you're an idiot. anarchy cannot exist with capitalism. in a corporation there are structures of power and you have a boss gets rich off of you by exploiting your labor. in turn you become a wage slave. and dont get to be as free as the boss.... eventually without government constraint the elite will create corporations that will employ their own security... (like cops and military) and become a mock state taking all the resources forcing anarchy to dissolve and we have another state.
It would help if people weren't terrible at math. Next time you go to school study a real subject or don't bother. Anarcho-Capitalism drives to elevate the individual... and how exactly is this supposed to happen? Whether wealth is measured in money, or gold, or wheat... there is only so much of it. In order to get a share of the pie you have to get it form someone else who has to be willing to give it to you. That means you have to work. Anarchy won't change that. Obviously...
@ludwigmeister "In order to get a share of the pie you have to get it form someone else"
This is typical "zero sum game" confusion. Also the beauty of capitalism as Mises once stated, is it forces people to raise the standard of living of those around them. Whether it's by providing them with services, goods, etc. They prosper by accommodating market demand and everyone benefits. Anarchy removes the power structure from which plutocrats distort market mechanisms and shift the playing field.
Historically all states have failed because they have built into them a mechanism for alteration, which leads to corruption. We need a macro government, only we need one whose function is to protect our most basic freedoms, whos actions are limited to the powers granted to it by its constitution, whos constitution can not be altered except through total abolition, and whos constitution is not interpreted by a supreme court but by any citizen who wishes to participate.
and i assume you think government regulation fixes all that? newsflash: the government doesn't prevent the upper-class from taking advantage of those who have less than them. if anything, they enable them. after all, who puts these regulations in place to begin with, huh?
by the way, comparing anarchists to ruthless dictators doesn't do anything for your case except make you look unintelligent.
@Jenawahrheit If the owners mistreat their workers, the workers will quit and find somewhere else better to work. If businesses join together to mistreat workers, then the workers will join together to make their own businesses with unbridled effeciency, effectively knocking the join businesses out of business itself.
Do you think capitalism could possibly exist without the state? The state is what makes money valuable because it is legal tender. If there is no state enforcing the legal system, money is worthless. Capitalism cannot survive without money because that's the only means of exchange in capitalism. You could try a barter system, but that would be taking history in the opposite direction of where you want to go.
Money is a measure of the value of goods and services.
Before any state created a compulsory FIAT currency, Gold and Silver EMERGED as the dominant form of currency.
If the FED collapsed or for whatever reason there is no longer anyone forcing you to accept the "Dollar" as money, you would see people using a different currency because a dollar really is nothing but a piece of paper and sometimes not even that.
Anarcho capitalism is for those who would omit the atrocities of primitive accumulation on the part of those who now have the most of the wealth. Capitialism in any form only benefits those who claim to own resources, no matter how they attained them, and no matter how they sabotaged others from having those resources.
People like you forget about the FACT that the wealth accumulated by half of the people you are referring to got a lot of their wealth through NON-CAPITALIST means.
People like you(uncle toms) are incapable of comprehending wrong doing on those who you idolize and put on a pedestal. I don't believe that anyone accumulated wealth through non-capitalist means. They had to have capitialized on the gifts of being privileged enough to be given land, (the same land that others tilled) so that they would be able to profit off of it and spread that wealth down to their children,
Hypothetically, let me come over to your house, throw you and your family out, force you and your family to work for me for 100 years, profit and accumulate mass amounts of wealth, and the propose anarcho capitalism. With all the wealth I have compared your lack of money, your free market theory will be like an iron chain and ball around your neck when it is enacted to my benefit. This is what anarcho capitialist condone.
If you are the victim of the method I described, like most(MOST) minorities in america and the world countries have been, then you will be thrown out of your house(sub prime mortage lending) and forced to work for someone else, because you don't have the resources to "pull yourself up by the boot straps". This is Capitalism. CAPITALIZING off of the needs of those people who have had their resources stolen from them.
Just remember, that if anarcho capitalism should ever come to pass as an economic system, know that the same people who condoned these methods of accumulation will not have an open ear to hear your "case" when they decide to move with force against you for your wealth and assets. I don't care how smart, hard working, or gifted you are. It does not make you the owner of the earth itself, but only the things you produce by those three traits.
And if capitalism is not being forced to work for someone, or being thrown out of your house, then why the fuck can't I go out into all the uninhabited land I see and build a house, grow crops, and use the animals for food? Oh, because some ancestor of some thieves and pillagers, will swear that they own that land. So either I work for them, or go to prison(and be forced to work). FREE MARKET, MY-MOTHER-FUCKING-ASS!!!
Well I guess your options are to either work for someone else, since you obviously aren't capable of employing yourself, or you go live off of some free handouts from charity organizations.
It isn't anyone else's responsibility to take care of your needs.
It would be silly to expect any complete strangers to give a shit about you.
Most charity isn't there for the sake of making friends...
You have some growing up to do. There are things that you need to learn. The sooner you find out, the better off you will be emotionaly and spiritually. Hopefully financially.
When you VOLUNTARILY give something, then there is no theft being committed. So, what are you talking about when you say you have to have your labor "stolen"?
Why must the community support the poor? What makes you think you have a right to force anyone to do it?
You don't even know what capitalism is, and I am going to listen to you tell me (with absolute certainty no less...) that God doesn't exist?
There is no economic exploitation! If you don't like what you make then work for someone else or start your own damn business Communism is just so childish and lazy "You're rich and I'm not so you should share!" Bullshit The poor create themselves by not living up to society's expectations of its members. Anyone can be rich, but some are just too stupid to do it! "I don't have a job" Get one at fucking macdonalds "I don't make much" get a fucking education "I can't pay" If I could, you can
Your rich because you exploted your workers and therefor you should give it back!
Not everyone can get a education because they may not have the money, dont have the grades or are mentally retarded and not everyone will be hired and take into account layoffs.
Oh and not to mention workers arent paid the full product of there labour, some goes to the company. Also its easyer for some people to get rich then others
Noone is exploited, the "workers" were paid, and paid fairly because they are free to choose whether they wanna work for you or not.
And yes, everyone mentally capable can get an eduction, there is financial aid, subsidies and scholarships, and they can fucking work for the money!
If they don't have the grades or mental capacity then they are not meant to be rich, they should at least learn a trade, like baking or carpentry, that can also make a person wealthy if they're not fucking stupid!
As for your final argument, in communism they are paid even less, and in a capitalist society, you can have your own service business, which means 100% revenue (except for the fucking fed's taxes)
And so fucking what if some get richer easier? ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL get that through your head.
I'm not equal to a rapist, I'm also not equal to a man with a Harvard education and a clean criminal record. and that's the way it should be.
Oh no. Not a sob story of the workers. I was a worker and I can be a worker capitalist or a owner capitalist. Quit your crying. FREE TRADE and KILL THE FED!!
that is what they did in anarchic Iceland and the Old West. In the Old West,there were claims associations that were in the business of representing people's land claims.
