. . . as it violates their freedom of choice; their autonomy - this constitutes subordination.
So one should conclude that no form of rule should exist except SELF-rule. And self-management can be understood as the exercise of one's self-rule in practice.
Ownership too, is just another form of rule; rule over property. This is what prevents right-libertarians from understanding that owning certain kinds of property (ie: means of production) violates the autonomy of others.
One possible libertarian socialist principle that could be formulated as an alternative to libertarian capitalist self-ownership is "self-rule".
AnCaps and the like see everything in terms of property and ownership, what you own becomes an extension of your person.
Libertarian Socialists on the other hand, tend to view things in terms of rule and control; concluding that to attempt to directly or indirectly control another individual or group of individuals is unethical . . .
Bravo! We remove ALL taxes and collect 100% of the rental value of Land and return 100% of the rental value of Land back to every man, woman and child equally. This ensures that EVERYONE receives a Land Dividend that exactly equals the Land rent on the average piece of Land . Infrastructure is funded by fair use fees - use it you pay, don't use it you don't pay. This places the monetary system within the boundaries of Life which ensures equal Freedom and Responsibility for ALL. Bravo!
I defend this comrade! for some reason youtube won't let me post any links in the comment section so I will criticize my brother for not making it jazzy enough but I would suggest searching youtube for left libertarian visions of a free society.
Libertarian economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek defined coercion as "control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another (so) that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another"; and also states "Coercion occurs when one man's actions are made to serve another man's will, not for his own but for the other's purpose." [5]
I find the above actually supports the arguments in this vid
Castroism is the same absolutism found in free-market theory. Free-markets are the lest refuge for the scoundral. They can't force their totalitarian, business oriented ideology through the government any more, so these fascists want people to assume it a priori and expect property owners to implement their 'beliefs.'
But what difference does it make if government is political power, or capital, as Proudhon put it? It's still control, which is why left-anarchists oppose capital.
I think the "free" in free-markets refers to the ability of business to run amok. It's like saying "free-government." But like everything in the market this has a price, and the price is your liberty. Stand up against market tyranny in general, not just "big business."
What does "free" in free-market even mean? You're not allowed access to the resources and to take what you need, so you can't get stuff for free as it creates a prisoner's dilemma in markets. It doesn't refer to freedom for markets, since markets require rules and regulations to function, and Libertarians assume a natural "Libertarian social order" or Libertarian constitution.
Interestingly, free-market idiots actually want to make the problem 10 times worse. They want businesses to be able to control all the resources, with no public input whatsoever, even though the principles of capitalism have been proven to be a failure (this is why Universities outcompete the market in research).
At least with the government I could change a failed system, instead of relying upon 'Misean axioms' that anarcho-capitalists are too stupid to show even exist.
Of course Apple relies upon force. If programmers or other individuals make products that 'mimic' apple products, they can be sued. This is because the government creates the conditions for 'free-markets' and 'free-markets' exist because of government. Otherwise other systems could exist, such as socialism, where property is based on usage-based rights.
False dichotomy. You don't get to choose how property is owned in your market dictatorship, either. The government creates the conditions for those private corporations to even exist. That's just like saying, 'I can choose feudal lords, therefore feudal lords are freer than the state.'
I'd rather have the government working on behalf of the interests of the people, rather than sponsoring corporate property, if the government must exist.
Lol. No you don't. I do not think RIGHTS are a thing that should be legislated. No more than persons ought to be able to fucking vote on if murder is permissible or not.
You are missing the damn point. The state NEVER acts on behalf of "the people". It can not and never will be able to be used as a tool against the plutocracy.
Please do not strawman me here: this is not a defense of the corporation, it is an illustration of the vulgar socialist sentiment of state/market being a total confusion of contexts. The corporation is still a chartered, though now less dispersed and more easily accessible, state privileged institution applied to commerce.
Western governments generally speaking are destroying themselves with debt through entitlements. This would include Japan. At this point they can do nothing and the west will fall reguardless.
'Market anarchists' (right-wing idiots) actually want more government than even the current state. Deregulation leads to the conditions where the entities that serve as protectorates actually have to bail out the failed entities, continually shifting power to private hands. This is especially true in the current system but it'd be even worse in anarcho-capitalism, because the protectorate is a private entity with no public input.
Anarcho-capitalism is the basis for slavery, fascism,cultism
Self-ownership idiots make numerous fallacies of logic. For example, Rothbard claimed, with no evidence, that self-ownership and property are needed for freedom of the mind. However, a first grader could tell you because Y getus us to Z, that doesn't also mean that X couldn't get us to Z also.
Furthermore, just because something might be "necessary" for freedom, doesn't mean you have a right to it. Food is necessary for freedom, but capitalists (fascists) don't say it's a right.
The ability to sell organs, replace organs, improve organs, etc. makes it so that your body is something that you can alienate to the mutual interdependent advantage of everyone.
Yes indeed the Mises.Vondoublethink forums are funded by David Koch the multi billionaire as were the Tea parties as is the Rand Foundation and the Cato institute.
You capitalists pushing "anarcho" capitalism are frauds. A Trojan virus killing anarchism from within. You Thor are an especially delusional capitalist.
Thor, I'll refute your capitalist tripe here just as I do on myspace. All you do is cherry pick Tucker, Stirner and Spooner only to mix it with Rothbardian capitalist doublethink. Anarchism is NOT the philosophy of wage slavery, rent, interest and usury it's a philosophy or reaction to such things meant to end them not legitimize & preserve them.
It's laughable when you use Tucker to legitimize interest. You advocate capitalism not anarchism. Anarchism has always been of the socialist movement
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
, well the fact that the majority of people do not just form co-operatives when capitalism does not prevent them from doing so, shows that people are either ignorant of that option or simply chose not to do it.
Capitalism makes that option hard to pursue, as I say in the video. Now please don't make me repeat myself, and stop spamming my videos with dozens of comments.
This is simply false. The majority of societies worldwide throughout history have many elements of "co-operatives," they simply do not label themselves because such a label has no meaning for them.
But nearly every tribal or national group is a co-operative, and you would be much harder pressed to find such a society that adopts "individualism" because it would be simply suicidal.
@mrtyles It's hard for the masses to enlighten themselves when capitalist products are constantly bombarded in their face on the TV, on the streets etc. Not to mention the stress with their mortgage payments etc. The system SYSTEMATICALLY has us not thinking about this shit , u dig , mrtyles?
@mrtyles i forgot to mention of course the workers salaries which again, usually exceed what the boss makes in a small business (if workers are taken collectively, individually they might make less, then again my Mom made less than minimum wage)
First, the minimum wage came as a result of struggle--it wasn't a gift of the capitalists. Secondly, some chattel slaves rose to very high levels and made substantial amounts of money (see footnote 39 of the wiki article on wage slavery)--probably more than a small business employing a few people. Does that justify slavery? Also, capitalism naturally becomes dominated by big business, which makes it hard for small business to compete. The dynamics of wage labor also play a role in this process.
you say the coercive choice that is collectively imposed by the capitalist class makes self-management hard to pursue and wage labor easy to pursue. could you elaborate on that and explain how the capitalists "collectively" impose this choice? Remember businesses often fail, and new ones come up to replace them, so workers can open their own businesses when an old business fails, which happens quite frequently.
of course anybody could work at McDonalds or some other place while it is more difficult to start your own business. Is it really because the capitalists actively make it more difficult, or is working for yourself, and managing something yourself just inherently harder than following orders from others. To use an example, when baking a cake, is it easier to follow a recipe or to try to figure it all out yourself?
It may be easier to be a slave than free. Does that justify slavery? Also, capitalist nonlabor income entails that capitalists live at the expense of the hard work of others--workers who have it harder, not easier
what makes something just and unjust? If it's easier for me to be a slave, then I would rather be a slave. Since it is easier not being a slave, then I would rather not be a slave. I would rather take a desk job for my food, or even some lowly dishwashing job, then to have to go out and try to grow my own food. If working for someone else is easier then working for yourself, then I think that justfies it. In our case, you are not forced at gunpoint to work for anybody so you can determine
the right to NOT be a wage slave (the right to self-manage) overrides the right to be a slave.That u emphasize the latter rather than the former shows your priorities. The right to freedom realizes itself by making self-management easy to pursue. You want to make that right hard to pursue--while making wage slavery easy to pursue. Freedom doesn't require forcing anyone at gunpoint to be free. Your wage slavery, in contrast, requires plenty of guns to protect the private property that creates it
@mr1001nights "The right to freedom realizes itself by making self-management easy to pursue. You want to make that right hard to pursue--while making wage slavery easy to pursue."
@mr1001nights what is easiest and what is hardest. then again these terms themselves are subjective, and even if something proves to be harder, that isn't necessarily an excuse not to do it. some people want to take the challenge of running their own business.
In colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom and become business owners. Did that justify the "work for a boss or else" of slavery? Capitalists collectively impose a "work for a boss or else" status quo by controlling the limited earthly property that goes beyond active personal use (land, buildings, means of production etc)
@mr1001nights they only control these things for as long as they live, and as long as they stay in business. as i'm sure you know, most businesses fail, which mean those "limited" earthly resources are up for grabs. and of course people die too, and if they don't write a will, all they own goes to the state and is thus redistributed in time. one who does not pay attention to these opportunites will not benefit from them when they arise and runs the risk of poverty, starvation or social stigma.
"they only control these things for as long as they live"
Which means they control us as long as WE live. And you evaded the question about Colonial Brazil. Are you afraid to answer it? I repeat in the hope you will answer it:
n colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom and become business owners. Did that justify the "work for a boss or else" of slavery? And why?
you no longer say "work for a boss or starve" since in reality very few unemployed people in our part of the world suffer from malnutrition (it's different in places like Brazil where workers are paid pennies). Instead you use the vague qualification "work for a boss or else." Or else what? Go on welfare? Accept charity? Live with your parents? Start your own anarcho-syndicalist bookstore? Make documentaries and sell them? Have a yard sale? Rent a room out? Buy mutual funds?
"work for a boss or else" describes the wage system&its influence. Capitalists do not provide welfare -- working class struggles won it. Thus I describe it as an extra-capitalist measure NOT provided by the wage system itself. Making documentaries, having yard possessions, buying mutual funds, owning a room to rent, starting ur own bookstore etc requires capital--which the capitalists posses and use to collectively impose wage labor Living off charity (eg homeless begging) qualifies as "or else"
If you know anything about economics and you seem to know very little. Keynes is easily the most influential economist in the 20th century. His policies run Washington and they are stealing from you through inflation.
If they go bankrupt they provide 0 jobs and everybody is fired.
Do plasma TV's cost more today or ten years ago?
The mountains of debt keep the government going. The only way it can finance it's extravagance is through inflation. They only way to create inflation is credit expansion.
By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. -John Maynard Keynes
Pensions only evaporate if they are unfunded. If they are unfunded then they are ponzi schemes like government pensions social security and medicare. If you're really stupid enough to think selling poisoned food is a good business model then I'm not sure what to tell you. Businesses using the force of government to get subsidies is no different than unions or other special interest group doing it. I make no distinction. You do. Sometimes businesses have to cut jobs or they go bankrupt.
@cayetanoluis You already have a country where profit has been eliminated. It's called Cuba. You have to wonder why people would flee this collectivist utopia on make shift boats to come to Florida to be slaves.
@cayetanoluis Corporations don't take from me. They don't get any of my money that i don't want them to. The government steals from me. I have no choice. NONE. ZERO. If you can't understand that then you are detached from reality.
@cayetanoluis Well i seem to notice the quality of TV sets, cell phones and internet access going up and prices coming down. This is the horror of capitalism. I have to pay LESS for things. The government is basically not involved, at all in those areas.. Where they are involved heavily prices are going up and up and up and up: health care, education, housing(the bubble). This is the beauty of socialism. You get to pay MORE for things which means a lower standard of living,
@cayetanoluis Competition drives down costs. Socialism drives up costs.
I don't want more stuff. i just want the government to stop stealing from me.
In a true free market there isn't a banking commissar printing money and manipulating interest rates. Destruction of the currency comes about because of bad government policy. Free markets don't destroy currency. In fact never before in human history have free people decided to use paper as currency. It's always done with the force of the state.
That tells me you don't understand how a business even works. If it can't turn over a profit it has to cut costs. If it can't cut production costs it's finished. You can't have every entity be run like the Post Office or Government Motors. You'd run out of people to steal money from to keep them all operating.
You'd still be able to put your shoes on in the morning if a bunch of paper shufflers that produce nothing went out of business. The financial sector has grown too large and it needs to shrink. The central bank has created more money during the financial crisis than in the entire history of the U.S. That's good for some guys on Wall Street that drive Lamborghini's that get to spend the money first. When consumer prices go ballistic because of money printing you will sing a different tune.
@cayetanoluis GM is on government life support. It's a failure. They've been losing $4,000 per car for about a decade and been making up for the losses by financing their own vehicles. It's a bad business model and it needs to be liquidated.
I'm going to go ahead and call this bullshit. If I freely chose to do activity A and this activity is mutually exclusive with activity B. Yes I am not "free" to do B but this is a natural law, dare I say fact of the universe. This is something I chose to freely get involved with and freely become obligated to dare I say contracted. I don't think this is a real argument.
@whenihitthesky That isn't how the wage system works, however. It would perhaps be true if government did not restrict and discourage self-employment, if it did not overly encourage the corporate method of organisation through constant handouts and support and answers to lobbying. To say someone is "free" when their choices are legally and socially restricted unfairly is a distortion, and not "a real argument". It's a common view that wage work is renting yourself, something I share as a wager.
First off yes the wage laborer is losing liberty, but he is choosing to loose this liberty himself and by agreeing to this situation must burden the consequences of this choice. That's like me agreeing to hold 100 pounds over my head for 5 minutes for 100 dollars and then complaining about how I've lost my liberty to do something else because I'm busy or how I'm enslaved to my "work".
"...Every time the wage laborer goes to work he in some ways perpetuates his own subjugation or that of his own working class. He does this by contributing to the maintenance or growth of a system that physically and mentally exploits him. A system that deprives him of liberty and that strengthens his oppressors. "
People do have to work to produce food or everyone will starve. Regardless of the economic model it is PRODUCE or STARVE. Wealth comes from production. It comes from an abundance of goods being produced.
Somebody has to be the entrepreneur and organize land, labor and capital to produce the goods. Who is going to do that exactly in this made up economic model you got from a professor of linguistics? General laborers with no organizational skills?
You confuse the subjection of man to nature with the subjection of man to man. Slave owners, when confronted by the"work for a boss or else" status quo they imposed, also said "hey, slaves have to work anyway to survive". As for your question, the concept of self-management centers around people organizing themselves & resources--not some boss. And many workers movements, including the Spanish anarchists, proved it could be done. Like all authoritarians, u put down the capacity of the masses
People can't organize themselves. Someone has to be in charge or nothing gets done. Not everyone has organizational skills.
It's like when you work on a Saturday and your boss isn't there and everyone is fucking around doing piratically nothing. If everyday was like that nothing would get done. I don't think your everyday is Saturday and the boss is out of town economic model would lead to a productive economy. In fact people would probably starve or die waiting in line for socialized medicine.
Wrong. Modern studies indicate slaves' material conditions in the 19th century were "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time." (Fogel & Engerman 1989). As Richard Steckel proves, their standard of living had been increasing. And in places like colonial Brazil, slaves could actually buy their own freedom & become business owners, self-employed, or even slave owners themselves.
@mr1001nights I've found that when I'm forced to pay for something I lose freedom and the only entity that can force me to pay for anything is the government. The cost of freedom is self-reliance and without self-reliance you can never be free.
Capitalists collectively impose a "work for a boss or else" status quo that forces u to surrender the fruits of your labor--killing autonomy and self-realization. We call that "capitalist non-labor income" and "exploitation". The government, though still an elite institutions, can allow you to have some say. The totalitarian nature of capitalist institutions only allow you to rent yourself to a boss under threat of starvation. You call this ":freedom". We call it "wage slavery".
If the state intervenes it's no longer capitalism. The government regulates virtually everything. It's not even a free market.
Those banks shouldn't have been bailed out. They should have failed. Capitalism is survival of the fittest not survival of the un-fittest.
People that work at GM make around $72 an hour when you count benefits. They are not "poor" or victims. They are greedy and I will enjoy watching their pensions evaporate when somebody with half a brain takes GM off the dole.
Self-ownership by its name implies 1) there is such a thing as 'self', 2) that ownership is possible, and 3) that both of these are desirable and SHOULD BE COMBINED. Thus the hyphen. To me, owning your own means of production, as part of a group or as a free individual, is self-ownership.
'Owning' something is not necessarily negative, I would say 'managing' something usually is. The obvious answer is- that's managing someone else, not the self. Which defeats the video's analysis as illustrated
Do u "own" dreams, love, anger, taste, smell, sight, experiences in general? Can we reduce such things to something we "own" or should we perceive them in terms of something we experience, something we live, something we are? Self-management in the video refers to a socioeconomic arrangement whereby individuals share power and therefore DO NOT allow "someone else" to manage their lives. "Self-ownership" justifies external management under the hierarchical/authoritarian structures of wage labor
@mr1001nights I disagree. That is semantic, and ignores the fact that "self-" qualifies it. I had to delete the praise from my comment to fit in with the character limit. A principle of self-ownership is necessarily in opposition to outside-ownership, the same for management. Self-ownership, if it is logically and rationally consistent as a principle, does not alow "someone else" to own them, i.e. through rent (wage) or by chattel slavery.
