands of my boss. Who are you (or the government) to tell me not to?

Similarly, I may have decided, as a sovereign consumer, to form trading relations with a large free-market "monopoly". Who is the government to interfere with this freely-chosen relationship?

For instance, I would say most banks should be socialized (when I say socialized, I mean that in a libertarian context)

I don't understand what that means.

Clearly, today's banks rely on the protection of a central government in any number of ways (regulations blocking competition, implicit or explicit deposit insurance, handouts associated with central banking operations and outright bailouts). Absent such protection, the banking industry will look quite different.

But if, in a free banking environment, privately-owned banks emerge and survive, that is due to the fact that their customers, of their free choice, and exercising their individual sovereignty, have chosen to give their money to the banks (in exchange for valuable services). What is wrong with that?



More generally, how are your philosophical sentiments (in particular with respect to "power relations") translate to the question of property?

[truth_seeker]

.....

[truth_seeker]

There is theoretical research. As far as I know, there isn't a single historic case in which a monopoly has resulted in higher prices to consumers.

Here's a study on monopoly quality degradation in the cable television market (following "so called" deregulation).

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mshum/papers/chat.pdf

As I'm sure you're aware .... real life rarely corresponds to rigid, bright line rules. In most cases, it's a matter of degree, there's almost always exceptions to the general rule, etc. The case of monopolies is no different.

Natural monopolies can occur, in some cases it can be more efficient (for instance, where the monopoly concerns a very narrow/highly specialized product, like a computer operating system, or a social healthcare program only covering a narrow segment of the population who tends to have very similar needs e.g. Medicare, etc.).

So I neither agree or disagree with you, I view this on a case by case basis. My preference for participatory economic structures has more to do with my philosophical interpretation of liberty than it does mathematical economic theory, but there's no reason why a cooperative company couldn't gain a monopoly position in its market (so I view participatory economics & questions concerning monopolies, as two independent issues). However, I also acknowledge, as a general rule, centralization is undesirable (from both the perspective of human liberty & economic efficiency). Again, there's exceptions to the general rule.

Anarchism opposes coerced centralisation. In a free market, if a single company does such a great job satisfying consumer preferences that no other competitors manage to acquire significant market share, what of it? The critical point is that entry into the market is free (from artificial barriers). Thus if, at any point, the "monopoly" ceases to do a great job satisfying consumer preferences, competitors will be able to step in.

Not of market anarchism. "Power relations", broadly defined, will always exist. What market anarchists (or voluntaryists) reject is the use of force to acquire or violate property rights. We reject the use of physical force or invasion (or threat thereof) as a legitimate component in human relations.

You're describing a more recent variation on the anarchist theme.

A boss/worker relationship IS a "power" relationship, thus, some degree of coercion will always exist in these relationships. To say that a state is necessary for coercion to exist, is (quite frankly) absurd, and here's where (in my view) anarcho-capitalism runs into its biggest problem, the very narrow way it defines coercion. It ignores the fact that where power relationships exist, people typically feel coerced.

Moreover, I do not accept the premise that power relationships (as they exist today) will always, or for some reason, must always, exist.

Here's a study on the comparative performance of employee owned companies:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/ ... 070167.pdf

There's a number of good studies on this question & they show that where there's substantial employee ownership & where management is participatory, on average, the employee owned firm will outperform their conventional counterpart. Worker cooperatives operate in much the same way (compared to ESOP's). This would suggest that diminishing power relationships could be beneficial from an economic perspective (which I find consistent with the trajectory of human history).

The "power" of the market is the power of persuasion and temptation. Bill Gates has much power because he has the resources with which to tempt people to do as he wishes. He doesn't have the authority (nor would he under market anarchism) to force others to do his will.

Overall, I disagree with this statement, but I also acknowledge that we define power & coercion differently. I would define any top down/hierarchical system, as coercive.

The same holds for a free market monopoly. It might be very well positioned to offer its products to consumers, but, at any points, consumers may choose to stop doing business with it. This is a legitimate form of power.

Again, we disagree on the definition of coercion, and in my view, power is almost "always" undesirable (I must admit a certain distaste for arguments based on claims of legitimacy or illegitimacy). Rare exceptions include things like a parent restraining their toddler, so the child doesn't run out in the middle of oncoming traffic, people who are uncontrollably violent and dangerous, people with serious infirmities, etc. Otherwise, it's just a watered down version of the master/slave relationship. The trajectory of human liberty has been master/slave, feudal lord/serf, boss/subordinate .... in other words, coercion has become watered down over time. The final step for the human race in this regard, is the end of coercion.

Exceedingly less coercion has resulted in a perpetually improving quality of life, thus implying that coercion itself is the problem, and coercion very broadly defined (to include "all" power relationships).

These problems will tend to create dis-economies of scale, whereby large corporations (not to mention governments) are automatically "penalised". That is why small, local, nimble, adaptable, non-vertically-integrated competitors are likely to have an edge over a large, global, vertically-integrated corporation.

There is no need for government intervention - the market will automatically penalise such corporations.

This is a theoretical assumption without any empirical evidence (although I'm willing to concede that many of my own assumptions lack empirical evidence).

So the question for me becomes, if I'm going to support a radically new vision for human existence, which lacks evidence (because it's never been tried before, or at least never in recorded history), then what sort of vision should I opt for? Will it be one that tries to eliminate power relationships to the maximum extent possible, or one that continues the idea that power relationships are somehow self-justifying (where we can adopt statements like "power relationships will always exist" as a foregone conclusion, and use that premise to ignore the desirability of diminishing power relationships)?

I mean, I guess I would say that the burden is on the anacap to begin by justifying capitalism itself, under a moral paradigm. I would say, in some respects, there are moral arguments supporting capitalism. For example, it tends to do a good job of promoting innovation, and innovation has resulted in immense improvements in human quality of life. However, I would say this is a superficial argument, because it can only compare capitalism (in an empirical sense) against other systems that have existed throughout history. Of course when it comes to "stateless" capitalism, there's really nothing in recorded history that can provide us with a good comparative example, so then the anacap (like the conventional anarchist) is forced to argue from theory and logic.

