Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Sobran - The Reluctant Anarchist
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: Sobran - The Reluctant Anarchist Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Jun 19th, 2005 01:03 PM
Zhukov OAO: read State and Revolution.

Also, try to pay attention to events unfoulding in Venezuela at the moment - something that you can follow as it evolves is just as imortant as reading books.
Jun 12th, 2005 12:50 PM
The One and Only... Admittedly, my attempts at a balanced perspective are somewhat half-assed, but I do come over here, don't I?

That and I'm always debating my primitivist friend...

Edit: One other thing. I recall someone mentioning that they hold that there is no plausible way that a market anarchist society could arise from our current situation.

The New Libertarian Manifesto is a good outline of how the black market can yield a market anarchist society. Quite an interesting read, although I would dispute some of the points.
Jun 12th, 2005 12:48 PM
Helm what rational person would go debate an ambivalent issue on an forum called 'anti-state'? What would I expect to learn from these people? You need to hang out with a less biased crowd, dude.
Jun 12th, 2005 12:44 PM
The One and Only... Haven't heard of them. I'll have to give them a try.

Also, if anyone here is interested in learning more about/debating over anarcho-capitalism, I would suggest visting the Anti-State forums at http://anti-state.com/. You may post as a guest without registering, and yes, there are a few critics who regularly visit. All that is asked is that you keep your posts in the Newbie/Antagonist board.

This thread has kinda devolved from it's purpose and I'd rather not flood I-Mock with discussions on market anarchism.

Edit: As an afterthought, you might want to check out the forum just to see more of the criticisms of the theory.
Jun 12th, 2005 03:50 AM
theapportioner If you want some contemporary stuff, how about Dworkin and Sandel?
Jun 11th, 2005 11:35 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helm
Do us all a favour: don't reply. I might be wrong in some cases, and we can discuss that. You might be wrong in others and we can discuss that as well. But all this serves nothing at this point, other than making an ass out of you/me which while funny, isn't really something I wish to persue for more than I have to. Do something else instead: read actual books. By people. Stop reading the internet. It's better than nothing, but if you want to have an actual political opinion, read actual books. Read "The Age of Extremes", read "Principa Ethica" . Read stuff by people who are smarter than us directly, not in some internet summation site where you go "oh. So now I know what there's to know of Plato". You don't. This isn't knowledge you have, it's just information. It will not start making sense until it's orderly, in a linear framework where both your knowledge of history and your knowledge of philosophy/economics are on the same page.
I already told you that I plan to read things like that this summer. I want to read out of a balance of political perspectivies; Marx is an obvious, as is Nozick and Rawls, and of course I'll have to read some Rothbard and possibly Samuel Edward Konkin. Does anyone else have some suggestions in the political philosophy realm (distinction made so as not to be a repeat of my other thread)?

Quote:
...educated stupid.
Wow. I want to kill that guy.
Jun 11th, 2005 09:46 PM
Emu I suppose it's not necessarily a "bad" thing in the economic sense of the word. But like I said, when a few kids can't pass the test, the whole school suffers. Even those who do have the aspirations to achieve the white collar jobs typically won't have the resources OR the encouragement. The NCLB act focuses on poor-to-lower-middle district schools who need the funding anyway; the kids there are the ones who most need the aspiration. It's as if the NCLB is literally damning the whole student body to mediocrity instead of helping them reach the middle class like it was intended to do.
Jun 11th, 2005 09:38 PM
ItalianStereotype
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emu
It's like what Helm said--it's who you vote for. Take the No Child Left Behind act, which focuses on reading, writing and math. Every other subject suffers: Science, social studies, history, the arts, and even P.E. for fuck's sake. The act is ridiculously diabolical, really. It's practically designed to produce not only work drones, but even the blue-collar workers in our country. The act is so ridiculously strict that even if say, three kids can't pass the test, the school doesn't get the funding. The entire school suffers for it. Not to mention the fact that the school spent MORE money than usual in order to bring the kids up to par, and if they fail anyway, it's as if they lost all the money they were going to be given PLUS what they spent. The school suffers, the children suffer, and they come out uneducated and without prospect for the future...and voila.