If you are trespassing on my land, I will ask you to leave only once...
As mentioned above, there would be ways of claiming land. You would obviously build your factory on land that you own.
Without police, people could take the law into their own hands. Serial killers wouldn't last...
Somalia seems better than all the countries nearby. Well some countries due to wealth accumulated over the years and level of culture are incomparable - not to speak badly about Somalia.
Warlord system is far better than genocide systems all over Africa. Where government officials pillage small town and villages.
What causes the bullet maker to make bullets? The gun maker has ammo, and the bullet maker as a gun! Together they thrive off of each other! Until the gun maker sleeps with the bullet maker's wife and they murder one another. So much for this idealistic horseshit. The hippies tried this back in the 60's.
No, the hippies themselves were full of shit and all they wanted to do was get high. The communicative property does not apply as an idea is not the same factor as a person.
No. The concept of things being perfectly ideal is ridiculous because it is not realistic. It does not take human nature into account. It is a utopian ideal that only works on paper, in the absence of greed. I applaud your effort, though. I don't have an answer myself, but I do, however, know that yours is shit.
No, capitalism does not have a government as prerequisite.
Collecting tax is equal to stealing money. You are taking money from someone beyond their will and consent. Involuntary payment is not a free market, and therefore not capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalis IS "straight capitalism". Is is PURE capitalism. State tax and regulation is not capitalist in principle.
right, basically, you are saying that the generally perceived idea of capitalism is in fact anarcho-capitalism, and that the generally perceived idea of anarcho-capitalism is in fact capitalism.
i understand what you sayabout capitalist PRINCIPLE not being what capitalism essentailly is, but capitalism, straight capitalist, is far more than just the basic principle.
well on your definition (free market based on voluntary production and trade) then of course america is capitalist. the government is incredibly oppressive, but america is one of THE most capitalist countries on earth. anyone could tell you that.
some of the things you've said have made me sway from anarcho-capitalism, i must admit, but i think you're trying to be a bit controversial, or something along those lines, by twisting political definitions.
wouldn't anarchism turn into what they have in Somalia? The government was overthrown over there in 91(I think) and now they have pirates and factions fighting each other. correct me if I'm wrong because I've heard of successful anarchist community like the famous Anarchist Catalonia.
Check out more details about Somalia... definitely not perfect, but compare it to the other African countries... Benjamin Powell has a great report on it... also Stefan Molyneux even has a youtube video ... part of his true news series...
Anarcho-capitalism is the next step our society must take to become a truly free and great society. Democracy fails due to the fact it involves mob rule, and people have a severely subjective bias (notice how many decisions are voted on due to religious reasons), hence the decisions of the intelligent are drowned out by the ignorant majority, and monarchy failed because the son of a competent, moral person who best serves his subjects won't necessarily turn out that way himself.
The end is flawed. Hong Kong doesn't/didn't need resources because hundreds of civilizations have advanced over the ages BECAUSE OF RESOURCE ENDOWMENT and thus allow Hong Kong to import the raw materials hey need. To say that resources do not allow for economic growth is absurd. In fact, as civilizations were first being formed, they were formed under a dictatorship (many different forms) so all economic growth and technological advancement has its origins in totalitarianism
So tech pioneers like Da Vinci, Einstein, and Tesla would never have had their crazy ideas and made innovations if it weren't for totalitarianism? No, quite the contrary. It would be totalitarian to prevent innovation and technological advancement.
There is nothing wrong with a voluntary hierarcy if that is how you want to look at your boss at work. Personally I think I offer my skills and services for a fee which would be no different if had my own business and offered the same man the same services. The point is that it is voluntary and not coerced. I fully support Anarcho Capitalism with its non coersion principles and free market trade.
Well this certainly makes sense, if you're discribing pre industrial cottage industry. And I certainly won't say that that's not something somewhat to be wished for, but where is the mechanism in anarcho-capitalism, that prevents industrialization, the subjegation of one human being to another, the constant greed of the state, how are you stopping class relationships from forming?
So what stops you from shooting people who don't own guns, or would everyone have to be highly armed or face the robbery of their private property? I can only imagine the joy of living in such a society.
First I am not anarchist, I was just pointing the obvious.
Second, I know you believe that it is because of the goverment corporation that the streets are not in chaos. I know because I believed that too. But history shows that societies with less goverment and more auto-regulation are less violent and safer than societies with big goverment.
Now, think who teach you that without the goverment corporation you could not be safe? Yep, the goverment.
I apologise but signing into a contract which states you must obey your employer and do what he tells you, or you will not recieve payment which is why you're even ntering the contract, seems hierarchical. is being obliged to do what a certain person tells you to do no longer hierarchy?
Because you can go and start your own company the next day, and eventually hire employees of your own. And any contract would have to be negotiable, or nobody would sign it. If an employer wasn't fair, he wouldn't be able to keep employees. etc. etc.
I have talked about this very thing in my blog, but I have to go more in depth with it. there is a link to my blog in my profile, and the story you want is under the name of Order
I checked that out, it was about private police forces. I'm being very basic about the nature of the firm, I have nothing against self employment, but working under a contract from an employer does not allow you to just start a company the next day, nor does anything about our monetary, or educational system allow most people to become self employed. the choice is not work or starve, it's work, starve or go into debt.
step one, gold standard, and an end to usuery, and in educational terms we can look at school choice programmes, democratic schooling, self directed learning, educational webs, check out these terms on google, as well as looking at the summer hill school, the oldest democratic school in the world.
lovely i like it thats the real think it have to be natural not forced by the gobernment wealth exist because thinks have value and everything have to be free.. i recomend this book for more info.. The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner
Mauroprovatos, capitalism is the only system which can exist without a state. Socialism or communism require a state to be viable. Socialist-anarchy is a contradiction in terms.
Communism doesn't require a state to be viable, in my opinion. Much of Spain during the Spanish Civil War in the thirties was anarcho-communist. The videos are here on YouTube under "the History of Spanish Anarchism."
Well said my friend. Capitalism in its purest form need only require competitive forces employing by free will, the services of the individual. People confuse capitalism with the disaster capitalism that we are witnessing with the tampering of the state. When you mix state control with corporate desires, you get fascism. The only way to be free is to rid ourselves of state force and allow the Free Markets to be exactly that...FREE.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
oh my god, holy fucking siamese cows!Do you have ANY IDEA in what level u distort the ideas of anarchism?
And u call urself an anarchist!?
The idea of anarchy itself is based on ABOLITION of the state AND of its capitalist attributes.
The trade for profit and private property are the core of capitalism,and they cause the exploitation of human labour, class society, poverty, ethnicism,fascism and various kinds of chauvinism!
You are not a BrightAnarchist, you are a BrightExtremeCapitalist.
You are 100 percent right. Capitalism is a type of hierarchy. Anarchists are against all hierarchy. It takes people and reduces them to commodities. Capitalism is all about one person giving orders for the person below him to follow. Regardless of your opinion of Capitalism it cannot occur in an anarchist society. Adam Smith isn't even for Capitalism as we now have it. He is for it when the individual is liberated.