This remains a question of hierarchy. "Owning something" means you can sell it. We shouldn't compare some wealthy king saying "I own myself" w/a poor wage laborer under capitalism who says the same thing. For the latter, the concept places a veneer on the "work for a boss or else" environment capitalists collectively impose--depicting the selling of his time/liberty as something having to do w/autonomy, rather than subordination. Hence the pervasive use of the concept by capitalist apologists
@mr1001nights "management" does not preclude those things. Forest management for example involves careful destruction and creation within the environment. Management can involve selling of things too, as in management of various amounts of resources. My point over-ridingly, is that these are generally precluded because of the prefix "self". Does selling something immediately create a hierarchy? If it involves selling others and products of others yes; this is not what self-ownership is however.
The very fact the term "self-ownership" says we "own" (rather than simply experience) life, should arise suspicion. Because owning does indeed open the possibility of selling. A self-managed collective can sell, give or dispose of some material good without creating a hierarchy. Not so with someone selling his time/liberty. If "selling" remains so closely associated in modern language with "owning", why use the term "self-ownership" when selling it, in your words, implies losing it?
@mr1001nights "owning" something does not disqualify experience, however. You own a book and experience that; you own a car and experience that. The fact that selling your experience (i.e. for a wage) is why wage-slavery is to be combatted. Self-ownership as a concept must be qualified as being opposite to being owned by someone else, just as self-management is to being managed by another. (by the way, I'm not some anarcho-capitalist or something, I'm what I'd consider a mutualist).
Ownership represents only one of many experiences, so you can't reduce all experience to "ownership". In other words, you experience ownership, you don't own experience. You indeed experience the ownership of the book or car, but this experience of ownership neither equates with all experiences associated with these items, nor compares to the whole variety of mental-states you experience in your life
@mr1001nights Neither would I reduce all existence to the term "self-ownership", no more than I would "self-management". These are specific principles for specific times. Do you "manage" experiences? That's a very cold sounding view from the face of it (This isn't ad hominem). What I've been trying to argue all along is that self-ownership is, yes, used by sympathisers of unsympathetic systems, but it is not necessarily bad in the way you describe it. 'Ownership' is not evil in and of itself.
@mr1001nights No, it does not as I understand it. It refers to people owning themselves, and owning what they produce. Self-ownership is not incompatible with socialism. Owning yourself and the product of your labour is the expressed aim of anarchism.
Or they just understand that government managed economies can never work and never have worked. Or maybe they get that the poster children for organized labor, GM and Chrysler, are bankrupt because the workers got too greedy with their demands. If you turn the power to run a business over to people who only bothered to learn a mundane task like sweeping the floor, you end up in Chapter 11 or Chapter 7.
Alex Rodriguez 10-year, $275 million contract and a "wage slave". Actor Will Smith $80 million in 2008 and a "wage slave". You guys are hilarious.
Hey can we at least agree that we should abolish the income tax seeing as how everyone is an oppressed wage slave? Should wage slaves be subject to taxation?
"The highest position slaves ever attained was that of slave minister...A few slaves even rose to be monarchs, such as the slaves who became sultans and founded dynasties in Islām."
On rare occasions, chattel, just like wage slavery allowed greater wealth&possibilities. Is slavery therefore justified? As for taxation in a partially democratic state it allows u some control. In contrast capitalist profit means taxation w/o representation
If you don't like it you can start a commune and share the wealth through voulintary contracts. If it's realy that great everyone and their brother will join. Liberals are hilariuos. They always create new ways to be victims.
Yo mr1001nights, why don't you make a video about today's Supreme Court decision. It would appear that the corporate takeover of the American government is now absolute.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
actually it appears that if you take a look at the actual ruling, it does no such thing. It removes limits upon grassroots organizations and the like among other things... but it is all beside the point. Voting does not accomplish a damn thing
And notice that while An-Caps rant in generalities about corporations, in nearly every instance they have a point of view directly in line with corporations. This is because An-Capitalism has always been a movement funded by corporate interest and wealthy elites.
Lastly the An-Cap encourages people to surrender or despise the power of their own vote, to make sure the REAL individual divests himself of power while corporate elites continue to amass it.
Name one corporate CEO who is an Anarcho Capitalist. One. Chomsky himself has stated that these assholes are terrified of a truly free market. But hey, lets ignore facts and just lie our asses off about our opposition.
you really don't stop talking long enough to understand the position you're critiquing.
Wage structures are not encouraged nor necessary under a legally equal society (ie anarcho-capitalism).
Self-ownership is meaningless without self-management.
The will is instantaneous. One cannot voluntarily void their future volition. If one signs onto a slave contract and they violate it, the worst crime they have committed is to steal the contractual returns.
The idea that anarcho-capitalism would lead to a "legally equal society" is laughable. The entire aim of the anarcho-capitalist movement is to shift vast amounts of power toward traditional elites.
The theorizing and postulating is completely empty, because IN PRACTICE anarcho-capitalists promote legal inequality.
Since I am, what I believe to be an 'anarcho-capitalist', myself.. The NUMBER ONE thing I stand for is _legal-egalitarianism_, I see the historic move toward it, and away from despotism(before: religious autocracy, slavery etc... Today: 'legitimate' monopolists). I see the move away from despotism as the primary thing that gives me hope in the future of humanity.
peace, equality, freedom; progress
I'm not joking, and I really do think the fundamental principles between us don't conflict.
When embracing "free market" capitalism you also embrace despotism.
While you may oppose corporations in theory, in practice the anarcho-capitalist movement is a paleo-conservative movement, and also a corporate-backed movement.
For example, Murray Rothbard was supported by the Koch Family foundations, who fund numerous other irrational paleo-conservative "think tanks."
So in reality, all rhetoric aside, you are advocating for the corporate fascists. I urge you to reconsider that decision.
I detest phony populist rhetoric about "freedom and equality" when it is accompanied by a world view that is supported by corporate power elites. That's just a sham.
While we may oppose some of the same laws, the fact is that if/when "libertarians" take control of governments, the priority won't be on reforming drug laws or eliminating corporations. The priority will be attacking the safety net, unions, and the poor.
That's an odd situation.. 'when the libertarians take control of governments' is a contradiction.
The libertarian abolition of despotism and judicial monopoly means instant ends to both sets you describe.
It's logically obvious and historically clear that despotism is no way to help poverty.
As for the 'guilt by association'.. I know the Koch Foundation is donating money to the 'Institute for Humane Studies' too. Murray Rothbard and IHS has never with-held their hatred for corp 'personhood'.
There are several "libertarian" leaning right wing members of congress. The idea would be for a libertarian party to take part in the election process and exert its popular power through the political process; at some point gaining sufficient clout to alter the laws or the constitution itself.
Maybe you are imagining that you will elect Puff the Magic Dragon and he will achieve your entire agenda on his/her first day.
Or is it that you want to violently impose your radical agenda on others?
You're against despotism? For freedom? What a courageous stand for you to take! What's your position on fuzzy kittens?
Your entire argument is purest propaganda; there is not one single historical thing about it, starting with the fact that you can't show one single working example of anarcho -captialism.
And while you may not like it, the deep ties to Koch are relevant because they tie you to establishment republicans, exposing the entire farce as a corporatist mirage.
Where would an An-Cap be without his strawmen? His favorite is to label every other point of view "statist" and to label himself pro-freedom (all others anti-freedom).
An-Cap needs strawmen because there has NEVER been a working model for An-Capitalism in all of human history. Somalia is the nearest modern example.
*sigh* I don't think you gave much thought to this. If you want to keep your mind open long enough to read or listen to responses on this, I'd recommend: Speeches: 'self-governance' by Prof. Peter Leeson '10 responses to objections to libertarian anarchism' by Prof. Roderick Long Articles: 'Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy' by Alfred Cuzan Those are favorites which came to mind & address your fallacious objections. laissez-faire, ~catallactic anarchist
Your movement is funded by corporations and wealthy elites. You referred me to an articles at Cato and Von Mises. Far from disproving my point, you sealed it. Cato is backed by Koch family foundations, which also supported GWB and the Teabags.
#2 There are no working models for "free market anarchy." You did not address this point,instead pointing me toward a Cato article suggesting the model should be Carribean Piracy.This is hilariously close to my Somalian example.
I won't engage in collectivist blame or guilt-by-association, and I'm amazed you consider that worth mentioning.
Let's discuss the ideas. GWB and most 'teabagers' would not be excused by these ideas.
On Somalia (speech) ~67mins:
'African Development - Case Study of Somalia' by Benjamin Powell
'Petty nobles'?! Von Mises had to flee Austria because he didn't compromise his views in favor of the political class! I'm not engaging in hero-worship, but rather when he lost nobility it was honorable.
In the real world, your supposedly anti-corporate, anti-hierarchical movement is funded by corporations and elites.