Arguing from logic, speaking for my own view, I view the state as undesirable because it is a coercive force, implying that underlying my view is the undesirability of coercion. For me, while coercion has an objective definition, it also has a subjective component. That is ... if someone "subjectively" believes that they have no choice other than to do X, then they are coerced into doing X. This avoids axiomatic logic, where the premise of the deductive argument must assume a certain amount of universality in human perceptions, or natural law theories (that essentially do the same thing).

The balance between economies of scale and dis-economies of scale will vary by industry, technology and forms of internal organisation. If a large corporation is able to out-compete smaller competitors in the free market, it will have proven that economies of scale, in its particular case, outweigh dis-economies of scale. Forcing it to break down will harm, not help consumers.

In my view, immediate gratification of the consumer should not be our first priority. It must be one priority, but it must be subordinate to other factors. For instance, environmental sustainability (without a habitable planet, everything else is sort of worthless).

Similarly, I may have decided, as a sovereign consumer, to form trading relations with a large free-market "monopoly". Who is the government to interfere with this freely-chosen relationship?

I actually do agree, if someone freely chooses to subordinate themselves to a boss, they should be able to do so. The question is, what does "freely chooses" mean in this context? Here again, we define coercion differently. If we had a diverse economy, where ESOP's, worker cooperatives, unionized firms, etc., were the norm rather than the exception, if our democracy were participatory, then yes, conventional companies should certainly have every right to compete in this marketplace. Some people may be in a more transitory stage in life, where they're unwilling to commit to a career long term (like college students, recent graduates, etc.). In this case, they may prefer to rent themselves out to an employer (and they should have that choice). However, it must be a free choice (and in a world where your only choice under most conditions is to rent yourself out .... it is not a choice at all).

I don't understand what that means.

For example, a municipal bank (like say a bank of Syracuse), but in a Syracuse that operates under a participatory democracy framework. In other words, sure, we can delegate administrative responsibilities to people (e.g. to manage public services, like water treatment, perhaps even law enforcement and court functions, etc.), but delegates must always be subject to recall, and ultimate decision making should be done by democratically organized community groups (i.e. voluntary, non-coercive, associations and confederations).

Clearly, today's banks rely on the protection of a central government in any number of ways (regulations blocking competition, implicit or explicit deposit insurance, handouts associated with central banking operations and outright bailouts). Absent such protection, the banking industry will look quite different.

I assume we both agree on the problems inherent in something like a federal reserve system.

But if, in a free banking environment, privately-owned banks emerge and survive, that is due to the fact that their customers, of their free choice, and exercising their individual sovereignty, have chosen to give their money to the banks (in exchange for valuable services). What is wrong with that?

In the case of money creation, I believe the problem is, people have no voice in the process. If we had a municipal bank, managed by officials subject to recall, where community groups have the ability to shape bank policy, and these banks were the root of money creation, then we could reasonably define money creation as democratic.

I assume you would say that under true free market conditions, banking would also be democratic, but of course it's very attenuated and indirect. In other words, say people in a community have a preference for worker cooperatives, and they don't want retail stores that sell products produced using sweat shop labor, as their only alternative to purchase the goods they need. They could require the bank to finance cooperatives (since the bank belongs to them). On a side note -- I do not believe that sweat shops should be allowed to exist.

However, I do also see the need for private banks (again, I do not endorse confiscatory schemes, and I support diversity in our economy, in the interest of making available to everyone, a full range of choices).

More generally, how are your philosophical sentiments (in particular with respect to "power relations") translate to the question of property?

In general, I do not oppose the concept of private property. However, I do believe property rights must be subordinate to human rights. In other words, ideally, a large portion of property would be democratically owned and managed. I understand you might see some hints of coercion in this idea, but it's not (again, I could not support any sort of confiscatory scheme, where property is seized from its owner).

I view anarchism as a ground up, grassroots movement. It obviously cannot be state imposed, and indeed, it must compete against (and outperform) our conventional economic system, in order to have any hope of larger scale implementation. It may not live up to that hope ... in which case, it would not (and should not) be adopted by society. The only way we can explore the merits of anarchism, is by gradually moving in that direction. I'm very confident that we can move much further in this direction, and there is evidence suggesting we can, without sacrificing (and indeed enhancing) economic prosperity. However, I also concede there may be an upper limit, where some power relationships may meet the high bar of justification I believe is required to sustain them. Nevertheless, even where power relationships can be justified, I believe the justification can only be temporal (and a future society may be able to diminish power relationships further still), implying that anarchism is an idea that lives on ad infinitum, a perpetual state of mind. It is incumbent on the anarchist to always identify and challenge power structures. Just because a power structure can be justified today, doesn't mean it can justified infinitely into the future.

I think anarchism is on safe ground arguing from a "trajectory of history" perspective (in other words, the direction has been towards exceedingly diminished power relationships, and as power relationships are reduced, human quality of life is enhanced, thus implying that power relationships restrain quality of life). The master/slave and feudal lord/serf relationship has been reduced to a boss/worker relationship. The trajectory has been towards exceedingly more voluntarism, and less coercion. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, the boss/worker relationship would be the next target we put in our cross hairs.

Keep in mind, at every stage of enlightenment and human development, established and entrenched interests were always threatened. There was always a segment of society who could claim that more freedom for the underdog translated into less freedom for themselves (likewise, radical changes to the established order always seems like an uncomfortable idea to most people, and of course the established order has every incentive to induce fear among the general public to sustain themselves). An argument that in retrospect, is not very compelling (and indeed must be rejected in order for human liberty to progress).

[Eran]

Here's a study on monopoly quality degradation in the cable television market (following "so called" deregulation).

Cable providers require the license, permission or cooperation of local authorities. This is not a free market, but rather one of government-granted monopolies.

As for so-called "natural monopolies", those are usually cases in which companies are granted exclusive license by government under the guise of "natural monopoly". Telephone, gas and electric industry experience from the late 19th and early 20th century demonstrate dynamic competitive markets that were only shut down by government intervention.

