Daily Anarchist Forum
September 22, 2019, 09:42:27 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  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: October 22, 2017, 11:22:32 AM 
Started by Victor - Last post by macsnafu
I wrote a book review of a work I really enjoyed, and one which influenced libertarians like David D. Friedman and Roy Childs, and I was hoping to hear what my fellow anarchists thought of my review.

Anyone else a fan of this book? Anyone else read it?

I think Seth would like it, given his view of corporations as essentially a part of the State.

A very thorough and well-written review.  I may have to read the book!  ;-)

One point about Standard Oil that is my new pet peeve.  Standard Oil did achieve a high market share, something like 92%, IIRC, but the simple fact is that they never achieved a monopoly.  If the point of anti-trust laws was to break up monopolies, then surely they would have to have been a monopoly first.  I suppose that they could say they were preventing a monopoly by breaking up Standard Oil, but it would be incumbent upon them to show that a monopoly would have actually occurred if they had not acted.

 2 
 on: May 26, 2017, 07:54:18 PM 
Started by Victor - Last post by Victor
I wrote a book review of a work I really enjoyed, and one which influenced libertarians like David D. Friedman and Roy Childs, and I was hoping to hear what my fellow anarchists thought of my review.

Anyone else a fan of this book? Anyone else read it?

I think Seth would like it, given his view of corporations as essentially a part of the State.

 3 
 on: March 06, 2017, 07:25:18 PM 
Started by Victor - Last post by Victor
I'm still a bit sad that the Daily Anarchist blog and forum have declined in use, or, perhaps more accurately, ceased being used altogether. I'm curious if those who used to post here can be found in other online communities?

Either way, we had a great time here, and I'm grateful for that. Smiley

I wanted to post a link to a site I'm building, geared towards libertarian and anarchist minded folks who live or often visit Northwest Arkansas. I've been part of a facebook group geared towards just that sort of people for a while, but for various reasons I wanted to build an actual website for the group. I thought I would post about it here in case anyone wanted to check it out.

In particular, some people from our group participated in a live forum on Anarchism, with a talk given by anarcho-capitalist Hogeye Bill, whom some here may have heard of before. You can watch the video of the event here, and if you want to join us in our fancy new online forum I would love to see you all again! (In a virtual sense.)

I'm curious what you all think of the video of Bill's talk and the discussion afterwards. I got to be a panelist at the event myself, and answer questions from the audience along with Bill and two others. (My meatspace name is Jacob, in case anyone couldn't guess which one was me.) I thought it went well, overall.

Also, even if you don't live in the Ozarks, don't let that discourage you from joining our site! Anyone interested in joining in with our discussions is welcome, even if you can't make it to see us in person.

Thanks! Hope everyone is well.

 4 
 on: May 01, 2016, 01:02:19 PM 
Started by FreeBornAngel - Last post by macsnafu
The world revolves around my bellybutton, not yours.  My world.  I am at peace.  Therefore we have world peace.  Sam

This is obviously wrong.  Clearly, the world revolves around MY bellybutton, not yours.

But don't you see, my friend?  Knowing that your world revolves around your belly-button (whether you admit it or not) is what gives me world peace! 


That's great until someone else's bellybutton decides to fight my bellybutton for dominance and control of my world.  Like when a thief decides he wants my television, or the government decides they want a part of my income (income taxes).  Or even a girlfriend or well-meaning friend who wants to tell me how to run my life.  My bellybutton *would* be at peace if it weren't for all these other bellybuttons wanting to horn in on my peace.

 5 
 on: May 01, 2016, 12:39:36 PM 
Started by Abdabs - Last post by macsnafu

I have heard that people would have a higher income in such a society; but if people have more disposable income would companies adjust their salary levels to suit the lower prices? Could people in the long run earn less?

Sorry, I meant to answer this a long time ago, and got distracted.  Also, I've been trying to think of an adequate and appropriate response.

I guess what really bothers me about this idea is the implication that employers/capitalists are deliberately evil, cold-hearted bastards, which at best is a broad generalization, and at worst, a simple, propagandist lie.

 The short answer is quite simply that employers pay wages based on the market for labor, and with little or no concern for how much goods and services those wages can buy.  Even an especially empathic and concerned employer who was concerned about the "living wages" of his employees would find himself constrained to a large degree by the going market rates for labor.  And I do mean "rates" plural, because while labor is to a large degree a commodity, it's also not homogenous.  A skilled welder or computer programmer is going to command a higher rate than your typical fast food worker because their skills make them more productive and thus worth more to the employer.  No person who manages to hold a job for any length of time truly remains an "unskilled laborer", because they are gaining skills on the job and increasing their value to the employer. 

