@BritishLibertarian,ok ok ,I was drunk when i wrote that,eventhough Churchill was a conservative capitalist i actually have respect for him for pulling GB through ww2,and as well for being a man of action in yonger years,of all the historic figures i reckon Winston would have been the best company for a drink.
An old Socialist... ok... NOAM CHOMSKY. No brain you say? Umm... he's arguably one of the smartest people on the planet. But you're right about the young conservative part.
The problem is that corporations are dictatorships. So if you abolish the government you're essentially giving dictators a free ticket to rule the country.
Anarchist want to take it a step further and turn corporations into places that are ran democratically by the workers.
Why abandon the word anarchism, and let others MONOPOLIZE (antithetical to anarchism) the term?
Obviously this lets state schools win with their bias definition of anarchism (which is actually the definition of the state; i.e. violence, disorder, chaos, lawlessness), and their PC BS dictionaries which aid them through enticing kids into intellectual shortcuts and laziness.
If it's easier in casual conversation, fine. But to abandon the term otherwise is to concede to the state it has won, imo.
anarchism has NOTHING to do with chaos and riots. it's breaking free of tyranny and living in the one big happy neighborhood we affectionately refer to as "earth." it's really a loose term that somewhat means dyi government. and if you're an "anarcho-capitalist," then get the fuck out. you're not one of us. true anarchy is based on the notion that we should all trade with each other. you can't sell us shit and force us to think it's "cool." we do our own stuff, like a kid leaving his parents.
@jeffsandychelsea The belief that corporations should be worshipped and should run society rather than the government. Free market anarchists are rather individualist (in the tradition of Spooner, Tucker, Thoreau), and see ALL institutions as untrustworthy, albeit useful. Anarcho capitalists seem to think corporations can do no wrong. They also think corporate personhood is okay. If only individuals have rights, then corporate personhood is in conflict with individualism.
@jeffsandychelsea The similarities are so huge that it's easy to confuse anarcho capitalists (who may favor voluntary forms of protectionism, mercantilism, etc.) with free market anarchists (who favor voluntary free markets, devoid of protectionism, mercantilism, etc.). There is ALMOST no difference. It's all in what economic form of capitalism YOU find preferable.
Similarly, all forms of economics (communism, syndicalism, socialism, Third Way, forms of capitalism, etc.,etc.) exist in anarchy.
@jeffsandychelsea No economic form can be banned in anarchy (a society organized voluntarily). People will choose all types of detrimental and counter productive things voluntarily. For example, some will choose protectionism for their fellow contract holders even though it hurts them (probably unknown to them via ignorance). Similarly, some will choose communism. Decision making is the same. Chomsky likes democracy, I think voting is violence. S&M sex doesn't = rape, & boxing doesn't = assault.
@jeffsandychelsea Yes they would...that part of the definition probably wasn't necessary, but I like to be as clear as possible. That wasn't to draw contrast to anarcho capitalism and free market capitalist anarchism, it was just further explanation (unnecessary I guess). I just wanted to be very clear that anarcho capitalism can be any form of voluntary capitalism, while free market capitalist anarchism is just one specific type of capitalism: free markets. There are may types of capitalism.
The definition of Anarchy is without authority or government, literally.
If you advocate a stateless society, but also free (lawless) markets and the existence of corporations, then you are an Anarcho-Capitalist. Anarchism covers an extremely wide range of thought, but most Anarchists, such as the ones who were argueing against you are Anarcho-Socialists. We see a contradiction in calling yourself something which means without Authority when corporations are the most autocratic tyrannies of all
I think its better to say you're dropping the label. It feels wrong, in this context, to me to say your no longer an anarchist, because I've seen the word used in your context.
My concern with anarcho-capitalism is that I don't see how people would be able to protect themselves from abusive power structures that develop within private markets? Will there be regulatory control in the hands of communities affected by capitalist free markets? If not it seems like we get various small plutocratic oligarchies ruling over small regions. I would love to see a video or be pointed to some reading that explains this to me. Cheers!
2:48 this is what we are trying to do Direct Democracy no government we should handle it let us take the wheel instead of some 300 people and 1 president to tell us our every whim and act like where some zombie that works for them so you see You anarcho-capitalist what we are trying to do is Direct Democracy with no government but our selves no president either we make our own rules stateless you should of learned more please join anarchy
no billyjoeallen! you can't just sit down and let the little basterd punk you, if these people who are labeling themselfs as anarchists are imposters, then they must be called out and shown for the worthless scum they are for trying to ruin it all. we cant be pushed around and let these kids go on with a wrong idea of anarchy, they must be taught the true meaning of anarchy, other wise we will always be labeled the crazy chaos loveing freaks
Economics and anarchy are like oil and water. True anarchist groups, like the ones who ran parts of Spain before Franco took over, didn't use money at all. Laborers would work, their hours were tabulated on a voucher, and vouchers were exchanged for goods. In anarchist societies, a banker gets paid the same as a field worker based solely on hours earned. Anarcho-syndicalist would entail unions being the distributors and regulators of both work and goods.
You're no longer an anarchist because you never were ...
Anarcho capitalism focus on money as a way to run society. Not much different than now, just worst. Means money as the tyrant, a materialist human creation to control other humans. And that's all but anarchy ... the lack of dictatorship and power control of any kind.
Yes billy we need to know the details!!! We need them and we will have them through dialogue. Enough labels and titles and terminology, let's act now!!
Maybe you should actually educate yourself and learn about Proudhon and mutualism before you make yourself look like an idiot.....anyone who understands trade in a mutualist system is going to laugh at you, rather than be swayed by your wisdom.
