The individual in society (2 Viewers)

[vikraman]

Jennyfdb, you feel that there is a good chance that violence in AC would be less than under nation states but take the US out of the equation and suddenly there aren't any major wars since WW2. There would have been small localized conflicts between the Soviets and the local populace they subjugated but American foreign policy post-Truman was the main driving force behind the expansion of communist governments. This same anti-communist activities created and spawned the Islamic mujahideen. Also America's obsession with toppling democratically elected leaders and supporting dictatorial crackpots around the world is the direct cause of so much violence by tinpot dictatorships against their own people (see Indonesia, Iran, Latin America etc.)

IF America didn't stick their blood stained fingers in every other country, many more liberal democracies would have evolved over the years due to maturing of the local population (the only form of democracy which is sustainable, not Afghanistan-esque "liberation from tyranny" governments).

Although whether liberal democracies cause less violence than AC is another debatable point altogether...

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Jennyfdb, you feel that there is a good chance that violence in AC would be less than under nation states but take the US out of the equation and suddenly there aren't any major wars since WW2. There would have been small localized conflicts between the Soviets and the local populace they subjugated but American foreign policy post-Truman was the main driving force behind the expansion of communist governments. This same anti-communist activities created and spawned the Islamic mujahideen. Also America's obsession with toppling democratically elected leaders and supporting dictatorial crackpots around the world is the direct cause of so much violence by tinpot dictatorships against their own people (see Indonesia, Iran, Latin America etc.)

IF America didn't stick their blood stained fingers in every other country, many more liberal democracies would have evolved over the years due to maturing of the local population (the only form of democracy which is sustainable, not Afghanistan-esque "liberation from tyranny" governments).

Although whether liberal democracies cause less violence than AC is another debatable point altogether...

That's a really good point. A lot of it can be traced back to the US.

Although there is still a lot of violence even in some of the best liberal democracies, especially if you regard locking people up for victim less crimes as violent.

I'd also argue that the US does a lot of terrible things on behalf on NATO countries and its allies which they implicitly sanction. If the US wasn't running an empire, would the EU, Australia, Japan ect, step in and fill that void? I'd say there is a good chance that they would.

The most important point ACists make from the US example is that no matter how good a constitution is, and no matter how many checks and balances a democracy has, power tends to corrupt, which is why individuals should never give away their rights to any body, no matter how democratic and safe it may seem.

 

[incentivation]

In an AC society (where people actually believe in AC or libertarian values) most people would want to avoid the formation of such organisation. So people would retain absolute title over their land, and simply pay private security firms to defend it. The firms would compete, and people could sack their firm at any time in accordance with the contract.

So you may be defended by firm A, while your neighbor is defended by firm B. Neither of you are bound together because of geographical proximity. Of course you could chose to enter into such an arrangement, but like I said most people would be individualistic and wary of anything resembling government if enough people had been converted to AC for it to come about peacefully.

What mechanism prevents Firm A and Firm B from colluding to form a powerful military entity which aims to then restrict the freedom of those within that society and establish itself as a coercive authority? We already have monopolies arising in other markets.

On face value, the whole philosophy seems to place an unrealistic faith in human nature, the market (an imperfect mechanism) and the idea that belief in AC or libertarian values will override a natural human selfishness and desire for power.

Indiscretions and lawless behaviour would render greater costs for individual protection of certain people which might be beyond their financial means. It appears to make freedom and indeed life, a commodity which can be bought and sold.

How does an AC explain the evolution of society from one of statelessness in the first place and justify that this progression is not a natural consequence of human nature and thinking?

I've never researched or studied AC at length, so these comments and questions are based solely on opinion.

 

[loquasagacious]

How does an AC explain the evolution of society from one of statelessness in the first place and justify that this progression is not a natural consequence of human nature and thinking?

Excellent question.

 

[KFunk]

What mechanism prevents Firm A and Firm B from colluding to form a powerful military entity which aims to then restrict the freedom of those within that society and establish itself as a coercive authority? We already have monopolies arising in other markets.

On face value, the whole philosophy seems to place an unrealistic faith in human nature, the market (an imperfect mechanism) and the idea that belief in AC or libertarian values will override a natural human selfishness and desire for power.

Indiscretions and lawless behaviour would render greater costs for individual protection of certain people which might be beyond their financial means. It appears to make freedom and indeed life, a commodity which can be bought and sold.

How does an AC explain the evolution of society from one of statelessness in the first place and justify that this progression is not a natural consequence of human nature and thinking?

I anticipate responses similar to the following:

(1) The idealistic response is that the mechanism opposing coercive authority will be free persons armed with guns, common sense and united opposition of such coercion. More realistic is the conjecture that coercion of some form is inevitable but that AC is preferable to state-based political systems.