Consider that for a minute and ask yourself if a Democrat would ever pass a law like that. I believe one of Kerry's platform promises was that he'd reform and/or get rid of the NCLB.
just throwing something from off the top of my head here, but is that necessarily bad? in the past, one of the fundamental requirements for a successful society has been a large, happy middle class, right? it seems to me that, if that's really what NCLB is preparing people for, it's going to prepare the average student for middle class labor and leave only those with the drive and lofty ambitions to continue their education and acheive "white collar" work. dunno, maybe, maybe not.
Jun 11th, 2005 08:55 PM
Helm Do us all a favour: don't reply. I might be wrong in some cases, and we can discuss that. You might be wrong in others and we can discuss that as well. But all this serves nothing at this point, other than making an ass out of you/me which while funny, isn't really something I wish to persue for more than I have to. Do something else instead: read actual books. By people. Stop reading the internet. It's better than nothing, but if you want to have an actual political opinion, read actual books. Read "The Age of Extremes", read "Principa Ethica" . Read stuff by people who are smarter than us directly, not in some internet summation site where you go "oh. So now I know what there's to know of Plato". You don't. This isn't knowledge you have, it's just information. It will not start making sense until it's orderly, in a linear framework where both your knowledge of history and your knowledge of philosophy/economics are on the same page. Right now you're just educated stupid.
Jun 11th, 2005 03:09 PM
The One and Only... I don't have time to address all of this right now, though I hope to reply tomorrow. Needless to say I think you're wrong on several cases - the idea that the State will inevitably evolve from anarcho-capitalism is not new and has been dealt with several times before. Similiarly, the idea that PDAs will become no better the Mafia has been dealt with.

Just to clarify one point for Emu though. Practically every country in the world has fiat currency at the moment. The dollar, for example, has no value other than the value given to it by government decree.
Jun 11th, 2005 12:31 PM
Emu Since Helm already responded to most of it, I'll just respond to a few choice quotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.
I find that most people that give themselves -ist labels oftentimes do so because they agree with a few of the simple aspects of it and refuse to acknowlege contradictions -- exactly what you're doing here. You've had, what, 3 or 4 different people telling you quite explicitly about the inherent flaws in your system and you're STILL sticking to it? You don't even defend your positions with why they would work as opposed to what would, theoretically, make them work, like that "you know there's fiat currency, right?" thing you said below. I don't know what the hell fiat currency is, honestly. And you're not describing how 'fiat currency' would make the system work, you're just giving us vague allusions and links to websites that describe it better than you could. If you can't describe it as well or better than some website, you don't know enough about your political theory.

Quote:
We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.
What Helm said. Capitalism ALWAYS evolves into corporatism. The only thing keeping Microsoft from being the only provider of computer software are things like anti-trust laws -- imposed on us by the government to protect consumer and entrepeneur rights. Notice: By the government.

Quote:
Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.
When you first said that, I'll admit, I immediately thought of this.
But I guess that's not what you mean.

But here's what dictionary dot com says a fiat is:

fiĀ·at ( P )
n.

1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.

This gives me the impression it has to be authorized...Authorized by WHOM, exactly? The people with the goods? Who won't want to give it up? Or would this be the last act of the government before you and your rough and tumble band of road warrior entrepeneurs overthrow it?

Quote:
It isn't very profitable to engage in combat.
So what the fuck were all the fights for over the past TEN THOUSAND YEARS? Fun? They were for profit, and it worked pretty well, obviously, because now we have states -- a natural progression from a society of groups of people who are under the control of a person who has a lot of wealth who acquired it in the absence of a state.

Quote:
What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations?
It's socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is almost purely economic in nature, socialism is almost purely social in nature. Why do you think America was so frightened by the Communists during the 50s?

Quote:
And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent?
The "state" is not an entity in any real sense. The state in America is controlled by a political party. The 'state' won't be spreading its own propaganda. The political party in control will use the state to spread its propaganda; look at what the Republicans are doing now.

Quote:
You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.
It's like what Helm said--it's who you vote for. Take the No Child Left Behind act, which focuses on reading, writing and math. Every other subject suffers: Science, social studies, history, the arts, and even P.E. for fuck's sake. The act is ridiculously diabolical, really. It's practically designed to produce not only work drones, but even the blue-collar workers in our country. The act is so ridiculously strict that even if say, three kids can't pass the test, the school doesn't get the funding. The entire school suffers for it. Not to mention the fact that the school spent MORE money than usual in order to bring the kids up to par, and if they fail anyway, it's as if they lost all the money they were going to be given PLUS what they spent. The school suffers, the children suffer, and they come out uneducated and without prospect for the future...and voila.

Consider that for a minute and ask yourself if a Democrat would ever pass a law like that. I believe one of Kerry's platform promises was that he'd reform and/or get rid of the NCLB.

Quote:
First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do.
What's percieved as justice becomes justice. Justice is not a universal constant in any sense of the word.

Quote:
You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.
Doesn't the burden of proof rest on you for making the assertion that "ancap" would work?
Jun 11th, 2005 05:26 AM
Helm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.
You know my dad's a Marxist, right? Full-fledged and all. The house is littered with political and economical text. I've been reading parts of it since I was 12. You know when I told my dad for the first time that I was a whatever '-ist'? Last year. And I'm now 21. It wasn't "communist" by the way. You're rushing. You haven't considered everything in a more whole political context. You've grabbed on to something that initially seems to make sense and you're building your lego moonbase over it, adding extensions and towers and anarchocapitalist turrets that shoot flowers, in the hope that nobody will see the foundation of it is still moon-rock. What the hell is up with that analogy? Anyway, you need more rounded understanding of politics before you adopt a strong position. I can see you going "flavour of the month?! I'll show them! I'll be an anarcho-capitalist FOREVER!!" which, while hilarious, is really not the effect we're going for, here.

