See, you miss my point. Any time that you force anyone to play by a set of rules, you're breaking the laws of the first part of "anarcho-__________". Whether you're forcing them to play by the rules of the market or forcing them to play by the rules of the collective, you're forcing them, which isn't anarchy. Yeah, they weren't capitalist? See, they were killing them, because some people didn't want to play by the rules of capitalism, ie, you consume and produce. What if people don't play by those rules? And if you can define capitalism as a philosophy of voluntarism and free exchange then I also get to define my version of socialism that we're talking about as being the same, since we're talking about idealistic systems here.
No you missed my point. Socialism as a philosophy requires coercion. Even in it's most idealistic form where the collective is all in agreement to sacrifice their labor for others, they are required to hand over their economic freedom to the community. Otherwise the system wouldn't work. This is why I don't think anarcho-socialism is legitimate, there has to be an institution to redistribute wealth and determine where resources go. Isn't that the state? And what are you talking about capitalists killing others because they wouldn't play by the rules of capitalism??? Every pro-Western regime we've propped up in a resource rich country has represented the antithesis of capitalism. Our government HATES capitalism because it usually leads to foreign countries serving their own interests first. When you use force to acquire your resources you are not a capitalist.
Not really, if you're arguing that capitalism by itself will self regulate because people will pretty much stop being powerhungry, then I can argue that socialism will self regulate because people will stop being greedy. So, would you argue that Milton Friedman was not a capitalist? You seem to have a very narrow definition of "capitalism"
It doesn't matter if people want power if the only thing that can grant them that power is the state. As long as criminal law is still enforced by the government there isn't any way for power hungry individuals to affect the ability of others to make choices. Only governments interfere with the your ability to make free choices, either economically, by granting monopolies or by delving into social matters like drugs, marriage, censorship, etc. Can you name a way that people can exercise their power hungriness in the free market that doesn't involve something criminal? (since crime would still be illegal in a fully capitalist economy) I can think of lots of ways to do so when a group of individuals prone to corruption called government is given coercive power...
I'm arguing that the power hungry are better tamed by the risks and rewards of the free market than that of the state run market. Without the omnipotent state the power hungry have less tools at their disposal to dominate us with. As Rothbard says, Friedman is the Establishment's Court Libertarian. He's not a true capitalist, but he's as close as this government will allow. There isn't a single definition for capitalism, but I don't think mine is narrow at all: A system based on the protection of individual rights. If someone is infringing on someone else's basic rights they are not adhering to the philosophy of capitalism.
This is a completely different argument than the one that I've been addressing. I've been addressing an argument with anarcho-capitalism. If you want to make an argument for why capitalism would work better with a governmental body, please, we can do that in another thread. And this goes back to a question that's about the evolution of the state. Do you think that the state evolved for a reason? Or how do you think that the state evolved? If the state evolved, and from the beginning, if you want to argue it this way, was being used to oppress people then it makes no sense to assume that people would act differently this time around and not find ways of exploiting people again. If you think that the state was created as a tool for abuse, what is to possibly prevent that from happening again?
The only difference between what I advocate and ancap is I believe the only function government has is very limited in scope, only for declaring war and protecting our negative rights. Ancap believes these things can be handled by the private sector, (which may very well be true) but I choose to argue for something that a huge majority of the population won't reject after first mention of the word "anarcho." This thread is still mainly about economics and the distribution of goods/services... that's what myself and other posters have been arguing for the government to get the hell out of. The free market shouldn't work "with a governmental body", because that wouldn't be a free market. Rather, it should operate independent of any regulation other than that provided by consumer spending power. Government's only function should be protection of negative rights. The way to prevent abuse from happening is to stop the state from doing anything beyond this function - anything else throws natural rights to the wind and puts you at the mercy of corruptible men. All the things the state currently pretends to protect you from wouldn't even exist if the market were allowed to price our labor.
Let's just assume for argument's sake that protection of our negative rights will be accounted for in a civilized society, whether by government or the private sector. Remember, this only came up because people alleged that its possible for groups to gain disproportionate amounts of power in the absence of market regulation. So, assuming criminal law will be enforced, how are consumers exploited in a free market full of competition and devoid of government regulation? Nobody has answered this crucial question.
