Daily Anarchist Forum
July 04, 2022, 10:19:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3
1  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Murray Rothbard: Corporations are free market on: August 31, 2013, 08:50:08 AM
1.You guy.... lending money to a LLC and investing in it is legally speaking the same thing.
If junior wants to start his own business and he borrows money from grandma and grandpa to buy a car or a truck to run a taxi service or a delivery service or something, it is a company.
If he now drives recklessly and kills somebody, he will be sued. Lets say for $1million
Under your system, they will sell the car and give the money to the victims family. That would be not enough so they will go after the partners/investors/lenders and sell grandma and grandpas house to get the $1M (and it makes no difference if you call them an investor or a shareholder or a partner)

Under a limited liability company the driver and the company will be sued and all assets and future earnings (including the original amount from grandma and grandpa) can be attached but none of their personal property.
The reckless driver of the car also has personal liability that has nothing to do with him being an employee of the corporation.  He can be fined or jailed fotr his personal part in the accident.

2.Your thinking contradicts your philosophy on corporations. You say shareholders and investors should not have limited liability protection. But you also say you would not lend money to a corporation but you would buy shares. By your logic you should ONLY lend money to a corporation (or otherwise decide not to invest in anything or lend money to anybody) because otherwise your house and your car can be attached in a lawsuit if an employee of the corporation causes an accident.
The logical conclusion of your thinking would shut down all stock markets across the world as well as all retirement funds. Who would buy shares or put money in a retirement fund if your personal assets and those of your family would be at risk?

#. Whether you or anybody else would invest in a LLC is irrelevant to the argument. You do not have the right (or the ability) to stop other human beings from writing contracts any way they like. The market will decide if people will buy the product or not.- not you, not me, not the state.

Companies have existed from before the Roman times. They usually are private contracts without the need for governments. After they became successful the governments want a piece of the pie.

2  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Inalienable Rights on: August 31, 2013, 08:02:34 AM
I like arguing economics because it is more of a science and there are ways to judge accuracy. It is supposed to be value free and not to require ethical judgments.

Philosophy is not like that. There is no Supreme encyclopedia in the sky that lists the right philosophy or the wrong philosophy and there is no celestial supreme court of philosophers. Therefore philosophical arguments can go on forever and every argument in a sense can be the right argument.
So when it comes to "natural rights" that is how the conversations will go.

But "natural law" is the concept that reasonable beings can use their reason and come to some conclusions that certain things are just plain true for everybody based on what we know now.

So, long ago it was believed that the King or Pharaoh was a god and above the law and all citizens were his property.
Since then man's reason has evolved to recognize that no man can be another man's property and that what's his is his. (long arguments continue about property)
But pretty much everybody having done a little research would agree from the day you are born, your neighbor or your president does not have the right to come confiscate your fingers or your organs.
(and it does not matter if that baby agrees or understands it.)
Such ethical judgements, you are correct, fall in the field of morality- but the utterly accepted ones, the universal ones can be called rights (just a vocabulary term)
Some are inalienable because NO current or future state has the right to take them away.
3  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Property vs Rights on: August 31, 2013, 07:47:32 AM
The law of freedom of speech needed to be written only because of the existence of the state.
Because the state owned and controlled certain properties that was being shared by citizens, and because citizens were allowed to have varying opinions, rules had to be laid down about how people were allowed to act on its property.

However before the state and after the state,(when all property is privately owned) freedom does not need to be granted, it is just assumed. You always had freedom of speech where it does not impact on the rights of others.
But if you believe in property rights, you will decide how others may act on your property and consequently you will honor their rules on their property. You do not have the right to reduce his freedoms outside of your properties.

Similar with freedom to live.
4  General Category / General Discussion / Murray Rothbard: Corporations are free market on: August 29, 2013, 11:33:14 AM
5  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Antonio Buehler discusses Libertarians and the market. on: August 29, 2013, 11:01:41 AM
Who ever claimed the market solves ALL problems?
There is no such claim. We do not claim it to be some kind of second coming religion.

We just claim that liberty combined with free markets is the best, most efficient , most ethical way for humans to interact and it is more likely to lead to well-being for all citizens than any other form. Nobody said it would be heavenly with no pain and no crime.

Liberty means you grant everybody the right to think and do what they like even if you disagree (that includes the good the bad and the ugly) - as long as they don't encroach on the liberty of another.
6  General Category / General Discussion / Re: What is the largest non-corporate business in the world? on: August 29, 2013, 10:56:00 AM
As I said before I do not understand the paranoia about corporations being  criminal organization because they register with the state. Not any more so than any registered voter or taxpayer or drivers license holder or doctor or lawyer or accountant or shop owner or just about anybody else. We don't want to be registered but we have to.But I guess I am not going to convince anybody here about my views and that is not what State Hater wanted to know.

He wanted to be able to visualize a stateless society by examining examples.

Well what some other pointed out is you will not be able to use current conditions to make that visualization. Just like you could not use examples of prosperous Jews under Hitler or what a state would look like if there were no drug laws. (Even in Portugal and the Netherlands there are still drug laws.) Drug cartels are a bad example because they only exist because there are drug laws.