A boss/worker relationship IS a "power" relationship, thus, some degree of coercion will always exist in these relationships. To say that a state is necessary for coercion to exist, is (quite frankly) absurd, and here's where (in my view) anarcho-capitalism runs into its biggest problem, the very narrow way it defines coercion. It ignores the fact that where power relationships exist, people typically feel coerced.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't recognise "coercion" as a morally-relevant category. The term is simply too broad and imprecise. While it "sounds" bad, it can easily encompass perfectly legitimate relations, from parent-child through teacher-student, master-apprentice, leader-follower and, yes, manager-worker (or employer-employee).

Anarcho-capitalists draw a sharp distinction between voluntary and involuntary relations. People can, and often do, knowingly, willingly and rationally enter into an unfavourable "power" relation. I do.

Here's a study on the comparative performance of employee owned companies:

Whether a company is employee-owned or not bears very little on the degree to which coercion (or power relations) exist. A company with 1000 employees must still organise itself with managers and workers. Industrial efficiency dictates as much. And the fact that I have one vote in 1000 in running the company changes very little my relation with either my manager or the collective.

However, my opinion is completely beside the point. If employee-owned companies are more efficient, they will tend to win out in a free market. Nobody will be happier than me if that happens. Give people freedom, and let the chips fall where they may.

Again, we disagree on the definition of coercion, and in my view, power is almost "always" undesirable (I must admit a certain distaste for arguments based on claims of legitimacy or illegitimacy).

How do you define "coercion"? Is coercion, by your definition, never legitimate? Or is it merely undesirable? Should coercion be prohibited or merely discouraged?

This is a theoretical assumption without any empirical evidence

Corporate history is full of examples in which a small company overtook an established giant, a giant which, a-prior, was much better situated.

Consider IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft and Google.

In each case, the former was, at an early stage in the competition, much larger, better established, possessing much more resources to dedicate to research and development. Yet the former was overtaken by a smaller, nimbler, more innovative and creative competitor.

There are many other examples from every single industry (except for those in which government intervention dominates).

I mean, I guess I would say that the burden is on the anacap to begin by justifying capitalism itself, under a moral paradigm. I would say, in some respects, there are moral arguments supporting capitalism. For example, it tends to do a good job of promoting innovation, and innovation has resulted in immense improvements in human quality of life.

I like the fact that you place much importance on moral justification. The moral justification for capitalism has nothing to do with promotion of innovation. That, in my mind, is a happy side-effect, though one that, in certain discussions, I am happy to highlight.

The societal model I will morally justify is not capitalism per-se, but rather voluntaryism - a society in which the initiation of force against others (or their ongoing projects) is not allowed. A society in which people are free to choose which relations to enter into. If you are right, people will choose to work for employee-owned companies, and that is absolutely fine. Or you might be partially wrong, and the economic efficiency of traditional corporations will tempt many to enter into a normal employer-employee relation.

Note that not everybody has to make the same choice. Some will surely go one way, others will go another way. Whatever people do which doesn't involve coercion is fine. If people want to create a gift economy - by all means. If they prefer free-market capitalism - that is also fine.

Free-market capitalism is morally justified because it is based on voluntary interaction of free individuals. Nothing less, nothing more.


You seem to advocate a subjective definition of coercion. But if all relations in society are voluntary, how can anybody credibly claim to have been coerced? People rarely face a situation in which they truly have "no choice". More often than not, "no choice" merely means that alternatives are even worse. A typical scenario is a worker who feels he has to work for a particular employer to feed his family. Consequently, the argument goes, he has "no choice".

But now consider what would happen to that worker and his family if he was fired, or if the employer went out of business. Would he and his family starve to death? Highly unlikely. There has been no poverty-based starvation anywhere in the free world for centuries. Let's say the worker, under those conditions, would painfully have to move to another town, lose his friends, and have to find employment offering lower pay and longer hours. This alternative is highly undesirable, but it is a choice.

I actually do agree, if someone freely chooses to subordinate themselves to a boss, they should be able to do so. The question is, what does "freely chooses" mean in this context? Here again, we define coercion differently. If we had a diverse economy, where ESOP's, worker cooperatives, unionized firms, etc., were the norm rather than the exception, if our democracy were participatory, then yes, conventional companies should certainly have every right to compete in this marketplace.

Excellent. I think you and I may be advocating the same basic rules for society, with perhaps a difference as to which structures we expect will "win out".

For example, a municipal bank (like say a bank of Syracuse), but in a Syracuse that operates under a participatory democracy framework. In other words, sure, we can delegate administrative responsibilities to people (e.g. to manage public services, like water treatment, perhaps even law enforcement and court functions, etc.), but delegates must always be subject to recall, and ultimate decision making should be done by democratically organized community groups (i.e. voluntary, non-coercive, associations and confederations).

Is that bank funded, supported or subsides by the municipal government (i.e. by taxes)? If so, it is fundamentally based on coercion (or, to be more precise, aggression). If not, and it is free to compete with other banks, I have no issue. As pointed out above, anything that's peaceful is OK with me.

In the case of money creation, I believe the problem is, people have no voice in the process. If we had a municipal bank, managed by officials subject to recall, where community groups have the ability to shape bank policy, and these banks were the root of money creation, then we could reasonably define money creation as democratic.

I advocate free banking. Any bank (really, any institution or even person) is free to issue money. The market (in other words, people though their voluntary interactions) will "decide" which moneys are accepted, and which aren't. Your municipal bank would be free to issue notes, as would be private competitors. Merchants will decide which notes they are willing to accept as forms of payment. In historic examples of free banking (Scotland in the 19th century is the most famous, but far from the only one), a relatively small number of banks dominate note issuance. But none is granted a monopoly.

I assume you would say that under true free market conditions, banking would also be democratic, but of course it's very attenuated and indirect. In other words, say people in a community have a preference for worker cooperatives, and they don't want retail stores that sell products produced using sweat shop labor, as their only alternative to purchase the goods they need. They could require the bank to finance cooperatives (since the bank belongs to them). On a side note -- I do not believe that sweat shops should be allowed to exist.

Democracy is only as legitimate as the organisation whose leadership is voted for. A democratic constitution for a voluntary organisation is fine. But democratic elections cannot legitimise aggression against an unwilling minority.

People are welcome to decide not to buy products manufactured in sweat shops (though they wouldn't be doing employees of those sweat shops any favours). They are welcome to only deposit their savings in banks dedicated to funding cooperatives. Again, as long as force is not used to force others to comply, as long as tax dollars are not used, I have no objections.