Quote:
We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.
What YOU FAIL to understand is that a corporatist economic state is the natural progression of ANY capitalistic system. The State will always occur.

Quote:
Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.
How wonderful. To neutralize all the economical progression of the last 200 years sounds like a great idea.


Quote:
It isn't very profitable to engage in combat.
To the contrary, the spoils make it very, very profitable to go to war. Also stop this 'engage in combat' shit, this isn't fencing, or d&d. Seriously, it's unnerving.

Quote:
Except for the fact that you can have currency in the absense of a Sate.
No. At least, not multinationally. Currency can only exist if it is sponsored and accepted by all interested parties as of having a ( directly related to several factors, but accepted to be as such by all) value. Otherwise it's meaningless.

Quote:
Then I miscommunicated. Either way, it doesn't really matter now.
Yes, yes it does matter because you do this all the time. You say :BARF and then you said the other person misunderstood you because you ment :GRAVY. You should pay attention to how you speak, and what room for construsion you leave. From how a man speaks you can understand a lot about his intellectual clarity, and furthermore, his reasons of going into discussion. The fact that you're being wrong a lot, and blaming others for misunderstanding you in this, paints you as somebody who is trying to WIN something in here.


Quote:
I know what you're talking about. It was a statement meant to show you that I understood the system you proposed.
See, you do this here again.

Quote:
What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations?
GOOD LORD. My basis for socialism is for SOCIAL considerations FOREMOST! The advancement of man! The eradication of violence and injustice! Progressive foundations of thinking!


Quote:
And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent?
Because the state is controlled by the little safety trigger called VOTING. Now I know this might come as a shock to you as an american, where YOU have left democracy to deteriorate to choosing between two morons who have no real authority, but in other places of the world, there's still political parties, with programs and representatives. It's not perfect, but it's better than shit. Jesus, the State is not the methaphorical boogeyman. you need to consider alternate sources of information.

Quote:
You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.
Again, that is up to what party you vote for, and it's program concerning education. Do you think it's a coincidence that educational programs focus more and more into producing people who can readily be assimilated in the market, instead of producing educated, aware people, who can see methaphorically far being their cock and balls? That is what YOU'RE VOTING FOR.

Quote:
You stated that all Socialists view socialism as a stepping stone. Now you admit that some view it as an end?
I said even socialists will agree socialism is not the end. You said 'for some people it is', and I said I am prepared to align even with such people (who are not really socialists) because of the agreement on step B.

Quote:
It illustrates your failure to understand that anarcho-capitalist societies have mechanisms for defense and that anarcho-capitalism, by nature, is panarchic.
No. And there's no word 'panarchic'. I get you though, 'cause I'm greek and I know pan stands for all and archic stands for law, but you know... retarded, trying to impress people, blah blah. anarchocapitalism is not panarchic. The whole point of 'archis' is that it might be dynamic, but it's the same for all within a community. See, if that's not so, we're just discussing the might of power, and that's another shade of fascism.

Quote:
Do you have any idea to what I'm referring to?
No, because medieval Iceland! Even the fact that you would suggest this in a modern context... retarded! Stop being! Retarded!

Quote:
First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do.
What? Where's the difference between the two? Idiot.

Quote:
Second of all, a mutally-accepted court would have to be hired for disputes between two involved parties, something which would be done as fighting is undesireable on a multitude of levels. Due to the nature of the court system, I think it would be a better alternative to the current system in which there is no choice.
The whole idea of a court is that it's ruling is respected by all. If you have private courts, there's no legal precidient that would suggest any reason to respect an infavourable result. This would suggest anarchocapitalists would very quickly become a bunch of violent crybabies, with a humonous set of different courts they go running to, suing their knee, whenever they fall down and hurt their knee.

THE POINT IS, OAO, THAT JUSTICE SERVES THE PUBLIC. THE WHOLE OF THE PUBLIC. It is there to create the necessary foundations of safety so that a whole community can prosper. Take the prosperity of the whole out of the equation, and there is no concept of justice that is applicable to this discussion. Make a new name for what you're talking about.

Quote:
...
What, you jerk? Is that all?

Quote:
You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.
Oh, ok! If you cannot clearly see where the burden of proof lies in these case, I'll just continue to call you stupid.

Quote:
1) Even assuming human nature can be altered, humanity is so complex that I don't see how you can find the right process to alter in a specified, exact manner.
Yet humanity's not complex enough to find loopholes around silly little private courts, right?*groan*


Quote:
2) Why would you want to alter human nature anyway? What real purpose does it serve without an objective moral basis?
The real purpose it would serve would be for man to understand himself better, control himself more readily. If there's a more widely accepted moral basis than this, I cannot tell. Still not objective, because OAO, there ARE no objective moral bases.