I have not read much since like page 8, so excuse me if I say something that has already been settled. ---------------------------- Note: This is more my own post than a response, so take from it what you will. A few skunks can pollute a large area. Although I'm sure a majority of businesspeople would conduct their affairs with decency and honor, the whole AnCap society would be fetid. Unscrupulous stock-market manipulators would be a cinder into the public eye. Too many "privatized" judges and "privatized" legislators would put their power up for hire. A couple of clever insiders could form alternate companies doing various jobs (e.g. construction,), and hire themselves at outrageous prices. The possibilities for corruption would be endless, and if the whole point of an AnCap system is to do away with governmental corruption, what would be the point in switching to privatized corruption? Another major flaw that actually surprises me is that some of you AnCap proponents suggest that companies care what the public think. I remember something alone the lines of "Well, yeah, but what until public outcry? The companies will be forced to do something when the public gets mad!", which is blatantly untrue. A powerful company would not have to do jack shit for the public. In fact, in a pure laissez-faire economy, companies would actively abuse the public. We saw unscrupulous business tactics time and time again during the Gilded Age in American economics (which was very nearly a pure laissez-faire economy until the government finally pulled it's head out of it's ass enough to listen to the people's complaints.). In order to avoid punishment for any unethics, several "captains of industry" (Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Tweed, Field, Gould, Carnegie, Morgan etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) would bribe judges and law-makers, the police, the media, etc. Of course, I've also explained that a huge hole in your argument is that it almost entirely depends on the scenario that competition will prosper until the end of time. You are all right that competition would take place-- at first. A slightly more likely scenario would be competition would not prosper. Yes, competition would undoubtedly take place in the beginning years, but eventually, it would calm down. Business men would increasingly shun the crude bloodletting of cutthroat competition and begin to cooperate with one another in order rule whatever pocket of the industry the would like, whether it be chain grocery stores, construction, medicine, etc. Pressed to show more, or atleast some, returns on their investments, they would enter into defensive alliances to protect precious profits. The most basic of such alliances that would form would be a "pool"-- an agreement to divide the business in a given area and share the profits. However, just as in the proverbial Beauty Rose, eventually such alliances would evolve, and the dreaded "monopoly" would eventually form, whether it takes a decade or a millenium. It is neither healthy nor politically acceptable that so many people should be at the mercy of so few, as is the result of plutocracy. Although it's not 100% certain, there would be large possibility that employment would be as bad as it was during the laissez-faire 1800's, with 12+ hour shifts, low pay, dangerous working conditions, etc, etc. There would most likely be no regulation, because what's the point of replacing government regulation with some sort of regulation-company (The source of income of which I am confused would come from, and without income, there would be no regulation company. Of course, the same people who operate the prisons, the judicial system, and the police could also operate regulation companies. Please, see the irony. Besides, you said yourself, “devoid of government regulationâ€, which is suspiciously similar to saying “devoid of regulationâ€)? The company wouldn't really have a way to enforce regulation even if it wanted to without (a) some sort of physical (likely) or financial (likely) confrontation; or (b) the company being regulated upon agreeing to suffer fewer profits because they're "a couple of nice guys", which is such a ridiculously naive notion that I don't know how I'm going to end this sentence. Besides, cutting corners is a great way to increase efficiency, and increased efficiency is the entire reason for an AnCap society, correct? Back to the bit about competition: Competition is a bugbear to any business leader, and any CEO worth their spit in an AnCap society would exercise their genius in devising ways to circumvent competition. Although "vertical integration" would be seen, there is no doubt that "horizontal integration" would also be applied, which is simply allying with competitors to monopolize a given market. A "trust" is a perfect device for controlling bothersome rivals; Stockholders in various smaller companies would assign their stock to the board of directors in a larger company, which would then consolidate and concert the operations of the previously competing enterprises. Efficient. Weaker competitors, left out of the "trust" agreement, would be forced to the wall. Efficient? Bankers could corner their market by placing officers of their own banking syndicates on the various boards of competitors, this is known as "interlocking directorates". These are just two of hundreds of tactics that could be used to protect business, whether you prefer the term "monopoly†or “partnershipsâ€. Of course, this is all negligible, because in “money power†isn't dangerous, right? Especially not in an AnCap economy, because would be no dangerous hands for “money power†to be held in, right? There is no doubt in my mind (although I'm sure several of you would disagree), that in an era of completely free enterprise, piratical practices would be employed by the corsairs of finance, and business ethics would be distressingly low. There is only one alternative to “alliances†in big business: Total Competition and Domination. Primitive savagery would prevail in the jungle world of big business, and only the fittest would survive. That's the idea, right? Of an AnCap society? Only by sacrificing the early buds can the proverbial Beauty Rose grow to it's most beautiful potential. For those of you who don't “get itâ€, only by sacrificing the companies around you can your company become the best. In a Total Competition, several ruthless tactics could be applied, from extorting secret rebates to employing spies, and it would continue exacerbating until there was only a single company. You can decide for yourself whether or not the above scenarios fit in with your ideal world. They don't fit mine, which is why I don't advocate Anarchy. Yes, I'm sure there would be positive sides to the above scenarios, but personally, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. I will leave you with one small message, I'm sure I've said it before somewhere: [FONT="] The only thing big enough to tackle business is government, and when government becomes a business... [/FONT]