@NickDjinn Seriously. Guy doesn't even understand what he is insulting. And just because it is unpopular, he doesn't take it, what a bitch. "equally poor" wow... Yeah Equally poor, equally wealthy, whatever you want to call it, it's still EQUAL. If we divided the wealth in the US between EVERYONE we would all be 100,000 aires.
The reason most Anarchists, even individualist/mutualist Anarchists like Tucker as well as Syndicalists, rejecting "anarcho" capitalism is because they are not really anti-state. The ancaps wish to decentralize the state into small scale private monarchy's, each property owner being a King. At that point the only real choice under so called volontaryism, for the poor, is to choose masters. It isnt Anarchism.
@Djinn227 The collectivist anarchists wish to use brute force like a state in order to enforce a no trade policy. Anarcho collectivism requires a force of ideology to exist
@Djinn227 Plus syndicalism and the like are the methods that oppressed working people historically have organized themselves and their resistance to capitalism & the state that protects it.
@Djinn227 It's your choice to be poor in a completely free & rational society. Some people will be quite content with that. For those that aren't, they must do something to get something w/o infringing on others. Voluntary interactions between people & groups is the only logical way to do things. Demanding that wealth be evenly distributed with words, bottles, or mafia guns is not. Stating that there is no way to deal with certain issues in a stateless society is quite narcissistic.
@NickDjinn You are arguing from effect instead for morality in your own imaginary world of what a voluntary society would look like. Leave the whole master/slave thing for the bedroom freaks.
It's one of the problems with anarchists, if you get 3 anarchists in a room, you will have 4 different opinions.
I agree with you, our differences are silly, it really hurts a group of our size to fight amongst each other. I have no idea where I fit into our huge spectrum. It is better that we talk about these sort of things than tell people just to piss off.
I never understood how people could be a wage slave. If your working for money so what? If you are not working for money your working a job other people make you do or your making everything for yourself.
The argument over abolishing the state is like the Marxist case for abolishing capital. They're stated as critiques, not blueprints for the new order. So the argument over who's a "real" this-or-that is essentially meaningless, like Christian denominations.
Re: the start of WW 1: it was essentially Germany's game. Serbia "apologized" for the assassination of Ferdinand, and Austria was inclined to accept it. But Germany was after a casus belli and pushed Austria to reject the apology, and declare war on Serbia, knowing Russia would react accordingly. This would justify war with Russia and France and break Germany's "encirclement."
Employers *have* made the circumstances forcing dependency on themselves for wages. The property of society and the profits of its use are monopolized by a few to the subordination of the many. Modern capitalism is still based on feudal property relations.
Don't get me wrong, anarcho-socialists/socialists/communists are ok, but those who claim that their way is the only way, whether they're Capitalists or Socialists, are closed-minded idiots and the more appropriate term for them is "Anarcho-Idiot".
Btw, I am neither an Anarcho-capitalist or Anarcho-socialist, I am a Individualist Anarchist and I am a capitalist. To label Anarchists as Anarcho-capitalist or Anarcho-socialist is just as ridiculous as labling them Anarcho-christians or Anarcho-muslims. Anarchism and statism are political systems, capitalism and socialism are economical ones.
@IngeniousEpithet, Well the problem is that statist capitalism isn't survival of the fittest, the more appropriate term would be survival of the fattest, meaning that the more money you have to start with, the more money is generated on top of that money, and the less work you have to do to make money, and this is not a result of capitalism but, among other things, of the banking system, taxes and states passing laws that protect monopolism. This generates the gap between rich and poor.
I'm still going to call you anarchist; cause two fundamental tenats of socailist anarchism are in conflict with each other
a)"Work for a boss or starve"
b)Capitalists are exploitive middlemen
Both of these can't be true at the same time. If you say capitalists are exploitive and do not contribute anything than worker co-ops will outcompete capitalist enterprises and therefore "wage slavery" does not exist.
dividing groups into extra subgroups only causes more problems, people focus to much on their differences instead on what connects us all. I don't know if I'm an anarchist, I know that a lot of my beliefs are found in what anarchy is, but if you keep on labeling people into smaller and smaller groups, you'll only cause more problems.
capitalism is a regime of control, without control it would be able to survive. The State provides such instruments of control. Capitalism and anarchism (understood as a concept of anti-authoritarianism, on all levels: political, psychological etc) are in my pov really polar-opposites.
Anarchism and communism? I think that is something we dont know, as the term communism is nowadays understood in the Lenin-Stalin tradition. Marx himself was never really clear what he meant under communism.
It's like these communistic collectivist Anarchists are so consumed with their models of how their ideal society would work that they aren't seeing the complexity and diversity that would actually exist in the absence of a state.
Ironically, they behave very anti-socially. It's a shame that they are unwilling to offer others the simple freedom necessary for Anarchism to actually occur. And all over words, over fucking words.
Money in an objectivist culture reflects the values of diligence, intelligence, originality and bravery. Now our culture is not objectivist but it is close enuf to a meritocracy that $ does reinforce these attributes to a degree. Hence the paucity of lazy rich people (expcepting trustfund babies).
In communes as i have experienced the traits which bring power are social traits: the ability to lie, to manipulate others, one's personal charisma and of course physical beauty.
I realize that these things can also bring great wealth in our society, but the reason for my preference is that they are not the only means of power aquisition in the mainstream.
Also in a commune ingenuity and hardwork are in a way punished. If you prove capable, the incapable and lazy will pile you with work. Then when that work load finally breaks you, those who do nothing will crucify you. I experienced this dynamic as well as saw it affect a number of other diligent communards.
I don't know if I can answer that in a post but I will try. When I began communal life I believed the same as many liberal socialists. Living in an actual commune taught me that people naturally build hierarchies. Taking $ away and expecting it to end the process is like taking twigs away from a bird and expecting it not to build nests. I left bc/ I realized I prefer $ as the basis of hierarchy bc/ it can reflect traits I respect, whereas the other only reflects traits I despise.
