How can Anarchocapitalism break monopolies?

[jessimae]

"If I don't own the earth, I'm not free."

Proudhon asserted "property is freedom!" meaning the fruit of ones labor, ones home and tools. The land an individual's home is is personal property. Conversely when he referred "property is theft" refers to private property - means of production and land which are being used to extract the product of someone else's labor. But when you are working land for your own sustenance it's a totally different thing. And of course you can't "own" the earth, ownership is a hopelessly abstract concept. The concept of possession has more practical utility. Indeed possessing and working a portion of the land either individually or communally is completely fine as long as resources aren't being exploited, rents being extracting, etc. It is when exploitation of person or resources occurs that the concept "property is theft!" comes into play.

 

[abandonconflict]

Proudhon asserted "property is freedom!" meaning the fruit of ones labor, ones home and tools. The land an individual's home is is personal property. Conversely when he referred "property is theft" refers to private property - means of production and land which are being used to extract the product of someone else's labor. But when you are working land for your own sustenance it's a totally different thing. And of course you can't "own" the earth, ownership is a hopelessly abstract concept. The concept of possession has more practical utility. Indeed possessing and working a portion of the land either individually or communally is completely fine as long as resources aren't being exploited, rents being extracting, etc. It is when exploitation of person or resources occurs that the concept "property is theft!" comes into play.

I don't agree with Proudhon completely, although I would have his side over Marx definitely. Even such property can be consolidated into increasingly sizable holdings and passed in heredity and this is conducive toward privilege. I can be convinced of possession rights but I don't think Proudhon was quite completely concise in "What is Property?". I agree with the direction of it, but it is incomplete.

The statements "Property is theft" and "Property is liberty" render the term liberty as something that can not be achieved for all. So long as some are not free, none are free.

 

[abandonconflict]

confused because if ancaps share these foundational perspectives i'm not sure why all the freaking infighting is necessary!!! i.e. let's all get the statists on the same page, smash hierarchies, and figure out how to exchange goods and services from the bottom up as we go. it does seem like differences in terminology and semantics between social anarchists and ancaps leads to some of the confusion. it can be counterproductive. i look at it this way: anyone who wants to eliminate hierarchy is a comrade of mine, we can settle our differences after we achieve our common goals

The state is a result of capital. It is like a cancer that is caused by a poison. Ancaps are the foes of anarchists as much as statists and Marxists. The hierarchy resulting from anarchocapitalism is the worst form of coercion of any of them. It is as far right wing as you can get.

 

[deprave]

