Daily Anarchist Forum
August 11, 2022, 04:28:10 PM *
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 ... 6
1  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: The end of crapitalism on: April 30, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
I'm sorry, AG, but you have been soooo manipulated that you can't even conceive of freedom, you think that following the rules is the way to go,....if only you could adjust them to your liking,....

? I think you got me mixed up with someone else.  I know what freedom is and I haven't mentioned any rules. When did I say "following the rules is the way to go" ?

My proposal is very pragmatic, if we want consumer goods we have to make them.  I say we divide that equally, and you say that some people should eat without working.

No its not pragmatic. Your system is if we want consumer goods we have to "take" them. I never said people should eat without working, that is your system.  In your system people would take all the free goods and eat without working.

Yes, that is what I asked, what are you going to do now?
Will you lay down and die?

Read what I said would happen. I've explained it a few times now already.

How many widgets did the wall street bankster create?

Wow, that's an original thought, wall street bankers are bad.  It has nothing to do with any of my posts though.

Emma Goldman, Petr Kropotkin.
You know, anarchists,....

Ok you got me there, well done.  You actually answered one of my questions, and answered it well. (I'm not being sarcastic)  However, this is an occasion where these thinkers were wrong.  There is no reason why everyone should have an equal share and there is no reason why everyone should have an equal vote.  These concepts have no place in the real world. Equality doesn't exist in the real world and in fact, equality is against our nature and against the nature of every living thing on the planet.

OMG, how you don't recognize the exploitation in paying somebody less than the value of their labor is beyond me.

This is where our real argument is and I don't recognize the exploitation in any of your examples because there is no exploitation. When someone is paid $10 an hour that is what the value of their labor is.  You can imagine that it is some higher number, but you are only imagining that. Humans value goods subjectively. I value my labor at a certain rate, someone else may value it differently.  But there is no objective value to someone's labor.  Labor is a price determined on the market like any other price, through negotiations between buyers and sellers.

Ok, are they free when the employers collude on what to pay?
Are they free when the choice is submit to the exploitation or starve?

Yes and yes.

Honestly, AG, I have argued the exact position you hold, continue down the non-aggression path and you will find that I am right.

I seriously doubt that, you haven't looked at the Labor Theory of Value or Subjective Value. But if we can agree on Non-Aggression that's a good start.  I have a question about your system.  What if I formed a private property community in your anarchist world.  Then my neighbor offers me a job for an ounce of silver a week and I agree to work for him.  Am I free to live in this private property community and work for someone else if I choose to?
2  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: The end of crapitalism on: April 28, 2015, 12:05:43 AM
Goods aren't 'valued' in my system at all,.....only in the paradigm you accept,.....
Crapitalism is soooo different than what I propose that the terms you are trying to fence my proposal in with are not applicable.

You are the one who mentioned "what measure most equitably changes the hours I spend making tp into the equivalent of a hamburger."  What you are attempting to do here is calculate value.  But go ahead, backtrack and pretend that there is no "value" in your system when you just described how to calculate it.

What is more valuable, the Saturday that you spend earning enough money to buy that bauble or the Saturday you spend with your friends and family?
Which system on the table, mine and yours, do you suppose will deliver more family time while still making consumer goods available?

Your system would definitely deliver more family time since there wouldn't be any consumer goods available at all.  Once the stores were looted and people carried away all the free stuff, we would have all the family time in the world. People would probably get tired of family time once they began starving though.

Ok, lets grant that what you say did happen, what do we do now?

Society would degenerate to a level of subsistence living.

Do we sit around and cry in the beer we don't have because we don't have means to supply it, or do we set about creating a system that doesn't reward sloth?

You mean after we adopt your system that rewards sloth how do we create a system that doesn't reward sloth? That's simple.  If people were smart they would get rid of the the childish system of "everyone can take whatever they want" to a system based on private property. In other words we adopt a system where it is not ok to take things that belong to other people without their permission.