1): Capatalism is not hierarchy. You may have a "boss," but YOU ultimately choose to work for him in exchange for pay. It is Free Exchange.
2): Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Capatalists should stop fighting! Statists think that all Anarchism is is Chaos, and when they see us Anarchists fighting among each other it affirms that belief! We need to come together, Capatalist and Communist, to educate the Statists on what Anarchism REALLY is!
Capitalism isn't a hierarchy as the term hierarchy implies that you cant change your position. in capitalism, you can move up and down the success ladder, unlike political hierarchies.
Murray N. Rothbard notes that "the capitalist system of today is, indeed, not properly anarchistic because it is so often in collusion with the state." Subtle interpretations aside, surely we can be anarchists with competitive innovation?! Call it whatever you want; the anarcho-capitalist VS anarchist argument is pointless. We want the same thing. Just don't fear Bill Gates whilst RIGHT NOW a multi-TRILLION dollar genocide in Iraq paid by YOUR taxes is maintained by the EVIL that is the state.
We do not want the same thing. Anarchists want to remove the state and capitalism to usher in non-hierarchal democratic organizations. Anarcho-capitalists want to leave the state to protect property and privilege and topple government. VERY different. I do not own a bread shop and have no voice at my current company...how does anarcho-capitalism benefit me and not just the owner of the business? Please look up some labor history.
Tell me daddy, if I am employed by the baker- how is this anarchy? Wouldn't he then have authority over me? Does he not line his pockets through a profit he made on MY labor? Daddy, you wish to continue to steal my labor and now my name...You are a Capitalist not an anarchist and we shall smash you along with the state. Hehehe...
Way to miss the point entirely. The point is that we don't need the state. The state is immoral. The state funds 'wars' (murder with a nice name) and oppression. Anarchism doesn't negate capitalism, depending on your interpretaton of capitalism (trade?). You are free to leave the bakery whenever you like. You are free to start your own bakery, or not. Did you have anything useful to say apart from the strange 'daddy' comments???!
P1. Could the anti-capitalists explain this stealing of labor & exploitation theory to me? Suppose you pay a free-lance electrician to fix a problem in your house. He performed labor, but his net income is profit (receipts from sales above costs). When you later sell the house, would you be stealing his labor if you didn't give him some share of the proceeds because in working on your house he gained some kind of ownership interest over the product of his labor? If this is ridiculous,(Continued)
P2...why is it so different if he works for a firm & receives what are called wages? In each case he is serving the needs of his customers & in return is given the means (money) to call others to serve the needs of his life. As for having "authority," both the homeowner & firm "tell him what to do" because of course they have needs to be met. But the worker also gets money to tell others what to do to meet his needs. Under what other system can each one's needs be met? (Continued)
P3. Why should it be the case that unless it's the worker that gets to tell the consumer what's going to be done, he's some kind of slave? Production is for the sake of consumption, to serve the end-user.
I suggest the exploitation theorists google for George Reisman's 17 page pdf called "Classical Economics versus the Exploitation Theory"
The baker only has whatever authority over you that you choice to give him. If he doesn't pay you enough, you can give him the finger and quit. States don't give you a choice.
Great, another title-screen text-only video set to cheesy music which would be quicker and easier to read as a simple text document. This crap is the blink tag of the 21st century. Is it some kind of anarchist plot to destroy the utility of youtube?
how stupid is this shit. real anarchist are against capitalism.
plus if we were living in anarchy we would have no money whatsoever, we would have a community were people would put no cost on things and they wouldn't be making a profit off of shit merchandise.
if we had anarchist who wanted capitalism those anarchist would not change anything in this society another government would just be built the same as the one that we have now.
....people innovate for themselves and their need ,and live for themselves basically,instead of for the gain of private tyranny. Basically instead of using our intellecutal properties to make few wealthy and healthy (and making the mass suffer) we use them to make the whole of humanity healthy,which is possible by establishing certain principles,which of course can be done,and is the only rational point of progression by sane people who take all neccessary considerations(enviroment for example)
You are quite mistaken. Anarchism as is articulated my most people who call themselves such is incompatible with capitalism.The key principle of anarchy regarless of camp is freedom.Of capitalism it is to monopolize and to control resources for private gain .Anarchy is basiaclly just the opposite. Since people arent tied into a web of complex life dominations caused by the social system
i thought we had decent dictators called KINGS? lets just make one great dictator? with oversight and power to all the people? besides all that,we live in forced societies due to money interests. people naturally come together to form groups and societies that is first and foremost
This video featured on ANARCHY dash TV dot COM for Friday, Sep 7. I'll probably feature the rest of your relevant anarchist videos on Saturday or later. Peace. Einstein.
Who's to stop the private agencies from going corrupt and stealing from anyone regardless. I mean they are private. At less state law enforcement has to answer to somebody.
The state is a universal characteristic of all class societies. The state is able to exercise armed repression and violence against any one who tries to deprive the bourgeoisie of their property - which is equivalent to challenging the power of this ruling class. In the absence of this armed force - which is the basis of all states - private property could not exist. As such, Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron.
Yet, in the absence of force, public property can exist (as by miracle), and thus left-anarchist societies are (as by miracle) not oxymoronic! Please, sell this nonsense to someone who will buy it.
Most people are not smart enough to work with their minds instead of their hands and hence there will always be the "smart" manipulative traders and the labouring classes as the bulk of humanity. The rare technical specialists who created all the modern miracles are left as orphans and social outcasts to their own ingenuity by all the stupids that actually run the world.
Sure, but only if you consider people who buy into all their lies really all that intelligent. Further, what use is it to be a king of a toxic garbage dump given that most wastes including consumer garbage and exhaust gases is unrecycled and non-degradeable? Even an average idiot can rule over an idiocracy and given that most people are idiots to begin with democracy = idiocracy is not all that inaccurate.
I am totally for anarchy, and in fact I am a baker. Hah. If anarchy is not available right now, would any of you put any trust in someone like Congressman Ron Paul? He is for destroying many of the bureaucratic mechanisms that rape us all of our prosperity anyways, I don't think it would hurt to wean some of the population of being so damned dependent on government. What do you all think, Ron Paul, the vote of the anarchist?
I think Ron Paul is a step in the right direction. I think we need to gradually remove the government so systems the people rely on will not fuck them over. That's just my personal view though. I don't think we should pull everything out right away unless we turn into a fascist or socialist country.
Th problem with your view of anarchy is that it is anachronistic. People no longer exist in small communities, there are few bakers and carpenters left. Those jobs to major corporations.
We need to focus on anarcho-socialism. Breaking down both political control AND economic control. Worker can not be free when there are forced, economical, to seel there labor to a cold impersonal system. Workers themselves must have control, for anarchy to work.