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/wilson_1.html

How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist

Chris Wilson

A couple years back when I was working toward a philosophy major in college, I wrote a rebuttal the section of The Anarchist FAQ that covers anarcho-capitalism. I removed the rebuttal from the web because I didn't have the time or inclination to continue to maintain it or expand upon it. Three years later, I've come to find myself disagreeing with my old rebuttals and agreeing with the FAQ. What follows is my story.
I began my tenure as a right-wing libertarian by reading Ayn Rand, who dissuaded me from the rather muddled left-wing sympathies I held at the time. I was only a Rand enthusiast for a short time, however, and I soon developed an interest in the "more reasonable" free-market thinkers, such as von Mises, Nozick, Hayek, David Friedman, etc. I was an ardent supporter of unimpeded and "stateless" capitalism for the course of almost 3 years, and developed and/or adopted every possible philosophical and economic justification that can be conceived of for its defense. Before I graduated college, however, I expelled my belief that one can claim private property rights upon land. I advocated a labor theory of property, and considering that land is not a produced good, I found that it wasn't defensible according to the principles I advocated. I concluded that one who hoards land is placing a restriction upon the liberty of others to use it or to travel by way of it without justification, and hence the claimant should compensate them by paying a land value tax to earn exclusive rights to it.
Despite my new Georgist land-socialist views, I still advocated a capitalist economic system with respect to produced goods. However, I did become much more critical of corporations, and I became upset with other libertarians for their lack of focus upon the injustices perpetrated by corporations. I wanted to abolish corporate charters, subsidies, intellectual property, regulatory privileges, land grants, etc., as I considered them violations of liberty. If you press a right-libertarian about the privileges corporations receive, they usually say, "Oh, well I'm against those", but they hardly ever take the initiative in directing any criticism against them. More often than not, they praise the alleged "virtues" of corporations, while focusing upon how the government violates these corporations "rights".
When I first became an "anarcho-capitalist", I thought corporate abuses could be avoided in an economic realm in which corporations didn't enjoy as many regulatory privileges. I initially liked all the "dot coms" and "ecommerce" companies -- I considered the Internet industry to be one in which free market principles were respected, contrary to so many other industries. However, in the past year, I've seen all these companies become just as ruthless as any multinational. I thought that all of the "dot coms" were small as a result of the industry functioning according to genuine free market principles, but in reality, they were just small *to begin with*. Most of them are small no longer. Furthermore, the more prosperous of these companies are now seeking to benefit from state privilege, which is evident in the many intellectual property lawsuits that are currently pending in the ecommerce industry.
When I was discovering this (and becoming a hardcore Linux user in the process), I was working as a customer service representative in a large and very well known software corporation (not Microsoft). The act of *working* instead of going to school gave me a new respect for organized labor movements. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the extent to which corporations screw their customers. As I spent the next six months working for this producer of buggy software, I came to the realization that my job as a "customer service" rep involved little more than developing clever rationalizations to defend this company's fraudulent activities. Most other reps bought into the company's rationalizations -- most of the employees, including the supervisors, sincerely believed that the company provided "world class" service to the customers, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm ashamed to say that I bought into *some* of the propaganda as a result of searching for ways to pacify irate customers. And because of the position that we were in -- that is, being constantly screamed at and criticized for policies beyond our control -- it was impossible to refrain from becoming extremely resentful towards rightfully upset customers. Finally, the company adopted some nasty new policies which were so obviously indefensible that I had to end my relationship with the company on general principle. I left completely disillusioned with corporate culture.
Although I favored free markets, I did so because I considered them to be necessitated by the principles that I held. Principles always came *first* for me -- not economics. However, around the time that I quit working at the software corporation, it finally truly sank in that businesses couldn't *care less* about principles. The questions "Is it right?" or "Is it just?" do not even enter the minds of the decision makers of capitalist businesses -- such questions are beside the point in their eyes. Although I was a right-libertarian at the time, I held my views because I genuinely believed that they followed logically from my beloved principle of self-government. Even though I knew that *many* capitalist businesses were completely lacking in principles, I did ignorantly believe that this was only true of large government aided corporations. It was very disheartening to learn over time that this fact applies to *most* businesses, regardless of whether or not they happen to be corporations that profit from state favor. If they don't actually receive favors from the state, then it is typically their *aim* to receive them.
A week after I quit the software company, I got lucky and snagged a job providing tech support at a local ISP. I thought to myself that this company, being a local business, would be fundamentally different. While I do greatly prefer working for the ISP to working for the mega-software giant, it quickly became obvious to me that the motivations and principles (or lack thereof) of the president and major shareholders of the ISP are no different from that of any major corporation. Although the ISP is relatively small as of now, it doesn't aim to remain as such for very long. I will say that an ISP's expansion is generally not favored by employees, as it forces us to take responsibility for customer issues that we're in no position to fix (as was so common with the software company). Furthermore, those who run the company still think of the employees as a cost to be minimized. The rule is to hire as few as possible, pay them as little as possible, and make them work as often as possible. Since starting with the company, I've taken on many more responsibilities than just tech support, but my wages haven't risen. Despite the technical nature of my job, the workers at the nearby grocery store make more than I, as they're unionized and I'm not.
