Daily Anarchist Forum
October 21, 2019, 06:44:22 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 ... 5
1  General Category / General Discussion / A Thought on our Development under Minarchism on: November 02, 2014, 11:08:49 AM
This is a pretty interesting topic to consider, so let me sum it up;

"If we ancaps were born and raised under a minarchist, modern "Wild West America"...would we have ever been pushed to become ancaps in the first place? Would socialism be less popular in this modern day, minarchist society? Or would people still be willing to give up their freedom for "free" healthcare?"

Thanks for any answers and REMEMBER to try and think from a neutral perspective (though it's OK if you fail to, political neutrality is difficult, and a long, biased opinion is still something I'm willing to read).
2  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: QS2:RAQ3:AFAQ on: November 02, 2014, 02:42:02 AM
You're real good at surprising people, MAM. It seems like you can make a good argument for any political position, given the fact that you've educated yourself deeper on statism and both forms of libertarianism than most.

In the end, well done and thanks Cheesy
3  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: How Popular is Anarcho Capitalism? on: October 31, 2014, 08:39:58 AM
True....there's really no concrete data to substantiate the questions or the answers.

Thanks, Victor
4  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / How Popular is Anarcho Capitalism? on: October 30, 2014, 11:24:41 PM
Not trying to be rude, but...

Is it true that;

1. Right wing libertarianism is only popular in the US while left-wing libertarianism is dominant everywhere else

2. Anarcho-capitalists only number in the thousands

3. Most Ancaps are just upper-class white men.

Thanks for any answers!
5  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: QS2:RAQ3:AFAQ on: October 30, 2014, 11:19:55 PM
Like I said, this is a huge fish, so a straightforward debunking of JUST the 4 key points will do.

I understand that thought as deep as this requires even deeper thought for a refutation,so I'm willing to wait.

Here's a hint; macsnafu's comment sort of ripens the quote I posted for a debunking...so good luck!
6  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / QS2:RAQ3:AFAQ on: October 29, 2014, 12:06:26 AM
This next one is EXTREMELY long, so let me do something to help you out: just refute the four key points enlisted. You'll know what I mean when you read it...

This one is gonna take a while, so feel free to hop in and out (i.e., refute a portion of it one day, come back and refute the rest some other time). I'm not trying to kill anyone, so PLEASE take it easy and do it piece by piece, alright?  Grin

Of course, you COULD do it all at the same time, if you're willing to go that far...

Good Luck!

"It does not take much imagination to figure out whose interests "prosperous" arbitrators, judges and defence companies would defend: their own, as well as those who pay their wages -- which is to say, other members of the rich elite. As the law exists to defend property, then it (by definition) exists to defend the power of capitalists against their workers.

Rothbard argues that the "judges" would "not [be] making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason" [Rothbard, Op. Cit., p. 206]. However, this begs the question: whose reason? whose customs? Do individuals in different classes share the same customs? The same ideas of right and wrong? Would rich and poor desire the same from a "basic law code"? Obviously not. The rich would only support a code which defended their power over the poor.

Although only "finding" the law, the arbitrators and judges still exert an influence in the "justice" process, an influence not impartial or neutral. As the arbitrators themselves would be part of a profession, with specific companies developing within the market, it does not take a genius to realise that when "interpreting" the "basic law code," such companies would hardly act against their own interests as companies. In addition, if the "justice" system was based on "one dollar, one vote," the "law" would best defend those with the most "votes" (the question of market forces will be discussed in section F.6.3). Moreover, even if "market forces" would ensure that "impartial" judges were dominant, all judges would be enforcing a very partial law code (namely one that defended capitalist property rights). Impartiality when enforcing partial laws hardly makes judgements less unfair.

Thus, due to these three pressures -- the interests of arbitrators/judges, the influence of money and the nature of the law -- the terms of "free agreements" under such a law system would be tilted in favour of lenders over debtors, landlords over tenants, employers over employees, and in general, the rich over the poor, just as we have today. This is what one would expect in a system based on "unrestricted" property rights and a (capitalist) free market. A similar tendency towards the standardisation of output in an industry in response to influences of wealth can be seen from the current media system (see section D.3 -- How does wealth influence the mass media?)

Some "anarcho"-capitalists, however, claim that just as cheaper cars were developed to meet demand, so cheaper defence associations and "people's arbitrators" would develop on the market for the working class. In this way impartiality will be ensured. This argument overlooks a few key points:

Firstly, the general "libertarian" law code would be applicable to all associations, so they would have to operate within a system determined by the power of money and of capital. The law code would reflect, therefore, property not labour and so "socialistic" law codes would be classed as "outlaw" ones. The options then facing working people is to select a firm which best enforced the capitalist law in their favour. And as noted above, the impartial enforcement of a biased law code will hardly ensure freedom or justice for all.

Secondly, in a race between a Jaguar and a Volkswagen Beetle, who is more likely to win? The rich would have "the best justice money can buy," as they do now. Members of the capitalist class would be able to select the firms with the best lawyers, best private cops and most resources. Those without the financial clout to purchase quality "justice" would simply be out of luck - such is the "magic" of the marketplace.