My system floats because of the willingness of the people to do right, ie, to contribute to the collective whole because we love one another.

Hey if you think that system will float, I wish you luck.  Try to find like minded people, associate with them and build that system. Just don't force us to live that way or steal our stuff, thanks.

Indeed he does, he deserves one share of the work.
But that is not what crapitalism does, it does not divide the fruit of the labor equally among the workers,

OK, now we are getting somewhere.  So you didn't show any exploitation between the Employer and the Employee in my example (that's because there isn't any) and you even admit that the Employer deserves a share.  But you think that he deserves only an equal share with the workers. Why should the employer who lived and worked on his farm his whole life share everything equally with a guy who comes in and works for a month on his farm. That's ridiculous. The employer shouldn't have to divide everything equally between himself and his workers. Why should he divide it equally? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why should everyone get an equal share?  Where did you get this idea from?  What if I'm a worker and I've been there ten years and work 6 days a week, should I get an equal share with someone who was been there one year and works 3 days a week?  This equal share concept is a bunch of democratic BS.  It makes no sense. A better idea is that each employee makes a contract with the employer for how much they will receive.  If they agree on an amount then the employee works there, if they don't agree then he doesn't work there. That's fair.

in fact, it rewards the non-producer much better than the worker, that is how the 1% get to be the 1%.

Actually, many of the 1% got there because of special favors from gov, not capitalism or any free-marked activity.

My friend works at fedex, she gets $13 an hour and has been there 8 years, she gets all giddy when the managers give out free swag, but she doesn't connect the fact that her not being compensated fully is what made that swag available.
Now let's add in the $12.1 million NFL sponsorship...
All of which came directly from not paying her the full market value to put boxes into vans.
Her putting boxes into vans netted the bosses far more than it netted her.
Crap if you ask me.

You mean "some of which came from not paying her the full market value to put boxes into vans" LOL. Well it may by crap to you but its not crap to her, or at least its less crappy than her other options from her perspective.  But one thing it is definitely not is exploitation.  There is no exploitation in your FedEx example. They contracted to pay her $13 per hour for her time. If they pay her that then its fair.  Its what they agreed too.  She may want more, they may want to pay less...  It doesn't matter that's what they agreed to.  No exploitation here.  People are free to sell their labor for whatever price they agree to.

He could have had it for free under my proposal because the plow maker recognizes the importance of the potato farmer having good tools.

No, there will be no farm tools in your proposal because nobody is going to be stupid enough to make them so that people can just loot them.  LOL

And that risk is eliminated by what I propose.

Oh, and in your system there is no longer any changing weather patterns or potato blights or bad harvests? OMG you must be joking now right? LOL. Childish Leftist Utopian nonsense at its best.

I hope my fedex example serves here,...

Your Fedex example serves as an example of a contract, not exploitation.

If it wasn't the 'free' market that refused me bread until I was exploited by someone with more money than me, then who did?

1) You have not given me even one example of exploitation in all your rantings.

2) Starvation is what happens when people don't have enough food. This is a fact of nature. Not every example of starvation can be blamed on someone else.
3  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: The end of crapitalism on: April 26, 2015, 08:27:53 PM
Hello Mac,

Thank you for your comments. The sad thing is that people like Freeborn could be allies if they truly believed in a voluntary society.  I even said before to him that if he would like to form a community built upon his economic principles then I wish them luck.  I would rather be part of a community where I could own property and buy and sell my labor.  He doesn't have to be a part of my community.  He is free to pool his resources and labor with like-minded individuals to build his own type of community. As long as his community doesn't attack us or plunder our resources then the two communities could exist side by side.  Actually in a voluntary society there may be 100 different communities, each one trying their own type of economic system. Some would prosper, some would fail.  That's the beauty of freedom is that society doesn't have to fit any one model. Individuals are free to chose what kind of lifestyle they want to live as long as they don't force others. At least that's my understanding of freedom.  The problem with many leftists is that all of society has to fit their mold.  Its pretty sad that leftists can't even tolerate the existence of one different system or any people who have different ideas. It reveals the totalitarian and utopian tendencies of their ideology.  "The whole world must accept it for it to work."