Right - and yet again you seem to think that competitive pressures in pure laissez-faire would allow the existence of overgrown, inefficient corporations. I say we need to focus on actually understanding what anarcho-capitalism is, rather than focusing on truly anachronistic economic systems (i.e. socialism).
youre not an anarchist
gonzopoet00 1 month ago
property is theft
gonzopoet00 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you're an idiot. anarchy cannot exist with capitalism. in a corporation there are structures of power and you have a boss gets rich off of you by exploiting your labor. in turn you become a wage slave. and dont get to be as free as the boss.... eventually without government constraint the elite will create corporations that will employ their own security... (like cops and military) and become a mock state taking all the resources forcing anarchy to dissolve and we have another state.
gonzopoet00 1 month ago
You honestly want a fucking bitcoin for this? 2 minutes and 26 seconds of total bullshit.
cogfux 7 months ago
Anarcho-capitalism means supporting the capitalism without government control. If I am correct.
DragonX7777 9 months ago
What's the name of the song please?
warzmx 1 year ago
It would help if people weren't terrible at math. Next time you go to school study a real subject or don't bother. Anarcho-Capitalism drives to elevate the individual... and how exactly is this supposed to happen? Whether wealth is measured in money, or gold, or wheat... there is only so much of it. In order to get a share of the pie you have to get it form someone else who has to be willing to give it to you. That means you have to work. Anarchy won't change that. Obviously...
ludwigmeister 1 year ago
@ludwigmeister "In order to get a share of the pie you have to get it form someone else"
This is typical "zero sum game" confusion. Also the beauty of capitalism as Mises once stated, is it forces people to raise the standard of living of those around them. Whether it's by providing them with services, goods, etc. They prosper by accommodating market demand and everyone benefits. Anarchy removes the power structure from which plutocrats distort market mechanisms and shift the playing field.
KingLeon1daz 1 year ago
Historically all states have failed because they have built into them a mechanism for alteration, which leads to corruption. We need a macro government, only we need one whose function is to protect our most basic freedoms, whos actions are limited to the powers granted to it by its constitution, whos constitution can not be altered except through total abolition, and whos constitution is not interpreted by a supreme court but by any citizen who wishes to participate.
anon136 1 year ago
@anon136 hallelujah amen, praise god say it again
superfan79 10 months ago
Comment removed
anon136 1 year ago
17 people hate freedom.
Houshalter 1 year ago 2
Two thumbs up!
BitcoinMedia 1 year ago
What's the source of the music?
2gigabit 1 year ago 2
I, am a long fellow of fealers follyies
illbesure3 1 year ago
Wrong wrong wrong and again WRONG
TheZaibatsuCorp 1 year ago
Comment removed
Jenawahrheit 1 year ago
@Jenawahrheit,
and i assume you think government regulation fixes all that? newsflash: the government doesn't prevent the upper-class from taking advantage of those who have less than them. if anything, they enable them. after all, who puts these regulations in place to begin with, huh?
by the way, comparing anarchists to ruthless dictators doesn't do anything for your case except make you look unintelligent.
TheSkunker 1 year ago
@Jenawahrheit If the owners mistreat their workers, the workers will quit and find somewhere else better to work. If businesses join together to mistreat workers, then the workers will join together to make their own businesses with unbridled effeciency, effectively knocking the join businesses out of business itself.
PairoftheSocks 1 year ago
this is anarcho-communism not capitalism.
ThephilosopherFFF 2 years ago
no this is not Anarcho-Communism, dumbass.
dalejrfan800 1 year ago
Do you think capitalism could possibly exist without the state? The state is what makes money valuable because it is legal tender. If there is no state enforcing the legal system, money is worthless. Capitalism cannot survive without money because that's the only means of exchange in capitalism. You could try a barter system, but that would be taking history in the opposite direction of where you want to go.
commissarusa 2 years ago
Comment removed
joels344 2 years ago
You don't understand what money is.
Money is a measure of the value of goods and services.
Before any state created a compulsory FIAT currency, Gold and Silver EMERGED as the dominant form of currency.
If the FED collapsed or for whatever reason there is no longer anyone forcing you to accept the "Dollar" as money, you would see people using a different currency because a dollar really is nothing but a piece of paper and sometimes not even that.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Anarcho-Capitalism: Crypto-Objectivism that replaces State Tyranny with Class Tyranny.
NinjaJedi 2 years ago
Anarcho capitalism is for those who would omit the atrocities of primitive accumulation on the part of those who now have the most of the wealth. Capitialism in any form only benefits those who claim to own resources, no matter how they attained them, and no matter how they sabotaged others from having those resources.
1Mumiaabujamal 2 years ago
People like you forget about the FACT that the wealth accumulated by half of the people you are referring to got a lot of their wealth through NON-CAPITALIST means.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
People like you(uncle toms) are incapable of comprehending wrong doing on those who you idolize and put on a pedestal. I don't believe that anyone accumulated wealth through non-capitalist means. They had to have capitialized on the gifts of being privileged enough to be given land, (the same land that others tilled) so that they would be able to profit off of it and spread that wealth down to their children,
1Mumiaabujamal 2 years ago
Hypothetically, let me come over to your house, throw you and your family out, force you and your family to work for me for 100 years, profit and accumulate mass amounts of wealth, and the propose anarcho capitalism. With all the wealth I have compared your lack of money, your free market theory will be like an iron chain and ball around your neck when it is enacted to my benefit. This is what anarcho capitialist condone.
1Mumiaabujamal 2 years ago
Throwing someone out of their own house is not capitalism.
Forcing someone to work for you isn't capitalism.
You have no case...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
If you are the victim of the method I described, like most(MOST) minorities in america and the world countries have been, then you will be thrown out of your house(sub prime mortage lending) and forced to work for someone else, because you don't have the resources to "pull yourself up by the boot straps". This is Capitalism. CAPITALIZING off of the needs of those people who have had their resources stolen from them.
1Mumiaabujamal 2 years ago
Just remember, that if anarcho capitalism should ever come to pass as an economic system, know that the same people who condoned these methods of accumulation will not have an open ear to hear your "case" when they decide to move with force against you for your wealth and assets. I don't care how smart, hard working, or gifted you are. It does not make you the owner of the earth itself, but only the things you produce by those three traits.
1Mumiaabujamal 2 years ago
And if capitalism is not being forced to work for someone, or being thrown out of your house, then why the fuck can't I go out into all the uninhabited land I see and build a house, grow crops, and use the animals for food? Oh, because some ancestor of some thieves and pillagers, will swear that they own that land. So either I work for them, or go to prison(and be forced to work). FREE MARKET, MY-MOTHER-FUCKING-ASS!!!
1Mumiaabujamal 2 years ago 2
The people who want to keep you from building your own house, growing your own crops, and use animals for food is the STATE.
A state is not a free market institution.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
yes it is.
cary123 2 years ago
Says a person who doesn't know what a free market is in the first place...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
A "free" market is simply a capitalist society with no regulation on the market.
cary123 2 years ago
What is your point?
Oh, that capitalism/FM is the natural result of a stateless society?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago 2
no its not, the unfree market is a result of economic suppression of the workers.
cary123 2 years ago
What is this "economic suppression"?