Case in point is the last article you referred me to (in lieu of an actual argument.) This is another "fellow" at a "think tank." This one, the Independent Institute, is funded by Exxon, Philip Morris, and David Koch.
I'm not interested in axiomatic repetitions of observably false assertions. I can get that talking to religious freaks.
Instead of incessantly repeating your freedumb dogmas and empty "individualist" propaganda, instead of referring me to yet another corporate toolbag, try making your own argument that we can adopt this model and what it would mean in real terms.
Bonus points if you can do it without using the word "freedumb."
Von Mises fled Austria in '34 because he was a wealthy Jew and did not wish to die, much like my grandmother. Self-preservation, not ideological purity, motivated his exile.
Von Mises has segregationists (Rock+Roth), and petty nobles (Von Mises) in its roots, and wealthy elites (Koch+ undisclosed wealthy elites) as its generous benefactors.
What fool thinks that these groups are devising a model for a pluralist, non-hierarchical society?
LOL. there has never been a working model of your envisioned society in some purist form either. And guess what? That is not a valid argument to its impossibility. And hey guess what else? you sort of just shot yourself in the foot there... you must then... by recognizing that ancap-land has never existed... admit that there has never been a free market and that these conditions are not a result of one.
Unlike an An-Cap I am not married to a purist, Utopian vision.
There are several working models for various socialist systems.This is a weakness for my argument; there are models for you to criticize.
Since there is no model for AnCapTopia, you can invent an imaginary utopia with no pesky reality-based criticisms I could level. If I suggest we have been moving in your direction since Reagan, you will just assert that the failure of these policies was merely because they weren't pure enough.
Homogenize and dehumanize? Every AnCap I speak to homogenizes and dehumanizes people with opposing viewpoints, labeling people with wildly diverging points of view as "statists."
This label is used quite deliberately to associate all other ideas (from socialism to neo-liberalism) with Stalinism or Italian Fascism.
Hypocrisy.
You think you can use support from corporations and elites to achieve your "pluralist" ends? I have news for you. In the end, the opposite will certainly be the case.
Though true, I don't think that's a good approach..
I think the positive elements of any society are best analyzed on a micro scale.
I would suspect that the 'working models of socialist systems' Whatchagonado is talking about have emerged from basic an-cap conditions of legal equality, otherwise there wouldn't be the freedom to make those voluntary associations...
The language of MANAGEMENT is preferable to that of "ownership", as the former describes an actual activity, whereas the latter is mostly unshakable (and unreasonable) "faith."
We indulge far too much shorthand for things we could speak more specifically about. Further, that "shorthand" is generally a bunch of archaisms whose original significance is blindly authoritarian.
I've always found descriptions like "cherished", "regularly used", "possessed", etc. clearer than "owned."
I said that private ownership of the means of production makes self-management hard to pursue. As for "violence" it occurs more pervasively in authoritarian systems. Any sane person knows a dictatorial workplace environment in a "work for a boss or else" system increases authority (as compared to workplaces where ppl share power). U reverse reality by saying that a wage slave has more individual autonomy than someone who shares power and has a say in the workplace/economy.
It may also be pertinent to say that in a resource-based economy, with truly equitable operating principles, power would become irrelevant. We are still speaking from within the confines of scarcity-consciousness. Humans need to learn a new economic grammar.
And the reason why we can't have both self-ownership and self-management is obscured through a series of authoritative language and emotional appeals. Par for the course, mr1001nights.
We have destroyed so many wise civilizations by imposing on them the idea of enslaving the earth & everything in it (ownership).
All native peoples believed that we belong to the earth & not that the earth belongs to us.
They never needed to "own" land, in the way capitalism insisted. The land owned them & thus they lived lives of unwavering emotional stability and prosperity, for their wisdom is that which we refuse to acknowledge is crucial to our existance, happiness & sanity.
Pt2- I got offered 2 office jobs, which I HATED, so i ALSO quit coz I kept getting anxiety attacks in the bathroom from fear of returning 2 the same depression i experienced B4. I feel like i developed some kind of office phobia! Im traped in a box of my previous "experience" (all office work!) Now I feel as though I would rather DIE! I cant see myself doing this shit people call "making a living". Its pure slavery! I dont know wat 2 do anymore! Move to a 3rd world country & learn a trade??
you know, i have the same inclinations some time- my peers are trained on a overeducated, hands-off wage-job system. to learn the other type of living would be something.
or else let it just fucking go and hit the road maybe, becoming a lean coyote weaving in between humanity and civilization, you understand?
Yeah, I want to do that honestly. I want to dissapear off the grid & get out of the system that puts a huge intricate gap between our needs & how we get them. Instead of spending 15 years working an office job tobuy a house, perhaps i should spend 2 years just building the house!? Perhaps instead of paying to buy sub-par groceries, i should plant my own yield? Where do I go from here? what do I do? I cant do this anymore. The thought of working for money rather than for my needs is intolerable!!
I was very depressed working for 2 years at a full time job in Dubai in Advertising (vampires!) after graduating. I got so depressed, so I QUIT! (just in time for the depression!) Now, i cant get ANY employment no matter how great my CV was because there were people with "more" years od experience f who were willing to accept the same pay. This lead to 4 months of depression unable to pay rent and living with my parents, gaining weight, my looks and "assets" deteriorated, my depression worsened.
very sad story, i hope you have been able to overcome your anxiety ... now, a question: why didn't you do the same as the "people with 'more' years of experience"? You could apply for a job that you are overqualified and you will sure have more chances ...
Here lies the problem...The jobs 4 which i am overqualified r jobs that I deeply detest. In essence Im the equivalent of a highschool drop out 4 any NEW career I wish to persue. The system makes it so with division of labour. Its cornered me into a linear career progression. If i dont like the course ive chosen (at far too young an age) then I must go directly to the start. Its a cruel game of snakes & ladders. Unfortun8ly, I landed at the long snake of job recession & a politcal paradigm shift.
I've listened to this twice now, and think I understand what you are referring to. I certainly agree that trust has to be placed in working people to organise their own production.
(2/2)
. . . as it violates their freedom of choice; their autonomy - this constitutes subordination.
So one should conclude that no form of rule should exist except SELF-rule. And self-management can be understood as the exercise of one's self-rule in practice.
Ownership too, is just another form of rule; rule over property. This is what prevents right-libertarians from understanding that owning certain kinds of property (ie: means of production) violates the autonomy of others.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago 2
(1/2)
One possible libertarian socialist principle that could be formulated as an alternative to libertarian capitalist self-ownership is "self-rule".
AnCaps and the like see everything in terms of property and ownership, what you own becomes an extension of your person.
Libertarian Socialists on the other hand, tend to view things in terms of rule and control; concluding that to attempt to directly or indirectly control another individual or group of individuals is unethical . . .
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bravo! We remove ALL taxes and collect 100% of the rental value of Land and return 100% of the rental value of Land back to every man, woman and child equally. This ensures that EVERYONE receives a Land Dividend that exactly equals the Land rent on the average piece of Land . Infrastructure is funded by fair use fees - use it you pay, don't use it you don't pay. This places the monetary system within the boundaries of Life which ensures equal Freedom and Responsibility for ALL. Bravo!
EdiblePlanet 3 months ago
I defend this comrade! for some reason youtube won't let me post any links in the comment section so I will criticize my brother for not making it jazzy enough but I would suggest searching youtube for left libertarian visions of a free society.
jasonatramwoolscom 3 months ago
i am going to self manage myself. I also, OWN myself. this is not hard for me...
tanquard 8 months ago
Wikipedia says:
Libertarian economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek defined coercion as "control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another (so) that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another"; and also states "Coercion occurs when one man's actions are made to serve another man's will, not for his own but for the other's purpose." [5]
I find the above actually supports the arguments in this vid
Aspetta17 1 year ago
yes but have you tried brussel sprouts?
adzug 2 years ago
There is no control hierarchy in a self-organized system. EPIC FAIL ;)
axe863 2 years ago
@axe863 where is his EPIC FAIL (sorry for the caps).
jasonatramwoolscom 3 months ago
Castroism is the same absolutism found in free-market theory. Free-markets are the lest refuge for the scoundral. They can't force their totalitarian, business oriented ideology through the government any more, so these fascists want people to assume it a priori and expect property owners to implement their 'beliefs.'
But what difference does it make if government is political power, or capital, as Proudhon put it? It's still control, which is why left-anarchists oppose capital.
successfulbuild 2 years ago
I think the "free" in free-markets refers to the ability of business to run amok. It's like saying "free-government." But like everything in the market this has a price, and the price is your liberty. Stand up against market tyranny in general, not just "big business."
successfulbuild 2 years ago
What does "free" in free-market even mean? You're not allowed access to the resources and to take what you need, so you can't get stuff for free as it creates a prisoner's dilemma in markets. It doesn't refer to freedom for markets, since markets require rules and regulations to function, and Libertarians assume a natural "Libertarian social order" or Libertarian constitution.
successfulbuild 2 years ago
its like saying " if you dont like it here, dont try to make it better by participation, just give up and go elsewhere"
adzug 2 years ago
Interestingly, free-market idiots actually want to make the problem 10 times worse. They want businesses to be able to control all the resources, with no public input whatsoever, even though the principles of capitalism have been proven to be a failure (this is why Universities outcompete the market in research).