I wouldn't care if 99% of the world decided to live in some sort of co-op or commune.  Just as long as I'm free to associate with the 1% of like-minded individuals whether it be 100 people or just 10. If only 10 people wanted to live in a free market society I'm not going to cry that everyone has to accept my ideas for them to work.  The free market will work whether there are only 2 participants or 2 billion participants. It doesn't matter how many are involved, the free market is economically efficient and the greatest example of mutual cooperation and mutual benefit in human society.
4  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: The end of crapitalism on: April 26, 2015, 06:45:46 AM
Let's review the proposal,.....the structure that is walmart becomes the central distribution network, we can include target and Costco, the workers continue to supply the distribution system as if everything were normal, except that instead of paying at the register they just take what they need to keep supplying the distribution chain.

As long as the workers supplying the system continue to do so the shelves are full.

What has happened is the workers have taken over from the owners.
Now all profits accrue to the workers and not the bosses.
At some point demand is met and work lessens.

Instead of working for less than the value their labor creates they now work only to satisfy themselves that they are not a drain on the whole.

If I get my Maserati and leave it in working order when I die how much work have I consumed?  Very little, as the work is still there in the form of a working car.

Now, if I eat, I need to contribute in a measure that equals the labor involved in supplying that food.
I don't have to grow my own food, I can work in the toilet paper factory.

I don't claim to have a lock on what measure most equitably changes the hours I spend making tp into the equivalent of a hamburger, but better mathematicians than me can do the math in minutes and I can access their determination on the web.

It doesn't matter how many mathematicians you get to try to calculate the "measure that equals the labor involved in supplying that food."  Goods aren't valued by the amount of labor that is put into them. The "Labor theory of Value" was proven false over a century ago. Unfortunately Marx, and even some good thinkers like Kropotkin and Goldman, built their economic theories on the Labor Theory of Value. But its not true. Goods are valued subjectively by humans.

But even if they were valued according to labor, the amount of Labor in your society would instantly decrease. The workers would not continue to supply the shelves of Walmart so that looters can just take free stuff.  There are no more profits to accrue to the workers because you just got rid of money.  So everyone would stop working and take the free stuff until it was gone.

LOL, you are trapped in the paradigm,....Have I not repeated enough that the system is voluntary?

You can repeat "voluntary" till you are blue in the face. But you also let the word "control" slip out too. Voluntary doesn't mean much when we have you controlling the media.

Even if you chose not to work a minute in your life you are still going to get fed, albeit with the reputation, and consequences, of being a bum, but you would be able to get your supper without submitting to work.

So what happens to your society whenever everyone decides to not work a minute and still get free stuff?  No more stuff, just like I said.  That's what would happen to your society.  I wouldn't work so that everyone else can get free stuff.  I'd rather play video games all day and still get the free stuff.  This is what the majority of people would do.

Why should someone plant potatoes and not receive the entirety of what he planted? Here are 3 good reasons, which you didn't seriously deal with, why someone would plant potatoes and not receive all of them: 

1) the employer cleared the land and made it arable so that it would produce something in the first place, or he paid the 1.2 million dollars from the person that did. He deserves a portion of the produce because of this.

2) The employer bought all of the farm equipment so that the laborer can be productive. Without these farm tools the laborer would produce 100 potatoes by hand instead of 1000. He deserves a portion of the produce because of this.

3) When the employer pays a laborer $100 to produce $1000 worth of potatoes, he is taking a risk. If there is a bad harvest and he produces only $50 worth of potatoes then the employer loses money. But the employee still gets paid his wages. Because of this risk the employer deserves a portion of the produce.