A better definition of anarchy would be someone against all power. Anarcho-capitalists advocate private property. Private owners would have power over anyone on their private property. Eventually there would be no land and just private property and owners. So the people without private property would be forced to give in to subordination. It would just be a series of oligarchies in which the private owner owned everything.
@SlashySlash17 please explain how private property can be prevented and distributed without the action of some central authority. If you can not please do not consider yourself an anarchist, bc/ it is misleading. Define whatever it is you want this central authority to be and base your political ideology on that because it is an important part of your 'anarchism.'
Is it against anarchist principals to attack authority figures and strip them of their power? This 'central authority' will be the working class. Rather than having private owners of the means of production, the workers own it. you can own a watch, you can not own the watch factory. i suggest you learn the difference between private property and possession. capitalism is hierarchical and it is therefor impossible to be an 'anarcho'-capitalist.
I have lived in an anarchist commune, have you? In the likely case that you haven't and like most social theorists are merely hypothesizing, let me tell you how it actually plays out. Your workers do indeed own the property collectively, but its distribution is always unequal. When people do things collectively that means groups and group dynamics. The result is that the most popular always get more. Imagine an economy based on a high school's social dynamic, this is what occurs in real communes
There are no anarchist communes today. At least no 'pure' one that i am aware of. What commune are you talking about so i can research it? why is distribution unequal? which form of 'anarchy' is this if it is indeed anarchy? In the form of anarchy that i vision decisions are based on consensus/direct democracy. In the case of direct democracy the majority of the majority 'win' after a dynamic discussion. no system is perfect but the minority would certainly not be shunned.
are you suggesting that having the private owner and his buddies make all the import decisions is better then everyone making decisions? i'm not criticizing i'm just trying to understand. Why is it better to have one person make decisions that affect the masses? What do you mean 'the most popular get more'? do you mean their decision is hierarchical in that it leaves out the minority. This is true but consensus dont always work and sometimes you need to use direct democracy instead.
Slash, first I'd like to thankyou for the well reasoned questions and argument. This is not something I expect from youtube and its nice when it happens. To answer everything this might take more than one post.
You mention there being no pure anarchist communes. This is sort of my point. They don't exist bc/ they can't. But there are a number of consensus driven egalitarian communes that define themselves this way. Look up the FEC (Federation of Egalitarian Communes).
You ask why distribution is unequal? Because people want, desire, need. Nothing about communal living changed these essentials. Only the method of aquisition changed.
You asked what form of anarchy. My experience is with consensus and pure democratic systems. Ironically you mention shunning. This is the main form of punishment in communes. I have seen people shunned to the point of creating psychopathology in these people. In one instance of which I am aware the end result was suicide.
You ask if I think the private owner and his buddies making decisions is better. I answer that any employer who employs people based on some social connection rather than the ability of these people will not have a very successful business. Now in communes this is exactly how things run bc/ the only power is found in social connections so these must be maintained at all cost.
You ask why one person making decisions is better than the masses. My answer: because masses aren't human. Groups might be made up of people but they are quite distinct from individuals. They don't have morals, or ethics. They are not conscious, they have no soul. Groups can and only react. I only trust individual persons because only a person is capable of reasoning, people are not. Throughout history people in groups have committed atrocities that no sane individual can even understand
You ask 'what do you mean the popular get more.' I mean exactly that, the popular get more.One's popularity determines everything. This has some very negative side effects.One is that the easiest route to happiness in community is to be on good terms with everyone, but this means standing up to no one.Thus cowardice is the most common interpersonal tactic in communities bc/ no one wants to get shunned.For this reason abusive personalities run rampant bc/ no one will risk confronting them
Last one. Since your questions were politely addressed I wanted to make sure I answered them all in full. Hence the length.
You ask for the name and I don't see anything wrong with giving it to you. They are called Twin Oaks. They were one of America's first communes. They started out behaviorist, but now are simply egalitarian.
If you want to try community living, I suggest a small one (5-10). At this size you avoid the group dynamic. These r really more extended families than communes tho
Thanks for your honesty and detailed posts. I'm obviously not going to change my political views until perhaps i experience this first hand like you did. Sounds like a nice commune though. Perhaps it will evolve in time assuming it doesn't 'die out'. I'm not too far from the commune maybe i will check it out. Anarchy is not a new theory but 'civilized' anarchy has only been experimented with a handful of times i wouldnt expect it to be 'absolute'.
If you really are going to try the FEC please try Acorn, they are a sister commune of Twin Oaks and boast a much reduced incidence of psychopathology. They are also a pure consensus model and so are probably more what you are looking for. They accept interns on a fairly regular basis. Also a plus IMO is that their main source of income is not poorly organized industry as is the case with TO but a lucrative organic seeds business which has the noble goal of preserving agricultural biodiversity.
i'll keep an open mind. I'm curious how this commune was established. By anarchists or just by people who want a 'low key' lifestyle. Im very new to the anarchist political theory (not the idea but the theory) but i do feel pretty strong about it.
Hierarchy is natural. The lion is king of the jungle. Top of the food chain. Prides have Alpha males who get most of the females. natural hierarchy appliers to humans also. You can oppose that want, but you might as well be opposing gravity.
as for your neo-fuedal property distopia, I hear that all the time and it's just not true. Defense of property has to be proportionate because property rights are usually not absolute. Common law was is emergent. There is adverse possession, etc.
Nobody will be able to shoot you for fetching a baseball that went over a fence or picking an apple off of someone's tree. Worse case, they might shoot you with a paint ball if local custom would permit it.