At least with the government I could change a failed system, instead of relying upon 'Misean axioms' that anarcho-capitalists are too stupid to show even exist.
successfulbuild 2 years ago
Of course Apple relies upon force. If programmers or other individuals make products that 'mimic' apple products, they can be sued. This is because the government creates the conditions for 'free-markets' and 'free-markets' exist because of government. Otherwise other systems could exist, such as socialism, where property is based on usage-based rights.
successfulbuild 2 years ago
False dichotomy. You don't get to choose how property is owned in your market dictatorship, either. The government creates the conditions for those private corporations to even exist. That's just like saying, 'I can choose feudal lords, therefore feudal lords are freer than the state.'
I'd rather have the government working on behalf of the interests of the people, rather than sponsoring corporate property, if the government must exist.
successfulbuild 2 years ago
Lol. No you don't. I do not think RIGHTS are a thing that should be legislated. No more than persons ought to be able to fucking vote on if murder is permissible or not.
You are missing the damn point. The state NEVER acts on behalf of "the people". It can not and never will be able to be used as a tool against the plutocracy.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
Please do not strawman me here: this is not a defense of the corporation, it is an illustration of the vulgar socialist sentiment of state/market being a total confusion of contexts. The corporation is still a chartered, though now less dispersed and more easily accessible, state privileged institution applied to commerce.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
Western governments generally speaking are destroying themselves with debt through entitlements. This would include Japan. At this point they can do nothing and the west will fall reguardless.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
'Market anarchists' (right-wing idiots) actually want more government than even the current state. Deregulation leads to the conditions where the entities that serve as protectorates actually have to bail out the failed entities, continually shifting power to private hands. This is especially true in the current system but it'd be even worse in anarcho-capitalism, because the protectorate is a private entity with no public input.
Anarcho-capitalism is the basis for slavery, fascism,cultism
successfulbuild 2 years ago
Self-ownership idiots make numerous fallacies of logic. For example, Rothbard claimed, with no evidence, that self-ownership and property are needed for freedom of the mind. However, a first grader could tell you because Y getus us to Z, that doesn't also mean that X couldn't get us to Z also.
Furthermore, just because something might be "necessary" for freedom, doesn't mean you have a right to it. Food is necessary for freedom, but capitalists (fascists) don't say it's a right.
successfulbuild 2 years ago
The ability to sell organs, replace organs, improve organs, etc. makes it so that your body is something that you can alienate to the mutual interdependent advantage of everyone.
You own your body
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
@thorsmitersaw
Ha! Standard red-baiting ignorance, just like any other right wing reactionary (I.E.- Mussolini, McCarthy etc.)
An Anarcho-Captialist is a teabagger who can read.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
Yes indeed the Mises.Vondoublethink forums are funded by David Koch the multi billionaire as were the Tea parties as is the Rand Foundation and the Cato institute.
You capitalists pushing "anarcho" capitalism are frauds. A Trojan virus killing anarchism from within. You Thor are an especially delusional capitalist.
crud4 2 years ago
Thor, I'll refute your capitalist tripe here just as I do on myspace. All you do is cherry pick Tucker, Stirner and Spooner only to mix it with Rothbardian capitalist doublethink. Anarchism is NOT the philosophy of wage slavery, rent, interest and usury it's a philosophy or reaction to such things meant to end them not legitimize & preserve them.
It's laughable when you use Tucker to legitimize interest. You advocate capitalism not anarchism. Anarchism has always been of the socialist movement
crud4 2 years ago
Nobody is forced to borrow money. Stop making shit up.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
, well the fact that the majority of people do not just form co-operatives when capitalism does not prevent them from doing so, shows that people are either ignorant of that option or simply chose not to do it.
mrtyles 2 years ago
Capitalism makes that option hard to pursue, as I say in the video. Now please don't make me repeat myself, and stop spamming my videos with dozens of comments.
mr1001nights 2 years ago 4
@mrtyles
This is simply false. The majority of societies worldwide throughout history have many elements of "co-operatives," they simply do not label themselves because such a label has no meaning for them.
But nearly every tribal or national group is a co-operative, and you would be much harder pressed to find such a society that adopts "individualism" because it would be simply suicidal.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
@mrtyles It's hard for the masses to enlighten themselves when capitalist products are constantly bombarded in their face on the TV, on the streets etc. Not to mention the stress with their mortgage payments etc. The system SYSTEMATICALLY has us not thinking about this shit , u dig , mrtyles?
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@mrtyles i forgot to mention of course the workers salaries which again, usually exceed what the boss makes in a small business (if workers are taken collectively, individually they might make less, then again my Mom made less than minimum wage)
mrtyles 2 years ago
First, the minimum wage came as a result of struggle--it wasn't a gift of the capitalists. Secondly, some chattel slaves rose to very high levels and made substantial amounts of money (see footnote 39 of the wiki article on wage slavery)--probably more than a small business employing a few people. Does that justify slavery? Also, capitalism naturally becomes dominated by big business, which makes it hard for small business to compete. The dynamics of wage labor also play a role in this process.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
you say the coercive choice that is collectively imposed by the capitalist class makes self-management hard to pursue and wage labor easy to pursue. could you elaborate on that and explain how the capitalists "collectively" impose this choice? Remember businesses often fail, and new ones come up to replace them, so workers can open their own businesses when an old business fails, which happens quite frequently.
mrtyles 2 years ago
of course anybody could work at McDonalds or some other place while it is more difficult to start your own business. Is it really because the capitalists actively make it more difficult, or is working for yourself, and managing something yourself just inherently harder than following orders from others. To use an example, when baking a cake, is it easier to follow a recipe or to try to figure it all out yourself?
mrtyles 2 years ago
It may be easier to be a slave than free. Does that justify slavery? Also, capitalist nonlabor income entails that capitalists live at the expense of the hard work of others--workers who have it harder, not easier
mr1001nights 2 years ago
what makes something just and unjust? If it's easier for me to be a slave, then I would rather be a slave. Since it is easier not being a slave, then I would rather not be a slave. I would rather take a desk job for my food, or even some lowly dishwashing job, then to have to go out and try to grow my own food. If working for someone else is easier then working for yourself, then I think that justfies it. In our case, you are not forced at gunpoint to work for anybody so you can determine
mrtyles 2 years ago
the right to NOT be a wage slave (the right to self-manage) overrides the right to be a slave.That u emphasize the latter rather than the former shows your priorities. The right to freedom realizes itself by making self-management easy to pursue. You want to make that right hard to pursue--while making wage slavery easy to pursue. Freedom doesn't require forcing anyone at gunpoint to be free. Your wage slavery, in contrast, requires plenty of guns to protect the private property that creates it
mr1001nights 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mr1001nights "The right to freedom realizes itself by making self-management easy to pursue. You want to make that right hard to pursue--while making wage slavery easy to pursue."
You said it brillianty :)
Aspetta17 1 year ago
You're mucking up the comment section with this idiocy.
crud4 2 years ago
@mr1001nights what is easiest and what is hardest. then again these terms themselves are subjective, and even if something proves to be harder, that isn't necessarily an excuse not to do it. some people want to take the challenge of running their own business.
mrtyles 2 years ago
In colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom and become business owners. Did that justify the "work for a boss or else" of slavery? Capitalists collectively impose a "work for a boss or else" status quo by controlling the limited earthly property that goes beyond active personal use (land, buildings, means of production etc)
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights they only control these things for as long as they live, and as long as they stay in business. as i'm sure you know, most businesses fail, which mean those "limited" earthly resources are up for grabs. and of course people die too, and if they don't write a will, all they own goes to the state and is thus redistributed in time. one who does not pay attention to these opportunites will not benefit from them when they arise and runs the risk of poverty, starvation or social stigma.
mrtyles 2 years ago
"they only control these things for as long as they live"
Which means they control us as long as WE live. And you evaded the question about Colonial Brazil. Are you afraid to answer it? I repeat in the hope you will answer it:
n colonial Brazil, slaves could buy their own freedom and become business owners. Did that justify the "work for a boss or else" of slavery? And why?
mr1001nights 2 years ago
you no longer say "work for a boss or starve" since in reality very few unemployed people in our part of the world suffer from malnutrition (it's different in places like Brazil where workers are paid pennies). Instead you use the vague qualification "work for a boss or else." Or else what? Go on welfare? Accept charity? Live with your parents? Start your own anarcho-syndicalist bookstore? Make documentaries and sell them? Have a yard sale? Rent a room out? Buy mutual funds?
mrtyles 2 years ago
"work for a boss or else" describes the wage system&its influence. Capitalists do not provide welfare -- working class struggles won it. Thus I describe it as an extra-capitalist measure NOT provided by the wage system itself. Making documentaries, having yard possessions, buying mutual funds, owning a room to rent, starting ur own bookstore etc requires capital--which the capitalists posses and use to collectively impose wage labor Living off charity (eg homeless begging) qualifies as "or else"
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis Bubbles exist in every economic system. Econ 101.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
If you know anything about economics and you seem to know very little. Keynes is easily the most influential economist in the 20th century. His policies run Washington and they are stealing from you through inflation.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
(cont.)