Deal with the Employer and Employee in these examples. Show me where there is exploitation. There are no bankers involved yet.  If you want to deal with banking I can show you the purpose of banking by introducing a banker in a future example. But you won't understand it unless you first grasp what going on between the employer and employee.

Your 'free' markets still starve me unless I meet your demands.

If you don't have enough money to buy bread then you starve, the "free market" didn't starve you. You can't blame others if you starve unless they actually took something from you.  Maybe if the CEO of walmart breaks into your house and steals your last loaf of bread then you can blame him.  But if you have food and then run out, you can't blame others because you didn't make provision for the future. 

Also if someone chooses to give you a loaf of bread then the "free market" just prevented your starvation. Everytime someone gives away something this is also part of the free market. Charity and gift-giving are just as much a part of the free market as bartering or monetary exchanges.
5  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: The end of crapitalism on: April 04, 2015, 03:36:45 AM
Ok, then are you in favor of throwing children into the street because their parents drank the rent money?

Seriously, what is your reaction to panhandlers?
Get a job, right?
Submit to the slavery, bum,...

Will you let me starve in the streets because I recognize the slavery inherent in 'Get a job, bum'?

I would have to know the specifics of each particular case as to whether I would be in favor of evicting a family or giving beggars money or not. Just because you throw some sentence out there to make people feel sorry for “the children” or whatever doesn’t repudiate the free market. It doesn’t change the fact that the free market is the greatest tool to bring society to general prosperity.

I'll have to read more about the history you reference, but the facts are that it is possible to transition from here to there.  
If the people riot once the food runs out they are going to starve or work at repairs.  
If properly prepared by announcements on the flashy light box, and classes to the kids on how this is going to work, the transition can be made without the end of the world.  It is only a matter of controlling the mass media and the schools long enough to show the people that continuing to produce the goods will lead to a world free from crapitalist domination.

It is not a fact that you can transition to your system.  The fact that you don’t want to adopt it on a small scale proves it won’t work on a large scale.  If your system was better then free coops would out-perform private institutions and more people would choose them.  But because of the relative lack of goods and freedom in your system people would leave your system in order to have goods again and in order to own their own property.

I’m really glad you wrote the above statement about “controlling the mass media.”  This shows the true authoritarian nature of your system if it were ever adopted.  This is why you refuse to allow any alternatives to your system to exist.  You are a monopolist, there can be only one way, your way. In my world your system and free market anarchism could exist side by side.  In your system we would give up crapitalist domination in order to be dominated by you.  I don’t need you to control my media or to indoctrinate my kids thank you.

Because his mindset is crapitalism, a different indoctrination and he does as I propose.

Typical marxist nonsense, we need to build a new socialist man etc...  We would all follow your system if you could just indoctrinate us to believe that people will work hard without any personal remuneration.

Well, then you would be wrong, I have worked since I was 14 and currently am 49.
I do it because the slaves around me are blind to their slavery and have not been presented with alternatives, in fact, they have been inoculated against them by their schools.
I don't say, 'I bought this widget for $1 and now I can sell it to this sucker for $10, screw that lady, she has it'.
My 'childish' understanding comes from freeing my mind from the evils of crapitalism,

I no longer think in dog eat dog terms, I don't say to people 'either submit to my rules or starve', I say 'how can I help you', instead.

I don’t think in “dog eat dog” terms either and I never did. “How can I help you” is the attitude one must have to survive in the free market. This is exactly the reason why people in the market place say “How can I help you.” Nobody would say that in your system. I don’t want people to submit to my rules either, except for something like “don’t attack or steal from me.” Also I don’t demand that the entire world go to my system.  If you want to try some ridiculous social experiment, than go ahead. Just use volunteers and your own property.  Don’t force me to join or to pay for it.

If you'll do this $60 worth of work I will give you $20 of the value you created,...??
If you plant this field with potatoes valued at $1000 at harvest I will pay you $100 for the 3 days it will take you?
If you harvest this wheat that could feed you all year, I will feed you for the time it takes to get the work done.
Seriously, you need to look closer at the 'deal' you offer.
At the value your work creates.
If I create 100% of the value and you take 40% of the money what have you contributed for your gain?
How is that not stealing the value I created?