BTW This guy at the farmers market gets $2.75 from me every saturday because he make a great tamale.
I wonder who else is buying from him? It wouldn't surprise me if he is making a good bit of money from his capitalist endeavors.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
wage slavery and the stealing of labour.
OMGZ 2.75$!!! IM GOING TO BE RICH!!!!
Tons of people but not everyone is as lucky as him.
cary123 2 years ago
Luck had little to do with it...
It is all about organizing labor to produce a product that other people are interested in buying.
That is what capitalism is all about. Producers will produce and consumers will consume. It is a free market of voluntary exchanges.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Right, and what if you cant? What if you dont have the brian capability?
cary123 2 years ago
Well I guess your options are to either work for someone else, since you obviously aren't capable of employing yourself, or you go live off of some free handouts from charity organizations.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Right ether be a wage slave or have the extreme luckyness for a capitalist organsation to give a shit about you.
cary123 2 years ago
You don't have to be a wage slave...
Getting a "job" is an easy way to go though...
It isn't anyone else's responsibility to take care of your needs.
It would be silly to expect any complete strangers to give a shit about you.
Most charity isn't there for the sake of making friends...
You have some growing up to do. There are things that you need to learn. The sooner you find out, the better off you will be emotionaly and spiritually. Hopefully financially.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Yes you do, you have to have your labour stolen by someone. Yes it is, the community must support the poor!
Also god dosent exist you fucking twit, go back living your utopia, via la communism.
cary123 2 years ago
When you VOLUNTARILY give something, then there is no theft being committed. So, what are you talking about when you say you have to have your labor "stolen"?
Why must the community support the poor? What makes you think you have a right to force anyone to do it?
You don't even know what capitalism is, and I am going to listen to you tell me (with absolute certainty no less...) that God doesn't exist?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Do you understand what you said?
I don't give two nickels about the poor, and neither does most people.
The poor are the poor because they are unfit, simple as that.
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
Then you deserve to be poor.
They are poor because of economic explotation by there economic masters.
cary123 2 years ago
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
Its not that simple.
Your rich because you exploted your workers and therefor you should give it back!
Not everyone can get a education because they may not have the money, dont have the grades or are mentally retarded and not everyone will be hired and take into account layoffs.
Oh and not to mention workers arent paid the full product of there labour, some goes to the company. Also its easyer for some people to get rich then others
cary123 2 years ago
Noone is exploited, the "workers" were paid, and paid fairly because they are free to choose whether they wanna work for you or not.
And yes, everyone mentally capable can get an eduction, there is financial aid, subsidies and scholarships, and they can fucking work for the money!
If they don't have the grades or mental capacity then they are not meant to be rich, they should at least learn a trade, like baking or carpentry, that can also make a person wealthy if they're not fucking stupid!
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
As for your final argument, in communism they are paid even less, and in a capitalist society, you can have your own service business, which means 100% revenue (except for the fucking fed's taxes)
And so fucking what if some get richer easier? ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL get that through your head.
I'm not equal to a rapist, I'm also not equal to a man with a Harvard education and a clean criminal record. and that's the way it should be.
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
THERE IS NO MONEY IN COMMUNISM! Also no, it means 120% revenue, you steal from your workers.
No there not in terms of ABILITYS, and therefor need to be equal in terms of LAW.
cary123 2 years ago
Yes there is money in communism, don't be fucking naive!
And seriously? 120% revenue? where the fuck did you learn economics? are you fucking 10 years old or something?
I just can't take you seriously anymore
(and learn to spell for the love of god)
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
THERE IS NO FUCKING MONEY, ITS A GIFT ECONOMY.
yes, because you steal from your workers, your workers get a small precentage of what they actually make
cary123 2 years ago
THERE IS NO MONEY, ITS A GIFT ECONOMY.
yes, you steal from your workers so they dont get all of there revenue.
cary123 2 years ago
You crack me up kid.
There is no such thing as a gift economy or 120% revenue.
Go back to your lego's and your barbies.
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
by 120% I am simply refering to the explotation of the workers you higher.
wikipedia Gift economy retard
cary123 2 years ago
Lol, you just proved my point, you dont know jack shit about applied economics (or, it appears, math)
Btw, read you sources before you cite them XD
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
read the topic dummy
cary123 2 years ago
I did.
All examples have interesting back stories of failure.
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
Yes, and didnt you say that a gift economy dosent exist?
cary123 2 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, constant failure denotes impossibility, ergo systematic nonexistence.
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
hire, idiot.
dalejrfan800 1 year ago
Then you are unfit, therefore at the mercy of those who care enough to lend a hand. simple as that
Adamanwolf 2 years ago
Oh no. Not a sob story of the workers. I was a worker and I can be a worker capitalist or a owner capitalist. Quit your crying. FREE TRADE and KILL THE FED!!
LouGrimaldi 2 years ago
If there's police what keeps them from going corrupt?
If there's no police what keeps people from stealing?
In a pure capitalist society you will get warlords where people will seek protection.
pulsatingremedy 2 years ago
In Vermont, gun control is nearly non-existent. You can own a machine gun and you can conceal carry
In California, you aren't guaranteed a CCL. You are not allowed to have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
You can make a logical guess at which of those states has the easiest access to guns.
Californias murder and robbery per capita in 2007. 6.2 and 193. Vermont was 1.9 and 12.9.
Statistics show having more guns in common hands does more to thwart crime than police do...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
I don't know much about the wealth of people in the US.
Where are the people richer in Vermont or in California?
pulsatingremedy 2 years ago
According to wiki, California has a higher median income.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Is it possible to own land in an anarcho-capitalist society?
If yes, who keeps track of what piece of land belongs to who?
Also why can you claim a piece of land, if there's no law I can just use other people's land.
If no, where do you build your factory on?
What happens with mental ill people? With no police, serial killers can just walk free.
The problem with pure capitalism in my opinion is that it's extremely unsustainable, and will likely turn into some hierchical society.
pulsatingremedy 2 years ago
Stake your claim...
that is what they did in anarchic Iceland and the Old West. In the Old West,there were claims associations that were in the business of representing people's land claims.
If you are trespassing on my land, I will ask you to leave only once...
As mentioned above, there would be ways of claiming land. You would obviously build your factory on land that you own.
Without police, people could take the law into their own hands. Serial killers wouldn't last...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
The Old West? For real? You want the whole world to be like west-America when there was fucking murder everywhere?
"As mentioned above, there would be ways of claiming land."
What if I claim the piece of land with the only source of water in some region?
"Without police, people could take the law into their own hands. "
You mean like Somalia?
What will happen to Holland? Our dikes won't get maintaince so I guess we're fucked?
Man has evolved out of Anarcho Capitalism for a reason.
pulsatingremedy 2 years ago
Anarcho-Capitalism is entirely plausible.
Think of Social Contracts and Game Theory.
And Somalia is nearly a feudal system. People have settled into the warlord system there.
cm2dude 2 years ago
Somalia seems better than all the countries nearby. Well some countries due to wealth accumulated over the years and level of culture are incomparable - not to speak badly about Somalia.