Actually you're oversimplifying and technically false. The lion being the "king" of the jungle is a human label, he's not actually on some kind of hierarchal ladder. For over 90% of our history, anatomically modern humans lived in tribes/bands, by definition these exhibited no real or lasting hierarchies, our ancestors were preeminently Anarchists. Capitalism/property-based society is a perversion of survival of the fittest/hierarchy/competition just as Eugenics is.
@billyjoeallen Hierarchy may be on display in lower animals, but it's certainly not a given or "natural" in humans (cerebral cortex). In fact, I would argue that democratic action & cooperation are the natural mode of interaction for free human beings. Mind you, in the personal realm, a person is his own agent; but, in the social realm, where freedoms & interests overlap, free people have to work things out TOGETHER. Nothing utopian about democracy--it's the antidote to concentrated power.
@billyjoeallen A central autority is natural too, strutures like state there will be forever, and the monopoly of justice and force... there are so natural like hierarchy.
The lion king of the jungle rules, like a govermment rules a country, is in our nature.
Look at Aristoteles theories!!!
Can be property right without state, is like having a human society without hierarchy, or a jungle!
@billyjoeallen This comparison between humans and other animals seems to suppose we're basically no more intelligent than they are. Humans are highly intelligent (arguably) and able to rise above the law of the jungle for the greater good, and that's what we have done. In fact, we choose cooperation and form highly developed societies where, ideally, we work as a whole for the betterment of all of our living conditions. There are those who take more than they need, but that's not what lions do.
@London2272 In theory, it would seem that humans can be far more educated than any of us currently are today, and if educated, could, in time, get to the point of lasting peace and even immortality. The biggest problem is getting to that point. After much consideration, working out many scenarios in my mind, the only realistic solution i could arrive at is; we need someone with the technology, knowledge, wisdom, and desire to educate humanity, our creator, our intelligent designer.
@Automation2BFree We have all that technology and wisdom, but it isn't collectively. Better education is only really available to those who can afford it, and those who can afford it have no interest in educating those who don't have such a large slice of the pie. It serves no purpose to them, to educate those who create the wealth they enjoy, and may work against them. All they need is basic numeracy and literacy in us, with political ignorance, and their wealth can continue to be created.
Ouch, so many semantical terms to define. i will try to get back to you soon though. i'm pretty sure i understand your point of view. But mine takes time to clearly describe. For now i will say; i agree that the wealthy have been brainwashed to think that creating equality serves no purpose to them, although the opposite is true in reality. Which is one of the main reasons why i calculate the only solution to be a government without any human control. Vote Jesus 2012! (hey, a joke!)
I wouldn't quite agree that the organisation that plotted and executet the assassination of Ferdinand was anarchist. And I would much less agree that that exact act 'started' WW1. Austria-Hungary just needed a cause to start what they were already planning to start anyway. Had the assassination not happened, there would most certainly be an another event that could give them a 'justification' for the start of the war.
No, I can't know with absolute certainty. But I do believe it had strong expansionist tendencies which were directed towards the east, with Serbia in the way.
@billyjoeallen Well you see in history multiple times empires trying stage an event for starting a war. Roman empire did it numerous times, England in Medieval times, the Crusades, Spanish-American War, Kiev Russia, Napoleon, i can keep going with this. The problem their empire being destroyed, that was after the war not before. So there was definite reason why countries start conflict: More Land=More Money and More Money=More Power.
Unless you get rid of the monetary system people will never grow and detach themselves from this materialistic mentality. We need a new type of system to manage our resources! something that you cant corrupt and its %100 transparent! I am sick of being as free as my purchasing power allows me to be!!
I don't really understand the anarcho-socialist hostility towards market anarchists. I don't see the same kind of hostility coming from anarcho-capitalists. We're both much closer than we'd like to admit. Anarcho-socialists seem to think that cooperatives would be banned in anarcho-capitalism. Although we doubt if there would be that many, there is nothing to stop them from being made. There could be only syndicates, communes etc. and we could still call it anarcho-capitalism if it was voluntary
Good point with the video. Maybe we should just leave that word to the violent punks and socialists. Let them carry the burden of the ugly negative connotations they brought upon it.
Libertarian seems like a properly descriptive term, even though it still harbors divisions within its ranks regarding just how much liberty we are talking about. I personally take it to its logical and ethical conclusion which is a stateless society based simply on the non-aggression principle.
why are all anarchocapitalists american? i dont mind it so much, its something i have noticed however
in my opinion the belief that anarcho caoitalists are not anarchists is based on the definition of anarchism, the social anarchist definition is "against hierarchy" but anarcho capitalists believe in wage slavery (what people called capitalism in the 19th century), this is seen as a form as hierarchy by social anarchists like me, but i dont care, if you think your an anarchist, fine, cool
Calling a job "wage slavery" minimizes the evil of actual slavery. Even if you are forced to take a job you don't want, it still isn't slavery unless your employer created the circumstances that made you take it.
@billyjoeallen is a poor and 'povertyish' like life style if you dont sell your labor not coercion? yes you technically have a choice as you always do but you don not have the option of 'work with' you only have the option 'work for' difference between legit hierarchy and illegitimate. I just oppose hierarchy that makes decisions for everyone. No system is perfect but I think it would be less coercive if decisions were made by direct democracy/consensus instead of obey/command the private owner
@billyjoeallen so the only thing wrong with slavery is the slave didnt consent to it? even if the circumstances basically forced him to? The employer's do create the circumstances. they own everything including the means of production. Without their pay you would struggle for basic needs and wants. Are sweatshops okay because they consent even though the owners didn't create the circumstances? everyone needs food but thats nature and the employer didnt create nature so its okay?