However, I do believe property rights must be subordinate to human rights.

Property rights ARE human rights. After all, neither animals nor inanimate objects own property - only humans do. As I see it, all rights are property rights, whether in your own body or in external objects. Where do you see a tension between the two types of rights?

[truth_seeker]

Cable providers require the license, permission or cooperation of local authorities. This is not a free market, but rather one of government-granted monopolies.

Unfortunately, there are no examples of monopolies accumulating in completely stateless societies, since we have no real examples of stateless societies in recorded history (with some minor, short lived exceptions). The best we can do is rewind to a more laissez faire era and look at the accumulation of monopolies.

Monopolies weren't terrible in every case, in some instances, they were responsible for building infrastructure (and really, creating markets that we today view as indispensable). In general, the harmful aspects of monopolies are usually realized after the monopoly has existed for a considerable period of time.

It is true that the robber barons colluded with government, but they also hired private police forces to suppress strikers (with fatal consequences in some cases). Would this have been impossible without a state actor? I see no logical reason why this would be true.

You're essentially counting on the consumer to regulate industry, but ipads are built in sweat shops, most people know it, and yet they still buy ipads. The consumer is motivated by self-interest. Most people will not make buying choices based on ecology or moral virtue, unless their self-interest is directly implicated. Therefore, the only way to foster a more egalitarian economic system, is by including more people in the decision processes at every level.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't recognise "coercion" as a morally-relevant category. The term is simply too broad and imprecise. While it "sounds" bad, it can easily encompass perfectly legitimate relations, from parent-child through teacher-student, master-apprentice, leader-follower and, yes, manager-worker (or employer-employee).

Anarcho-capitalists draw a sharp distinction between voluntary and involuntary relations. People can, and often do, knowingly, willingly and rationally enter into an unfavourable "power" relation. I do.

Parent-child would be an example of a justifiable power relationship, because parental protection is an absolute necessity in caring for a child (and any other feasible option would always involve the same sort of coercion, an adult placing restrictions on the behavior of children).

Boss/worker is not justifiable in the same way, because there are feasible alternatives. So conventional anarchists also draw a sharp distinction, we do not define power relationships obscurely (in this context).

Whether a company is employee-owned or not bears very little on the degree to which coercion (or power relations) exist. A company with 1000 employees must still organise itself with managers and workers. Industrial efficiency dictates as much. And the fact that I have one vote in 1000 in running the company changes very little my relation with either my manager or the collective.

Not necessarily true. The alternative is consensus decision making (versus a parliamentary voting scheme).

However, my opinion is completely beside the point. If employee-owned companies are more efficient, they will tend to win out in a free market. Nobody will be happier than me if that happens. Give people freedom, and let the chips fall where they may.

Well, okay .... but if the state were to vanish over night, it would be highly unlikely that cooperatives or ESOP's would stand a chance (because private firms would likely realize the necessity of collusion to maintain their status). We don't need to wonder whether voluntary cartels can exist and sustain themselves (with a sufficient level of compliance by its members), since they exist today, and most of their members adhere to their rules.

How do you define "coercion"? Is coercion, by your definition, never legitimate? Or is it merely undesirable? Should coercion be prohibited or merely discouraged?

I support voluntary association and non-coercion across the board, with rare exceptions, like the parent-child relationship (although it should serve as a last resort in most, if not all cases). In other words, it should be discouraged, alternative economic structures should be built and experimented with, this could happen with or without state assistance (in the context of a government program to help cooperatives, although it could be viewed as coercive by caveat of the fact that it will be funded through taxation, this may be necessary to remedy all the past government assistance given to conventional companies in our crony version of state capitalism).

In other words, if the state were to vanish tomorrow, conventional companies (particularly large companies) would have an overwhelming (perhaps insurmountable) advantage, due to all the state assistance they've received during the past several decades. This is another reason why I endorse gradualism.

If over the course of the next several years (or perhaps several decades), cooperatives became popular, and their numbers abundant (even if through some government assistance), if unions gained a stronger foothold, if these alternative firms became collectively strong enough to withstand an attack by private companies, if participatory democracy slowly gained a foothold at the local level (throughout the country), then the state could disappear virtually unnoticed. However, without this sort of robust alternative structure to pick up the pieces, vanquishing the state would likely be disastrous.

Corporate history is full of examples in which a small company overtook an established giant, a giant which, a-prior, was much better situated.

Consider IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft and Google.

In each case, the former was, at an early stage in the competition, much larger, better established, possessing much more resources to dedicate to research and development. Yet the former was overtaken by a smaller, nimbler, more innovative and creative competitor.

There are many other examples from every single industry (except for those in which government intervention dominates).

Those firms essentially created an industry where none previously existed. In the beginning, I'm sure very few envisioned youtube and all the other byproducts of increasing bandwidth. If the traditional media understood the nature of this technology, they probably would have tried to suppress it.

The thing is this, violent force is not always necessary to suppress innovation. If a monopoly or oligarchy has a commanding position over a market, they can use more subtle methods to suppress innovation. For instance, they can use their position of power to force customers into exclusive contracts.

The societal model I will morally justify is not capitalism per-se, but rather voluntaryism - a society in which the initiation of force against others (or their ongoing projects) is not allowed. A society in which people are free to choose which relations to enter into. If you are right, people will choose to work for employee-owned companies, and that is absolutely fine. Or you might be partially wrong, and the economic efficiency of traditional corporations will tempt many to enter into a normal employer-employee relation.

Note that not everybody has to make the same choice. Some will surely go one way, others will go another way. Whatever people do which doesn't involve coercion is fine. If people want to create a gift economy - by all means. If they prefer free-market capitalism - that is also fine.

Free-market capitalism is morally justified because it is based on voluntary interaction of free individuals. Nothing less, nothing more.

Yes, I agree completely with this statement. However, I would also add that abruptly vanquishing the state, would likely have severe consequences in the short and medium term (think fall of Rome, fall of the Soviet Union, etc.). In general, it takes decades, sometimes centuries, for a society to recover from this sort of acute shock.