So yeah, read some ethics while you're at it. I suggest Inventing Right and Wrong by H.Mackie as a good starting point.


Quote:
there is no intrinsic value.
If you do not see how a set value of the product of labour based on the amount of effort required to produce it, is not an intrinsic value then you're uhh... stupid?

Quote:
I think that the LTV is fundamentally disproven by the price system.
In micro-economics. And not disproven, just not paid enough mind to.

Quote:
Prices reflect, in part, the value that is given to products by human minds. Assuming that supply is the same, most people would pay more for a computer than a toothpick even if the amount of labor required to make them was the same. Thus, they are valued on a subjective level.
No, you moron, they're not valued on a subjective level, the need of them in weighed on a subjective level. What you ARE saying is that let's say a nuclear power, India for example, when in great shortage of toothpicks, would rather spend 30 million dollars on a single toothpick than on another nuclear warhead. You are insane. It might NEED the toothpicks more, and spend 30 million dollars buying 30 gazillion toothpicks instead of one nuclear warhead. Can you see the distinction in this? Can you? PLEASE tell me you can.
Jun 10th, 2005 11:14 PM
Emu Anyone else find it ironic that he uses an Orwellian abbrevation for his social philosophy?
Jun 10th, 2005 08:37 PM
FS
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowbelly
sobran sounds like a type of cereal old people would eat with prune juice
haha

And I love how through his 'ideological changes', the core of OAO's view of the ideal world is still one where he doesn't have to be bothered by other people's misfortunes.

Didn't you ever see Robocop, OAO?
Jun 10th, 2005 08:33 PM
Emu
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Quote:
No?
Am I correct in thinking that he was referring to when American settlers forced Native Americans off their land? Why would we want to repeat such an atrocity?
It's not that we'd WANT to, it's just that it would happen. There's nothing to stop anyone from just TAKING anyone else's land. I said it worked for the settlers just to illustrate that "good" can come of it.
Jun 10th, 2005 08:13 PM
Chojin Because this isn't a perfect society, and human nature will undo even the best-laid plans. "Why would we want to repeat that atrocity?" You would not control this society you propose. People would do it. All an AC system would do - provided you found enough simple-minded idiots to go along with it - is weaken people for predators to take advantage of them.

The rest of that post was either I DISAGREE or YOUR JOKE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN A REAL-WORLD CONTEXT.

Except for this line:

"Do you really believe that currency would be liquidated for the commodity frequently in a stateless market economy?"

...which just makes no sense, but slowly and sensually strokes your terribly oversized member.

I also enjoyed your bit about the Mafia falling against the forces of Public Displays of Affection. I think you should create a movie about that, or at least an anime.

At any rate, Spongebob, you're just a kid. You'll never make it to Shell City, let alone create an ANARCHO CAPITALIST SOCIETY THAT HAS FENCING AS THE NATIONAL SPORT ONLY THERE IS NO NATION SO THE TERM NATIONAL IS QUITE REDUNDANT PFAH PFAH HA HA YES OH DEAR HOW CLEVER OF ME
Jun 10th, 2005 07:50 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chojin
OAO, you're reading replies and then trying to figure out why they're wrong instead of actually considering anything.
I wasn't aware that you could read my mind.

Quote:
So, great. Their guns won't be worth anything either, but they still fire bullets. Corporations wield incredible power without needing to spend money. Money is the means, not the process in and of itself.
Most corporate assets are at least indirectly tied to money. The actual amount of real material that it has is much smaller, especially ones that it can offer employees as payment for their services. No employees = no services to provide = collapse.

Quote:
Theoretically, you can give everyone in the world a kitten without spending a dime. But it isn't too feasible, and it's stupid.
I fail to see how giving everyone a kitten for free is a good analogy to a state that sustains itself on the production of it's own currency, kept in line with population growth in an attempt to end inflationary booms and recessions.

Quote:
It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).
Yeah, because this is exactly what happens to the mafia.

The mafia works in the underground crime scene. It's hardly analogous to PDAs, which would defend against extortion. It's all about the market - anywhere there is a high number of criminal activities, including extortion, the demand for a strong PDA will grow. All this works quickly; I don't see how a PDA would be any less able to handle a such an organization any less effectively than Statist police.

Quote:
So, you prefer a system of currency that is dynamic, obsolete, complicated, and confusing. This is better than our current system of currency (which is only dynamic) how? Isn't this sort of shit what society has evolved past, anyway?
We didn't get rid of the gold standard until Nixon, and that was only because it was creating an economic problem. Do you really believe that currency would be liquidated for the commodity frequently in a stateless market economy?