Warlord system is far better than genocide systems all over Africa. Where government officials pillage small town and villages.
roguas 2 years ago
What causes the gun maker to make guns?
What causes the bullet maker to make bullets? The gun maker has ammo, and the bullet maker as a gun! Together they thrive off of each other! Until the gun maker sleeps with the bullet maker's wife and they murder one another. So much for this idealistic horseshit. The hippies tried this back in the 60's.
Bunny456 2 years ago
No, the hippies themselves were full of shit and all they wanted to do was get high. The communicative property does not apply as an idea is not the same factor as a person.
PADRES294 2 years ago
So for things to be ideal is ridiculous because, what, it takes a bit more work?
Szaam 2 years ago
No. The concept of things being perfectly ideal is ridiculous because it is not realistic. It does not take human nature into account. It is a utopian ideal that only works on paper, in the absence of greed. I applaud your effort, though. I don't have an answer myself, but I do, however, know that yours is shit.
Bunny456 2 years ago
I didn't say perfection was achievable. I know perfection doesn't exist.
But I believe Anarchism is more ideal than Capitalism. And I'd rather things be at least a little bit more ideal than they are right now.
Szaam 2 years ago
capitalism is anarchy...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
anarchy is no government. so i disagree.
Szaam 2 years ago
Without a government, you would have a pure FREE MARKET. Free market is capitalism.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Then who GOVERNS the free market and DICTATES everybody else what to produce, what to consume, what to buy, what to sell but the ENTREPENEUR?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I am going to assume that you like the internet and computers. Am I right?
If you don't really "like" them, maybe you just see a utilitarian USE for them.
Maybe it is a little of both?
Am I correct?
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
capitalism isn't a free market. there's regulations, there's tax, etc etc.
Szaam 2 years ago
tax and state regulation is what makes a market NOT free....and NOT capitalist...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
but capitalism still has government. which receives tax from this apparently free market.
that's one of the differences between anarcho-capitalism and straight capitalism. normal capitalism has a government.
Szaam 2 years ago
No, capitalism does not have a government as prerequisite.
Collecting tax is equal to stealing money. You are taking money from someone beyond their will and consent. Involuntary payment is not a free market, and therefore not capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalis IS "straight capitalism". Is is PURE capitalism. State tax and regulation is not capitalist in principle.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
right, basically, you are saying that the generally perceived idea of capitalism is in fact anarcho-capitalism, and that the generally perceived idea of anarcho-capitalism is in fact capitalism.
i understand what you sayabout capitalist PRINCIPLE not being what capitalism essentailly is, but capitalism, straight capitalist, is far more than just the basic principle.
Szaam 2 years ago
It isn't anything more than just the principle.
You just can't seem to look at it for what it truly means without associating UNRELATED things to it.
In case you didn't know, most western nations don't have a truly capitalist economy and market.
Capitalism is a free market based on voluntary production and trade. Straight capitalism is not present in the USA, for example...
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
well on your definition (free market based on voluntary production and trade) then of course america is capitalist. the government is incredibly oppressive, but america is one of THE most capitalist countries on earth. anyone could tell you that.
some of the things you've said have made me sway from anarcho-capitalism, i must admit, but i think you're trying to be a bit controversial, or something along those lines, by twisting political definitions.
Szaam 2 years ago
American is more capitalist but it isn't straight capitalist.
The sales tax is non-capitalist, anti-trust laws, IP laws, gun laws, automobile registration, and all the other COERCED bullshit.
I am going by political definition I am going by the definition used by anarcho-capitalists
You see Capitalism has different meanings to different people.
Here is my definition of Capitalism for future reference in this discussion.
Capitalism: Free trade and market. No tax or state regulations.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
By my logic, a society is 100% Capitalist if it is to be called Capitalist.
By my definition and logic, America is not a Capitalist nation.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
2 words, state capitalism.
cary123 2 years ago
anarcho-capism is a TYPE of pure capitalism.
cary123 2 years ago
Pure capitalism is pure anarchy.
What you are thinking of is statism.
I'm not an anarchist/capitalist btw.
pulsatingremedy 2 years ago
no, there are more forms of capitalism then just market capitalism.
cary123 2 years ago
Anarcho-capitalism is the way to go ... we will have to wait hundreds or even thousands of years, but it is moral, ethical and very workable.
shepardh1 2 years ago 2
wouldn't anarchism turn into what they have in Somalia? The government was overthrown over there in 91(I think) and now they have pirates and factions fighting each other. correct me if I'm wrong because I've heard of successful anarchist community like the famous Anarchist Catalonia.
AGT138 2 years ago
Check out more details about Somalia... definitely not perfect, but compare it to the other African countries... Benjamin Powell has a great report on it... also Stefan Molyneux even has a youtube video ... part of his true news series...
shepardh1 2 years ago
When you start off by saying welcome my children and you're 26, well lets just say I'm not even going to listen to your bullshit
jjrglobal 2 years ago
Anarcho-capitalism is the next step our society must take to become a truly free and great society. Democracy fails due to the fact it involves mob rule, and people have a severely subjective bias (notice how many decisions are voted on due to religious reasons), hence the decisions of the intelligent are drowned out by the ignorant majority, and monarchy failed because the son of a competent, moral person who best serves his subjects won't necessarily turn out that way himself.
jaymthegenius 2 years ago 18
The end is flawed. Hong Kong doesn't/didn't need resources because hundreds of civilizations have advanced over the ages BECAUSE OF RESOURCE ENDOWMENT and thus allow Hong Kong to import the raw materials hey need. To say that resources do not allow for economic growth is absurd. In fact, as civilizations were first being formed, they were formed under a dictatorship (many different forms) so all economic growth and technological advancement has its origins in totalitarianism
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
So tech pioneers like Da Vinci, Einstein, and Tesla would never have had their crazy ideas and made innovations if it weren't for totalitarianism? No, quite the contrary. It would be totalitarian to prevent innovation and technological advancement.
universatile 2 years ago
haha wtf dude I dont remember typing that, I think someone else must have gotten on my account or something... weird...
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hahaha! Great vid! Funny shit. That´s not even a theory. Flum.
NairuBergman 2 years ago
There is nothing wrong with a voluntary hierarcy if that is how you want to look at your boss at work. Personally I think I offer my skills and services for a fee which would be no different if had my own business and offered the same man the same services. The point is that it is voluntary and not coerced. I fully support Anarcho Capitalism with its non coersion principles and free market trade.
Gold0ilDrugs 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a total load of naive bollocks. If you want anarcho capitalism go to Somalia you retards.
EbayAdmin 2 years ago
Naive bollocks would be granting violent monopolies to powerful people and expecting them to look out for just your well-being.
And Somalia sucks because surrounding states abuse it. And really, retards?
thorell9 2 years ago 3
Somalia is run by tribalism and have no respect for private property.
DemiosOctavo 2 years ago 3
More like Islamo-Chaos.