Therefore, I endorse gradualism. We build the new society within the shell of the old. This requires starting worker cooperatives, legal activism, direct action, building viable and robust protest movements, etc.

You seem to advocate a subjective definition of coercion. But if all relations in society are voluntary, how can anybody credibly claim to have been coerced? People rarely face a situation in which they truly have "no choice". More often than not, "no choice" merely means that alternatives are even worse. A typical scenario is a worker who feels he has to work for a particular employer to feed his family. Consequently, the argument goes, he has "no choice".

But now consider what would happen to that worker and his family if he was fired, or if the employer went out of business. Would he and his family starve to death? Highly unlikely. There has been no poverty-based starvation anywhere in the free world for centuries. Let's say the worker, under those conditions, would painfully have to move to another town, lose his friends, and have to find employment offering lower pay and longer hours. This alternative is highly undesirable, but it is a choice.

This is a matter of degree, and bright line rules seem inadequate to describe this dynamic. Even in the west, where starvation is highly unlikely, going on the dole is also highly discouraged, and looked down upon by society. Thus, the choice becomes take a job one may hate, or go on the dole (a perhaps less appealing alternative). In other words, the worker is stuck accepting a lesser to two evils, yet a lesser evil is still an evil. I concede, the coercion is more subtle, it is not equivalent to compelling compliance at the end of a whip, yet subtle coercion is still coercion. The only way to mitigate this is through the existence of more choices.

Is that bank funded, supported or subsides by the municipal government (i.e. by taxes)? If so, it is fundamentally based on coercion (or, to be more precise, aggression). If not, and it is free to compete with other banks, I have no issue. As pointed out above, anything that's peaceful is OK with me.

Banks are the engine of money creation. Municipality in this context is an assembly of voluntary associations. Thus, if that assembly, through consensus, decides they would like to set up a bank, of course they would have to fund it's construction (through voluntary means), but assuming we still use money, the bank would have the ability to create fiat currency.

In other words, the "market" would not be an intangible, invisible thing (like a religious myth), rather, it would be whatever people decided it should be. Voluntary assemblies of people would be under no obligation to do anything. They could trade if they like, or they could refuse to trade. They could enter into agreements with other voluntary assemblies of people and form confederations (to conduct trade or defense or highway maintenance or whatever), or they could refuse to do so.

They could not, however, be empowered to suppress individual liberty, or force their will on anyone (albeit I admit, this is where all forms of anarchism runs into problems).

I advocate free banking. Any bank (really, any institution or even person) is free to issue money. The market (in other words, people though their voluntary interactions) will "decide" which moneys are accepted, and which aren't. Your municipal bank would be free to issue notes, as would be private competitors. Merchants will decide which notes they are willing to accept as forms of payment. In historic examples of free banking (Scotland in the 19th century is the most famous, but far from the only one), a relatively small number of banks dominate note issuance. But none is granted a monopoly.

I do not have a hard position on this issue. I see merits in both free banking and a uniform national currency (or possibly some hybrid combination of both). I also see a major role for mutual aid (although, apart from many anarchists, I'm not convinced that mutual aid could completely displace the need for a reliable currency of some sort).

Democracy is only as legitimate as the organisation whose leadership is voted for. A democratic constitution for a voluntary organisation is fine. But democratic elections cannot legitimise aggression against an unwilling minority.

I agree, ergo the main sticking point of anarchism, how will minority rights be protected (without something like a Constitution, and a state to enforce it)? For this reason, I'm not completely sold on the idea of a stateless society, although I stand in solidarity with those who do hold a hard position on this issue (whether they be anarcho-capitalists, social anarchists, etc.).

***on a side note: the word "solidarity" seems to receive considerable bad press in our culture. But speaking for myself, I will not allow an intellectual midget like Karl Marx, to destroy such a beautiful word.

Moreover, I'm not sold on the idea that self-defense cannot or should not be delegated to a third party. While I love writers like Peter Kropotkin, I suppose I'm not quite as optimistic as he was regarding human nature (but I'd love to be proven wrong)

People are welcome to decide not to buy products manufactured in sweat shops (though they wouldn't be doing employees of those sweat shops any favours). They are welcome to only deposit their savings in banks dedicated to funding cooperatives. Again, as long as force is not used to force others to comply, as long as tax dollars are not used, I have no objections.

I view sweat shops as a violent assault on its workers, and thus a prohibition on sweat shops is justifiable. Obviously, we cannot allow people or companies to coerce or assault others (or else the idea of non-coercion becomes an absurdity).

Property rights ARE human rights. After all, neither animals nor inanimate objects own property - only humans do. As I see it, all rights are property rights, whether in your own body or in external objects. Where do you see a tension between the two types of rights?

When I refer to property rights, I'm referring to personal/real property (not one's corpus). Nevertheless, I like the principle set forth by Pierre Proudhon on this issue. Confiscation of private property cannot be justified. A new society should be built within the shell of the old, implying that a new society will be built along side the old society, they will exist in tandem, until eventually new structures predominate (assuming those new structures can outperform the old).

[Eran]

I would like to focus on just one issue - sweatshops and choice.

On the one hand, you write:

This is a matter of degree, and bright line rules seem inadequate to describe this dynamic. Even in the west, where starvation is highly unlikely, going on the dole is also highly discouraged, and looked down upon by society. Thus, the choice becomes take a job one may hate, or go on the dole (a perhaps less appealing alternative). In other words, the worker is stuck accepting a lesser to two evils, yet a lesser evil is still an evil. I concede, the coercion is more subtle, it is not equivalent to compelling compliance at the end of a whip, yet subtle coercion is still coercion. The only way to mitigate this is through the existence of more choices.

The more choices, the better. An industrialist opening a factory in a third world country introduces one more choice over those already available to people in that country. In that sense, the industrialist is a positive factor.

The industrialist is a positive factor regardless of the terms he is offering prospective workers. If the terms represent a choice which is worse than those already available to them, they need not take it. If they choose not to take it, no harm is done. If the terms represent a choice which is better than those already available to them, they would improve their conditions through taking that choice.

Sweatshops represent conditions which are poor by our standards, but which typically represent an improvement over any previously-available choice. That is why people choose to work in sweatshops. Sweatshops, therefore, are a net good.