You're saying there is only one definition of slavery and there cannot be multiple shades of it. I disagree. People can be coerced into doing things they wouldn't normally do by all manner of forces both covert/overt, peaceful/violent, you name it. Wage slavery is a soft tyranny, it tells you you can do whatevvver you want! But it comes at a price and the price is pretty steep for the majority of people (perpetual underclass), there are no reasonable alternatives offered/allowed.
@billyjoeallen if you could go build a house and live in a sustainable way tax free, you wouldnt be a "wage slave" but i don tthink there are many countries where thats possible? you need planning permission etc
@billyjoeallen CALLING A TAXE OF THEFT OR AGRESSION IS MINIMAZING THE EVIL OF ACTUAL AGRESSION AND THEFT TOO! Paying taxes is not like being brutally punched in the face or being invaded.
@Aeon135 Actually, the word Anarcho-Capitalist was coined by members of the Austrian School of Ecnomics under Ludwig von Mises. Another key figure of the movement was Fredriech von Hayek, a German. The philosophy of total economic liberalism* (n the original form : free) became popular amongst anti-state libertarian social groups in the US. The idea of an stateless capitalism if foreign to the US, it comes from Europe during the industrial revolution. But it's ideas came along with it's imm.
I like you, but see the problem with capitalism is that creates conflict, division, exploitation, among other negative elements.
:)
Dont label yourself, or put yourself in a group, have a position, be free of positions, be open and emergent, just wise without the actual culture syndrome of winning-losing debate.
Excellent monologue.. For years i didn't want to label myself an Ⓐnarchist because of the stigma and negative programmed response to such a term. These days, when i tell people i'm an Ⓐnarchist you see them pale over with a fearful yet blank look of confusion until I explain the philosophy.
so you are saying that the workers like having a boss?
The thing is it is the boss who controls the workplace. He can do as he pleases with the production of workers without actually doing anything. Even if he works along with them, does that entitle him to own the whole production? In capitalism there are four choices - work for a boss, be a boss or start your own business (which i doubt will have only you working). Either way your life gets controlled.
First of all, being it a negotiable contract or not (not so negotiable most of the time), the member of the working class will always have to submit to the will of a boss in order not to starve. This is unfair and unnecessary. And it is the boss who determines how much each worker will receive and it is him who gets most of the profit. He claims to have more right to own the production just because he has more capital. And that last sentence seems interesting. Could you explain it better?
No. They aren't rulers. They can't coerce you. There are also no rules against owning property in common in an anarcho-capitalist society. Individuals can come together and form their own collectivist communities if that's what they wish to do. Again, there are no rules against this in an anarcho-capitalist society. You just can't force people to stay in such communities if they don't want to.
Well individuals aren't forced to follow anarcho-syndicalist rules, there is no coercive force to stop them also. But yes, bosses can coerce people. Even if they are friendly, people are still forced to work to bosses and they will own everything they do. They still determine wages. Workers rent themselves to bosses. Maybe that's not ruling in the sense you referred to, but it's at least submission.
Ah ok, well you see the other people I've heard that subscribe to anarcho-syndicalism/socialism/communism have said they ARE in support of using violence against people that want to privately own something. There have only been like two people that have told me otherwise. So to me they always end up coming off as state apologists.
As for bosses ending up owning everything, that's still not coercion(it's voluntary authority), AND it just so happens to have never happened in a free market.
Oh ok. But anarcho-syndicalism/socialism/communists is all pretty different you can't really agregate the whole left like that. I have no doubts communists would use coersion, about socialism it is something present on every leftarian movement (even liberals) and you can't really talk about it as something speciic, and about anarcho-syndicalism, or (maybe) Libertarian Communism, there are the insurrectionists, who defend violent action, an the anarchopacifists who defend passive resistance.
Again, being it coercion or not technically, its still subordination, and there is no such thing as voluntary authority. Were it by the workers they would control the workplace, but either they work for the boss or they starve...
No you don't starve just because you choose not to work for someone. You could form a cooperative or be slef-employed, and self-employment wouldn't necessarily mean self-subsistence farming. It could be anything. You might repaire computer parts, or make candles, or bake stuff, or make shoes or whatever. However, the fact is that it's voluntary if there's no violence or threat of violence. Again, subordination can be voluntary.Ex: If you're in an orchestra, you're subordinate to the conductor
About the first argument, let me point out we are talking about the low class. And they have lots of small businesses already, but there still will be lots of people working for bosses and receiving low wages in comparison with their masters and the middle class. Weren't it for them how could people start businesses (medium and big businesses, to which ancap doesn't oppose to)? Plus what has private ownership given us?
Why shouldn't people receive "low" wages in comparison to their bosses(not masters)? In the market, pay is based on productivity. If workers do work that is just as productive relative to the scarcity of labor as the boss's level of productivity relative to the scarcity of people with skills that can allow them to be bosses/managers, then it means their wages will be bid up because productivity is what determines wages. It means someone ELSE would hire the workers to gain a higher market share
Why should they? lol that's what I'm asking. In your system, they do. And maybe I'm being dumb :P but I didn't understand the second argument in terms of why are bosses better paid than workers. And what entitles a boss to be a boss? It is merely his capital and his initiative. but I personally i don't think this is ethical.
I don't see why it's unethical for a boss to get paid more if his jobs is more productive. People mistakenly believe that just anyone can be a good boss. If that were the case then there would be a lot more businesses because that would make it so that they could have fewer workers and more bosses. However, the boss manages people and keeps things running efficiently, while the people even higher up predict what the firm should make based on customer preferences and bear the risk.
Yes, the boss manages people and maybe works hard than some other employees, but that still doesn't give him the right to own the production. the boss hierarchy is still not justified. lIke mr 1001 nights pointed out, just because a slave owner works hard to manage his production and just because he takes risks doesn't give him the right to be slave owner. And while in some companies work is quite simple, in others the worker risks his life everyday.
