Fantastic stuff! Great explanation even if the simplification for brevity’s sake seems to have angered a few on this site.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
How so? That would mean that there would have to be an authority to decide which would not be a voluntary society – voluntary socialism cannot exist. I am unconvinced that anarchy is “inherently” socialist.
I actually agree with you about the term anarcho-capitalism because it is superfluous. In such a society only the market can direct voluntary activities thus it would have to be capitalistic, directed by the wants and needs and voluntary associations of free people.[/quote]
An authority to decide what?
“Anarcho-capitalism” is not redundant, it’s an oxymoron. In order to abolish all monopolies, you kind of have to abolish economic monopolies as well. Duh.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
That is of course a complete nonsense because in order to run and plan an economy you need quite a big government.
[/quote]
I’m not really sure what your point is here. There’s nothing inherent in the concept of “government” that requires it to be authoritarian.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
How so? That would mean that there would have to be an authority to decide which would not be a voluntary society – voluntary socialism cannot exist. I am unconvinced that anarchy is “inherently” socialist.
I actually agree with you about the term anarcho-capitalism because it is superfluous. In such a society only the market can direct voluntary activities thus it would have to be capitalistic, directed by the wants and needs and voluntary associations of free people.
An authority to decide what?
“Anarcho-capitalism” is not redundant, it’s an oxymoron. In order to abolish all monopolies, you kind of have to abolish economic monopolies as well. Duh.
[/quote]
most monopolies (perhaps all?)are reinforced by some kind of government or governement policy.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
That is of course a complete nonsense because in order to run and plan an economy you need quite a big government.
I’m not really sure what your point is here. There’s nothing inherent in the concept of “government” that requires it to be authoritarian.
[/quote]
Government is defined as the body within an organization that has authority and function to make and the power to enforce laws, regulations, or rules.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the war lords would be enforcing their rules, that would be the only rules
[/quote]
What about communities where the gun owning population outnumbers the police force by twenty fold? i have yet to hear of any warlords taking over.
or what about mountain communities where the closest police office is a hundred miles away. they exist completely devoid of any presence of law but aren’t falling to any warlords.
i have yet to hear of Christiana being taken over by a warlord.
also most warlord armies, even in history, are responses to large empire armies.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
That is of course a complete nonsense because in order to run and plan an economy you need quite a big government.
I’m not really sure what your point is here. There’s nothing inherent in the concept of “government” that requires it to be authoritarian.
[/quote]
Of course it is.
Government is always acting through the threat of force.
That is its only trick.
edit:
Or, even better:
?Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant – and a fearful master.?
?George Washington, 1797
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
the war lords would be enforcing their rules, that would be the only rules
What about communities where the gun owning population outnumbers the police force by twenty fold? i have yet to hear of any warlords taking over.
or what about mountain communities where the closest police office is a hundred miles away. they exist completely devoid of any presence of law but aren’t falling to any warlords.
i have yet to hear of Christiana being taken over by a warlord.
also most warlord armies, even in history, are responses to large empire armies.[/quote]
We not only have law enforcement, working for us we also have the military. With out the advantages of protection we would see. I believe we have never seen a utopian society of anarchy, but we do have a couple anarchy societies that have not turned out to be so great
Good stuff. It always pisses me off when people call America a democracy.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Even in anarchist society there are laws – in fact, wherever there are people there are always laws. Anarchy is just the natural order that exists when there are no monopolies on enforcement of them. It is a completely ordered society (by the market) outside the encroachment of forceful authority.
Please get clue. There is no such thing as “market” anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, or any other such nonsense. Anarchism is inherently socialist.
How so? That would mean that there would have to be an authority to decide which would not be a voluntary society – voluntary socialism cannot exist. I am unconvinced that anarchy is “inherently” socialist.
I actually agree with you about the term anarcho-capitalism because it is superfluous. In such a society only the market can direct voluntary activities thus it would have to be capitalistic, directed by the wants and needs and voluntary associations of free people.
An authority to decide what?
“Anarcho-capitalism” is not redundant, it’s an oxymoron. In order to abolish all monopolies, you kind of have to abolish economic monopolies as well. Duh.
[/quote]
There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly as long as it is voluntarily brought about in the market and entry into the market is not barred by coercion – i.e., government. Government is really the only true monopoly – on coercion.
OK for the Anarchist in the group, How do you take care of streets, thrash, water electricity disputes that our courts normally handle, environmental issues, I am sure there are more issues , but lets start there . Thanks
I’m talking about the monopolization of the “means of production” by the capitalist class. The fact that you can’t work unless you agree to submit to the whims of the company’s owners is an “econommic monnopoly” in this sense.
[quote]orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:I’m not really sure what your point is here. There’s nothing inherent in the concept of “government” that requires it to be authoritarian.
Of course it is.
Government is always acting through the threat of force.