My experience in the work world forced me to seriously reconsider my advocacy of capitalism in any form. As I was still very committed to libertarian principles, I began to study the "socialist anarchists". (I put "socialist anarchist" in quotes, as I now consider such a term to be a redundancy -- anarchists are necessarily socialists.) I forced myself to consider the fundamental disagreement that separates Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta from Rand, von Mises, and Friedman. My answer to myself: The advocates of capitalism believe that one can sign away or sell off one's liberty, whereas anarchists do not. As a right-wing libertarian capitalist, I was of the opinion that one could enter into a morally binding agreement in which one sacrifices one's liberty in exchange for a wage. My position was that a worker would be committing fraud against the employer if he attempted to retain rights to the full product of his labor. My argument was that if an employer has a "legitimate" prior claim upon the capital being used, then he has the right to dictate its terms of use. The laborer doesn't have the right to anything more than what the capitalist agrees to give, just as the capitalist doesn't have the right to take anything more than what the laborer agrees to give. (Of course, I didn't realize in my early "anarcho-capitalist" days that capitalists almost always demand more than what the worker initially agrees to give.)
My current position is that one cannot be ethically bound by agreements that restrict one's liberty to be self-governing. It has always been my view that one cannot be bound by an agreement to be a slave. Although one can enter into a contract that mandates one to serve as a slave, one should be considered free to cease honoring that contract at any time. However, I hadn't been applying this principle to all forms of domination -- I only applied it to full-time chattel slavery, not to wage slavery, domestic tyranny, etc. When I was working out my views regarding this issue, I decided to simplify my decision by subjecting myself to a thought experiment: Jones is a individual who has zero access to capital, which excludes him from being self-employed. He must must find somebody who will share access to capital if he is to continue to eat. Fortunately, Smith has plenty of capital, and is willing to share it -- under certain conditions of course. Smith says to Jones that he can use Smith's capital to produce, *provided* that Jones engages in 90% of the productivity while Smith engages in 10%. Also, Jones will only receive 10% of the revenues despite all of his hard work, while Smith gets to keep 90% for his hoggish self. Jones agrees to these conditions because he has no other option. Is Jones morally bound by his agreement to allow Smith to keep 8 in 9 parts of what what Jones produces? The capitalist, of course, answers, "Yes", and I once would have given the same answer, even though I knew intuitively that such an arrangement would be grossly unfair. My current answer is "No" -- this relationship between Smith and Jones is inherently exploitive, and Jones is entitled to much better.
That completed my conversion to real anarchism, which is to say *libertarian socialism*. The evolutionary process was slow -- it didn't happen all in one night. I continued to consider myself an individualist anarchist for awhile, and remained more attracted to the ideas of Tucker and Proudhon than any of the social anarchists. But as I read more Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and Rocker and studied the Spanish Civil War and Russian Revolution, I concluded that social anarchism was a better alternative. Unlike the individualist or mutualist varieties of anarchism, anarcho-communism doesn't provide an avenue for capitalism to reestablish itself and it has had partial revolutionary success in the past histories of countries such as Spain and the Ukraine. What initially turned me off to social anarchism is the fact that many of its advocates don't address the prospect of what's commonly called the "tyranny of the majority", which I think is a valid concern. It cannot be emphasized enough that under anarchism, nobody would be forced to join a commune or a federation. If one wishes to be free to work independently of a democratic collective, this freedom would be acknowledged and respected, provided that one doesn't attempt to hoard more resources than one uses or employ people for a wage. Granted, anarchists wouldn't *ban* wage labor, but "agreements" in which workers sign away their liberty would not be enforced.
Since making the transition from right-wing to left-wing libertarianism, I've discovered that factionalism and sectarianism is just as pervasive here as it was there, if not more so. Technology is a good example of an issue that divides the anarchist movement. On one hand, there are the anarcho-primitivist luddites who eschew all forms of complex technology and wish to return to a hunter-gather society, and on the other, there are the anarchists who feel that technology can be beneficial if its development is directed by workers themselves in a manner that is accountable to the communities it affects. I fall somewhere in the middle between the two positions -- I have no desire to return to a hunter/gatherer society, but would also prefer not to rely upon technology that requires a division of labor so extreme that productivity becomes an alienated and meaningless activity. Working within the computer industry, I also understand that when technological complexity transcends our ability to understand it, this is an instance of the machine being in control of us and not vice-versa. Whether technology is a form of liberation or domination is a topic hotly debated by anarchists, but they agree, contra the right-wing "libertarians", that a society in which human-created circumstances force people to "agree" to subject their will to that of a boss is by no means "free".
Webbed with permission from the author.