(2) Idealistic: a well-constituted market harnesses egocentric impulses such that all benefit. More realistic is the repeated conjecture that selfishness and power hunger are inevitable but lead to more disastrous consequences in the form of a state.

(3) Freedom is not realised positively by institutional means, but is instead made possible, negatively, through the removal of external coercion. When you see a loss of freedom (e.g. of government investment in health/education/welfare, legislative protection and executive enforcement of certain rights, and so on) the anarchocapitalist sees a growth in freedom through decreased coercion - some will loose out (e.g. those receiving massive government handouts with little coercive interference), but the net change will be positive in favour of the AC varation on justice and political values. Again, the conjecture that the situation is better in ACtopia than a sta(lin)te-based system: a few people may be pillaged by roaming road warriors, but at least the masses will not be similarly pillaged by an entity like the IRS.

(4) Through appeal to the inadequacy of induction when it comes to generating universal truths, and through appeals to the many gypsies, pirates, cowboys and merpeople that once were known to inhabit, and will later help constitute, ACtopia.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

How does an AC explain the evolution of society from one of statelessness in the first place and justify that this progression is not a natural consequence of human nature and thinking?

We are not advocating a return to the sort of primitive statelessness of ancient times.

Complex institutions providing security, laws and codes of practice would still exist.

The only difference we are advocating is that opting in and out of these institutions should be voluntary.

 

[loquasagacious]

We are not advocating a return to the sort of primitive statelessness of ancient times.

Complex institutions providing security, laws and codes of practice would still exist.

The only difference we are advocating is that opting in and out of these institutions should be voluntary.

Would you accept the development of the state as required for the emergence of AC?

This would seem broadly similar to the early communist position that the state would be industrialised before communism could emerge successfully.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

@Incentivation: I'm not an AC, but I think that one of your questions relates to a more general anarchistic concept.

On face value, the whole philosophy seems to place an unrealistic faith in human nature, the market (an imperfect mechanism) and the idea that belief in AC or libertarian values will override a natural human selfishness and desire for power.

A very common argument against Anarchism is that the ill-defined and hardly generally applicable notion of 'human nature' will prevent a free society. Or put more succinctly, that human nature is a barrier to a stateless society. It's a very huge generalisation to state that 'natural human selfishness and a desire for power' are even natural. I would argue that the State itself and various state-like institutions empower, engender and promote greed. In true Anarchism, that is, sans this Capitalist bullshit, there is no benefit in keeping people sick, keeping people servile, and profiting on their ills.

Indiscretions and lawless behaviour would render greater costs for individual protection of certain people which might be beyond their financial means. It appears to make freedom and indeed life, a commodity which can be bought and sold.

I agree with this. 'Anarcho'-capitalists have no social conscience and their entire economic system is a form of social darwinism. What changes when the state is removed but capitalism is only made more powerful? The powerful and rich have more power. ACism is merely a way to more efficiently enforce wage slavery and take away livelihoods.

 

[SylviaB]

What changes when the state is removed but capitalism is only made more powerful?

So basically cutting of their access to a coercive monopoly and forcing them to be subject to the full force of teh free market (by preventing them from hiding behind 'regulations')...will give them MORE power?
WOW.

The powerful and rich have more power. ACism is merely a way to more efficiently enforce wage slavery and take away livelihoods.

NOTHING IN HISTORY has raised standards of living of EVERYONE as much as capitalism has.
Getting rid of the state will allow this to be even more the case.

Socialism has brought stagnation and poverty wherever it has been introduced.

And please, you're an anti-statist. Either you believe in the state, or you believe in the free market, because if we get rid of the state, the free market will emerge and without the guns of the state there will be nothing you can do about it.

 

[Enteebee]

An Update:

Firstly, sorry to Dom that I left our conversation half-way through. I've been busy with things, as I imagine you have, but I'm sure you'll be at least somewhat pleased to know I feel more inclined these days to agree with your thoughts.

I still feel the state has merit, just as I never felt anarchists or what have you have been wrong in the past - However a common scenario has become an undeniable truth to me, at least within Australia at the present time.

This is how it looks:

- Basically, the government has a guaranteed source of funds through their coercive powers.
- The government is in bed with our largest corporations and for the most part outsources all of their responsibilities to these corporations.
- These corporations have a guaranteed, awesome source of funding from the government... They then have to do very little real work, have very little "real" risk and have the largest margins of any of the businesses in the chain.
- The mid-tier companies / white collar people are essentially held hostage by the fact that these corporations are their pay masters. They probably do the majority of the administrative work which is supposed to be done by the larger corporations and could surely do the work the government pays the larger corporations to do, at a lesser margin (because they actually do it) -They hold the majority of what most people imagine a corporations' risk to be.
- The mom and pop companies / everyday people are at the mercy of the government who takes their money and gives it to the largest corporations... but they never know this. They see the mid-tier companies as their enemies, when they are both in actual fact slaves to the same system ^______________^

internet.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

So basically cutting of their access to a coercive monopoly and forcing them to be subject to the full force of teh free market (by preventing them from hiding behind 'regulations')...will give them MORE power?
WOW.