Quote:
No?
Am I correct in thinking that he was referring to when American settlers forced Native Americans off their land? Why would we want to repeat such an atrocity?
Jun 10th, 2005 06:47 PM
Chojin OAO, you're reading replies and then trying to figure out why they're wrong instead of actually considering anything. That makes you a psuedo-intellectual. And now you just had a knee-jerk reaction that I was threatening you, so you'll disregard everything I say. Likewise, I'm going to pick through part of your post and ignore all the supposed content while making fun of it - not because I'm a psuedo-intellectual seeking an intellectual victory, but because I am an asshole who sees derision as a means unto itself. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Quote:
Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.
So, great. Their guns won't be worth anything either, but they still fire bullets. Corporations wield incredible power without needing to spend money. Money is the means, not the process in and of itself.

Quote:
Theoretically, you can have a state without taxation. That is what I used to advocate.
Theoretically, you can give everyone in the world a kitten without spending a dime. But it isn't too feasible, and it's stupid.

Quote:
It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).
Yeah, because this is exactly what happens to the mafia.

Quote:
You realize that there is such a thing as commodity money, right?
So, you prefer a system of currency that is dynamic, obsolete, complicated, and confusing. This is better than our current system of currency (which is only dynamic) how? Isn't this sort of shit what society has evolved past, anyway?

Quote:
Quote:
Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.
Isn't that a perfect example of why the hell not?
No?

I'd read and respond to the rest of it, but it's like arguing with a 5-year-old that insists he's tall enough to ride the rollercoaster. Only he uses the socratic method (Michael ).
Jun 10th, 2005 06:02 PM
kellychaos Is this becoming a nature versus nurture argument? Am I to be believe that people would behave differently sans the oppressive state? How could you, OAO, possibly know human nature in a stateless society with no successful examples ... least-wise, none that have run their developmental course? At best, it would be an educated guess. Moreover, it would be YOUR educated guess ... and that doesn't exactly build any condidence in me given that you're citing 8th grade political science projects.
Jun 10th, 2005 05:32 PM
The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helm
the fact that you fish out your flavour of the month from internet philosophy databases means if nothing else, that you definately aren't ready to call yourself anything that ends with an -ist, yet. The point of having a political and philosophical position is manyfold, but simply using them to impress people, or to fortify yourself against your cruel mom, or to divert your teenage angst isn't what I'd call valid.

Left libertarian, Anarchist Libertarian, Agorist, Anarcho-capitalist... whatever you think is cooler
I've been an ancap for several months now. An agorist is essentially a type of ancap; agorism is basically a variation which opposes patents on that basis that it's an illegitimate form of monopoly, recognizes the possibility of some common property in a free-market society (think air), and views the key to establishing a market anarchist society in the practice of Counter-Economics. I don't see how coming across this type of philosophy and getting interested in it can be viewed as a "flavor of the month" given the positions I currently have.


Quote:
What's the point in reading this? I know that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally flawed as a viable way of society. Within capitalism, power always becomes concentrated among the few--it's why a large percentage of the income in our coutry is managed by the top 1%.When power becomes concentrated, rulers emerge. It's a fact of human nature. In fact, without the necessary stepping stone of socialism, like Helm said, if our form of government moved from the democracy we have now to the anarchist state, the people who didn't already HAVE the wealth would never have a chance. I don't know about you, but even if wealth was no longer measured in capital but in possessions(since it COULDN'T be measured in capital, because capital requires a government agency, and even gold would have no definite value in an anarchic state), I think Bill Gates would still have a much better chance than Joe Blue down the street. But good ol' Bill needs workers, and if there's no law to stop him, what's going to keep him from annexing land and goods from the people around him, until he becomes the king of a serfdom?
We don't live in a capitalist society. We live in a corporatist republic.

Oh, and as far as no one getting a chance - it's called fiat currency. With the abolition of government, state-sponsored currencies will become valueless.

Quote:
It seems to me an anarchocapitalist is just someone who really, really doesn't want to pay taxes.
Theoretically, you can have a state without taxation. That is what I used to advocate.

Quote:
Even in that paragraph alone you should be able to see the flaw. If the police become privately owned, the owner can make them take down whoever the hell he wants until he becomes the (say it with me kids) government himself. And then there's no more capitalism -- only monopolies, to put it lightly.
It isn't very profitable to engage in combat. Such an aggressive firm might face a joint beatdown from other firms concerned for their own safety, not to mention lose a few customers (read: all).

Quote:
I like how the argument put against that is "Anarcho-capitliasts reject mainstream anarchism." Well, obviously.

Anarcho-capitalism IS a contradiction. It's true that capitalism works "better" with less government, but it doesn't work at all in the absence of it. The government is what sets the definite value of your capital. A dollar is worth the same amount of Ho-Hos no matter where you go. A chicken is not.

And if there IS no government, the capitalist nature of the society will produce one, whether you like it or not.
You realize that there is such a thing as commodity money, right?