Essentialy what I take from this is that he worked for some shitty comapnies, especially being in IT, I find my skills in IT make me invaluable. I came from poverty, before I had a career I always got along fine even without a job, without government assistance, with little or no family assistance, no inhertience, in this fascist completely corrupt society. I just don't see capitlism as the problem so much as corporatism, especially if there was a free market it would be a million times better for people like this guy and for the poor and sick. I can't say I have ever had any of the feelings/view this person had, that corporations in their current form are force for good or don't hold any guilt or something. Like he mentioned "tyranny of the majority" is a fundamental problem. "If one wishes to be free to work independently of a democratic collective, this freedom would be acknowledged and respected". I can't see how even if so it would be difficult....and I doub't in many cases that it would be respected, also those who work hard and contribute more to soceity not just in capital but research, technology, development should be encouraged.

 

[abandonconflict]

Essentialy what I take from this is that he worked for some shitty comapnies, especially being in IT, I find my skills in IT make me invaluable. I came from poverty, before I had a career I always got along fine even without a job, without government assistance, with little or no family assistance, no inhertience, in this fascist completely corrupt society. I just don't see capitlism as the problem so much as corporatism, especially if there was a free market it would be a million times better for people like this guy and for the poor and sick. I can't say I have ever had any of the feelings/view this person had, that corporations in their current form are force for good or don't hold any guilt or something. Like he mentioned "tyranny of the majority" is a fundamental problem. " If one wishes to be free to work independently of a democratic collective, this freedom would be acknowledged and respected". I can't see how....and I doub't in many cases that it would be, also those who work hard and contribute more to soceity not just in capital but research, technology, development should be encouraged.

Honestly, I know you're being honest, and most of the views you express are views I share, but it comes down to privilege.

Someone will own more than everyone else and his progeny will continually inherit privilege and rule the rest. I can't simplify it more than that and I think it is possible to remove tyranny of majority AND remove such privilege.

So I would say that is our impasse, you see tyranny of majority in my views and I see tyranny of privilege in yours and we can't make progress by simply insisting "you're wrong and I'm right". I do still think you're incorrectly attributing enforced group ownership to libertarian socialism. So we can try to make some sense of that.

Can you explain privilege for me?

 

[jessimae]

The state is a result of capital. It is like a cancer that is caused by a poison. Ancaps are the foes of anarchists as much as statists and Marxists. The hierarchy resulting from anarchocapitalism is the worst form of coercion of any of them. It is as far right wing as you can get.

I see many individuals who self identify as "ancap" explain their ideals in a manner that is quite Proudhondian and in those instances I feel their ideals are probably compatible with traditional anarchist thought. Is Proudhons distinction flawed? Sure, but it's a start. Myself, I try to look at it on a case by case basis and understand what that persons conception of their ideology is and how they convey it would work in practice. I often find that they describe something more akin to mutualism than capitalism as it exists today or historically. Don't get me wrong, if the revolution occurs during my lifetime on the commune is probably where you will find me; but still it's probably safe to assume different communities will take different approaches to exchange of goods, services, resources, division of labor (or lack thereof), etc. In that spirit I try to hear people out and actually understand what they are advocating and how it would work in practice, instead of dismissing their beliefs because I think the label they self identify with is oxymoronic. And I do think "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoronic term. I do not think what all anarcho-capitalists describe is actually capitalism.

It's important to remember also that without the state to enforce property "rights" it's plausible to assume people will outright reject and resist anyone who attempts to assert such rights illegitimately and exploitatively. It is not the abstraction of "what is property" or "what is ownership" that is problematic, it when oppression and exploitation arise from someones conception of these things. I think under anarchism people would consistently resist oppression and exploitation whether it should arise from the social construction of "property" or something else. If someone were trying to horde resources people would simply take what they need. If a house was clearly empty and someone tried to assert ownership to extract rents from a homeless person the surrounding community and the homeless person alike would probably tell him to eff off. People will have to be proactive in these matters to prevent power from concentrating. It will not be easy. It will not be perfect. But it will be a heck of a lot better than what we have now because individuals and communities will be empowered to deal with social issues that arise organically and with equal decision making power from all.

 

[deprave]

Honestly, I know you're being honest, and most of the views you express are views I share, but it comes down to privilege.

Someone will own more than everyone else and his progeny will continually inherit privilege and rule the rest. I can't simplify it more than that and I think it is possible to remove tyranny of majority AND remove such privilege.

So I would say that is our impasse, you see tyranny of majority in my views and I see tyranny of privilege in yours and we can't make progress by simply insisting "you're wrong and I'm right". I do still think you're incorrectly attributing enforced group ownership to libertarian socialism. So we can try to make some sense of that.

Can you explain privilege for me?

Point being is you couldn't go off on your own and do your own thing, even a group, take the amish for example, you would be forcing this on them...No your saying how society should be run and thats not liberty. Again, If it was an ancap society Rosanne and chomsky would have half of california and you could go live there and do your thing, doesn't work the other way around.

 

[jessimae]

I didn't see him say that property would be passed down to progeny. In fact he stated he accepts the Proudhonian conception of property and the distinction between possessions and property. Speaking of privilege, the much more difficult issue than sorting out property vs possession will be patriarchy. It's not like once the state is abolished men will just stop seeing women as objects here for their needs and pleasure. Misogyny and the gender binary are far more ingrained than the social constructions of property or money.

 

[abandonconflict]

Point being is you couldn't go off on your own and do your own thing, even a group, take the amish for example, you would be forcing this on them...No your saying how society should be run and thats not liberty. Again, If it was an ancap society Rosanne and chomsky would have half of california and you could go live there and do your thing, doesn't work the other way around.

And you wonder why I ridicule you...

 

[abandonconflict]

I didn't see him say that property would be passed down to progeny. In fact he stated he accepts the Proudhonian conception of property and the distinction between possessions and property. Speaking of privilege, the much more difficult issue than sorting out property vs possession will be patriarchy. It's not like once the state is abolished men will just stop seeing women as objects here for their needs and pleasure. Misogyny and the gender binary are far more ingrained than the social constructions of property or money.

It is noble that you are trying to bring understanding between two forms of anarchy for the sake of solidarity as a movement. However, he isn't an anarchist, he is a capitalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

[abandonconflict]

Laissez faire is very literally the epitome of Social Darwinism.

 

[abandonconflict]

See this is where I end up getting confused... How are the "truly free markets" that ancaps envision different than mutualism? Because in the context I see a some (not all) ancaps talk about free markets it sounds far more like mutualism than capitalism (as I recognize it). Under your vision of anarcho-capitalism is the assholish behavior of the hypothetical dude who wanted to horde 200 shovels to exploit people who need shovels to tend their crops problematic or not?

A lot of times the anarchism/anarcho-capitalism debate, I think, ends up being a pissing contest over semantics. Because after the revolution; that is after we smash the state (yay!), and abolish hierarchies (fuck yeah!), and fucking unicorns and rainbows are once again plentiful (woohoo!) - people are going to create forms of interacting and trading from the bottom up IF it is really anarchy. In reality differing forms of economic activity in different regions/communities would be perfectly permissible. It's just that most would probably see a distinction in personal and private property and consider private property to an assertion of illegitimate authority. And thus the asshole hoarding 200 shovels could probably expect resistance...

It would hopefully be so. However, too many already equate property with liberty and only care for liberty insofar as they have the right to own what gives them power and pass it on to their children and not yours. Those shovels are already owned. The ancaps will simply argue, "well now you can just get your own shovels". So the guy who owns the iron mines will have the real power, since you need iron to make shovels.

If it was possible to commodify air, you would have to pay a capitalist for the right to live. Private ownership of what is the common heritage of humanity is not only anti-liberty and hierarchical, it actually harms the environment.