If they go bankrupt they provide 0 jobs and everybody is fired.
Do plasma TV's cost more today or ten years ago?
The mountains of debt keep the government going. The only way it can finance it's extravagance is through inflation. They only way to create inflation is credit expansion.
By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. -John Maynard Keynes
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
Pensions only evaporate if they are unfunded. If they are unfunded then they are ponzi schemes like government pensions social security and medicare. If you're really stupid enough to think selling poisoned food is a good business model then I'm not sure what to tell you. Businesses using the force of government to get subsidies is no different than unions or other special interest group doing it. I make no distinction. You do. Sometimes businesses have to cut jobs or they go bankrupt.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis embargoes don't work if only one country imposes it. Econ 101
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
sure, that's self-referential.
'yourself' should say 'your body', which is clearly not 'yourself', and it is annoying when people conflate the two..
As tech progresses, the distinction will become much greater..
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis You already have a country where profit has been eliminated. It's called Cuba. You have to wonder why people would flee this collectivist utopia on make shift boats to come to Florida to be slaves.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis Corporations don't take from me. They don't get any of my money that i don't want them to. The government steals from me. I have no choice. NONE. ZERO. If you can't understand that then you are detached from reality.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis Well i seem to notice the quality of TV sets, cell phones and internet access going up and prices coming down. This is the horror of capitalism. I have to pay LESS for things. The government is basically not involved, at all in those areas.. Where they are involved heavily prices are going up and up and up and up: health care, education, housing(the bubble). This is the beauty of socialism. You get to pay MORE for things which means a lower standard of living,
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis Competition drives down costs. Socialism drives up costs.
I don't want more stuff. i just want the government to stop stealing from me.
In a true free market there isn't a banking commissar printing money and manipulating interest rates. Destruction of the currency comes about because of bad government policy. Free markets don't destroy currency. In fact never before in human history have free people decided to use paper as currency. It's always done with the force of the state.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis Translation: "I'm not a self-starter so i need the government to steal from someone else because i want more stuff."
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
That tells me you don't understand how a business even works. If it can't turn over a profit it has to cut costs. If it can't cut production costs it's finished. You can't have every entity be run like the Post Office or Government Motors. You'd run out of people to steal money from to keep them all operating.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
You'd still be able to put your shoes on in the morning if a bunch of paper shufflers that produce nothing went out of business. The financial sector has grown too large and it needs to shrink. The central bank has created more money during the financial crisis than in the entire history of the U.S. That's good for some guys on Wall Street that drive Lamborghini's that get to spend the money first. When consumer prices go ballistic because of money printing you will sing a different tune.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis It's demanded by special interest groups. It's a requirement of capitalism.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis Goldman Sachs wants you to believe in systemic risk. They got you by the balls.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@cayetanoluis GM is on government life support. It's a failure. They've been losing $4,000 per car for about a decade and been making up for the losses by financing their own vehicles. It's a bad business model and it needs to be liquidated.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@MrDiggersam Yep I've worked on Saturday before when nobody was in charge. People fuck off and get nothing done.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
I'm going to go ahead and call this bullshit. If I freely chose to do activity A and this activity is mutually exclusive with activity B. Yes I am not "free" to do B but this is a natural law, dare I say fact of the universe. This is something I chose to freely get involved with and freely become obligated to dare I say contracted. I don't think this is a real argument.
whenihitthesky 2 years ago
@whenihitthesky That isn't how the wage system works, however. It would perhaps be true if government did not restrict and discourage self-employment, if it did not overly encourage the corporate method of organisation through constant handouts and support and answers to lobbying. To say someone is "free" when their choices are legally and socially restricted unfairly is a distortion, and not "a real argument". It's a common view that wage work is renting yourself, something I share as a wager.
rcroton 2 years ago
First off yes the wage laborer is losing liberty, but he is choosing to loose this liberty himself and by agreeing to this situation must burden the consequences of this choice. That's like me agreeing to hold 100 pounds over my head for 5 minutes for 100 dollars and then complaining about how I've lost my liberty to do something else because I'm busy or how I'm enslaved to my "work".
whenihitthesky 2 years ago
"...Every time the wage laborer goes to work he in some ways perpetuates his own subjugation or that of his own working class. He does this by contributing to the maintenance or growth of a system that physically and mentally exploits him. A system that deprives him of liberty and that strengthens his oppressors. "
whenihitthesky 2 years ago
People do have to work to produce food or everyone will starve. Regardless of the economic model it is PRODUCE or STARVE. Wealth comes from production. It comes from an abundance of goods being produced.
Somebody has to be the entrepreneur and organize land, labor and capital to produce the goods. Who is going to do that exactly in this made up economic model you got from a professor of linguistics? General laborers with no organizational skills?
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
You confuse the subjection of man to nature with the subjection of man to man. Slave owners, when confronted by the"work for a boss or else" status quo they imposed, also said "hey, slaves have to work anyway to survive". As for your question, the concept of self-management centers around people organizing themselves & resources--not some boss. And many workers movements, including the Spanish anarchists, proved it could be done. Like all authoritarians, u put down the capacity of the masses
mr1001nights 2 years ago
People can't organize themselves. Someone has to be in charge or nothing gets done. Not everyone has organizational skills.
It's like when you work on a Saturday and your boss isn't there and everyone is fucking around doing piratically nothing. If everyday was like that nothing would get done. I don't think your everyday is Saturday and the boss is out of town economic model would lead to a productive economy. In fact people would probably starve or die waiting in line for socialized medicine.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@TheMobocracy
Wrong. Modern studies indicate slaves' material conditions in the 19th century were "better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time." (Fogel & Engerman 1989). As Richard Steckel proves, their standard of living had been increasing. And in places like colonial Brazil, slaves could actually buy their own freedom & become business owners, self-employed, or even slave owners themselves.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
You don't have to buy freedom. You are not a slave.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
@TheMobocracy
Everybody knows that in capitalism, money means freedom. You INDEED have to buy your freedom.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights I've found that when I'm forced to pay for something I lose freedom and the only entity that can force me to pay for anything is the government. The cost of freedom is self-reliance and without self-reliance you can never be free.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
Capitalists collectively impose a "work for a boss or else" status quo that forces u to surrender the fruits of your labor--killing autonomy and self-realization. We call that "capitalist non-labor income" and "exploitation". The government, though still an elite institutions, can allow you to have some say. The totalitarian nature of capitalist institutions only allow you to rent yourself to a boss under threat of starvation. You call this ":freedom". We call it "wage slavery".
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights Start your own business if you don't like working for someone else.
The only one stealing stealing the fruits of your labor is the IRS. The only one making it difficult to start business is the government or yourself.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
If the state intervenes it's no longer capitalism. The government regulates virtually everything. It's not even a free market.
Those banks shouldn't have been bailed out. They should have failed. Capitalism is survival of the fittest not survival of the un-fittest.
People that work at GM make around $72 an hour when you count benefits. They are not "poor" or victims. They are greedy and I will enjoy watching their pensions evaporate when somebody with half a brain takes GM off the dole.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago 2
Self-ownership by its name implies 1) there is such a thing as 'self', 2) that ownership is possible, and 3) that both of these are desirable and SHOULD BE COMBINED. Thus the hyphen. To me, owning your own means of production, as part of a group or as a free individual, is self-ownership.
'Owning' something is not necessarily negative, I would say 'managing' something usually is. The obvious answer is- that's managing someone else, not the self. Which defeats the video's analysis as illustrated
rcroton 2 years ago
Do u "own" dreams, love, anger, taste, smell, sight, experiences in general? Can we reduce such things to something we "own" or should we perceive them in terms of something we experience, something we live, something we are? Self-management in the video refers to a socioeconomic arrangement whereby individuals share power and therefore DO NOT allow "someone else" to manage their lives. "Self-ownership" justifies external management under the hierarchical/authoritarian structures of wage labor
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights I disagree. That is semantic, and ignores the fact that "self-" qualifies it. I had to delete the praise from my comment to fit in with the character limit. A principle of self-ownership is necessarily in opposition to outside-ownership, the same for management. Self-ownership, if it is logically and rationally consistent as a principle, does not alow "someone else" to own them, i.e. through rent (wage) or by chattel slavery.
