View Single Post
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
Old Jun 10th, 2005, 05:32 PM       
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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote