Daily Anarchist Forum
May 06, 2021, 10:55:08 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  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Refute-A-Quote 4  (Read 3747 times)
Mr.Mister
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 64


True Capitalism is a Hellish road to Heaven


View Profile
« on: October 25, 2014, 11:26:24 PM »

This one is fairly hard, but probably not as hard as the last one. In fact, I think we may be forced to repeat things we've already said (though in slightly different context).

Please remember that all of this is being said from the perspective of an anarcho communist.

Good luck, Guys!

"Here we go again; yes, the security firms would have an incentive to defend property rights, but there would be a larger incentive to protect larger companies, allowing for the slow evolution of a free society into a class based one where those with more money (and by extension, better security firms at their disposal) can oppress those with no money at all (or even just lesser amounts of money). Those with more capital have more power. I would also like to point out that a firm is not necessarily a voluntary group of people, as some members of the group might not have any other choice but to be part of it (e.g. people who are too poor to start companies, and can't, for whatever reasons, be hired anywhere else)."
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2014, 12:37:32 AM »

This one is fairly hard, but probably not as hard as the last one. In fact, I think we may be forced to repeat things we've already said (though in slightly different context).
Yes, this is just a specific variation on themes we've already covered.

Quote
"Here we go again; yes, the security firms would have an incentive to defend property rights, but there would be a larger incentive to protect larger companies, allowing for the slow evolution of a free society into a class based one where those with more money (and by extension, better security firms at their disposal) can oppress those with no money at all (or even just lesser amounts of money). Those with more capital have more power. I would also like to point out that a firm is not necessarily a voluntary group of people, as some members of the group might not have any other choice but to be part of it (e.g. people who are too poor to start companies, and can't, for whatever reasons, be hired anywhere else)."

Again, competition, risk, and reputation.  Why would there be a larger incentive to protect larger companies?  Security firms are businesses, not governments.  They provide specific services, they're not a protection racket.  So businesses, even large businesses, can't get 'special favors' from security firms that are equivalent to lobbying government.  That's not to say that corruption isn't possible, but is necessarily limited, because again, security firms showing favoritism risk their reputation and loss of customers to competing firms.

Let me digress for a moment on the issue of large companies.  A large company has increased costs and inefficiency from the extra layers of middle management and internal bureaucracy that smaller, leaner companies don't have.  Thus, just being a large company creates certain disadvantages in the market compared to smaller competitors.  While this can be overcome to some degree by economies of scale, it cannot be completely overcome.  In today's society, large companies have a degree of protection through government regulation and legal barriers of entry, protection that simply would not exist in an anarchist society.  Thus large businesses would have disadvantages to their smaller competitors.  

The above would also be true for security firms, as they, too, are businesses.  Being a large security firm is not necessarily an advantage, especially if it is slow to respond, and slow to adapt to changing business conditions.

Another point is that security firms would most likely have pre-arranged contractual agreements with other firms for various situations, such as which courts of arbitration to use for various types of crimes and torts, how to handle investigations and trials, what to do in case of invading armies, rogue security firms, disasters, and other big, "special" events.  Breaking these contracts would also hurt a firm's reputation and damage their necessary relationships with other businesses.

Another digression on the "plight of the poor" in an anarchist society.  In a society where there are no legal restrictions on starting a business, more businesses means more competition for labor, which means higher wages for labor.  So right off the bat, even unskilled labor will have the chance to earn higher wages, or even start their own businesses. And with no involuntary taxation, and no Social Security taxes, there's more take-home pay.  With no sales taxes, there's no lost money when making purchases.  With no central bank controlling the amount of money in circulation, there's no continual monetary inflation to erode savings and income.  And with little or nothing to impede increases in productivity, everybody in the economy will be better off--the poor will only be "poor" relative to the wealthy in society, but they will be much better off overall than the poor in our current society.

And while there may still be some truly unfortunate people who are unable to support themselves or take care of themselves (disease, accidents, disabilities, coma), a more productive and more prosperous society means that friends, family, churches, and charities can more easily support and take care of these unfortunates than they can in our current society.  This charity would also apply to those few who cannot afford the services of a security firm.  

Again, our anarcho-communist commentator confuses capital with power, larger businesses with oppression, and fails to take into account just how profound a difference competition and decentralization can make, or how effective peer pressure and reputation can be when it's not undermined by government regulation.  Finally, he/she fails to understand how businesses and the economy really works, and makes unreasonable assumptions about what businesses and the economy would do without government intervention.

Let me rant about capital, as our anarcho-communist friend truly loves to throw that word around.  Capital is merely wealth, i.e. goods and services, utilized to create consumer goods and services for the end user.  That is, capital is merely wealth utilized for further production, and not for immediate consumption.  It doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it is created by labor and production.  It has no use except for the production of goods and services, so it baffles me as to how capital is supposed to be power.  

There's no point to the production of goods and services except to make them available for consumption, i.e., to sell them to customers.  This is what I mean by the misunderstanding of the business and economy.  Businesses make a profit by serving customers, providing for their needs and desires, not by oppressing their customers.  Any business that tries to oppress their customers is going to lose their customers and go out of business.  The whole business mindset is so far from the governmental, bureaucratic, and criminal mindset that it's ludicrous to think that businesses would drastically change their policies in a society without government and deliberately engage in unbusiness-like behavior.

« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 12:53:33 AM by macsnafu » Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2014, 01:48:46 AM »

I think there is a real risk of PDOs to evolve into States.

Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Mr.Mister
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 64


True Capitalism is a Hellish road to Heaven


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2014, 03:29:22 AM »

MAM, don't make me put you in an episode of Refute a Quote, lol Grin

Macsnafu, thanks for making another splendid answer. I'm seriously sorry that you had to repeat so much from our last game of refute a quote...
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2014, 10:41:05 AM »

I think there is a real risk of PDOs to evolve into States.


You think?  I think there's a real risk that limited governments evolve into unlimited governments.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2014, 12:44:17 PM »

I think there is a real risk of PDOs to evolve into States.


You think?  I think there's a real risk that limited governments evolve into unlimited governments.

It's true lol. Risk is in every move we as human beings make.

I want to say that Larken Rose did a real good video on the subject of PDOs evolving int the State I just haven't founded.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!