Quote:
More contradictions. You oppose coercion, yet you don't want someone there to stop the coercion. You might say that the police will be there, but what if the person who owns the police is doing the coercion? Then what are you gonna do?
A firm which extorts money from it's customers isn't going to get very far... unless that firm is a monopoly called the State.

Remember that these defense agencies do have to compete with one another.

Quote:
In my social studies class, I think they called that "bartering," and it was characteristic of feudal societies.
Except for the fact that you can have currency in the absense of a Sate.

Quote:
Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.
Isn't that a perfect example of why the hell not?

Quote:
I did not misunderstand you. What you posted was not what you had in your mind. To this newer point I agree wholeheartedly.
Then I miscommunicated. Either way, it doesn't really matter now.

Quote:
You know what you're talking about because in 8th grade you shared my opinion on how a properly democratic goverment would work?
I know what you're talking about. It was a statement meant to show you that I understood the system you proposed.

Quote:
Absolutely nobody is stopping you from leaving such a democratic country and persuing your freedom in greener pastures.
There are rights violations virtually everyone. Even Somalia is subject to the will of the illegitimate multinationals, and governments generally won't allow you to succeed.

Quote:
Of course this will be economically inefficient. For a duration. Economy should serve man, not shackle him and be strawmanned into every political argument as "omg what would happen to the economy!". The disadvantage can be managed. As to the State not permitting it to occur, last time I checked, you control the various aspects of state through the power of voting. Wee. The State cannot 'stop' something from happening if it's the will of the people. In the case somebody tries, he's attempting a coup, and as is the usual case, the people go off with his head in a pinch.
What is your basis for socialism if not for economic considerations? And can you not see how empowering the State would enable it to spread it's own propaganda and crush dissent? You are right to say that the people need to be educated, but I do not think that the State will educate the people in a manner which is anti-statist. Likewise, the State won't eliminate the classes which it serves.

Quote:
I am prepared to align even with such people since we share the same intermediate goal.
You stated that all Socialists view socialism as a stepping stone. Now you admit that some view it as an end?

Quote:
Yes, and this displays my failure to understand what, how?
It illustrates your failure to understand that anarcho-capitalist societies have mechanisms for defense and that anarcho-capitalism, by nature, is panarchic.

Quote:
medieval Iceland? Are you retarded?
Do you have any idea to what I'm referring to?

Quote:
Boy, are you completely unread. First of all a system of Justice a living, dynamic thing that changes with the times. New bills are suggested and passed every day. It's not just about 'human rights'. And justice is as much as to the actual constant word of the law as it is the interpretation of it. It is in the latter that privatized forces would fail completely. A private enterprize only has one goal, and that is to enmass the biggest amount of profit and cut back on it's losses. The model of the conglomerates that you yourself said have reached within the State and are wrestling control of in the name of profit. Are you sincerily telling me that you'd be happy with Policing Companies, that you'd entrust them with the duty of interpreting the law?
First of all, justice doesn't change with the times; perceptions of justice do. Second of all, a mutally-accepted court would have to be hired for disputes between two involved parties, something which would be done as fighting is undesireable on a multitude of levels. Due to the nature of the court system, I think it would be a better alternative to the current system in which there is no choice.

Quote:
Oh, proof by sincere doubt. Consider me covered.

...

Whoa, proof by strong disagreement. Case closed!
You provided no proof of your own. You merely made assertions without giving them basis.

Quote:
Also, I never said human nature can be fundamentally altered. The jury's still out on that one, but probably, it can only happen naturally through many such 'nurtured' generations. I was/am saying that it's workings can and should be explored to the point where they're made transparent for all, and controlled. This is not happening right now. Nobody is trying. Everybody is being automatic. I had this discussion with the Apportioner in this forum 3 years ago and when he first suggested that man goes to war because of his instinctual leanings, I considered it absurd and fought the notion well into my following study of determinism before I decided to stop lying to myself. Most people, even to suggest that they're not IN COMPLETE CONTROL of themselves flinch and kneejerk all over the place. Nobody is trying. We have to try.
1) Even assuming human nature can be altered, humanity is so complex that I don't see how you can find the right process to alter in a specified, exact manner.

2) Why would you want to alter human nature anyway? What real purpose does it serve without an objective moral basis?

Quote:
I have a general understanding of both terms. Of course labour value is for most intents and purposes the most socially viable. Labour value should be constant for anyone more advanced economical framework (multinational trading, for example) to work. I can understand how subjective labour costs might make sense if you're living in a commune and you buy chickens for two sets of shoes, but clearly applying subjective values to labour in any level over that is retarded.
Well, your view is slightly off. The LTV and STV are both statements of value about the product of labor, not labor itself. The LTV asserts that the value of a given product is based on the amount of labor required to make it. The STV asserts that value can only be assigned to the products of labor in the human mind; there is no intrinsic value.