The type of work you describe here is not stealing at all.  You are describing a situation where a laborer sells his time to create goods for his employer.  At no time does the employer take the property of the employee, so there is no theft in any of your examples. Why should someone plant potatoes and not receive the entirety of what he planted?  

1) the employer cleared the land and made it arable so that it would produce something in the first place, or he paid the 1.2 million dollars from the person that did. He deserves a portion of the produce because of this.

2) The employer bought all of the farm equipment so that the laborer can be productive. Without these farm tools the laborer would produce 100 potatoes by hand instead of 1000. He deserves a portion of the produce because of this.

3) When the employer pays a laborer $100 to produce $1000 worth of potatoes, he is taking a risk. If there is a bad harvest and he produces only $50 worth of potatoes then the employer loses money. But the employee still gets paid his wages. Because of this risk the employer deserves a portion of the produce.

The labor theory of value and the marxist idea of "surplus value" are behind your misunderstanding here.  These theories were proven wrong over a hundred years ago. Again, you have been working so many years and have been a part of this website for so long and haven’t figured this out yet. I almost can’t believe it. It seems that you don’t even want to pretend to understand economics. You would rather substitute it with utopian and childish fantasies.

Then where will the goods come from?  Their desire for goods is not going away, everybody wants toilet paper but they don't want to make their own.  
Will they just lay indolent until starvation takes them to heaven?
I don't think so, they submit to the slavery today because they want to eat, they will join in the new paradigm that rewards them far better, the full value of their labor rather than the crumbs left by the greedy.

I’ve already answered this. People will loot the stores until there is nothing left then they will degenerate to a level of SUBSISTENCE living. This means that people will produce only what they need to survive. They certainly won’t switch to your paradigm where they enjoy “the full value of their labor.” There will be no labor in your paradigm, so there would be no value to consume, that’s my point.

Admittedly I don't have that much knowledge of the time, but I do have this,...There is no communism in Russia, by Emma Goldman.

Also check out Emma Goldman’s work about her Disillusionment in Russia. These are all great works. But it doesn’t change any of my points. Many people would rather live in a free society where they can own property. The only way the Bolsheviks could get people to behave otherwise was to put a gun to their head. Not even your indoctrination schools or re-education camps can change that.

Perhaps it is you that needs this advice, as you are the one supporting the system favored by dictators the world over.

Actually no, Gov is the system favored by dictators the world over.  That’s why dictators are the heads of governments. In your system gov would still exist, how else will you control the media? Unlike you, I don’t want to “control” anyone, even the media.

The workers will not be working for nothing, they will be working to ensure that they are not parasites on other workers while enjoying the goods provided by others doing the same.
We don't have to have the paradigm you are perpetuating, you are no different than the banksters, you just want to be at the tip of the (smaller) pyramid that you control while not being under theirs'.

If you are so confident that people will work simply "to ensure that they are not parasites" then give your system a try. I don’t want to be at the tip of a pyramid. I’m not the one calling for “control” and “indoctrination.”  Perhaps it is yourself that you are referring to here.
6  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: The end of crapitalism on: March 29, 2015, 04:55:59 AM
OK, AG, now the shelves have been looted and the world is in disarray, what do we do next?

I guess we get back to work building the crapitalist utopia that our brief excursion out of led us into this disarray.

No, I'm not for re-building our current crapitalist system at all.  I'm for rebuilding the free-market.

Really, AG, the doom and gloom you predict will not happen.
An orderly transition from the slavery of crapitalism can be had just as simply as continuing to work while not paying at the register.

If society went to a system where people did not have to pay to take goods from stores, then all that "doom and gloom" would absolutely take place. Its not even debatable. It happened already when the Bolsheviks abolished money after the revolution in Russia.