Yet you also wrote:

I view sweat shops as a violent assault on its workers, and thus a prohibition on sweat shops is justifiable.

Would you care to explain?

[truth_seeker]

I mitigate this is through the existence of more choices.[/b]

The more choices, the better. An industrialist opening a factory in a third world country introduces one more choice over those already available to people in that country. In that sense, the industrialist is a positive factor.

The industrialist is a positive factor regardless of the terms he is offering prospective workers. If the terms represent a choice which is worse than those already available to them, they need not take it. If they choose not to take it, no harm is done. If the terms represent a choice which is better than those already available to them, they would improve their conditions through taking that choice.

Sweatshops represent conditions which are poor by our standards, but which typically represent an improvement over any previously-available choice. That is why people choose to work in sweatshops. Sweatshops, therefore, are a net good.

I'm glad to explain this. In my view, it's one thing to take advantage of lower wage scales. A lower wage structure can exist for a variety of reasons, chief among them is a lower cost of living. However, from my own philosophical standpoint, unless workplace democracy is an option for all workers, real choice does not exist.

In other words, this is about hierarchical structure, the claim that it represents authoritarianism in all possible variations, and an underlying premise that authoritarianism is always undesirable (and thus, unless it meets a high bar of justification, our default preference should be democratic structures). Under this approach, there must be no other feasible alternative to authoritarian structure -- in order for it to be considered justifiable (i.e. the parent-child relationship, where preventing harm to very young children, will always require some sort of authoritarian relationship, at least under all presently conceivable conditions). With respect to conventional owner managed companies and worker cooperatives, as long as working at a cooperative is the norm, or something close to the norm, as long as it remains an option for all who would like to work at a cooperative, renting one's labor can be a valid preference (for those who are unwilling to commit to a cooperative, perhaps they're in a more transitory stage in life for whatever reason, etc.).

The choice between starvation (or something nearly as terrible) and working in a sweat shop, is NOT a choice, it would be considered coercive under this philosophical approach. Therefore, it would be justifiable to do things like place a high tariff on goods produced in sweat shops, or even completely bar the importation of such goods.

While we should never use force to compel others to adopt any particular philosophical approach (assuming it doesn't concern defending our own people against direct attack), we should also not participate in human exploitation under any conditions. The common response is these sweat shops are better than starvation, and if we prohibited this activity, it would be detrimental to those third world workers. I do not buy this argument for one second.

Maybe a worker can have a reasonable standard of living earning 50 cents an hour, do we also need to stuff them in corporate dormitories (with bunks smaller than those found on a Naval carrier), require them to work in unsafe factories where in many cases they're locked in the factory, require them to be "on call" 24 hours a day, work 14 hour days, etc.? Put it this way, life is so bad for these sweat shop workers, their suicide rate is extremely high. If these people believed they had a real choice, would they be so eager to end their lives? So we go back to square one, you would like to define what terms like choice and coercion should mean in a purely objective way, whereas I believe there's a subjective component to the definition of these terms.

[Phred]

The choice between starvation (or something nearly as terrible) and working in a sweat shop, is NOT a choice, it would be considered coercive under this philosophical approach.

What about the choice between starvation (or something nearly as terrible) and working at whatever was available before the sweatshop owner built the sweatshop? Say... oh, I dunno... working as a barmaid in a tourist trap run by domestic businessmen? Is working as a barmaid rather than starving NOT a choice? If not, why not?

Therefore, it would be justifiable to, for example, place a high tariff on goods produced in sweat shops, or even completely bar the importation of such goods.

By the same logic, would it not be justifiable to place high taxes on food and drink served in bars and restaurants, or even completely ban their existence? If not, why not?

If you don't like the barmaid example, substitute whatever else you believe these people were working at before they decided for themselves that their lives would be improved by switching occupations: hawking shoddy goods from pushcarts, engaging in prostitution, selling coconuts to each other... whatever. If having to choose between working at a sweatshop and starvation can properly be viewed as "coercion", so too can having to choose between working at whatever-it-was-they-did-before-the-sweatshop-was-built and starvation.


Phred

[truth_seeker]

What about the choice between starvation (or something nearly as terrible) and working at whatever was available before the sweatshop owner built the sweatshop? Say... oh, I dunno... working as a barmaid in a tourist trap run by domestic businessmen? Is working as a barmaid rather than starving NOT a choice? If not, why not?

If someone put a gun to your head, and demanded you do X or die, I'm sure you would consider that coercive. If the choice is do X or die by starvation, is it any less coercive? I would say that such a choice is not a genuine choice, and it is indeed coercive. In both cases, the consequences of not doing X is death.

[Phred]

If someone put a gun to your head, and demanded you do X or die, I'm sure you would consider that coercive. If the choice is do X or die by starvation, is it any less coercive? I would say that such a choice is not a genuine choice, and it is indeed coercive. In both cases, the consequences of not doing X is death.

So you are arguing that whatever they were doing before the sweatshop opened its doors was also done by them only because they were coerced (by whom, by the way?) into doing it. This being the case, why single out sweatshops for opprobrium? Why not condemn equally their previous line of work?


Phred

[truth_seeker]

So you are arguing that whatever they were doing before the sweatshop opened its doors was also done by them only because they were coerced (by whom, by the way?) into doing it. This being the case, why single out sweatshops for opprobrium? Why not condemn equally their previous line of work?


Phred

Whether they were previously coerced, to what extent, etc., is not relevant in this context (nor do I make any assumptions in this regard). I don't necessarily single out sweat shops, but they serve as a good example of what I'm getting at. The distinction between sweat shops and conditions that may have existed previously (that we had no involvement with) is very simply, WE ENABLE SWEAT SHOPS (through our behavior), thus, from a moral perspective, we are complicit in the mistreatment of these workers.

Comparisons really aren't compelling in my view, because if we're to intervene in the affairs of others (i.e. if we're so concerned about the well being of these people that we feel compelled to help in some way), surely there's better things we could be doing to help them, other than enabling a sweat shop economy.

