Re: Re: Re: Why Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT Traditional Anarch

[kittiest34]

Anarchism is not political. We care about economics and how it's affecting our pursuit of daily bread.

[EVAunit1981]

Great video. Put a battery in your smoke detector.

[ProprietorOfSelf]

thank you for this video.

[coffeexeyes]

Also, the socialist critique of wage slavery (selling your services as you put it) doesn't criticize the fact that you must work for your own survival. It does criticize the fact that you must work for someone else for your survival. Keep in mind that I don't mean working for a boss, I mean the owner of the property, tools, etc.

[coffeexeyes]

What socialist ever argued that managing a business is not a legitimate job? I think most socialists would agree that manager is a totally viable job description. However, managers are usually not business owners. They are hired like any other worker by the owner of the property (business) who now doesn't have to contribute anything to the business personally.

[chalk20]

I do not think this guy is true anarchist. Off to the torture chamber for him..LOL :) Heretic I say! Heretic! Anarcho-statism is the only way! LOL..

[v8lc8m]

when you call yourself a capitalist anarchist, or any other name you want to use it is only an opinion on how you think anarchy may exist or how one would survive in it. it is NOT a wish you get to make! in iether case it is at most a symptom of the effects of government after its abolishment true anarchy has no system at best we can make speculate and most likely we'd would be way off. the only truth is mans ability to survive through reason.

[thorsmitersaw]

Good to hear another strong supporter of market anarchism. I enjoyed this video very much. Your responses are both informed and your ability to "cut through the crap" of collectivism.

[thorsmitersaw]

Might you be the same Niccolo who has a preference for Italy and an AlCapone shirt on Myspace and speaks to a man named Box Proper?

Spot on in this response by the way

[buddhagem]

I do appreciate the rational response. Hopefully you can explain more regarding who would own the means of production. Are you a primativist? Who would own the major industrial factories? How would that ownership be protected or sustained?

[BubblesTroubles]

An anarcho-capitalist society will lead to the same wealth gap we see today. The owners seperate themselves from the workers through pay, creating a society where most must accept low paying jobs to survive. While the owners live in obscene wealth.

[XOmniverse]

If you could make more money making widgets on your own (referring to my in video example) than by working for a business owner, why would you work for someone and not yourself?

The only rational reason to accept employment in a free society is because it will bring you greater value than working for yourself.

[BubblesTroubles]

That logic is correct if all things are equal. But large corporations have economies of scale that prevent startups from competing. The individual widget maker can't compete.

All markets eventually get saturated by multi-national behemoths that leverage their wealth and power to ensure market domination. The individual widget maker has no choice but to work for a large corporation. He is *coerced* into a wage slave system.

[XOmniverse]

The problem is that everything you said is true in state capitalism and not true in a truly free stateless market.

Corporations are a statist entity and exist as a result of a variety of laws and regulations of the state.

[BubblesTroubles]

Ok, but if we define a "corporation" as a collection of resources, both human and capital, directed towards maximizing profits in a stateless society, we still end up with the same result, that is, markets dominated by global businesses that crush competition and increase the wealth gap, the natural conclusion of unbridled capitalism.

[brainpolice2]

Again, as was pointing out, those practises are the result of government-buisiness collusion. It is impossible for such a situation to accur without a state. There is no way to "crush competition" without some kind of protectionism, which requires a state. To argue that the result of a free market is identical top the result of a government-buisiness collusion model is nonsensical. They are entirely different "systems".

[BubblesTroubles]

The government certainly doesn't protect Microsoft. In fact, multiple governments have sued Microsoft for monopolistic behavior. Yet, they still crush the competition using their wealth and power. And they would in a stateless society also.

[buddhagem]

Any examples of a truly stateless market in history? Capitalists need "states" whether private or public in order to protect their property. Your faith in "free-market capitalism" is about as grounded as belief in a god.

[XOmniverse]

Why would a state be needed to protect property but not be needed to redistribute other people's wealth?

Your argument makes no sense.

[buddhagem]

You're not thinking clearly. There's no natural reason why a factory is "owned" by a capitalist that has never worked a day in his life. That relationship is only sustained by the state. Eliminate the state and the workers simply take over and manage themselves. No need for a "state" to redistribute anything.

[poleske]

@XOmniverse first of all I think you need to fix the sound on your vid, but back to your comment, which cuts into the heart of why the state exists. The state exists to protect the capitalist minority from the working majority. In a stateless and democratic society the vast majority will easily be able to redistribute wealth without the state.

The vast majority does not need the state to protect us from the very small minority. It is this very small minority that need the to protect them.