Records will have to be made to facilitate reordering the goods taken from the shelf, but I propose that in short order everything will be ordered from the web and delivered to the door.

The structure that is a corporation fills the shelves whether the accounting department does it's job or not.

The guy making the widget doesn't care if the customer doesn't pay, he only cares that the shelves continue to be stocked so that he can continue to make widgets.

No, the guy making widgets only cares that he receives a pay check. No worker or business owner stands around at work thinking "I just hope these goods I'm making end up stocked on store shelves somewhere." I mean come on man, do you really think this? This childish understanding of labor makes me think that you have never even had a job nor worked a single day of your life. The only reason they are at work is because they get paid. The moment workers are no longer compensated for their work and goods are "free," no worker will be stupid enough to work for nothing anymore. Unless of course you put a gun to his head and force him to work. That's what they ended up doing in the Soviet Union to get people to work, they had to force them.  Ultimately, it doesn't matter what kind of lofty ideals you have about people working for free and for the common good or whatever, no worker is stupid enough to work for nothing. Wake up bro, or grow up, whatever it is you need to do.

This can be accomplished in the absence of dollars.
We have to have workers, we don't have to have dollars.
Seriously, open your mind, alternatives to crapitalism exist.
Don't let the bankster's matrix keep you enslaved, seek alternatives.

You are correct that we don't have to have dollars and that there are alternatives to crapitalism. The only real alternative to crapitalism that will bring about freedom and prosperity is the unhampered free market, unhampered by gov coercion and violence.  In the free market dollars would disappear and people would resort to bartering.  Workers at first may work and barter their labor for any number of things: "grain, eggs, salt, silver, gold, bitcoin etc..."  However after a while they will find that its much easier to trade silver, gold and bitcoin instead of grain, eggs and salt.  At this point silver, gold and bitcoin would become the "money" of society. "Money" is just a tool to make trade easier.  And I believe that there may be multiple forms of money in a free market.  People would choose which form they like, or perhaps use all of the forms. Personally I would probably use silver for my daily expenses, I would keep my savings in gold and I would use bitcoin for online transactions.

Don't worry, I'm not enslaved by the banker's matrix. Their control over the market and their scheme to expropriate us exists because of gov controlled money, gov regulation and gov bailouts. Once the gov is gone, the corrupt banking institutions will go bankrupt and banking will be just like any other business.

Prince Kropotkin laid it out in the 19th century.


I agree that Kropotkin was a great man, and an interesting anarchist philosopher. I've already read the Conquest of Bread as I've told you before. Unfortunately some of his economic theories were flawed. The first step for all Anarchists, from Rothbard to followers of Kropotkin, is to abolish the state. At that point you can join some sort of co-operative where people work to stock the shelves of a community store.  Personally, I would rather work for silver or bitcoin that I can exchange for the goods I want.  In a free market, anyone is free to do what they like, as long as they don't coerce others.  You may find a decent Co-op if it has the right kind of people in it or you could even start your own. I wish you luck, just don't try to force me join your system or try to take my stuff that I worked for.
7  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: The end of crapitalism on: March 26, 2015, 10:09:31 PM
Will the shelves be full?

No, the shelves will not be full.  Once the goods are free for anyone to take they will be cleaned out by all the workers and non-workers until there is nothing left.  The shelves will be completely empty by day 2 of this Utopian fantasy world.

Will the workers work?

No, they will immediately quit their jobs or go to their jobs to loot whatever they can carry off just like they looted the stores. Once workers realize that there are no goods left and that non-workers can take just as many goods as workers, they will no long be stupid enough to work.  Once the initial stage of pillage, riots and death is finished, society will degenerate to a level of subsistence living. The survivors of this "revolutionary holocaust" that Marx spoke of will be lucky if they can just barely get enough to eat each day, that is, if it isn't stolen from them by whoever has the most weapons or the biggest gang. At some point society will resemble more of a primitive stone-age tribal society. Then perhaps, a particularly enlightened tribe, community or group might have enough of this crap and start to organize themselves around clear principles of private-property.  The standard of living in this community would start to rise above their primitive neighbors as they engage in trade, production and technological development. Hopefully these primitive neighbors would also adopt the revolutionary ideas of private property and commerce and realize how foolish and childish it would be to have a society where everyone can just take whatever they want whenever they want to.  
8  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Five Stupid Things About Libertarianism on: December 04, 2014, 10:03:14 PM