Having said that there is no direct relationship between wages and how much goods and services those wages can buy, it seems clear that there may well be some indirect relationship, but given the complexity of the economy, the relationship itself may not be obvious or clear-cut.  That is, one change in the economy can and does have rippling effects that will eventually affect the entire economy, but it is difficult to determine exactly what the overall effect of a change may be. 

Let's look at a minimum wage increase, for example.  It's obvious that increasing the minimum wage will affect the economy, but in what way?  The money to pay for the higher wage has to come from somewhere else in the economy, but as minimum wage laws don't specify *how* employers should pay for the higher wage, there are several options open and different results may occur.  Employers may raise the price of the good or service they sell to cover the increase, but if they do that, they may lose business to the competition or to substitute goods and services if fewer consumers are willing to pay the higher price.  Or employers may demand more work or more responsibilities of their existing employees and resist hiring new employees until they absolutely have to, but this may result in the demoralization of their employees and also contribute to higher unemployment as people find it harder to get a job. Employers may find ways to increase the productivity of their employees to help cover the wage increase, but doing so also requires finding the money, the capital, in order to increase productivity. 

And there are possibly other employer options, and employers may employ different possible combinations of options, instead of just one option.  All of these options will change the economy in different ways, and in any reasonably large and complex economy, the changes are difficult to follow and determine, even for professional economists. This is why economists rely upon economic models to help understand and explain the economy, and why the basics of economics, even for laymen, is so useful and worthwhile.  Economists know that price controls like the minimum wage deviate from consumer demand and thus have adverse effects on the goods and services available to consumers, even if determining the exact result of those effects is difficult or impossible. 

In short, it's nonsense that employers deliberately set wages based on how much goods and services those wages can buy - it's determined by the supply and demand of labor in the market.  However, given the complexity of the interactions between supply and demand in the economy, it seems likely that there must be some kind of indirect relationship between wages and the availability and cost of goods and services.  If there are economists who have clearly determined or formulated this relationship, however, I'm not aware of it. 

One more point, in case I didn't make it clear.  What matters most is not the actual, nominal rate of wages, but how much goods and services that wage can buy.  $5.00/hour is a great wage if a loaf of bread only costs 10 cents, but a terrible wage if a loaf of bread costs $10.  This is one of the problems with minimum wage laws, that they only specify nominal wage rates, without considering the actual purchasing power of the wage. 



 6 
 on: April 20, 2016, 07:18:47 AM 
Started by MAM - Last post by RJ Miller
It seems like forever since I was active on this forum mostly in late 2012 I believe, and in light of the lack of new article posts it's interesting a thread exists that asks the same question I have  Wink

Hope Seth drops by again soon! Would love to get back in touch with him.

-

My past and current status boils down to the following:


1. I got REALLY involved with the Defcad forums for Cody Wilson's Defense Distributed project throughout the first four or five months of 2013. The work they've done has really opened my eyes to how innovation can influence government policy rather than the other way around.

Currently Cody is in a lawsuit with the State Department over the release of additional CAD files; follow his twitter account and check this link for details.


2. Part of why I didn't spend as much time on this forum is I think due to the fact that I started spending a ton of time on Twitter. Maybe more than I've needed to...


3. The entire debate over nature/nurture matters caught my attention when I finally got around to reading a controversial bestseller by Charles Murray (I need not say more), and a documentary series that blew my mind, among many other things.

I'm now convinced that social science needs to be based more on... Science. And currently it's anything but.


4. The war on political correctness has exploded to the point where I don't even feel much of a need to take part in it. Yeah, I watched in amazement at how the Gamergate controversy exploded, and how Milo Yiannopoulos went from being some obscure guy who did a book review of "A Troublesome Inheritance" (which is how I found out who he even was) to an anti-PC internet sensation of sorts.

I'm not to keen on this Alt-right bullshit though...


5. I've had a Liberty.me account for a while now, but only recently have I gotten around to using it nearly everyday, and YES it's well worth the $5/month cost!

For over half a decade now I've been gathering notes for a book in the works (content outline here) and wanted to get feedback for some of the points I want to challenge readers to falsify, and already the members on that site have given amazing nuances on even simple topics, such as what the law of supply and demand really implies.


Overall, that's my current status today. Work has been fine, and I'm now putting regular time into working on State Exempt (the book).

Liberty.me is my new go-to community for now, and for what it's worth "STATEEXEMPT" will get you a discount upon signing up. For barely $0.15/day, it's more than worth the cost.