The worker-boss hierarchy is justified because it's voluntary. mr 1001 nights makes ridiculous arguments which come from his lack of understanding of economics. A slave is a slave not because the master owns what he produces. A slave is a slave because the master owns HIM, and because the slave is kept from leaving under threat of violence. THat's what makes them a slave. It's not the ownership of production that makes them a slave.
I mean the productiveness has increased but the hours of work have remained the same or even increased, and why? Because of the dog-eat-dog competitivity: a factory will stay behind if their workers work less. I'd also like to point out that consumism is stupidity. Everything in our society is stupifying, with ads captivating us to satisfy our every need, rules that narrow thinking, brainwashing campaigns....
Advertising in itself can't promote a debt-based spending society. A constantly rising price level is what does it, and that's a result of the central bank increasing the money supply. When our money was gradually gaining value,there was incentive to save and therefore people saved
And no our productivity increase can't be solely be explained by "dog-eat-dog" competitiveness,also has to do with capital, which makes labor more productive. But from what I hear, our productivity increase is suspect
I didn't talk about debt, I'm only talking about stupidity. People can't be politically and economically aware in a society that stupifies.
I'm not saying that, maybe I didn't express myself clearly (I don't speak english as a first language). What I'm saying is that though the productivity has increased, people are forced to work as hard or harder than before because of the dog-eat-dog competitivity.
Again, the economy becomes consumption-based because of inflation. That's the culture that inflation creates. It's no coincidence. If prices are always going up, there's no incentive to save. People spend the money sooner while it has more value.
As for productivity, no that's not why it has increased. Capital makes labor more productive. People usually don't just all-of-a-sudden start working harder.
No, it's the culture society of consumption creates in general. People are not going to spend money right away because they know sooner or later prices will go up. It is advertising that makes consumption raise. It is proven that advertising works. Which is terrible. Because that way we just discovered how easily the average person is lured to consumption.
No, you're simply wrong. The culture itself arises because of inflation. People borrow and spend more because when your money is losing value over time, there is no incentive to save. People are given incentive to borrow and spend, thus arises the culture of consumption.
Advertising doesn't MAKE consumption rise. The consumer has to actually be satisfied, AND they have to have the means to purchase something.
yes, people are given incentive to borrow and spend, and that's through advertising. Now if you are saying people are all intelligent and pay attention to prices dropping or rising in order to save or not that is pretty naive. Then how do you explain the advertising and consumption raising at the same time?
You're simply wrong on that. It's not advertising that does it. THat can make you want to spend....but it has the limit that when people can no longer afford to buy, they simply won't be able to do it. It's the loose monetary policy and near-subsidization of borrowing that arises from the ever-rising price level that allows people to have borrow-and-spend actions in the first place.
Advertising increases demand for goods when successful...but it doesn't give people the MEANS to buy
Sure, the consumer has to be satisfied, but I didn't say that the products advertised don't have the quality they seem to have (although they don't most of the time). i'm only talking about psychology and conditioning. .
What matters is people actually like the products. It's the job of the entrepreneur to predict consumer preferences and/or to create new products that people may want to market them. If the consumer has to be satisfied, that in itself is enough to provide a check on business. The "conditioning" usually doesn't matter as much as the general system, for the most part. People saved back in teh day when money gained value, and yet there was advertising back then. People saved cus it paid to save.
If people have all their needs satisfied by others and always seem to have everything they want (regardless of them REALLY being able to buy, which many times they aren't, although they do it because of consumtion culture), this creates lazyness and stupidity, thus making the people incapable of making conscious choices regarding politics and economy
Again, you simply ignore incentives. You're just making baseless assertions of some bizarre culture...but you're not explaining why it exists, because if if the reasons you give were true, then it would've occurred LONG ago....and yet it generally happens in times of inflation....because that's when it pays to borrow. When interest rates are high and money gains value, it pays to save, and more people in general tend to save.
Again I didn't mean to say only «free markets» raised productiveness, I would agree with you on that. What I'm saying is that people still work hard AFTER productivity BECAUSE of «free markets».
I don't get what you're saying here. If you're saying that the free market causes people to work hard after productivity increases, then that's incorrect. People aren't forced to work more. They work more because they want to. However, some people work harder because their money loses value, which comes from central banking. Other people that don't worry about this often take more time for leisure.
No, they are forced to work or they'll get fired and starve. Because of the dog-eat-dog competitivity. Again most of people aren't intelligent enough to think about the value of money and make their choices that way. That's not how it works in capitalism. By the way you are a libertarian right?
No, wrong. They aren't forced. They can get fired sure, but that doesn't mean starvation. Even if it did, you're conflating positive rights with negative rights. Nobody holds a positive obligation to another because that's logically invalid since it necessarily violates some people's rights to benefit others. Furthermore, people can be self-employed or engage in self-subsistence farming. Granted this ability is somewhat curtailed by taxes and regulations put in place by the state.
sorry for lumping all of them together, but it's cus the people who call themselves those things all always make the same arguments when they address me or when I've seen them have vids(granted I haven't seen many of their vids, and thus most of their views come to me through comments on other people's vids).
The problem with a government run society is that after we voted the candidates in, they can do whatever they want. They can lie about their views when running for election, and then go for their own agendas when they make it into office. It has happened before, and it still happens to this very day.
The guy who killed Franz Ferdinand was a nationalist, not an anarchist.
EdinSumar 1 month ago
@BritishLibertarian,ok ok ,I was drunk when i wrote that,eventhough Churchill was a conservative capitalist i actually have respect for him for pulling GB through ww2,and as well for being a man of action in yonger years,of all the historic figures i reckon Winston would have been the best company for a drink.
helveteguy 1 month ago
And @dududugary.youre wrong, those were the words of Bismarck,and he was a bloodsucking leach as was Churchill.
helveteguy 3 months ago
Hahhaa,exellent spoken about how believers and truthers share labels among themselves like old hats in a drunken party.
helveteguy 3 months ago
SHOW ME A YOUNG CONSERVATIVE ......... I SHOW YOU A YOUNG MAN WITH NO HEART !