This guy claims that Libertarianism is "naive" among other things.  Then he goes on to say that "A constitutional democratic republic doesn't have to be the enemy of the people... It can be one of the most powerful tools of the people." This sentence is far more naive than anything in libertarianism. The only tool here is the author of the video.  It is sad that an atheist who can see the blatant lies and manipulation in religions can go on to be a true believer in the state.

All five of this guy's "stupid things" are really just typical mainstream dismissals of libertarianism.  They are the stereotypical negative things that non-libertarians think of when they wish to discredit libertarianism without even attempting to understand it.  There is a refutation of this video here:

9  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: QS2:RAQ2:AFAQ on: November 01, 2014, 09:42:31 PM
His confusion is shared by Austrian guru Ludwig von Mises, who asserted that the "entrepreneur and capitalist are not irresponsible autocrats" because they are "unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the consumer" while, on the next page, admitting there was a "managerial hierarchy" which contains "the average subordinate employee." [Human Action, p. 809 and p. 810]

The only confusion here comes from the leftist author of this paragraph, not Ludwig Von Mises. The leftist only reveals the fact that he does not understand economics when he thinks there is a contradiction between "a capitalist subject to the consumer" and an employee who voluntarily subordinates himself to a managerial hierarchy. As macsnafu has already indicated, there is nothing wrong with a hierarchy as long as it is voluntary.
10  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Refute-A-Quote 6 on: November 01, 2014, 09:05:31 PM
"I, and many of my comrades, hold to the idea that scarcity is manufactured in order for profits to rise;

This statement is so nonsensical it proves that leftists (and followers of the Zeitgeist Movement) live in a fantasy world. To say that "scarcity is manufactured" is like saying "A lamp makes darkness." Darkness is not created, it is the absence of light. Scarcity is not created, it is the absence of goods.  Scarcity is the natural state of the world. The only way to fight against scarcity is through the production of goods.  So to say that the production of goods causes scarcity is utterly foolish.

If you want to know what scarcity is, go into the woods naked and without any tools.  Then try to survive. You will quickly learn that your lack of goods is not caused by market. Goods are difficult to obtain from nature (in most cases). The market is the greatest institution to combat scarcity in the history of the world.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a moron or a spoiled child who has never had to work a day in his life.
11  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Refute-A-Quote 2 on: October 23, 2014, 10:46:16 PM
As with the last one I made, try to refute the quote presented. I think this should be a pretty hard one for you guys...

"Self ownership implies that persons can belong to people, which is a disgusting idea to me. You aren't owned by anyone; you are autonomous."

Good luck!

What is so hard about this one?  Self-ownership doesn't imply that persons can belong to other people.  Self-ownership means the exact opposite!  It means that "I" alone own myself, not someone else.  Equally, "You" alone own yourself, not someone else.  This guy tries to twist the word to mean the exact opposite of its actual meaning.

I think the real problem here is the term "ownership." This guy probably has a problem with private property so he doesn't like to hear that he actually "owns" himself.  When we mean refer to self-ownership, we mean that you have the right to control and make all ultimate decisions concerning the use of your body.  If this guy doesn't like the word "self-ownership" then he can just stick to the word "autonomous" which simply means "self-controlling" or "self-directing" or "self-governing."  The terms "self-ownership" and "autonomous" mean the same thing. By denying one and accepting the other he is either playing semantic games or simply revealing that he doesn't understand what they mean.
12  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Refute-A-Quote: Ancap Forum Challenge 1 on: October 23, 2014, 10:28:00 PM
"Capitalism necessarily creates an anti-democratic system where those with more capital will have more power than those with less capital, and can, because of this, affect others' opportunities to gain capital. It has the same result as statist capitalism. The companies in an anarcho-capitalist society would virtually become new states, as they would have the capital, and thereby the means, to oppress others. You may say that this would violate the NAP, but who's to stop them? When in positions of power our capacity to empathize with others becomes less prominent, and we are more likely to screw people over in order to gain more wealth; the same could be said about private courts and police services."