Once again, if the choice is between working in a sweat shop, or starvation, is cannot be viewed as a choice anymore than someone pointing a gun to your head and demanding you work in the sweat shop or face death (in both cases, the consequences are the same). In other words, the choice between life and death cannot be viewed as non-coercive, unless someone idealizes death, in which case, philosophy (at least in this context) is not written as a eulogy to the dead (or those who seek death), it exists for the living.

In general, sweat shops (and other forms of labor exploitation) are justified using consequentialist arguments. In this case it goes something like this -- the development phases of capitalism are often brutish, but future generations will reap the rewards of this generations sacrifice (and in some cases, some small part of the current population may work themselves up to middle class status). Of course this grants conventional capitalism a special pleading, it's essentially a presuppositional apologetic (presuming conventional capitalism is superior to other conceivable organizational models, or other potential methods of development, such as mutual aid). I don't believe the ends justify the means, I believe (in most cases) the means are the ends.

[Phred]

Whether they were previously coerced, to what extent, etc., is not relevant in this context (nor do I make any assumptions in this regard).

Of course it is relevant in this context!

You are objecting to someone making her living by working in a sweatshop. You say that if she doesn't work in a sweatshop, she faces death from starvation. What you fail to see is that there is no need to add "in a sweatshop" to that logical "if-then" statement. Let's simplify it to the logical essentials: if she doesn't work, she faces death from starvation. The agent applying "coercion" here, the one "putting a gun to her head" isn't any human, rather it is the nature of the universe in which she operates which presents her with this fundamental choice: work or starve. Mother Nature is the villain here.

I don't necessarily single out sweat shops, but they serve as a good example of what I'm getting at. The distinction between sweat shops and conditions that may have existed previously (that we had no involvement with) is very simply, WE ENABLE SWEAT SHOPS (through our behavior), thus, from a moral perspective, we are complicit in the mistreatment of these workers.

What "mistreatment"? We have already established that the one who forces the stark choice on our barmaid is Mother Nature. Humans must work or starve. The laws of the universe have decreed it so. All the sweatshop owner has done is add another option to the roster of available work activities in that immediate neighborhood. The barmaid is at all times able to ignore the blandishments of the sweatshop owner and continue working as a barmaid or pushcart vendor or hooker or coconut husker or whatever.

Comparisons really aren't compelling in my view...

Of course they aren't compelling to you, because they reveal your "reasoning" as the shoddy con game it actually is.

...because if we're to intervene in the affairs of others (i.e. if we're so concerned about the well being of these people that we feel compelled to help in some way), surely there's better things we could be doing to help them, other than enabling a sweat shop economy.

You are free at all times to help these people in any way you see fit. I am not being facetious here - knock yourself out. I assure you I won't stop you. Hell, if your case is convincing enough, I may even join you. Seriously.

What you fail to grasp is that the "sweatshop economy" you sneer at is better than what they have now, which is why there is rejoicing in those areas whenever a new one opens, and despair whenever an existing one shuts down.

Once again, if the choice is between working in a sweat shop, or starvation, is cannot be viewed as a choice anymore than someone pointing a gun to your head and demanding you work in the sweat shop or face death (in both cases, the consequences are the same).

What you fail to recognize is that the one "pointing the gun" is not another human, it is Mother Nature.

In other words, the choice between life and death cannot be viewed as non-coercive, unless someone idealizes death, in which case, philosophy (at least in this context) is not written as a eulogy to the dead (or those who seek death), it exists for the living.

Human life is supported by productive human effort. Any philosophy which doesn't acknowledge this self-evident fact is a dangerous "philosophy" indeed. The fundamental choice between life and death has nothing whatsoever to do with coercion, and everything to do with the physical laws of the universe in which humans operate. Once again: human existence is supported by productive human effort. That is not debatable. All that is left to decide is:

Whose effort supports whose existence?

The logical conclusion of your argument is that unless I can provide employment to these coconut huskers and pushcart vendors and prostitutes which meets your ideas of "decent employment", it is morally better for me to not provide any employment at all.


Phred

[truth_seeker]

Of course it is relevant in this context!

You are objecting to someone making her living by working in a sweatshop. You say that if she doesn't work in a sweatshop, she faces death from starvation. What you fail to see is that there is no need to add "in a sweatshop" to that logical "if-then" statement. Let's simplify it to the logical essentials: if she doesn't work, she faces death from starvation. The agent applying "coercion" here, the one "putting a gun to her head" isn't any human, rather it is the nature of the universe in which she operates which presents her with this fundamental choice: work or starve. Mother Nature is the villain here.

If it were left completely up to nature, then I might find this reasoning compelling, but in this case it is American companies choosing to do business with sweat shop operators who violate basic human rights on a daily basis, rather than a wide range of possible alternatives. Our entire society is choosing to benefit from this exploitation, instead of promoting trade based on enlightened principles, and sustainable human development.

What "mistreatment"? We have already established that the one who forces the stark choice on our barmaid is Mother Nature. Humans must work or starve. The laws of the universe have decreed it so. All the sweatshop owner has done is add another option to the roster of available work activities in that immediate neighborhood. The barmaid is at all times able to ignore the blandishments of the sweatshop owner and continue working as a barmaid or pushcart vendor or hooker or coconut husker or whatever.

No ... YOU have established this (in your own mind), but I did not, nor do I agree with this characterization of the moral problem here.

Did mother nature create the American companies who, by choice, knowingly enrich sweat shop operators. Indeed, if sweat shop owner didn't exist, if they weren't around to extract obscene profits from exploited labor, those firms could be worker owned, our companies could still take advantage of the lower wage scale (and produce goods for roughly the same cost), workers would be able to afford a reasonable lifestyle, they could work 8 or 10 hour days, not be stuffed like sardines in a company dormitory, etc.

Of course they aren't compelling to you, because they reveal your "reasoning" as the shoddy con game it actually is.

I mean, here I was trying to be nice (oh well)

I'm afraid to say, this reasoning (in my view) is just nuts. We are sentient beings, we have a significant amount of control over our behavior, we're not absolute slaves to natural history. Nature is not responsible for the plight of these people (at least not directly). Again, American companies are doing this knowingly. They have other alternatives, almost all of which would be better than reducing large swaths of the Asian population to serfdom. So it's not merely a choice between A and B, sweat shop employment or starvation, the range of choices available to the companies guilty of this, include all the potential ways they could be producing their products cheaply (which do not involve exploitation).