I think that the LTV is fundamentally disproven by the price system. Prices reflect, in part, the value that is given to products by human minds. Assuming that supply is the same, most people would pay more for a computer than a toothpick even if the amount of labor required to make them was the same. Thus, they are valued on a subjective level.
Jun 10th, 2005 02:45 PM
Helm I actually missed the whole of your rebuttal before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
You entirely misunderstand me. What I mean is that the State is dominated by corporations seeking to manipulate the market in ways that would be advantagous to them. That, my friend, is corporatism, and it's something I'm entirely opposed.
I did not misunderstand you. What you posted was not what you had in your mind. To this newer point I agree wholeheartedly.


Quote:
I'm not bringing this up as any sort of an attack on your system, but merely to illustrate that I know what you're talking about.
You know what you're talking about because in 8th grade you shared my opinion on how a properly democratic goverment would work?

Quote:
My problem with such systems now is that there is still an abrogation of rights. People should not be forced to have restraints on their liberty just because the majority of people wills them. A better idea is to let people establish and join communities on a basis of free choice.
Absolutely nobody is stopping you from leaving such a democratic country and persuing your freedom in greener pastures.

Quote:
Aside from the economic inefficiency (which I realise you don't want to debate), the State will never permit this to occur. It invariably serves the existing hierarchy; it will certain not dissolve itself.
Of course this will be economically inefficient. For a duration. Economy should serve man, not shackle him and be strawmanned into every political argument as "omg what would happen to the economy!". The disadvantage can be managed. As to the State not permitting it to occur, last time I checked, you control the various aspects of state through the power of voting. Wee. The State cannot 'stop' something from happening if it's the will of the people. In the case somebody tries, he's attempting a coup, and as is the usual case, the people go off with his head in a pinch.

[quoteFor some it's an end in itself.[/quote]

I am prepared to align even with such people since we share the same intermediate goal.

Quote:
You said that anarcho-capitalism would be smashed by those who weren't content with it.
Yes, and this displays my failure to understand what, how?

Quote:
Actually, private defense forces in the context of a pseudo-ancap society have been fairly successful, such as in medieval Iceland.
medieval Iceland? Are you retarded?

Quote:
Justice is put into the context of human rights - nothing more, nothing less.
Boy, are you completely unread. First of all a system of Justice a living, dynamic thing that changes with the times. New bills are suggested and passed every day. It's not just about 'human rights'. And justice is as much as to the actual constant word of the law as it is the interpretation of it. It is in the latter that privatized forces would fail completely. A private enterprize only has one goal, and that is to enmass the biggest amount of profit and cut back on it's losses. The model of the conglomerates that you yourself said have reached within the State and are wrestling control of in the name of profit. Are you sincerily telling me that you'd be happy with Policing Companies, that you'd entrust them with the duty of interpreting the law?

Quote:
Beyond that, polycentric legal codes and multiple defense agencies allow individuals to choose how to live their own lives. It's quite possible that a community of, say, hardcore Christians, might choose to hire Archangels Inc. to protect them from outside forces and hire the Shepards Corp. to bring offenders of the community laws to a private court.
I'm sure your Paladin character will roll perfect twenties in his Divine Intuition rolls.

Quote:
Ya know, most people I know don't seek power so much as they seek a happy, enjoyable life. Funny how that goes. Regardless, I don't think that you can change human instinct, and I think that ancap is more than able to handle it. I seriously doubt communes would have the economic power necessary to defeat the "solos."
Oh, proof by sincere doubt. Consider me covered.

Quote:
You're assumption is still that human nature can be changed to a great extent through socialist nurturing, something which I strongly disagree with.
Whoa, proof by strong disagreement. Case closed!

Also, I never said human nature can be fundamentally altered. The jury's still out on that one, but probably, it can only happen naturally through many such 'nurtured' generations. I was/am saying that it's workings can and should be explored to the point where they're made transparent for all, and controlled. This is not happening right now. Nobody is trying. Everybody is being automatic. I had this discussion with the Apportioner in this forum 3 years ago and when he first suggested that man goes to war because of his instinctual leanings, I considered it absurd and fought the notion well into my following study of determinism before I decided to stop lying to myself. Most people, even to suggest that they're not IN COMPLETE CONTROL of themselves flinch and kneejerk all over the place. Nobody is trying. We have to try.


Quote:
All I'm going to say is look up the labor theory of value, and the subjective theory of value, and tell me which one makes more sense.
I have a general understanding of both terms. Of course labour value is for most intents and purposes the most socially viable. Labour value should be constant for anyone more advanced economical framework (multinational trading, for example) to work. I can understand how subjective labour costs might make sense if you're living in a commune and you buy chickens for two sets of shoes, but clearly applying subjective values to labour in any level over that is retarded.