Yes. Because even though I din't like to admit it, the State does protect workers from capitalism to some extent. But even with our inadequate state protection, workers still get fucked over by corporate greed.

NOTHING IN HISTORY has raised standards of living of EVERYONE as much as capitalism has.
Getting rid of the state will allow this to be even more the case.

Time to bust a myth. Friedman, your hero, as he regularly did, failed to present any evidence to support his claims. One possible way of considering this would be to examine the actual performance of specific countries before and after 1980. That year is significant as this marked the assumption of office of Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US, both of whom were heavily influenced by Friedman and other supporters of free market capitalism. If his claims were true, then we would expect decreases in equality, social mobility and the share of "human services" before 1980 (the period of social Keynesian policies) and increases in all three after. Sadly for Friedman, the facts are counter to his assertions - equality, mobility and share of income for "human services" all decreased post-1980.

^ Paraphrased from AnarchistFAQ

Furthermore, in my own words, free market capitalism raises the wealth of a specific country. However, there is no guarantee that this wealth is spread equally (quite the contrary) and the fallacious claim that free market capitalism benefits the working class the most is not only untrue, it's a joke. Anarcho-capitalists place no value on equality.

Socialism has brought stagnation and poverty wherever it has been introduced.

State socialism, yes.

And please, you're an anti-statist. Either you believe in the state, or you believe in the free market, because if we get rid of the state, the free market will emerge and without the guns of the state there will be nothing you can do about it.

The idea that people will happily become wage slaves may be somewhat common place today (particularly with supporters of capitalism) the evidence of history is that people, given a choice, will prefer self-employment and resist wage labour (often to the death). As I have stated before, capitalism has been around for 200 years at best. It was fought by workers until it became established and forced upon us by the rich who had an obvious support for it. In a free, equal society, people will not willingly become wage-slaves.


For all your talk on liberty and equal opportunity, how can you possibly support the social and economic inequality of libertarian capitalism, and the unequal levels of power it brings? There can be no freedom amongst unequal human beings.

 

[SylviaB]

ugh. Taco, tell me this. What is your favourite book on economics?

 

[SylviaB]

How does an AC explain the evolution of society from one of statelessness in the first place and justify that this progression is not a natural consequence of human nature and thinking?

[youtube]uVEjXp1xr0E&start=30[/youtube]

 

[TacoTerrorist]

ugh. Taco, tell me this. What is your favourite book on economics?

Anything by Chomsky.

 

[SylviaB]

Anything by Chomsky.

bahahahahaaahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahahahahaha

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ You're an absolute immature fuckwit, when the moment your facts are destroyed by cold hard evidence you fumble for answers and crumble like a sack of shit. Noam Chomsky is a world renowned public intellectual, who also happens to be a sympathiser for anarchosyndicalism. He is a fucking genius, especially when compared to the likes of Friedman and Rothbard who were both liars and sympathisers for the ultra rich elite fucking parasites you so feverishly uphold.

Now tell me, how the fuck, how THE FUCK can you defend a system that is screwing both humanity and the planet with a big golden dick? How the fuck can you protect those who would take away your life and liberty in a heartbeat if they could get away with it? The elite, the wealthy, all have a vested interest in fucking us all over for their own sick greed. They're fucking up the environment, they're fucking coercing us to work our asses off for their insane record high profits, they're constantly trying to take away our fucking rights and livelihoods and cunts like you spit in the face of the ordinary people who take a fucking stand and shout out in the streets that the system is fucked. And newsflash, nobody, nobody in power or wealth gives two fucking shits about you or I. But guess what asshole, I do. It's just flat out horse shit the way the economic system is sustained, and the outright fucking lies the rich feed the populace to stay in power. They have the fucking government, the mass media, the pigs and the education system in their fucking back pocket. Constantly spreading easily disprovable bullshit to anybody and everybody, they control the public mind. I just cannot comprehend, cannot possibly comprehend how one of us, you, could possibly jump onto their side of the fence and start slinging shit to our side and slowing progress. Ultimately, you are a human being and I am on your side, unlike the motherfuckers who will stop at nothing to fuck us all over. How the fuck can you possibly be against the side of liberty, humanity, equality and free, unfettered speech and defend the elite? No amount of bullshit reading of any right-wing capitalist motherfucker can change the fact that the system is and always will be bullshit. There is no other word for it, it's all bullshit.

 

[SylviaB]

lol you've never read an actual economics book in your life, have you

 

[TacoTerrorist]

The Communist Manifesto, among others. Chomsky does comment on economics.

 

[SylviaB]

Hahah, so no.