SHOW ME A OLD SOCIALIST............... I SHOW YOU A OLD MAN WITH NO BRAIN !
dududugary 3 months ago
@dududugary Who ever came up with those words clearly needs to make up their damn mind about validity of relativism.
DaveElectric 3 months ago
@DaveElectric churchill
dududugary 3 months ago
@dududugary It figures. Can't stand that prick.
DaveElectric 3 months ago
Comment removed
IngeniousEpithet 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dududugary
I always hated this inaccurate phrase.
An old Socialist... ok... NOAM CHOMSKY. No brain you say? Umm... he's arguably one of the smartest people on the planet. But you're right about the young conservative part.
IngeniousEpithet 2 months ago
The problem is that corporations are dictatorships. So if you abolish the government you're essentially giving dictators a free ticket to rule the country.
Anarchist want to take it a step further and turn corporations into places that are ran democratically by the workers.
No managers, CEO's or salesmen involved.
Just making things that people need.
pitasmith1 3 months ago
Why abandon the word anarchism, and let others MONOPOLIZE (antithetical to anarchism) the term?
Obviously this lets state schools win with their bias definition of anarchism (which is actually the definition of the state; i.e. violence, disorder, chaos, lawlessness), and their PC BS dictionaries which aid them through enticing kids into intellectual shortcuts and laziness.
If it's easier in casual conversation, fine. But to abandon the term otherwise is to concede to the state it has won, imo.
ProIndividual 4 months ago
anarchism has NOTHING to do with chaos and riots. it's breaking free of tyranny and living in the one big happy neighborhood we affectionately refer to as "earth." it's really a loose term that somewhat means dyi government. and if you're an "anarcho-capitalist," then get the fuck out. you're not one of us. true anarchy is based on the notion that we should all trade with each other. you can't sell us shit and force us to think it's "cool." we do our own stuff, like a kid leaving his parents.
greghmn 4 months ago in playlist More videos from billyjoeallen
@greghmn What's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and free-market capitalism?
jeffsandychelsea 4 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea The belief that corporations should be worshipped and should run society rather than the government. Free market anarchists are rather individualist (in the tradition of Spooner, Tucker, Thoreau), and see ALL institutions as untrustworthy, albeit useful. Anarcho capitalists seem to think corporations can do no wrong. They also think corporate personhood is okay. If only individuals have rights, then corporate personhood is in conflict with individualism.
ProIndividual 4 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea The similarities are so huge that it's easy to confuse anarcho capitalists (who may favor voluntary forms of protectionism, mercantilism, etc.) with free market anarchists (who favor voluntary free markets, devoid of protectionism, mercantilism, etc.). There is ALMOST no difference. It's all in what economic form of capitalism YOU find preferable.
Similarly, all forms of economics (communism, syndicalism, socialism, Third Way, forms of capitalism, etc.,etc.) exist in anarchy.
ProIndividual 4 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea No economic form can be banned in anarchy (a society organized voluntarily). People will choose all types of detrimental and counter productive things voluntarily. For example, some will choose protectionism for their fellow contract holders even though it hurts them (probably unknown to them via ignorance). Similarly, some will choose communism. Decision making is the same. Chomsky likes democracy, I think voting is violence. S&M sex doesn't = rape, & boxing doesn't = assault.
ProIndividual 4 months ago
@ProIndividual I know nothing is banned. Anarcho capitalists would gladly let people choose what economic system to live under.
jeffsandychelsea 4 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea Yes they would...that part of the definition probably wasn't necessary, but I like to be as clear as possible. That wasn't to draw contrast to anarcho capitalism and free market capitalist anarchism, it was just further explanation (unnecessary I guess). I just wanted to be very clear that anarcho capitalism can be any form of voluntary capitalism, while free market capitalist anarchism is just one specific type of capitalism: free markets. There are may types of capitalism.
ProIndividual 3 months ago
@jeffsandychelsea many types*
ProIndividual 3 months ago
COMMUNISM FTW!!!!!
Tokagawa89 6 months ago 2
This should be called "I conformed to the system."
drh1111 6 months ago
Comment removed
kamikazee55 7 months ago
what we are going to do in a stateless society is all work together to make the hole world work as 1
halofhellproductions 11 months ago
your a communist/socialist
halofhellproductions 11 months ago
The definition of Anarchy is without authority or government, literally.
If you advocate a stateless society, but also free (lawless) markets and the existence of corporations, then you are an Anarcho-Capitalist. Anarchism covers an extremely wide range of thought, but most Anarchists, such as the ones who were argueing against you are Anarcho-Socialists. We see a contradiction in calling yourself something which means without Authority when corporations are the most autocratic tyrannies of all
Ohloveeh 11 months ago
blahblahblahblahblahhhh
taunicheree 1 year ago
I think its better to say you're dropping the label. It feels wrong, in this context, to me to say your no longer an anarchist, because I've seen the word used in your context.
vteam02 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHA..ameteurs
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
My concern with anarcho-capitalism is that I don't see how people would be able to protect themselves from abusive power structures that develop within private markets? Will there be regulatory control in the hands of communities affected by capitalist free markets? If not it seems like we get various small plutocratic oligarchies ruling over small regions. I would love to see a video or be pointed to some reading that explains this to me. Cheers!