And even with how bad Somalia is, it was much, much worse under its past totalitarian government.
ufee 2 years ago 2
Well this certainly makes sense, if you're discribing pre industrial cottage industry. And I certainly won't say that that's not something somewhat to be wished for, but where is the mechanism in anarcho-capitalism, that prevents industrialization, the subjegation of one human being to another, the constant greed of the state, how are you stopping class relationships from forming?
McOath 3 years ago
The 2nd amendment.
Hogbeast6 3 years ago
Well said, unfortunately the US constitution would be void in Anarcho-Capitalism would it not?
McOath 3 years ago
If there is no constitution and no goverment, there's nothing that stops you from doing what you would do under the second amendment.
hugolp 3 years ago
So what stops you from shooting people who don't own guns, or would everyone have to be highly armed or face the robbery of their private property? I can only imagine the joy of living in such a society.
McOath 3 years ago
First I am not anarchist, I was just pointing the obvious.
Second, I know you believe that it is because of the goverment corporation that the streets are not in chaos. I know because I believed that too. But history shows that societies with less goverment and more auto-regulation are less violent and safer than societies with big goverment.
Now, think who teach you that without the goverment corporation you could not be safe? Yep, the goverment.
hugolp 3 years ago
I agree I'm all for minimalist, accountable, decentralized government. I just can't escape the hobbsian arguement of the war of all against all.
McOath 3 years ago
There would still be laws, but they would be agreed upon in contracts. This isn't chaos, it's spontaneous order!
socratestheathenean 3 years ago
I apologise but signing into a contract which states you must obey your employer and do what he tells you, or you will not recieve payment which is why you're even ntering the contract, seems hierarchical. is being obliged to do what a certain person tells you to do no longer hierarchy?
McOath 3 years ago
Because you can go and start your own company the next day, and eventually hire employees of your own. And any contract would have to be negotiable, or nobody would sign it. If an employer wasn't fair, he wouldn't be able to keep employees. etc. etc.
socratestheathenean 3 years ago
I have talked about this very thing in my blog, but I have to go more in depth with it. there is a link to my blog in my profile, and the story you want is under the name of Order
socratestheathenean 3 years ago
I checked that out, it was about private police forces. I'm being very basic about the nature of the firm, I have nothing against self employment, but working under a contract from an employer does not allow you to just start a company the next day, nor does anything about our monetary, or educational system allow most people to become self employed. the choice is not work or starve, it's work, starve or go into debt.
McOath 3 years ago
Well, if our monetary or educational system is flawed, offer up some ideas! I'd love to hear them.
socratestheathenean 3 years ago
step one, gold standard, and an end to usuery, and in educational terms we can look at school choice programmes, democratic schooling, self directed learning, educational webs, check out these terms on google, as well as looking at the summer hill school, the oldest democratic school in the world.
McOath 3 years ago
lovely i like it thats the real think it have to be natural not forced by the gobernment wealth exist because thinks have value and everything have to be free.. i recomend this book for more info.. The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner
Muddest 3 years ago
hong kong as an example?
no thx!
they have major class inequality and expliotation there.
hawkpork 3 years ago
Mauroprovatos, capitalism is the only system which can exist without a state. Socialism or communism require a state to be viable. Socialist-anarchy is a contradiction in terms.
Melkolmr 3 years ago 4
Communism doesn't require a state to be viable, in my opinion. Much of Spain during the Spanish Civil War in the thirties was anarcho-communist. The videos are here on YouTube under "the History of Spanish Anarchism."
MississippiMosher 3 years ago
Well said my friend. Capitalism in its purest form need only require competitive forces employing by free will, the services of the individual. People confuse capitalism with the disaster capitalism that we are witnessing with the tampering of the state. When you mix state control with corporate desires, you get fascism. The only way to be free is to rid ourselves of state force and allow the Free Markets to be exactly that...FREE.
teewillis1981 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh my god, holy fucking siamese cows!Do you have ANY IDEA in what level u distort the ideas of anarchism?
And u call urself an anarchist!?
The idea of anarchy itself is based on ABOLITION of the state AND of its capitalist attributes.
The trade for profit and private property are the core of capitalism,and they cause the exploitation of human labour, class society, poverty, ethnicism,fascism and various kinds of chauvinism!
You are not a BrightAnarchist, you are a BrightExtremeCapitalist.
mauroprovatos 3 years ago
I would love to see just one statist example that has no inequality, exploitation, poverty, fascism and various kinds of chauvinism. One.
The bigger the state, the greater the injustice.
PleaseNoPolitics 3 years ago 4
You are 100 percent right. Capitalism is a type of hierarchy. Anarchists are against all hierarchy. It takes people and reduces them to commodities. Capitalism is all about one person giving orders for the person below him to follow. Regardless of your opinion of Capitalism it cannot occur in an anarchist society. Adam Smith isn't even for Capitalism as we now have it. He is for it when the individual is liberated.
ddrumsman549 3 years ago
Two things:
1): Capatalism is not hierarchy. You may have a "boss," but YOU ultimately choose to work for him in exchange for pay. It is Free Exchange.
2): Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Capatalists should stop fighting! Statists think that all Anarchism is is Chaos, and when they see us Anarchists fighting among each other it affirms that belief! We need to come together, Capatalist and Communist, to educate the Statists on what Anarchism REALLY is!
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Capitalism isn't a hierarchy as the term hierarchy implies that you cant change your position. in capitalism, you can move up and down the success ladder, unlike political hierarchies.
socratestheathenean 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This shit is so laughably stupid its unbelievable.
Foxgar 3 years ago
Murray N. Rothbard notes that "the capitalist system of today is, indeed, not properly anarchistic because it is so often in collusion with the state." Subtle interpretations aside, surely we can be anarchists with competitive innovation?! Call it whatever you want; the anarcho-capitalist VS anarchist argument is pointless. We want the same thing. Just don't fear Bill Gates whilst RIGHT NOW a multi-TRILLION dollar genocide in Iraq paid by YOUR taxes is maintained by the EVIL that is the state.
lukeev 3 years ago
We do not want the same thing. Anarchists want to remove the state and capitalism to usher in non-hierarchal democratic organizations. Anarcho-capitalists want to leave the state to protect property and privilege and topple government. VERY different. I do not own a bread shop and have no voice at my current company...how does anarcho-capitalism benefit me and not just the owner of the business? Please look up some labor history.