To say this is not a moral wrong, is perverse. Of course the impoverished may welcome a sweat shop, this is manufactured consent. By limiting the range of choices, it's no less coercive (since consent is gained through manipulation, misinformation, etc.).

What you fail to grasp is that the "sweatshop economy" you sneer at is better than what they have now, which is why there is rejoicing in those areas whenever a new one opens, and despair whenever an existing one shuts down.

See above ...

Human life is supported by productive human effort. Any philosophy which doesn't acknowledge this self-evident fact is a dangerous "philosophy" indeed. The fundamental choice between life and death has nothing whatsoever to do with coercion, and everything to do with the physical laws of the universe in which humans operate. Once again: human existence is supported by productive human effort. That is not debatable. All that is left to decide is:

Whose effort supports whose existence?

Your reasoning reduces to this ... if someone is suffering, we have license to inflict more harm on them, as long as we reduce their overall suffering relative to their initial conditions.

[Phred]

If it were left completely up to nature, then I might find this reasoning compelling, but in this case it is American companies choosing to do business with sweat shop operators who violate basic human rights on a daily basis...

Hysterical much? Working long hours in a difficult working environment for low pay is not a violation of basic human rights, no matter how much you insist it is. You have a very odd idea of basic human rights.

No ... YOU have established this (in your own mind), but I did not, nor do I agree with this characterization of the moral problem here.

That is why no one who thinks about it for more than a few minutes can take this hackneyed old "argument" seriously. You ignore the fundamental nature of the relationship between human beings and the universe in which they operate. I don't misrepresent the situation, I describe it accurately, with no emotional overtones. Until you grasp the fact (and yes... it is a fact) that it is not "sweatshop" owners who established the requirement (and yes, it is a requirement) that humans must exert productive effort in order to further their existence, but the laws of the universe in which humans operate, you will continue to fall for wrong-headed ideas.

Did mother nature create the American companies...

Mother Nature did not demand that companies (either American or indigenous) willing to open "sweatshops" spring into existence. Mother Nature is indifferent as to whether our ex-barmaid works in a bar or in a sweatshop. What's your point?

...who, by choice, knowingly enrich sweat shop operators.

"Sweatshops" produce goods that are bought by people, yes. If no one bought their stuff, they would not exist. This is true of course not only of sweatshops, but of every type of manufactory from an artisanal cobbler to a worker's co-operative steel mill. What's your point?

Indeed, if sweat shop owner didn't exist, if they weren't around to extract obscene profits from exploited labor, those firms could be worker owned...

How do you figure that? Explain how you came to this astonishing conclusion. How does the existence of my "sweatshop" prevent you from opening a competing factory and having your workers run the whole deal?

...our companies could still take advantage of the lower wage scale (and produce goods for roughly the same cost)...

"Our"? Just what is your definition of "sweatshop", anyway? You are aware that a "sweatshop" is more likely to be owned by a national than a foreigner, are you not?

...workers would be able to afford a reasonable lifestyle, they could work 8 or 10 hour days, not be stuffed like sardines in a company dormitory, etc.

This is hogwash. You present no argument that this is true. You simply assert it is the case.

Nature is not responsible for the plight of these people (at least not directly).

Nor is the "sweatshop owner", duh! That is the obvious point you seem determined to ignore.

Again, American companies are doing this knowingly.

Doing what knowingly?

They have other alternatives...

Yes, they do. Including leaving the people free to continue doing whatever they were doing before the "sweatshop" opened. You insist that if I can't offer employment to these people under your preferred conditions, it is better for these potential employees to not even have the option to switch from what they are doing now to working for me. This is nonsense on stilts.

...almost all of which would be better than reducing large swaths of the Asian population to serfdom.

So you know better than the large swaths of Asians who are actually faced with the choice, what is best for them. Uh huh.

So it's not merely a choice between A and B, sweat shop employment or starvation...

No, it isn't. Clearly the people in the neighborhood weren't starving to death before the "sweatshop" opened, or there wouldn't have been any able-bodied potential employees for the "sweatshop" owner to offer employment to. The people have the choice between starvation and pushcarts, or starvation and petty theft, or starvation and begging, or starvation and subsistence farming, or starvation and husking coconuts, or starvation and being a barmaid, or whatever. Now there appears a new choice: starvation or working in a "sweatshop". Again, the "sweatshop" need not be owned by a foreigner.

To say this is not a moral wrong, is perverse.

No, it is accurate. There is absolutely nothing immoral in offering employment for wages to someone.

Of course the impoverished may welcome a sweat shop, this is manufactured consent.

Manufactured consent? LOL. Another sophomore Chomskybot sounds off. Sigh.

The impoverished welcome a "sweatshop" (whether it is owned by a foreign corporation or by the village headman) because it beats what options they have at the moment. Why do you think people are too stupid to judge for themselves which alternative is better for them? Why do you think they need you to restrain them from throwing their lives away in a "sweatshop" that produces furry toy animals that will end up being handed out as prizes at travelling carnival ring toss booths all over the American midwest next summer? Your arrogance is breathtaking.

By limiting the range of choices...

This is why no one takes you seriously. You have it exactly backwards. The "sweatshop" owner is doing the exact opposite of limiting choices. He is expanding choices. There is now one more choice available to the people in the area that they didn't have prior to the opening of the "sweatshop".

...it's no less coercive (since consent is gained through manipulation, misinformation, etc.).

LOL. More Chomskyite blather. No one is being coerced or misinformed or manipulated. It's pretty straightforward: the pay is such and such, the hours are from X am to Y pm five and a half days a week with two weeks annual paid vacation and four paid sick days a year, the job is operating that laminating press in the far corner of the work floor near the lunch room. If you want the job, show up tomorrow in a pair of steel toed work boots with no jewelry and your dreadlocks tied back securely in a hair net.

Your reasoning reduces to this ... if someone is suffering, we have license to inflict more harm on them, as long as we reduce their overall suffering relative to their initial conditions.

Assumes facts not in evidence: that paying someone to work a laminating press is inflicting harm on them.


Phred