Why would anyone bother using, let alone adhering to, the judgment of an arbiter who was clearly corrupt? Why would anyone bother paying "outrageous prices" for a good/service which a competitor could offer at a fraction of the price whilst still making a profit? See this is the same problem with all of the opposition to the privatization thus far. The opposition poses these extreme scenarios but doesn't seem to bother explaining how they would arise to begin with. Because privatized corruption can be quickly and easily oppressed through market forces. People don't like corruption--people aren't going to put money toward corruption--corruption cannot sustain itself without a) other people's money or b) monopoly of law. Businessmen necessarily have to care what people think. I believe this was already covered. There is also plenty of historical precedent to reinforce this argument, look at what's happening with Toyota right now, for instance. Government is only NOW starting to 'step in' after Toyota has already started recalls, started implementing potential fixes, acknowledged the problem, etc. It hasn't been a perfect situation, and Toyota may not be handling it perfectly... but the fact remains that the process began regardless of government because the public became aware of the issue and Toyota necessarily has to respond in order to face, maintain consumer trust and continue competitive sales of their cars. Businessmen require consumer dollars to stay in business. If they continually fuck the consumer over, they stop getting consumer dollars and their business implodes in on itself until they no longer have a business. It's really that simple. And the 'gilded age' was not at all pure laissez-faire, so I'm not sure what you think you're talking about there. The "robber baron" myth has been thoroughly discredited and refuted for some time now. The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute The more unregulated the market is, the more competition spawns in that market. This is really undeniable, and easily verifiable, so I'm not sure what it's such a stretch to presuppose perpetual competition in a free market. You suggest that competition would simply die off, but that just doesn't happen; not unless coercion is involved, that is. As long as something can be improved, produced, delivered, or created in a more efficient, cheaper manner... then competition will exist. As long as industrialization continues to occur... the competition will exist. And yet that's what we have now. If people are willing to exchange their labor for long shifts, low pay and/or "dangerous" working conditions; that is their right. It isn't in a business' interest to endanger their employees, or overwork them. And some forms of labor simply are not worth that much compensation. Employment opportunities are naturally in abundance. Unemployment is not a symptom of a lack of things to do, unemployment is a symptom of a weak economy where people simply can't afford to pay others to do things that they'd like done. Coercive regulation isn't necessary when the market is allowed to regulate itself. Not when cutting corners compromises the quality of the good/service you're providing to consumers. Such as industrialization, improved products? For shame... Efficiency monopolies are not sustainable, and they never have been. As opposed to now, where they're the pillar of excellence? Anyone can speculate about "possible" scenarios which "may" arise. It's something else entirely to reasonably explain how they would arise... Elephants COULD fall out of the sky and kill us all. This doesn't prevent me from going on about my daily life without care of elephants raining down death upon me because there's no reasonable explanation as to how elephants could fall out of the sky and kill us all. Back to the drawing board with you.
Okay, so i have read through about half of this thread, and for you guys that came down on me ( yes, you came down on me, even if it WAS with accurate information) in the fire fighter thread, i have to say that i am seeing your theories more clearly. In order for competing agencies of retaliatory force to properly function. Essentially all of these said agencies would have to agree upon a NAP which would act as a guideline to define what was essentially legal, and illegal under private "law." Then when one agency violates this NAP they are subject to retaliation from other competing agencies whom were effected by said "infraction" against the NAP. Efficiency in retaliation then occurs when instead on relying on a Federal retaliatory force to protect us, our self employed, self governed Retaliatory force immediately and directly demands satisfaction, and uses coercion ( justified by the NAP) to receive satisfaction. Is what I'm saying here an accurate statement according to the concepts you guy are putting forward? I will wait for a correction, or affirmation of that statement before i ask my next question.
Seems about right. The NAP is essentially the foundation for what would be common law. Not only would companies need to accept it, citizens would too. I don't view this as any major stipulation though, due to the objective nature of the NAP. With regard to agencies of retaliatory force, or security firms, the point is they'd not have a monopoly on law and protection. They'd be in competition with other agencies and firms. When a particular market is monopolized by way of coercion, inefficiency and injustice necessarily result from such a monopoly. We can clearly see this in the U.S. criminal justice system. These competing agencies would not be self-governed, per se. They'd be accountable to consumers, and market demands.
By self governing i mean that the consumers who subscribe would control whether or not a firm could violate part of a NAP agreement. If they tried, money would dry up, and since the same consumers that subscribe would likely make up the man power ( It makes sense to play for your own team.) they also have the option of literally disobeying. The firm cannot fire its own consumers. Not good for business. Hopefully i have not lost base thus far... Now what happens to people outside the subscription market? Even if someone does not subscribe to a protection service, or put themselves in contract to the NAP, they will likely be held accountable for victimizing someone who IS a subscriber. Thus they are liable to be put under coercion by agencies they are not in contract with. Which leads to the statement that whether or not you agree to contract yourself to these laws, you are still under coercive force to abide by these rules. Is this meant to be justifiable by the increased efficiency offered to "law/rule abiding" subscribers whom are NOT violating NAP? Essentially no mercy for people who violate the NAP (i'm not taking a stance that this is a bad thing, i'm just asking for sake of understanding, i believe scum deserve to be treated like scum) If i am missing something please fill in the gaps ...please