You would have to go back in history to the days when homesteading farmers answered to nobody or to the wild west before the west became incorporated in the state.
Apparently there are examples in old Iceland and Ireland histories.
7  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Leftist statists practice equivocation with racism and sexism on: August 29, 2013, 10:41:29 AM
The argument reminds me of the same thought pattern that went into the legislation for "hate crime"

Apparently when a murder is committed it is pretty bad but when the murderer has "hate" or "prejudice" in his heart and mind it is really seriously extra special super duper bad!
What are you going to do:- read his mind with a special scanner and if you find unclean thoughts execute him twice?

The only law needed is the first one to prove a person was aggressed against- his thoughts are irrelevant and indeterminable.

The second point that also applies to the "libertarians have cold hearts" argument- leftists secretly have no problem discriminating against all sorts of classes especially conservatives, but because they are such statist believers that we are the state and the state is us, their argument goes that you are racist if you don't vote for a socialist government. The thought that you may not need a state at all is utterly imperceivable to them and there is no point having that argument with them.
8  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Anarcho-Primitivist Agriculture Argument on: August 27, 2013, 02:50:04 PM
One big reason that there are not a lot of examples in history of communities free from the State, is because such communities were too busy doing their own thing to spend a lot of energy writing books on their history, archiving it in state archives and teaching it in schools.

Just about any uninhabited territory on earth was inhabited first by some migrants who lived and farmed peacefully. (possibly for tens of thousands of years)
Only after states became jealous and colonized them, did the history books start.
9  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Anarcho-Primitivist Agriculture Argument on: August 27, 2013, 01:44:29 PM
If thats where the theory of "agricultural property led to state" came in, then the theory should be amended to say that armies lead to states. There are multiple examples of agriculture without armies that did not lead to states.

I'm assuming we're all anarco - capitalists here. That we believe that private property is sacred and is the key to liberty as opposed to slavery. We believe that communism and socialism are forms of involuntary slavery. That you own what you produce and nobody can forcibly take it (legally)
That Austrian economic theories apply most of the time.

....If not we need to take the argument back to the "challenges to anarco- capitalism" thread and start at basic economics before Marx.

So "without property there is no theft", is the argument. (Just on the surface that is the same argument that without breathing nobody can break the law- so we should suffocate everybody and there would be peace)

In that scenario: You better gobble down your dinner real fast before you get seen and walk around naked because at any time anybody else can show up and take the shirt off your back and the food out of your mouth... because by their definition it wasn't even yours to begin with. So that presupposes a judge and a police-force to "distribute resources fairly" Unlike free markets, that system cannot exist without a state and is incapable of self regulating.

There has ALWAYS been scarcity of some resource or another- therefore their could always be theft. Even if your vocabulary does not include the word "property".
Like the primitive Bushmen of Africa. They do not see land, air, plants or wildlife as scarce, so they have no concept of property rights in those. Even if your neighbor breathes twice as much as you it will not impact your quality of life.
They live in a desert though, so they have to bury secret stashes of water for the future, their wives and children are scarce, so if you threaten their family by stealing their water or their wives or children, you bet your bippy they will fight you for it, even though they will not call it property (so would any of the  "tyranny of property"- socialist/ communists freaks today)
10  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Anarcho-Primitivist Agriculture Argument on: August 27, 2013, 10:22:25 AM
Eishhh again with the agriculture.

I said it to fujiiin and I say it again, that is poppycock. The development of agriculture has nothing to do with the development of the state.

The oversimplified thinking pattern is "agriculture developed.... states started showing up- therefore there is a correlation. Correlations are not proof.
There is the same correlation between shoes and states, donkeys and states, boats and states and fles and ticks and states for that matter. There are also civilizations that have agriculture, shoes boats and donkeys that do not have states.

All these references tell of the importance of agriculture in evolving human existence. None of them prove that that directly lead to state formation.In fact the one article actually claims that it is limited resources leading to war that lead to states. Similar to Rothbard's theory.

My theory is over tens of thousands of years tens of thousands of differing states evolved. Some survived some perished. A true statement would be that war played a significant role in lots of them, but not all.
It would be an oversimplification to say that war over land is the root of all evil.
It can be war over any scarce resource: water, trees, gold, women, slaves, fruit. wildlife.

Agriculture definitely was a huge advancement in lifestyle and longevity for humans. As was the industrial revolution, the development of the "horseless carriage, the telephone, radio, TV, the computer. All this helps to evolve man and it can be used by statists and anarchists to further their individual needs equally....but has nothing to contribute to forming a state.

My suspicion is that as soon as resources get scarce, the citizens are no longer able to defend it themselves and they submit to soldiers/ policemen to help them... that leads to statism, to taxes, warfare etc.
11  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 03:39:42 PM
You do not say exactly what you believe but because you seem not to like the ownership of private property you are similar to anarcho communists.
Go to the "General questions" thread on the other page of this website. The first category is called anarco capitalist reference list.
On there read Rothbard's  piece on The death wish of the anarco communists.
There are several articles on why monopolies cannot exist in a free market (I don't know if you think your arguments are right because you think what we have now is a free market.. it is not. What we have now is highly corrupted by statist favoritism and interference.)