Thirdly, because of the tendency toward concentration, centralisation, and oligopoly under capitalism (due to increasing capital costs for new firms entering the market, as discussed in section C.4), a few companies would soon dominate the market -- with obvious implications for "justice."

Different firms will have different resources. In other words, in a conflict between a small firm and a larger one, the smaller one is at a disadvantage in terms of resources. They may not be in a position to fight the larger company if it rejects arbitration and so may give in simply because, as the "anarcho"-capitalists so rightly point out, conflict and violence will push up a company's costs and so they would have to be avoided by smaller companies. It is ironic that the "anarcho"-capitalist implicitly assumes that every "defence company" is approximately of the same size, with the same resources behind it. In real life, this is clearly not the case.

Fourthly, it is very likely that many companies would make subscription to a specific "defence" firm or court a requirement of employment. Just as today many (most?) workers have to sign no-union contracts (and face being fired if they change their minds), it does not take much imagination to see that the same could apply to "defence" firms and courts. This was/is the case in company towns (indeed, you can consider unions as a form of "defence" firm and these companies refused to recognise them). As the labour market is almost always a buyer's market, it is not enough to argue that workers can find a new job without this condition. They may not and so have to put up with this situation. And if (as seems likely) the laws and rules of the property-owner will take precedence in any conflict, then workers and tenants will be at a disadvantage no matter how "impartial" the judges.

Ironically, some "anarcho"-capitalists point to current day company/union negotiations as an example of how different defence firms would work out their differences peacefully. Sadly for this argument, union rights under "actually existing capitalism" were created and enforced by the state in direct opposition to capitalist "freedom of contract." Before the law was changed, unions were often crushed by force -- the companies were better armed, had more resources and had the law on their side. Today, with the "downsizing" of companies we can see what happens to "peaceful negotiation" and "co-operation" between unions and companies when it is no longer required (i.e. when the resources of both sides are unequal). The market power of companies far exceeds those of the unions and the law, by definition, favours the companies. As an example of how competing "protection agencies" will work in an "anarcho"-capitalist society, it is far more insightful than originally intended!

Now let us consider the "basic law code" itself. How the laws in the "general libertarian law code" would actually be selected is anyone's guess, although many "anarcho"-capitalists support the myth of "natural law," and this would suggest an unchangeable law code selected by those considered as "the voice of nature" (see section F.7. for a discussion of its authoritarian implications). David Friedman argues that as well as a market in defence companies, there will also be a market in laws and rights. However, there will be extensive market pressure to unify these differing law codes into one standard one (imagine what would happen if ever CD manufacturer created a unique CD player, or every computer manufacturer different sized floppy-disk drivers -- little wonder, then, that over time companies standardise their products). Friedman himself acknowledges that this process is likely (and uses the example of standard paper sizes to indicate such a process).

In any event, the laws would not be decided on the basis of "one person, one vote"; hence, as market forces worked their magic, the "general" law code would reflect vested interests and so be very hard to change. As rights and laws would be a commodity like everything else in capitalism, they would soon reflect the interests of the rich -- particularly if those interpreting the law are wealthy professionals and companies with vested interests of their own. Little wonder that the individualist anarchists proposed "trial by jury" as the only basis for real justice in a free society. For, unlike professional "arbitrators," juries are ad hoc, made up of ordinary people and do not reflect power, authority, or the influence of wealth. And by being able to judge the law as well as a conflict, they can ensure a populist revision of laws as society progresses.

Thus a system of "defence" on the market will continue to reflect the influence and power of property owners and wealth and not be subject to popular control beyond choosing between companies to enforce the capitalist laws."
7  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: QS2:RAQ2:AFAQ on: October 28, 2014, 11:51:05 PM
Indeed you have. Thanks, Macsnafu.
8  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / QS2:RAQ2:AFAQ on: October 28, 2014, 09:54:23 PM
DON'T worry about how long this one is; it's basically just ONE idea, not a plethora  of them.

If you manage to debunk it then, well...I'll be extremely impressed.

Good Luck!

"The right-"libertarian" either does not acknowledge or dismisses as irrelevant the fact that the (absolute) right of private property may lead to extensive control by property owners over those who use, but do not own, property (such as workers and tenants). Thus a free-market capitalist system leads to a very selective and class-based protection of "rights" and "freedoms." For example, under capitalism, the "freedom" of employers inevitably conflicts with the "freedom" of employees. When stockholders or their managers exercise their "freedom of enterprise" to decide how their company will operate, they violate their employee's right to decide how their labouring capacities will be utilised and so under capitalism the "property rights" of employers will conflict with and restrict the "human right" of employees to manage themselves. Capitalism allows the right of self-management only to the few, not to all. Or, alternatively, capitalism does not recognise certain human rights as universal which anarchism does.