I do agree however with the PRINCIPLES at stake.
rcroton 2 years ago
This remains a question of hierarchy. "Owning something" means you can sell it. We shouldn't compare some wealthy king saying "I own myself" w/a poor wage laborer under capitalism who says the same thing. For the latter, the concept places a veneer on the "work for a boss or else" environment capitalists collectively impose--depicting the selling of his time/liberty as something having to do w/autonomy, rather than subordination. Hence the pervasive use of the concept by capitalist apologists
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights "management" does not preclude those things. Forest management for example involves careful destruction and creation within the environment. Management can involve selling of things too, as in management of various amounts of resources. My point over-ridingly, is that these are generally precluded because of the prefix "self". Does selling something immediately create a hierarchy? If it involves selling others and products of others yes; this is not what self-ownership is however.
rcroton 2 years ago
@rcroton
The very fact the term "self-ownership" says we "own" (rather than simply experience) life, should arise suspicion. Because owning does indeed open the possibility of selling. A self-managed collective can sell, give or dispose of some material good without creating a hierarchy. Not so with someone selling his time/liberty. If "selling" remains so closely associated in modern language with "owning", why use the term "self-ownership" when selling it, in your words, implies losing it?
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights "owning" something does not disqualify experience, however. You own a book and experience that; you own a car and experience that. The fact that selling your experience (i.e. for a wage) is why wage-slavery is to be combatted. Self-ownership as a concept must be qualified as being opposite to being owned by someone else, just as self-management is to being managed by another. (by the way, I'm not some anarcho-capitalist or something, I'm what I'd consider a mutualist).
rcroton 2 years ago
@rcroton
Ownership represents only one of many experiences, so you can't reduce all experience to "ownership". In other words, you experience ownership, you don't own experience. You indeed experience the ownership of the book or car, but this experience of ownership neither equates with all experiences associated with these items, nor compares to the whole variety of mental-states you experience in your life
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights Neither would I reduce all existence to the term "self-ownership", no more than I would "self-management". These are specific principles for specific times. Do you "manage" experiences? That's a very cold sounding view from the face of it (This isn't ad hominem). What I've been trying to argue all along is that self-ownership is, yes, used by sympathisers of unsympathetic systems, but it is not necessarily bad in the way you describe it. 'Ownership' is not evil in and of itself.
rcroton 2 years ago
@rcroton
Self-management doesn't refer to managing all experience. Rather, it refers to self-managing the economic structures, so they allow maximum freedom.
Self-ownership refers to allowing bosses to manage economic structures, which kills freedom.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
@mr1001nights No, it does not as I understand it. It refers to people owning themselves, and owning what they produce. Self-ownership is not incompatible with socialism. Owning yourself and the product of your labour is the expressed aim of anarchism.
rcroton 2 years ago
Or they just understand that government managed economies can never work and never have worked. Or maybe they get that the poster children for organized labor, GM and Chrysler, are bankrupt because the workers got too greedy with their demands. If you turn the power to run a business over to people who only bothered to learn a mundane task like sweeping the floor, you end up in Chapter 11 or Chapter 7.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
Alex Rodriguez 10-year, $275 million contract and a "wage slave". Actor Will Smith $80 million in 2008 and a "wage slave". You guys are hilarious.
Hey can we at least agree that we should abolish the income tax seeing as how everyone is an oppressed wage slave? Should wage slaves be subject to taxation?
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
I'Encyclopedia Britannica on chattel slavery:
"The highest position slaves ever attained was that of slave minister...A few slaves even rose to be monarchs, such as the slaves who became sultans and founded dynasties in Islām."
On rare occasions, chattel, just like wage slavery allowed greater wealth&possibilities. Is slavery therefore justified? As for taxation in a partially democratic state it allows u some control. In contrast capitalist profit means taxation w/o representation
mr1001nights 2 years ago
If you don't like it you can start a commune and share the wealth through voulintary contracts. If it's realy that great everyone and their brother will join. Liberals are hilariuos. They always create new ways to be victims.
TheMobocracy 2 years ago
Yo mr1001nights, why don't you make a video about today's Supreme Court decision. It would appear that the corporate takeover of the American government is now absolute.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
ar4216 2 years ago 3
actually it appears that if you take a look at the actual ruling, it does no such thing. It removes limits upon grassroots organizations and the like among other things... but it is all beside the point. Voting does not accomplish a damn thing
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
@thorsmitersaw
And notice that while An-Caps rant in generalities about corporations, in nearly every instance they have a point of view directly in line with corporations. This is because An-Capitalism has always been a movement funded by corporate interest and wealthy elites.
Lastly the An-Cap encourages people to surrender or despise the power of their own vote, to make sure the REAL individual divests himself of power while corporate elites continue to amass it.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
Name one corporate CEO who is an Anarcho Capitalist. One. Chomsky himself has stated that these assholes are terrified of a truly free market. But hey, lets ignore facts and just lie our asses off about our opposition.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
omfg..
you really don't stop talking long enough to understand the position you're critiquing.
Wage structures are not encouraged nor necessary under a legally equal society (ie anarcho-capitalism).
Self-ownership is meaningless without self-management.
The will is instantaneous. One cannot voluntarily void their future volition. If one signs onto a slave contract and they violate it, the worst crime they have committed is to steal the contractual returns.
Polycentric law removes injustice
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
The idea that anarcho-capitalism would lead to a "legally equal society" is laughable. The entire aim of the anarcho-capitalist movement is to shift vast amounts of power toward traditional elites.
The theorizing and postulating is completely empty, because IN PRACTICE anarcho-capitalists promote legal inequality.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
Since I am, what I believe to be an 'anarcho-capitalist', myself.. The NUMBER ONE thing I stand for is _legal-egalitarianism_, I see the historic move toward it, and away from despotism(before: religious autocracy, slavery etc... Today: 'legitimate' monopolists). I see the move away from despotism as the primary thing that gives me hope in the future of humanity.
peace, equality, freedom; progress
I'm not joking, and I really do think the fundamental principles between us don't conflict.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
When embracing "free market" capitalism you also embrace despotism.
While you may oppose corporations in theory, in practice the anarcho-capitalist movement is a paleo-conservative movement, and also a corporate-backed movement.
For example, Murray Rothbard was supported by the Koch Family foundations, who fund numerous other irrational paleo-conservative "think tanks."
So in reality, all rhetoric aside, you are advocating for the corporate fascists. I urge you to reconsider that decision.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
@FreiheitKampfer
I detest phony populist rhetoric about "freedom and equality" when it is accompanied by a world view that is supported by corporate power elites. That's just a sham.
While we may oppose some of the same laws, the fact is that if/when "libertarians" take control of governments, the priority won't be on reforming drug laws or eliminating corporations. The priority will be attacking the safety net, unions, and the poor.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
That's an odd situation.. 'when the libertarians take control of governments' is a contradiction.
The libertarian abolition of despotism and judicial monopoly means instant ends to both sets you describe.
It's logically obvious and historically clear that despotism is no way to help poverty.
As for the 'guilt by association'.. I know the Koch Foundation is donating money to the 'Institute for Humane Studies' too. Murray Rothbard and IHS has never with-held their hatred for corp 'personhood'.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
There are several "libertarian" leaning right wing members of congress. The idea would be for a libertarian party to take part in the election process and exert its popular power through the political process; at some point gaining sufficient clout to alter the laws or the constitution itself.
Maybe you are imagining that you will elect Puff the Magic Dragon and he will achieve your entire agenda on his/her first day.
Or is it that you want to violently impose your radical agenda on others?
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
You're against despotism? For freedom? What a courageous stand for you to take! What's your position on fuzzy kittens?
Your entire argument is purest propaganda; there is not one single historical thing about it, starting with the fact that you can't show one single working example of anarcho -captialism.
And while you may not like it, the deep ties to Koch are relevant because they tie you to establishment republicans, exposing the entire farce as a corporatist mirage.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
Election and revolution, fortunately, are not the only options.
I encourage people to opt out. Non-violently resist. To not be reliant. To think freely, while they still have the opportunity.
Sure, it's not a unique answer, but until there is an opportunity to demonstrate an-cap, it's the best that I can see.
Propaganda? I'm being honest. Sorry if I'm flying through complex topics, if you have a specific objection, I'll address it.
Look at society on individual levels, and you'll see an-cap.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
Strawmen. Nothing more.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
Strawmen?
Where would an An-Cap be without his strawmen? His favorite is to label every other point of view "statist" and to label himself pro-freedom (all others anti-freedom).
An-Cap needs strawmen because there has NEVER been a working model for An-Capitalism in all of human history. Somalia is the nearest modern example.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
I made 2 assertions here.
Your movement is funded by corporations and wealthy elites. You referred me to an articles at Cato and Von Mises. Far from disproving my point, you sealed it. Cato is backed by Koch family foundations, which also supported GWB and the Teabags.