 

[Dr Kynes]

It would hopefully be so. However, too many already equate property with liberty and only care for liberty insofar as they have the right to own what gives them power and pass it on to their children and not yours. Those shovels are already owned. The ancaps will simply argue, "well now you can just get your own shovels". So the guy who owns the iron mines will have the real power, since you need iron to make shovels.

If it was possible to commodify air, you would have to pay a capitalist for the right to live. Private ownership of what is the common heritage of humanity is not only anti-liberty and hierarchical, it actually harms the environment.

but shovels can be made from scrap iron, copper, wood, bronze, the shoulder blades of elk and bison, or even the skull of a dog.

if you argue that the ownership of land is counter to the needs of the masses but you may have personal possessions (but not a shovel since thats a "Means of Production") where do you propose a person should live?

in a cardboard box in "The Commons" or should we each be rationed a dwelling based on the decisions of some (presumably non-hierarchical) committee?

who will build these dwellings?

who will produce the food for the non-farming persons? since the lack of any rational impetus to produce a surplus will ensure that those who do farm will not engage in the tillage of land not immediately necessary for their own use. this would be considered "capitalism" and this is forbidden in your proposed anarcho-utopian society.

will the (presumably non-hierarchical) committee dictate what surpluses each farmer should produce to support the non-farming tradesmen artists and philosophers?

then how does this differ from the soviet collective farms and the stalinist agricultural plan?

at what point will we open our book of Quotations From The Chairman and begin discussing the Iron Ricebowl?

 

[deprave]

It would hopefully be so. However, too many already equate property with liberty and only care for liberty insofar as they have the right to own what gives them power and pass it on to their children and not yours. Those shovels are already owned. The ancaps will simply argue, "well now you can just get your own shovels". So the guy who owns the iron mines will have the real power, since you need iron to make shovels.

If it was possible to commodify air, you would have to pay a capitalist for the right to live. Private ownership of what is the common heritage of humanity is not only anti-liberty and hierarchical, it actually harms the environment.

you don't need Iron to make shovels, hierarchy when your talking about social relationships will always exist, its only healthy, and its not the definition of anarchy, simple example, you and your daughter have a hierarchical relationship. Your beef is not with capitalism but with the state, we don't have a free market, and we never have, a free market is impossible with the existence of a state. The hierarchy that anarchism opposes is with society as in the pyramid structure that exists because of religion and the state, not your relationship with bob the shovel manufacturer.


And now a cute libertarian anarchist song:

[video=youtube;CbVQN_e0hi4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbVQN_e0hi4[/video]

 

[deprave]

It would hopefully be so. However, too many already equate property with liberty and only care for liberty insofar as they have the right to own what gives them power and pass it on to their children and not yours. Those shovels are already owned. The ancaps will simply argue, "well now you can just get your own shovels". So the guy who owns the iron mines will have the real power, since you need iron to make shovels.

If it was possible to commodify air, you would have to pay a capitalist for the right to live. Private ownership of what is the common heritage of humanity is not only anti-liberty and hierarchical, it actually harms the environment.

Lets take a trip back to the beginning of this thread and use an example, How can the free market stop greedy corporations? Lets say that the company which supplies water to a neighborhood has decided to start price gouging! Price Gouging as a means of not only productions but survival! Lets examine how the free market would handle that! Lets have a practical discussion instead of tooting our horns and speaking in metaphors shall we? For once? Especially terrible metaphors regarding shovels.

First of all, if you are so concerned about people paying increasingly exorbitant prices for services or resources, then it scarcely seems logical to propose the government as the solution to that problem! Taxes have risen immensely over the past 30 years, while services have declined, so there is the abysmal, bleak, grim truth that we as anarchist have come to ACCEPT and that others out of optimism and a need to feel that this life somehow better than that, remain in a state of perpetual denial in hopes that government can one day get it right and will just magically give a fuck about us. It is much much easier to believe that some politician will come in an just solve all of our problems, that we just haven't got it quite right in ~20,000 years, life is so much easier that way. However, even if we accept the premise of the problem, the grim truth, it is easily solved in a stateless society based on the free market such as in ancap theories. First , not one person will buy a house in a neighborhood without a contractual obligation that requires the supply of water at reasonable rates, Who wants to live without water or put themselves in such a position, and firms would help insure this.