Anything else anyone's up to?  Smiley

 7 
 on: April 20, 2016, 02:23:29 AM 
Started by Syock - Last post by RJ Miller
I've always loved Reason, mainly for the examples of things in action they highlight (private express roads for instance).

If they did more how-to's that would be even more awesome  Smiley

 8 
 on: April 09, 2016, 12:24:37 PM 
Started by FreeBornAngel - Last post by Samarami
The world revolves around my bellybutton, not yours.  My world.  I am at peace.  Therefore we have world peace.  Sam

This is obviously wrong.  Clearly, the world revolves around MY bellybutton, not yours.

But don't you see, my friend?  Knowing that your world revolves around your belly-button (whether you admit it or not) is what gives me world peace! 

 9 
 on: March 01, 2016, 04:37:15 PM 
Started by Abdabs - Last post by macsnafu
What you seem to be saying is that no one has an economic right. Like-I don't have a right to say to a person: feed me I'm hungry and if you don't do your "duty" you are evil. Also, you seem to say that people have rights under law - I have no problem with that.

I said: Ask a starving man: Should that rich man feed you?-Yes of course
Ask a sick man: Should ...

But I see the point that my need and perceived right is subjective unless God is in the question.

I definitely don't want to be robbed by the needy; but I personally feel it is in my interest to give voluntarily.

Should then a government tax me - by force - to feed the hungry? It's an Interesting question.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is the distinction between civil society and political society.  If you call something a right, then you are essentially calling for a legal system to coercively enforce that right.  If a person refuses to help a needy person, then we have every right to consider him a mean or cruel person, unsympathetic with his fellow man, and we can choose to persuade him to change his ways by noncoercive means like shunning or ostracism, choosing not to associate or do business with him.  Let him struggle with his conscience.

If, however, we decide that he must be forced to help other people, we open an entirely different can of worms.  Who decides who is worthy of help, and how much help? Who decides when someone has too much or too little of something ?  How do they decide, and based on what standard or viewpoint?  Political decision-making of this kind, even if it's democratic, is still fraught with the risks of arbitrariness, tyranny and unintended consequences, and lacks good economic feedback or incentives for efficiently managing resources. 

 10 
 on: February 27, 2016, 05:19:48 PM 
Started by Abdabs - Last post by Abdabs
If an individual is disabled-from birth- to the extent that he/she is unable to work, nor does he/she have familial support, how is he/she supposed to live in an AnCap system?

There are different ways to answer this.  The short answer is charity, as has already been mentioned, but this fails to take into account the ways that an ancap society would differ from the current status quo. 

For example, taken altogether, taxes take about half of people's incomes away from them.  So without taxes, every worker would practically double their income, meaning they would have more to give to friends, family, and charities. 

Of course, some of that extra money would go towards paying for private alternatives to the current government 'services'.  But not all the extra money would.  For one thing, some government services and expenses are truly unnecessary and unwanted, and only forced upon us by the legal authority of government.  For another, government and government bureaucracy is well-known to be less efficient at providing services, as they have little incentive for doing so, or for lowering costs and increasing productivity.  So private alternatives to government services would tend to be cheaper and more cost effective.

And then there's the consideration that many government laws and regulations impede progress, inhibit productivity, and generally make it harder to get jobs and provide various goods and services.  Minimum wage laws, licensing, zoning regulations, government-granted monopolies, the FDA, government copyright, central banking, and many more things governments do make it harder for people to get jobs, start new businesses (thus providing competition and more jobs), and generally make goods and services provided by private businesses more expensive than they need to be. 

Thus, without government impediments, goods and services would be generally cheaper and easier to obtain, productivity would increase so that people could make even more money or work less to take care of their needs and desires, and monopolies and cartels would be nearly non-existent or ineffective.

All of which would mean that in an ancap society, it would be cheaper and easier to help those who are truly unable to support or take care of themselves, while those who are able will find it easier to take care of themselves and in less need of charity and assistance, freeing up charity and assistance for the more needy.  Even partially-disabled people would be able to at least partially support themselves, even if they need some assistance to make ends meet.

If life is truly sacred, then doesn't it make sense to stop impeding the ability of people to improve, to progress, and to provide for themselves and for others, including the disabled you're concerned about?  Governments are the biggest man-made obstacles to progressive and productive society.

Thanks, that was a clear answer. I suppose that: just because there is no government people wont just become mean and uncharitable. I have heard that people would have a higher income in such a society; but if people have more disposable income would companies adjust their salary levels to suit the lower prices? Could people in the long run earn less?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
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!