That is its only trick.
edit:
Or, even better:
?Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant – and a fearful master.?
?George Washington, 1797 [/quote]
Then maybe our dispute is over terminology. I assume that you do not claim that there is no way to coordinate an economy which does not rely on a coercive central authority?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
OK for the Anarchist in the group, How do you take care of streets, thrash, water electricity disputes that our courts normally handle, environmental issues, I am sure there are more issues , but lets start there . Thanks [/quote]
The market. You pay for what you use, etc.
Everything that can be provided by government is already being provided by the market anyway, if you think about it logically.
The government just acts as an inefficient middle man, stealing money out of our pockets to pay the leeches at the trough – bureaucrats – which bog down the system and keep it from working.
There is nothing that cannot be provided by the market.
Let me start by saying your naiveté is charming.
OK, my first real objection is, how in the world do you pretend to call yourself an anarchist (perhaps I’m making an assumption here, but it appears that you’re arguing for anarchism) while defending a monopoly, which goes against the very premise of anarchism?
Next, I’m not talking about a “traditional” monopoly, as in there’s only one company which provides a particular service. See my above post. I’m talking about the monopolization of the means of production.
Furthermore, how is it that laissez-faire advocates are able to so easily seperate the government and the economy? Do you not realize that a capitalist government (i.e., the coercive one we’re complaining about) is the product of a capitalist economy> As long as you have the one, you will have the other. Because after all, who runs the government? It’s like saying all of the destructive tendencies of fire would be abrogated if we removed the heat. Then it would serve purely to illuminate.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I’m talking about the monopolization of the “means of production” by the capitalist class.
[/quote]
The means of production cannot be monopolized unless they were ENTIRELY owned by government – communism/fascism. Anarchy would be the exact opposite of that.
The productive means under a capitalist society are always changing hands – there is no true monopoly in this regard.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Next, I’m not talking about a “traditional” monopoly, as in there’s only one company which provides a particular service. See my above post. I’m talking about the monopolization of the means of production.
Furthermore, how is it that laissez-faire advocates are able to so easily seperate the government and the economy? Do you not realize that a capitalist government (i.e., the coercive one we’re complaining about) is the product of a capitalist economy> As long as you have the one, you will have the other. Because after all, who runs the government? It’s like saying all of the destructive tendencies of fire would be abrogated if we removed the heat. Then it would serve purely to illuminate.
[/quote]
You don’t know what a monopoly is. You don’t know what capitalism is. You don’t know the difference between the “economy” and government. As far as I am concerned I cannot even have a conversation with you.
Firstly, the “economy” is nothing more than people making choices about what suits their own interests. Government is the opposite of that. They are for the most part diametrically opposed to each other because government by nature restricts choices – thus impairing the economy. There is no “capitalist government” and it is even laughable that you would suggest such a thing.
Secondly, you mistake the doctrine of capitalism with people who act unethically. Capitalism is just the private ownership of the means of production. They can never be monopolized. However, the government can do all it can to ensure that only certain classes of individuals get to compete via regulation – thus they institute monopolies. These are the truly hurtful monopolies.
By definition if entry into the market is not barred by coercion there is no monopoly – only forceful coercion will bring them about. Heck, even still you will see a black-market pop up in most instances where competition is not allowed. That is a truly free market.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
OK for the Anarchist in the group, How do you take care of streets, thrash, water electricity disputes that our courts normally handle, environmental issues, I am sure there are more issues , but lets start there . Thanks
The market. You pay for what you use, etc.
Everything that can be provided by government is already being provided by the market anyway, if you think about it logically.
The government just acts as an inefficient middle man, stealing money out of our pockets to pay the leeches at the trough – bureaucrats – which bog down the system and keep it from working.
There is nothing that cannot be provided by the market.[/quote]
How likly would roads be that ran across the country, Ok maybe 1 turnpike, What about the steel mill down the street that is dumping polution in the river?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:most monopolies (perhaps all?)are reinforced by some kind of government or governement policy.
I’m talking about the monopolization of the “means of production” by the capitalist class. The fact that you can’t work unless you agree to submit to the whims of the company’s owners is an “econommic monnopoly” in this sense.
[/quote]
A monopoly of the means of production?
They do not sell any tools in America?
You cannot buy a computer, a printer or market your ideas in America?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:I’m not really sure what your point is here. There’s nothing inherent in the concept of “government” that requires it to be authoritarian.
Of course it is.
Government is always acting through the threat of force.
That is its only trick.
edit:
Or, even better:
?Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant – and a fearful master.?
?George Washington, 1797
Then maybe our dispute is over terminology. I assume that you do not claim that there is no way to coordinate an economy which does not rely on a coercive central authority?
[/quote]
Of course there is.
The free market.
Hence anarcho-capitalism- it does not need a government to function.
And yes, that actually has worked in reality, see the trade networks of the Hanse or Maghrebinian Jews.