I don't think that this guy understands what "capital" is.  I think he thinks that "capital" means "power" or something like that.  Anyways, lets look past his misunderstanding of what capital is and focus on what would happen when a private company oppresses someone.  We could just as easily ask "what would happen when the government oppresses someone?"  "Who will stop the gov?"  The fact is that no system can prevent all injustices from occurring.  The more important question is what form of institution is "more likely" to oppress people? 1) A private company that depends on customers willingly buying its goods and services; or  2) A gov which has the power to make laws, controls the court system and controls the police which enforce the laws and court decisions through violence as well as forcing individuals to pay their services through legalized theft (i.e. taxation).

The honest answer is that, of course, gov is a greater threat to the individual than any private company.  This is not to say that private individuals or companies will never commit crimes.  However, granting an institution the power to make rules, force others to obey those rules, and force others to pay for these "services" is not the best way to prevent crime. It will only give criminals a "legal" avenue through which to commit even worse crimes.
13  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Debunking Debunkosaurus on: October 23, 2014, 10:05:04 PM
You are welcome Mister, I'm glad I could help.

I don't think people are bugged by videos like the one you posted.  Though maybe they have already seen similar videos and have refuted them in the past. So they don't want to spend their time responding to them again.  I don't mind responding when I'm in the right mood for it. Smiley  Have a good night!
14  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Debunking Debunkosaurus on: October 23, 2014, 09:17:02 PM
Nice Response  Grin, but could you address the part where he talks about how consumers wouldn't boycott violent companies just as long as they keep prices low? Thanks! (if you do)

Sorry, I didn't get that far into the video Smiley Since it started off by misrepresenting Ancap ideas, why would I waste my time watching it? (I still didn't watch the whole thing btw)  But why wouldn't people boycott violent companies?  Does the author of that video really think that a company wouldn't lose business if it engaged in violence?  I would think that anyone on the receiving end of any aggression from a company would boycott that company.  Also, the friends and family members of those victims would avoid that company. Also, anyone who disagrees with the initiation of force (which would have to be a large segment of an ancap society) would tend to avoid that company as well. Even if a violent DRO has the lowest prices it doesn't matter. If I could only afford the cheapest security company, and that security company was violent, I would go without security services.  Its not like everyone needs to be affiliated with a security company in an anarchist society.  Many would just go without those services.

Also, I would think that a company that engaged in violence would not have its own rights respected by others in an ancap society. If a company's policy included violence and aggression, that company could not expect to bring others to court when they retaliate and inflict damage on the company.  How long would a company stay in business when a large portion of society thought that there is nothing wrong with damaging that company's property?  How many people would even want to work for a company that was in danger of being attacked and retaliated against at all times?  I know I wouldn't.
15  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Debunking Debunkosaurus on: October 22, 2014, 03:21:33 AM
This video doesn't even deserve a response because it misrepresents "Ancap" ideas in the very first sentence.  The video says that we will all be "forced" to obey private DRO's.  After that false statement the video goes on to say that our system where politicians are bought is just like an ancap society.  This ignores the fact that under our current system when a politician is bought "winner takes all."  Those who vote for losing candidates do not get represented at all.  However in an ancap society, those who "vote" for a different DRO will still be represented by them since there is no over-arching monopolistic institution (i.e. the state).  Whoever made this video should at least attempt to understand and state Ancap ideas correctly before he attempts to "debunk" them.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
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!