People that have not studied economics, oversimplify economics and use their gut feel which is almost always wrong.
They tend to think trade evolves mainly around land ownership ... it does not. land is just one of many millions of commodities that are forever traded and changes hands. Some people own a lot of it so what, some people own a lot of pizzas and paperclips.. so what.. it is impossible to corner all of the market in an area under free trade. Like i said Bill Gates sold software and became one of the richest people on earth, yet he did not evolve into a horrible landlord that treats his tenants like dirt... the way you describe... he is too busy worrying about competition taking away his business.

Economic rookies think it is possible to force people to buy something against their will..
 it is not. In a free market sellers WANT you to buy their product, they compete for your business, they have to constantly improve their product so you will buy from them and not the competition
Free market system is the only viable system where the consumer rules with his vote a thousand times a day and the seller is at his mercy.
12  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 24, 2013, 09:18:32 AM
You came here to this website to challenge our beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that but you have to do the legwork and study the basic evidence we used to come to our conclusions to be able to argue with us.
(You cannot claim Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong based on your gut feeling without opening a book of mathematics.Without accepting certain mathematical formulas there can be no argument)

You claim things like "the free markets" caused statism... how do you get that?? You cannot just claim stuff like that because you believe it , you have to prove it.

You do not know the basics of economics that are true to everybody regardless of your philosophical belief.
Only after grasping that can you study the differences between the schools of economics.
You don't know the difference between Marxist economics, classic economics, Austrian economics and Keynesian economics
You don't know the definitions of monopoly, cartels, free markets, black markets,
and concepts like "amassing wealth" - because you do not have economic background you just conclude that it leads to elitism and new governments- there is no proof of that, in economics- the onus is on you to prove your points

It is not possible for us to teach a whole discipline of economics in a few paragraphs on a blog post.
13  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 23, 2013, 04:45:44 PM
Yes it is difficult to debate if we speak two different languages.

For instance your statement "free markets don't exist" is an economic statement. You may think that is true but unless you know a little economics we cannot discuss that. Until you know what all economists believe in we also cannot discuss what Austrians believe.

If Joe meets Suzie and trades a potato for her scarf, that is an example of a free trade. Clearly it exists.

Neither Austrian economists nor other economists claim that what goes on now globally is a free market.
Ever since your example of 10,000 years ago, there have been many many forms of authoritarian interference in the free markets- I think we both agree.For most of those 10,000 years the scenario you describe did exist.(few landlords owned all assets) 99% of people were serfs and everything belonged to the lords, including the food and the water.
The fact that you can sit there in front of a computer and write an opinion with knowledge from books you had access to and electricity that you freely buy, and food that you choose, means that that scenario has changed. 99% of the people of the world do not work for no wages anymore and have property rights and choices in an economic sense.

That is the difference between economics and philosophy. Philosophically you might argue correctly that you are indebted to the state and their laws control you- and that is still a form of serfdom, we agree. That is why we are both anarchists.
But until you have some economic laws that we agree on (and it doesn't even have to be Austrian economics which is just a subsection) on I cannot prove to you that your worst case scenario is impossible in an anarchist society and can ONLY exist if the state interferes.

14  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 23, 2013, 03:29:40 PM
Hey fujiinn,
Which books on economics have you actually read?
In order to have a meaningful argument you must understand a few basic economic principles.
The study of economics is not a philosophy or a political science, it just says if you do these things to the economy these things will happen. 
I don't care if you agree with the conclusions but you are not qualified to dispute something you have not studied.
15  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Property as tyranny on: August 22, 2013, 04:13:00 PM
Also Austrian economic theory says that it is impossible for monopolies to exist without the support of the state.

On your second nuclear scenario ... that is just the same old gun control theory just with a bigger gun.

Sure there are always going to be crazies on earth and unless we jail everybody, some of them can harm other human beings. (my contention is still that it is the ones on psychoactive drugs that commit mass murder not the ones left alone-but anyway) you are FAR more likely to die from a car accident or bee stings than from a madman using anything... least of all an atom bomb.

Besides those kind of crazies have enough access to collect a few bullets and rifles, but where are they going to get the billions of dollars to buy a nuclear bomb? And who would sell it to them, another madman with a death wish?

It takes years of study and significant smarts to build such a sophisticated weapon- most crazies can hardly tie their shoes. And if he is that smart he can sell his services for millions of dollars and buy drugs or go to Disney, he would be less likely to want to work that hard to kill people.

It also costs billions of dollars to store, maintain and service nuclear weapons. In an anarchist society there would be no tax dollars to pay for making and maintaining expensive weapons, so they will just die from old age or they would be dismantled and sold for private use in electricity generation and medical uses and other free market applications.
Sure somebody can steal the nuclear material and hurt people without creating a bomb, but that would be no worse than the damage that can be done with a simple home made fertilizer bomb.
Pages: [1] 2 3
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!