#2 There are no working models for "free market anarchy." You did not address this point,instead pointing me toward a Cato article suggesting the model should be Carribean Piracy.This is hilariously close to my Somalian example.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
I won't engage in collectivist blame or guilt-by-association, and I'm amazed you consider that worth mentioning.
Let's discuss the ideas. GWB and most 'teabagers' would not be excused by these ideas.
On Somalia (speech) ~67mins:
'African Development - Case Study of Somalia' by Benjamin Powell
'Petty nobles'?! Von Mises had to flee Austria because he didn't compromise his views in favor of the political class! I'm not engaging in hero-worship, but rather when he lost nobility it was honorable.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
These issues are not mere abstractions.
In the real world, your supposedly anti-corporate, anti-hierarchical movement is funded by corporations and elites.
Case in point is the last article you referred me to (in lieu of an actual argument.) This is another "fellow" at a "think tank." This one, the Independent Institute, is funded by Exxon, Philip Morris, and David Koch.
I'm not interested in axiomatic repetitions of observably false assertions. I can get that talking to religious freaks.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
Instead of incessantly repeating your freedumb dogmas and empty "individualist" propaganda, instead of referring me to yet another corporate toolbag, try making your own argument that we can adopt this model and what it would mean in real terms.
Bonus points if you can do it without using the word "freedumb."
Von Mises fled Austria in '34 because he was a wealthy Jew and did not wish to die, much like my grandmother. Self-preservation, not ideological purity, motivated his exile.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
@FreiheitKampfer
Von Mises has segregationists (Rock+Roth), and petty nobles (Von Mises) in its roots, and wealthy elites (Koch+ undisclosed wealthy elites) as its generous benefactors.
What fool thinks that these groups are devising a model for a pluralist, non-hierarchical society?
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
LOL. there has never been a working model of your envisioned society in some purist form either. And guess what? That is not a valid argument to its impossibility. And hey guess what else? you sort of just shot yourself in the foot there... you must then... by recognizing that ancap-land has never existed... admit that there has never been a free market and that these conditions are not a result of one.
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
Unlike an An-Cap I am not married to a purist, Utopian vision.
There are several working models for various socialist systems.This is a weakness for my argument; there are models for you to criticize.
Since there is no model for AnCapTopia, you can invent an imaginary utopia with no pesky reality-based criticisms I could level. If I suggest we have been moving in your direction since Reagan, you will just assert that the failure of these policies was merely because they weren't pure enough.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
I'm not interested in more guilt-by-association rhetoric.. I can get that talking to statist freaks.
these 'groups' have statist fellow-travelers. This is true, and even encouraged, often times, because that is how ideas spread.
Many of these individuals are working on creating a pluralist polycentric egalitarian society.
Please don't homogenize them. That is dehumanizing.
Reject the people if you have reason to. I will too.
Do you have conceptual objections?
Even CATO has anarchist lit..
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
Homogenize and dehumanize? Every AnCap I speak to homogenizes and dehumanizes people with opposing viewpoints, labeling people with wildly diverging points of view as "statists."
This label is used quite deliberately to associate all other ideas (from socialism to neo-liberalism) with Stalinism or Italian Fascism.
Hypocrisy.
You think you can use support from corporations and elites to achieve your "pluralist" ends? I have news for you. In the end, the opposite will certainly be the case.
Whatchagonado 2 years ago
Though true, I don't think that's a good approach..
I think the positive elements of any society are best analyzed on a micro scale.
I would suspect that the 'working models of socialist systems' Whatchagonado is talking about have emerged from basic an-cap conditions of legal equality, otherwise there wouldn't be the freedom to make those voluntary associations...
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
Do you honestly believe there to be any real legal equality?
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago
I saw that, great video
greenhell666 2 years ago
Consider this:
Private ownership is not the evil.
Single-owner private property is the issue.
If a group of cooperative workers divide the ownership of a business, they either still privately own their share, or do not have any control at all.
adjohnson916 2 years ago
wouldn't that be called common property or collective property ?
greenhell666 2 years ago
semantics. I think you should be able to recognize BY NOW where libertarians agree with you, and where we don't.
'Property rights' are just how libertarians describe conflict-avoidance and socially accepted division of control.
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
The language of MANAGEMENT is preferable to that of "ownership", as the former describes an actual activity, whereas the latter is mostly unshakable (and unreasonable) "faith."
We indulge far too much shorthand for things we could speak more specifically about. Further, that "shorthand" is generally a bunch of archaisms whose original significance is blindly authoritarian.
I've always found descriptions like "cherished", "regularly used", "possessed", etc. clearer than "owned."
RadicalSolutions 2 years ago 2
EsothericThrone,
I said that private ownership of the means of production makes self-management hard to pursue. As for "violence" it occurs more pervasively in authoritarian systems. Any sane person knows a dictatorial workplace environment in a "work for a boss or else" system increases authority (as compared to workplaces where ppl share power). U reverse reality by saying that a wage slave has more individual autonomy than someone who shares power and has a say in the workplace/economy.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
It may also be pertinent to say that in a resource-based economy, with truly equitable operating principles, power would become irrelevant. We are still speaking from within the confines of scarcity-consciousness. Humans need to learn a new economic grammar.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
Can you give the name of the person of your last quote?
erdal0 2 years ago
And the reason why we can't have both self-ownership and self-management is obscured through a series of authoritative language and emotional appeals. Par for the course, mr1001nights.
FiremanHurley 2 years ago
' "This is my land. These are my sons," those are the words of a man who does not recognise the fact that he does not own even himself ' -Budha
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago 9
wisdom.
on a more disturbing bend, one can also whip out a Freud quote just to see what's really going on down in there!
mikezephyr 2 years ago
So true...
We have destroyed so many wise civilizations by imposing on them the idea of enslaving the earth & everything in it (ownership).
All native peoples believed that we belong to the earth & not that the earth belongs to us.
They never needed to "own" land, in the way capitalism insisted. The land owned them & thus they lived lives of unwavering emotional stability and prosperity, for their wisdom is that which we refuse to acknowledge is crucial to our existance, happiness & sanity.
spankthamunkey 2 years ago
Pt2- I got offered 2 office jobs, which I HATED, so i ALSO quit coz I kept getting anxiety attacks in the bathroom from fear of returning 2 the same depression i experienced B4. I feel like i developed some kind of office phobia! Im traped in a box of my previous "experience" (all office work!) Now I feel as though I would rather DIE! I cant see myself doing this shit people call "making a living". Its pure slavery! I dont know wat 2 do anymore! Move to a 3rd world country & learn a trade??
spankthamunkey 2 years ago 3
that's sad to hear.
you know, i have the same inclinations some time- my peers are trained on a overeducated, hands-off wage-job system. to learn the other type of living would be something.
or else let it just fucking go and hit the road maybe, becoming a lean coyote weaving in between humanity and civilization, you understand?
mikezephyr 2 years ago
Yeah, I want to do that honestly. I want to dissapear off the grid & get out of the system that puts a huge intricate gap between our needs & how we get them. Instead of spending 15 years working an office job tobuy a house, perhaps i should spend 2 years just building the house!? Perhaps instead of paying to buy sub-par groceries, i should plant my own yield? Where do I go from here? what do I do? I cant do this anymore. The thought of working for money rather than for my needs is intolerable!!
spankthamunkey 2 years ago
I was very depressed working for 2 years at a full time job in Dubai in Advertising (vampires!) after graduating. I got so depressed, so I QUIT! (just in time for the depression!) Now, i cant get ANY employment no matter how great my CV was because there were people with "more" years od experience f who were willing to accept the same pay. This lead to 4 months of depression unable to pay rent and living with my parents, gaining weight, my looks and "assets" deteriorated, my depression worsened.
spankthamunkey 2 years ago 2
very sad story, i hope you have been able to overcome your anxiety ... now, a question: why didn't you do the same as the "people with 'more' years of experience"? You could apply for a job that you are overqualified and you will sure have more chances ...
Don't let the system own you. Manage yourself.
AncientMarinerNY 2 years ago
Here lies the problem...The jobs 4 which i am overqualified r jobs that I deeply detest. In essence Im the equivalent of a highschool drop out 4 any NEW career I wish to persue. The system makes it so with division of labour. Its cornered me into a linear career progression. If i dont like the course ive chosen (at far too young an age) then I must go directly to the start. Its a cruel game of snakes & ladders. Unfortun8ly, I landed at the long snake of job recession & a politcal paradigm shift.
spankthamunkey 2 years ago
I've listened to this twice now, and think I understand what you are referring to. I certainly agree that trust has to be placed in working people to organise their own production.
stalfithrildi 2 years ago 4
Wow, one really has to listen close to follow you, but the arguments are impenetrable. Well done.
TommyLongstockings 2 years ago 4
Yes. I appreciate his clarity of thought.
ar4216 2 years ago
Since I'm first, I'll say I agree with this.
tiecuando 2 years ago