808enigma 3 years ago
Why don't you just find another company to work at?! Anyway I don't really understand your point/argument, could you elaborate please?
lukeev 3 years ago
Anarchists of ALL stripes wish to eliminate the state. period.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago 3
Tell me daddy, if I am employed by the baker- how is this anarchy? Wouldn't he then have authority over me? Does he not line his pockets through a profit he made on MY labor? Daddy, you wish to continue to steal my labor and now my name...You are a Capitalist not an anarchist and we shall smash you along with the state. Hehehe...
creatednordestroyed 3 years ago
Way to miss the point entirely. The point is that we don't need the state. The state is immoral. The state funds 'wars' (murder with a nice name) and oppression. Anarchism doesn't negate capitalism, depending on your interpretaton of capitalism (trade?). You are free to leave the bakery whenever you like. You are free to start your own bakery, or not. Did you have anything useful to say apart from the strange 'daddy' comments???!
lukeev 3 years ago
P1. Could the anti-capitalists explain this stealing of labor & exploitation theory to me? Suppose you pay a free-lance electrician to fix a problem in your house. He performed labor, but his net income is profit (receipts from sales above costs). When you later sell the house, would you be stealing his labor if you didn't give him some share of the proceeds because in working on your house he gained some kind of ownership interest over the product of his labor? If this is ridiculous,(Continued)
bobtassoni 3 years ago 5
P2...why is it so different if he works for a firm & receives what are called wages? In each case he is serving the needs of his customers & in return is given the means (money) to call others to serve the needs of his life. As for having "authority," both the homeowner & firm "tell him what to do" because of course they have needs to be met. But the worker also gets money to tell others what to do to meet his needs. Under what other system can each one's needs be met? (Continued)
bobtassoni 3 years ago 5
P3. Why should it be the case that unless it's the worker that gets to tell the consumer what's going to be done, he's some kind of slave? Production is for the sake of consumption, to serve the end-user.
I suggest the exploitation theorists google for George Reisman's 17 page pdf called "Classical Economics versus the Exploitation Theory"
bobtassoni 3 years ago 5
Tell me daddy, why do socialists never stop spreading lies and fallacies?
Hehehe...
Moragauth 3 years ago 4
The baker only has whatever authority over you that you choice to give him. If he doesn't pay you enough, you can give him the finger and quit. States don't give you a choice.
subach 3 years ago 3
Great, another title-screen text-only video set to cheesy music which would be quicker and easier to read as a simple text document. This crap is the blink tag of the 21st century. Is it some kind of anarchist plot to destroy the utility of youtube?
thedaveking 4 years ago
how stupid is this shit. real anarchist are against capitalism.
plus if we were living in anarchy we would have no money whatsoever, we would have a community were people would put no cost on things and they wouldn't be making a profit off of shit merchandise.
if we had anarchist who wanted capitalism those anarchist would not change anything in this society another government would just be built the same as the one that we have now.
fmcrass 4 years ago
....people innovate for themselves and their need ,and live for themselves basically,instead of for the gain of private tyranny. Basically instead of using our intellecutal properties to make few wealthy and healthy (and making the mass suffer) we use them to make the whole of humanity healthy,which is possible by establishing certain principles,which of course can be done,and is the only rational point of progression by sane people who take all neccessary considerations(enviroment for example)
mieery 4 years ago
You are quite mistaken. Anarchism as is articulated my most people who call themselves such is incompatible with capitalism.The key principle of anarchy regarless of camp is freedom.Of capitalism it is to monopolize and to control resources for private gain .Anarchy is basiaclly just the opposite. Since people arent tied into a web of complex life dominations caused by the social system
mieery 4 years ago
I hope this answer all your questions about why I object to anarcho-capitalism and why I think it's a stupid unworkable ideology:
youtube search: Mr Show - "The Value of Human Worth"
joesub007 4 years ago
i thought we had decent dictators called KINGS? lets just make one great dictator? with oversight and power to all the people? besides all that,we live in forced societies due to money interests. people naturally come together to form groups and societies that is first and foremost
whiteworldwide 4 years ago
This video featured on ANARCHY dash TV dot COM for Friday, Sep 7. I'll probably feature the rest of your relevant anarchist videos on Saturday or later. Peace. Einstein.
fiftycaliberfistfuck 4 years ago
But who does the State answer to?
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Who's to stop the private agencies from going corrupt and stealing from anyone regardless. I mean they are private. At less state law enforcement has to answer to somebody.
chocbear1028 4 years ago
Who's going to stop the gov't, military, and police, when they are corrupt?
(oh wait they allready are)
DethMachineEngage 4 years ago
That's why the free market uses DROs. See stefbot for an explaination of this system.
BrightAnarchist 4 years ago
The state is a universal characteristic of all class societies. The state is able to exercise armed repression and violence against any one who tries to deprive the bourgeoisie of their property - which is equivalent to challenging the power of this ruling class. In the absence of this armed force - which is the basis of all states - private property could not exist. As such, Anarcho-Capitalism is an oxymoron.
bobkindles 4 years ago
Yet, in the absence of force, public property can exist (as by miracle), and thus left-anarchist societies are (as by miracle) not oxymoronic! Please, sell this nonsense to someone who will buy it.
Elhan2005 4 years ago 2
Most people are not smart enough to work with their minds instead of their hands and hence there will always be the "smart" manipulative traders and the labouring classes as the bulk of humanity. The rare technical specialists who created all the modern miracles are left as orphans and social outcasts to their own ingenuity by all the stupids that actually run the world.
joesub007 4 years ago
The elites who run the world are anything but stupid...
Elhan2005 4 years ago
Sure, but only if you consider people who buy into all their lies really all that intelligent. Further, what use is it to be a king of a toxic garbage dump given that most wastes including consumer garbage and exhaust gases is unrecycled and non-degradeable? Even an average idiot can rule over an idiocracy and given that most people are idiots to begin with democracy = idiocracy is not all that inaccurate.
joesub007 4 years ago
But markets are evil, trade is coercion!!!
MatthewLeee 4 years ago
I was being sarcastic gosh.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
I am totally for anarchy, and in fact I am a baker. Hah. If anarchy is not available right now, would any of you put any trust in someone like Congressman Ron Paul? He is for destroying many of the bureaucratic mechanisms that rape us all of our prosperity anyways, I don't think it would hurt to wean some of the population of being so damned dependent on government. What do you all think, Ron Paul, the vote of the anarchist?
xCyanoticx 4 years ago
I think Ron Paul is a step in the right direction. I think we need to gradually remove the government so systems the people rely on will not fuck them over. That's just my personal view though. I don't think we should pull everything out right away unless we turn into a fascist or socialist country.
TheGreatestGreatApe 4 years ago
Th problem with your view of anarchy is that it is anachronistic. People no longer exist in small communities, there are few bakers and carpenters left. Those jobs to major corporations.
We need to focus on anarcho-socialism. Breaking down both political control AND economic control. Worker can not be free when there are forced, economical, to seel there labor to a cold impersonal system. Workers themselves must have control, for anarchy to work.
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
Right - and yet again you seem to think that competitive pressures in pure laissez-faire would allow the existence of overgrown, inefficient corporations. I say we need to focus on actually understanding what anarcho-capitalism is, rather than focusing on truly anachronistic economic systems (i.e. socialism).
Elhan2005 4 years ago
If we have seen the damaging effect to of an economic system that is close to laissez-faire, why would we want to allow it more freedom to destroy?
AzrielSivad 4 years ago
Where have we seen it? We have only seen corporatist and quasi-corporatist states, and some failed socialist ones here and there.
Elhan2005 4 years ago