This can be seen from Austrian Economist W. Duncan Reekie's defence of wage labour. While referring to "intra-firm labour markets" as "hierarchies", Reekie (in his best ex cathedra tone) states that "[t]here is nothing authoritarian, dictatorial or exploitative in the relationship. Employees order employers to pay them amounts specified in the hiring contract just as much as employers order employees to abide by the terms of the contract." [Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty, p. 136 and p. 137]. Given that "the terms of contract" involve the worker agreeing to obey the employers orders and that they will be fired if they do not, its pretty clear that the ordering that goes on in the "intra-firm labour market" is decidedly one way. Bosses have the power, workers are paid to obey. And this begs the question: if the employment contract creates a free worker, why must she abandon her liberty during work hours?

Reekie actually recognises this lack of freedom in a "round about" way when he notes that "employees in a firm at any level in the hierarchy can exercise an entrepreneurial role. The area within which that role can be carried out increases the more authority the employee has." [Op. Cit., p. 142] Which means workers are subject to control from above which restricts the activities they are allowed to do and so they are not free to act, make decisions, participate in the plans of the organisation, to create the future and so forth within working hours. And it is strange that while recognising the firm as a hierarchy, Reekie tries to deny that it is authoritarian or dictatorial -- as if you could have a hierarchy without authoritarian structures or an unelected person in authority who is not a dictator. 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] It does not enter his mind that the capitalist may be subject to some consumer control while being an autocrat to their subordinated employees. Again, we find the right-"libertarian" acknowledging that the capitalist managerial structure is a hierarchy and workers are subordinated while denying it is autocratic to the workers! Thus we have "free" workers within a relationship distinctly lacking freedom -- a strange paradox. Indeed, if your personal life were as closely monitored and regulated as the work life of millions of people across the world, you would rightly consider it the worse form of oppression and tyranny."
9  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: QS2:RAQ1:AFAQ on: October 28, 2014, 09:46:12 PM
A brilliant analysis that makes the hypocrisy of it all practically glow in the dark...

Well done, Macsnafu!
10  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / QS2:RAQ1:AFAQ on: October 28, 2014, 07:27:40 PM
Title stands for "Quote Source 2, Refute-a-Quote 1, Anarchist FAQ".

This one should be rather difficult, but it's a critically important theme to tackle.

You know what to do: Refute the Quote!

Good Luck!

"Are anarcho capitalists anarchists?"

"In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho" or by calling themselves "anarchists" their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism. As a result, any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists."
11  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: RAQ: Oscar Wilde Special! on: October 28, 2014, 12:23:54 AM
Excellent, though MAYBE a little too harsh on leftist anarchism...

I'm gonna post something new tomorrow. Until then, goodnight!
12  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / RAQ: Oscar Wilde Special! on: October 27, 2014, 11:09:06 PM
This one is just gonna require some deep philosophical thinking.

For those of you who don't know, Oscar Wilde was a social anarchist who wrote "The Soul of Man Under Socialism". This quote is basically an analysis on how private property actually harms individualism.

Now, there are 3 ways you can go about refuting this quote:

1. Disprove his assertion that private property harms individualism.

2. Prove that anarcho communism harms individualism even more than private property rights

3. Do both.

Good Luck!

"For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is...With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."
13  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Refute-A-Quote 8 - Final one for Quote Source 1! on: October 27, 2014, 10:58:59 PM
AAAAAND that, ladies and gentleman, puts the nail on the coffin of Refute-a-Quote: Quote Source 1!

Thanks for being such an avid replier, macsnafu. In fact, thanks to all the people who have ever commented on my Refute-a-quote Posts so far!

You were right that this guy is from the UK, macsnafu. All along, it was a youtuber who went by the alias "Black Flag Proletariat". These quotes were all taken from a comment he left on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBVqzs9_gz0

I know, it's underwhelming, but trust me: the difficulty and creativity is gonna get cranked up...

14  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Refute-A-Quote 8 - Final one for Quote Source 1! on: October 27, 2014, 07:34:18 PM
This next one is going to be comprised of three quotes. I felt like it would be a good idea because it sort of shows why this man views anarcho communism as superior to anarcho capitalism.

I also wanted to end this man's turn in refute-a-quote with a bang.

When these quotes are refuted, I'll finally reveal the source of the quotes I've cited so far, coupled along with a link!

Good Luck!

1."Wrong. The free market is not you and I. The free market is a way for the rich to oppress the poor. You only have any fucking modicum of freedom, if you can pay for it."

2."Yes, we do advocate for organising society through direct consensus democracy, and that could be described as a form of government, but what we are against is social hierarchies, and states; not governments. There is an important distinction here. A state is an organisation with a monopoly on the use of violence within a specific area; this includes all kinds of oppression such as racism, sexism, transphobia, capitalism, et.c. A government is a governing body, and in combination with a state this governing body becomes elitist and oligarchal. What we argue for is, esentially, a government that includes everyone so that no one can be oppressed. Everyone will have an equal amount of control over the system."

3. "In an anarcho-communist society the collective goals would be the same as the personal ones, because you're part of the collective! If things are better for the collective, things are by definition better for you!"

15  Questions And Challenges / Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Refute-A-Quote 7 on: October 27, 2014, 07:21:26 PM
Good answer, but...

I think we need more coverage over what he must be historically referring to...colonialist capitalism and protectionism.

Oh well...I guess this will have to do.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
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!