Second, if the water company starts charging exorbitant prices, another company will simply move in and supply water in another form – such as in barrels, bottles, a secondary line, trucks, whatever. Thus, raising prices permanently costs the water company its customers, yes even if they control ALL THE WATER (impossible) – and makes every potential customer back away and seek alternatives, for fear that the same predation will happen to them. Investors will quickly realize that the water company is shooting itself in the foot, and will align themselves with other shareholders, resulting in a takeover of the price-gouging water company, and a reduction in rates, accompanied by rank apologies and base groveling. Given that this result will be known in advance, no CEO would be allowed to pursue such a self-destructive course. Only governments that can be manipulated by corporations to prevent competition truly endanger consumers.

As I outlined earlier, even if the resource is something small, easy to control, etc....as you termed it 'nfinite resources'...This human greed that you despise so much will create an infighting and corruption among the corrupt, the free market will always answer to the consumer. Now lets just imagine gas prices were something like a staggering $4.00 a gallon or something like that (I know its hard to imagine such an injustice but stick with me)...Why is gas over priced? Why are people paying it? It's because of the state not because of capitalism.

So who is the anarchist? When in fact it is you suggesting a government type solution? Also see Dr Kynes post above which also explains how your solution is a state solution, unless you can provide a practical example your just puffing smoke.

Dr Kynes is right, there the difference, practical anarchy vs utopian anarchy. In utopian anarchy there is no practicable tangible means in the differences, its simply a guise for statism . Anarchist Libertarian, anacaps, etc...are not utopians.

from "Practical Anarchy"

There is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. To be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherworldly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible. Anarchy can be viewed as a cure for cancer and heart disease, not a prescription for endlessly perfect health. It would be unreasonable to oppose a cure for cancer because such a cure did not eliminate all other possible diseases – in the same way, we cannot reasonably oppose a stateless society because some people are bad, and a free society will not make them good.

Game, set, match.



And now a cute youtube video:
[h=1]The Anarcho-Capitalist Theme Song by Randy Goble [/h]
[video=youtube;XJQEI1d0blo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJQEI1d0blo[/video]

 

[abandonconflict]

Same old washed up arguments.

Lets take a trip back to the beginning of this thread and use an example, How can the free market stop greedy corporations? Lets say that the company which supplies water to a neighborhood has decided to start price gouging! Price Gouging as a means of not only productions but survival! Historically, the owners of vital finite natural resources don't price gouge, they do the opposite, they undercut competition to prevent loss of market share, then buy competition and consolidate greater property and recoup the loss when they regain greater control of the market. Lets examine how the free market would handle that! Lets have a practical discussion instead of tooting our horns and speaking in metaphors shall we? For once? Especially terrible metaphors regarding shovels. Yeah, the metaphors are not working well for you.

First of all, if you are so concerned about people paying increasingly exorbitant prices for services or resources I never said that, then it scarcely seems logical to propose the government as the solution to that problem I never proposed that either! Taxes have risen immensely over the past 30 years, while services have declined, so there is the abysmal, bleak, grim truth that we as anarchist You aren't an anarchist have come to ACCEPT and that others out of optimism and a need to feel that this life somehow better than that, remain in a state of perpetual denial in hopes that government can one day get it right and will just magically give a fuck about us. It is much much easier to believe that some politician will come in an just solve all of our problems, that we just haven't got it quite right in ~20,000 years, life is so much easier that way. However, even if we accept the premise of the problem, the grim truth, it is easily solved in a stateless society based on the free market such as in ancap theories. First , not one person will buy a house in a neighborhood without a contractual obligation that requires the supply of water at reasonable rates, Who wants to live without water or put themselves in such a position, and firms would help insure this.