Quote:
Their legitimacy as to being anarchists. Right now there is a huge debate with the socialists as to whether ancaps are truely anarchist at all; they view anarchism to be inherently anti-capitalist.
Of course 'ancaps' are not anarchists. They're 'ancaps'. Just as anarcho-communists are not communists. Names are just names. Trying to keep people from using the name of something you hold dear so they don't spoil it into their ( admittedly stupid, in this case) version is pointless. Things are better measured in examination of their parameters, not their names. Though, I'd choose a less misleading name for anarchocapitalism, personally, like 'hahaha'.
Jun 10th, 2005 02:20 PM
Spectre X I don't deny the existence of human instinct, I deny the existence of human nature as a fixed thing.

Helm summed it up pretty nicely. I didn't mean the instinctual urges we have, but the emphasis put on them by whichever culture one is a part of.
Jun 10th, 2005 01:04 PM
Emu
Quote:
Originally Posted by That site he linked
The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree. Minarchist libertarians wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain vital functions that they believe the private sector cannot adequately provide, like police, courts and the military. Anarcho-capitalists believe these should be privately owned, operated and funded.
Even in that paragraph alone you should be able to see the flaw. If the police become privately owned, the owner can make them take down whoever the hell he wants until he becomes the (say it with me kids) government himself. And then there's no more capitalism -- only monopolies, to put it lightly.

Quote:
Anarcho-capitalists differ from left anarchists in that they do not oppose private property (including private ownership of the means of production), they believe that contractual relationships between employers and employees are voluntary (including profit arrangements), and they are not motivated by egalitarian concerns. According to "mainstream" anarchists, the terms anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-capitalism are contradictions, because they claim capitalism is inherentially hierarchical and as such is opposed to anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists reject mainstream anarchism.
I like how the argument put against that is "Anarcho-capitliasts reject mainstream anarchism." Well, obviously.

Anarcho-capitalism IS a contradiction. It's true that capitalism works "better" with less government, but it doesn't work at all in the absence of it. The government is what sets the definite value of your capital. A dollar is worth the same amount of Ho-Hos no matter where you go. A chicken is not.

And if there IS no government, the capitalist nature of the society will produce one, whether you like it or not.

Quote:
Anarcho-capitalists oppose coercion, which they (like other libertarians) commonly define as the act of preventing one from having the willful use of their person or property by employing physical force, the threat of such, or fraud. Any action that is made of one's own free will (i.e., not as a result of force or fraud) is considered by anarcho-capitalists to be "voluntary".
More contradictions. You oppose coercion, yet you don't want someone there to stop the coercion. You might say that the police will be there, but what if the person who owns the police is doing the coercion? Then what are you gonna do?

Quote:
Private property and the idea of self-ownership are central to anarcho-capitalism. As a rule, anarcho-capitalists believe that property is not to be recognized as being legitimately-obtained unless it has been acquired through trade or gift.
In my social studies class, I think they called that "bartering," and it was characteristic of feudal societies.


Quote:
Anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few parcels of land left on Earth that have not been coerced from their original possessors (some who may have staked claims millions of years ago), but they do not believe that the past can be remedied by forcefully taking the property from someone today who has acquired it in a consensual transaction.
Why the hell not? It worked for the American settlers.

(Also, agriculture hasn't even existed for "millions of years"...Homo sapiens as a speices hasn't even existed a million years. If that's not a clue, then I don't know what is.)
Jun 10th, 2005 12:36 PM
Emu
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Helm, please read this. It articulates much of the anarcho-capitalist position better than I have.

http://www.explore-government.com/go...apitalism.html
What's the point in reading this? I know that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally flawed as a viable way of society. Within capitalism, power always becomes concentrated among the few--it's why a large percentage of the income in our coutry is managed by the top 1%. When power becomes concentrated, rulers emerge. It's a fact of human nature. In fact, without the necessary stepping stone of socialism, like Helm said, if our form of government moved from the democracy we have now to the anarchist state, the people who didn't already HAVE the wealth would never have a chance. I don't know about you, but even if wealth was no longer measured in capital but in possessions(since it COULDN'T be measured in capital, because capital requires a government agency, and even gold would have no definite value in an anarchic state), I think Bill Gates would still have a much better chance than Joe Blue down the street. But good ol' Bill needs workers, and if there's no law to stop him, what's going to keep him from annexing land and goods from the people around him, until he becomes the king of a serfdom?

It seems to me an anarchocapitalist is just someone who really, really doesn't want to pay taxes.
Jun 10th, 2005 12:18 PM
Helm the fact that you fish out your flavour of the month from internet philosophy databases means if nothing else, that you definately aren't ready to call yourself anything that ends with an -ist, yet. The point of having a political and philosophical position is manyfold, but simply using them to impress people, or to fortify yourself against your cruel mom, or to divert your teenage angst isn't what I'd call valid.

Left libertarian, Anarchist Libertarian, Agorist, Anarcho-capitalist... whatever you think is cooler
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.