[1tinsoldier]

bubblestroubles - A "weath gap" will exist so long as there exist disparities in peoples talents, abilities, and the value they place upon those of others using their own unforced judgement. Without a wealth or wage gap, how am I to judge my effectiveness at pleasing my fellow man? Am I to feel it? Good grief! And without low paying jobs, how am I to gain the experience and skills needed to do better?

[BubblesTroubles]

A wealth gap primarily exists because of economic coercion. CEO's are getting paid 1000 times more than the average worker. Even die hard capitalists are getting appalled.

[brainpolice2]

The destruction of the middle class that you speak of is the result of central banking and inflationary monetary policies. That is the result of government-buisiness collusion and interventionism, not a free market. It is nonsensical to blame a non-existant free market on the results of state-capitalism. Socialists always do this.

[icmp]

I think the contemporary meaning of socialism has been hijacked by statists to only refer to the economic system whereas the more general definition could be a good idea for communities .. in other words, anarchism can be socialist.

[icmp]

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and movements which aim to improve society through collective and egalitarian action; and to a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

[brainpolice2]

Good points. Anarcho-socialists tend to confuse the meaning of terminology. As you point out, they confuse the difference between a free market and state-capiatalism or neo-mercantalism.

[D4Shawn]

You should really read Das Kapital, because if you like Capitalism, you've obviously never heard of communism! Ah... that was hilarious. I'm still laughing about that one. That guy cracked me up.

[D4Shawn]

I don't think buddhagem was condescending enough. :)

[D4Shawn]

I can't stand passive-aggressiveness. He's got a perfectly amiable demeanor and yet he's condescending as heck. That rubbed me the wrong way. He wouldn't have bothered me at all had he recognized that you're clearly not an ignoramus. You're a smart and knowledgeable guy XOmniverse. Anyone who can't see that is blind. Anyone who can see that yet fails to acknowledge the fact is basically a jerk. It's one thing to disagree; it's another thing to insult somebody's intelligence.

[theBigTakeover]

DROs are a form of government.

[XOmniverse]

They are also Stefan Molyneux's idea, not a part of anarcho-capitalism.

Also, they aren't.

[kylben]

They are not a monopoly form of government, they are a service voluntarily contracted for. Anarchy does not mean no rules, it means no rulers.

[oliviathecanadian]

What position do you see yourself in, in a market anarchy society...sheet metal worker, head of a sheet metal worker company or managing several companies...?

[Kbiomech]

Lead Vocalist, secondary lyricist. Same as I see myself in the current paradigm. Or anything else I choose. That's what anarchocapitalism offers. absolute freedom of choice, and the complete freedom to fail or succeed. No goddamn entangling "safety" nets.

[D4Shawn]

I kind of like some of the safety nets we have now, like the one that enables people who have absolutely no talent to sell millions of albums. It gives me hope (since I totally suck). :)

[kimochinews]

Check out the Austrian theory of profit and loss. It holds that profit is the correct marshalling of resources in the face uncertainty and that this is the entrepreneur's primary function. I think the primary difference between socialists and (market) anarchists is their understanding of the origin of value. It isn't labor + materials = value. Value is actually created at the time of a voluntary trade, to mutual benefit.

[D4Shawn]

In other words, desire determines value.

[thebeanses]

What is so bad about not being associated with anarchism? Market anarchism is different than regular Anarchism and we shouldn't associate ourselves with them (not that I am an An Cap) so I don't see a problem. I don't desire to associate with socialists, so why should we fight for a label that doesn't fit us?

[D4Shawn]

In my opinion, it's because words have meanings. Etymologically speaking, the word anarchy means "without a ruler". No one should ever let anyone monopolize or distort the usuage and meaning of words. It is absolutely crucial to understand that words have codified meanings that supercede the adgendas (manipulation) of special interest groups or individuals.

[thebeanses]

Well, hell...that makes sense. Dammit, I always lose debates.

[kylben]

The nice thing about honest debate is that when you lose, you win. The "winner" has gained nothing, the "loser" has gained knowledge.

[D4Shawn]

Hey, that's pretty neat (since I was just expressing my personal opinion and not even thinking of it as a debate)! I better not gloat in triumph however; someone else could come along any minute and blow my argument out of the water with an even more sophisticated logic torpedo.

[thebeanses]

I am certainly not a very formidable opponent, so I would keep an eye out.

[Neonsolid]

He also doesn't take into account that an employee could always open a competing business if he truly detested his former boss. But anyway great defense of anarcho-capitalism.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

In the name of a random deity, the "you force me to work" argument is so fucking lame. One of the few good things DackBev said -- it's utterly confusing how socialists consider working for pay to be exploitive, but working for free is freedom.