Second, if the water company starts charging exorbitant prices, another company will simply move in and supply water in another form I thought we were going to quit with the terrible metaphors – such as in barrels, bottles, a secondary line, trucks, whatever. Thus, raising prices permanently costs the water company its customers, yes even if they control ALL THE WATER (impossible) – and makes every potential customer back away and seek alternatives, for fear that the same predation will happen to them. Investors will quickly realize that the water company is shooting itself in the foot, and will align themselves with other shareholders, resulting in a takeover of the price-gouging water company, and a reduction in rates, accompanied by rank apologies and base groveling. Given that this result will be known in advance, no CEO would be allowed to pursue such a self-destructive course. Only governments that can be manipulated by corporations to prevent competition truly endanger consumers.

As I outlined earlier, even if the resource is something small, easy to control, etc....as you termed it 'nfinite resources'...This human greed that you despise so much will create an infighting and corruption among the corrupt, the free market will always answer to the consumer Faith?. Now lets just imagine gas prices were something like a staggering $4.00 a gallon or something like that (I know its hard to imagine such an injustice but stick with me)...Why is gas over priced? Why are people paying it? It's because of the state not because of capitalism.

So who is the anarchist? When in fact it is you suggesting a government type solution? Capitalism is inherently hierarchical and requires a state to protect private property, unless you go Voluntaryist and allow land owners to employ private armies (feudalism) Also see Dr Kynes post above which also explains how your solution is a state solution, unless you can provide a practical example your just puffing smoke.

Dr Kynes is right, there the difference, practical anarchy vs utopian anarchy. In utopian anarchy there is no practicable tangible means in the differences, its simply a guise for statism . Anarchist Libertarian, anacaps, etc...are not utopians. They are dystopians and there is nothing practical about oxymorons.

from "Practical Anarchy"

Feudalism.

 

[deprave]

Same old washed up arguments.



Feudalism.

Replying to your responses which had some substance, your responses are in bold below, mine are italic.

Historically, the owners of vital finite natural resources don't price gouge, they do the opposite, they undercut competition to prevent loss of market share, then buy competition and consolidate greater property and recoup the loss when they regain greater control of the market.

Example of this when its been harmful to consumers? You haven't one. Theres never even been a free market to properl examine this, more blowing smoke. Capitilism doesn't require a state, free market captilism requires the absense of a state. Your commy ideas require a state.


Capitalism is inherently hierarchical and requires a state to protect private property, unless you go Voluntaryist and allow land owners to employ private armies (feudalism)

Fedualism is essentially a time period between the 9th and 15th century....

They are dystopians and there is nothing practical about oxymorons.

I have given practical applications and examples. You have not, this is my challenge to you.


Once again you did not address any of my points, you did not adress anything other posters said, more memes and foggy metaphors.

 

[Harrekin]

Replying to your responses which had some substance, your responses are in bold below, mine are italic.

Historically, the owners of vital finite natural resources don't price gouge, they do the opposite, they undercut competition to prevent loss of market share, then buy competition and consolidate greater property and recoup the loss when they regain greater control of the market.

Example of this when its been harmful to consumers? You haven't one. Theres never even been a free market to properl examine this, more blowing smoke. Capitilism doesn't require a state, free market captilism requires the absense of a state. Your commy ideas require a state.


Capitalism is inherently hierarchical and requires a state to protect private property, unless you go Voluntaryist and allow land owners to employ private armies (feudalism)

Fedualism is essentially a time period between the 9th and 15th century....

They are dystopians and there is nothing practical about oxymorons.

I have given practical applications and examples. You have not, this is my challenge to you.


Once again you did not address any of my points, you did not adress anything other posters said, more memes and foggy metaphors.

Hes a "socialist libertarian".

In his world, the rich are "free" to give up their money to the many.

For some reason he keeps trying to justify/explain it, but each time he merely makes his position less tenable.

 

[abandonconflict]

Once again you did not address any of my points, you did not adress anything other posters said, more memes and foggy metaphors.

Not true at all, I didn't even start the shovel metaphor. So you think it is a good thing if a few oligarchs own the whole world and employ the rest of humanity to buy from them?

 

[abandonconflict]

who will build these dwellings?

So no dwellings were built before capitalism?