anarchopinko 1 year ago
2:48 this is what we are trying to do Direct Democracy no government we should handle it let us take the wheel instead of some 300 people and 1 president to tell us our every whim and act like where some zombie that works for them so you see You anarcho-capitalist what we are trying to do is Direct Democracy with no government but our selves no president either we make our own rules stateless you should of learned more please join anarchy
opypoopy 1 year ago
Comment removed
opypoopy 1 year ago
no billyjoeallen! you can't just sit down and let the little basterd punk you, if these people who are labeling themselfs as anarchists are imposters, then they must be called out and shown for the worthless scum they are for trying to ruin it all. we cant be pushed around and let these kids go on with a wrong idea of anarchy, they must be taught the true meaning of anarchy, other wise we will always be labeled the crazy chaos loveing freaks
carny426 1 year ago
Economics and anarchy are like oil and water. True anarchist groups, like the ones who ran parts of Spain before Franco took over, didn't use money at all. Laborers would work, their hours were tabulated on a voucher, and vouchers were exchanged for goods. In anarchist societies, a banker gets paid the same as a field worker based solely on hours earned. Anarcho-syndicalist would entail unions being the distributors and regulators of both work and goods.
stew3128561 1 year ago
I like the term anti-statist. That's what I am.
Esoparagon 1 year ago
You're no longer an anarchist because you never were ...
Anarcho capitalism focus on money as a way to run society. Not much different than now, just worst. Means money as the tyrant, a materialist human creation to control other humans. And that's all but anarchy ... the lack of dictatorship and power control of any kind.
Hope you understand know.
MrCroky123 1 year ago
Yes billy we need to know the details!!! We need them and we will have them through dialogue. Enough labels and titles and terminology, let's act now!!
Camerador 1 year ago
Great, we have taken back Anarchism... Now all we've got to do is take back libertarianism...
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
btw, watch my new video on "The Logical Conclusions of the Labor Theory of Property". maybe you'll learn something new about economics (maybe).
eboyd32 1 year ago
YAY! another "anarcho"-capitalist realizes he's not an anarchist! go and convince the rest of your cappie friends now :)
eboyd32 1 year ago
Idiot. Anarchists dont have a no trade policy.
Maybe you should actually educate yourself and learn about Proudhon and mutualism before you make yourself look like an idiot.....anyone who understands trade in a mutualist system is going to laugh at you, rather than be swayed by your wisdom.
NickDjinn 1 year ago
@NickDjinn Seriously. Guy doesn't even understand what he is insulting. And just because it is unpopular, he doesn't take it, what a bitch. "equally poor" wow... Yeah Equally poor, equally wealthy, whatever you want to call it, it's still EQUAL. If we divided the wealth in the US between EVERYONE we would all be 100,000 aires.
CodyAllenmusic 1 year ago
The reason most Anarchists, even individualist/mutualist Anarchists like Tucker as well as Syndicalists, rejecting "anarcho" capitalism is because they are not really anti-state. The ancaps wish to decentralize the state into small scale private monarchy's, each property owner being a King. At that point the only real choice under so called volontaryism, for the poor, is to choose masters. It isnt Anarchism.
Djinn227 1 year ago
@Djinn227 The collectivist anarchists wish to use brute force like a state in order to enforce a no trade policy. Anarcho collectivism requires a force of ideology to exist
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@Djinn227 Plus syndicalism and the like are the methods that oppressed working people historically have organized themselves and their resistance to capitalism & the state that protects it.
dubified89 1 year ago
@Djinn227 It's your choice to be poor in a completely free & rational society. Some people will be quite content with that. For those that aren't, they must do something to get something w/o infringing on others. Voluntary interactions between people & groups is the only logical way to do things. Demanding that wealth be evenly distributed with words, bottles, or mafia guns is not. Stating that there is no way to deal with certain issues in a stateless society is quite narcissistic.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
Under capitalism, the wealthy become the new state.....under Anarcho-Capitalism, every land owner is a King and those without land are subjects.
Under so called "volontaryism", the only volontary choice is the choice to choose masters, or else become a master over others.
NickDjinn 1 year ago
@NickDjinn Enjoy living with everyone equally poor bro
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@NickDjinn You are arguing from effect instead for morality in your own imaginary world of what a voluntary society would look like. Leave the whole master/slave thing for the bedroom freaks.
nocturnalc 1 year ago
Comment removed
skatiblaxos 1 year ago
Excellent video!
repfreedomforce 1 year ago
Must of the anarcho-capitalist are american, why? Here in Europe is different is more libertarian socialist, anarcho.-syndicalists .
Mikesmonteiro 1 year ago
It's one of the problems with anarchists, if you get 3 anarchists in a room, you will have 4 different opinions.
I agree with you, our differences are silly, it really hurts a group of our size to fight amongst each other. I have no idea where I fit into our huge spectrum. It is better that we talk about these sort of things than tell people just to piss off.
TheSage555 1 year ago
I never understood how people could be a wage slave. If your working for money so what? If you are not working for money your working a job other people make you do or your making everything for yourself.
MirageScience 1 year ago
You are a very well educated man, I respect your opinion & agree with it, & wish you a long happy life sir!
OneInNegativeTwo 1 year ago
The argument over abolishing the state is like the Marxist case for abolishing capital. They're stated as critiques, not blueprints for the new order. So the argument over who's a "real" this-or-that is essentially meaningless, like Christian denominations.
TheAzov 1 year ago
Re: the start of WW 1: it was essentially Germany's game. Serbia "apologized" for the assassination of Ferdinand, and Austria was inclined to accept it. But Germany was after a casus belli and pushed Austria to reject the apology, and declare war on Serbia, knowing Russia would react accordingly. This would justify war with Russia and France and break Germany's "encirclement."
TheAzov 1 year ago
Employers *have* made the circumstances forcing dependency on themselves for wages. The property of society and the profits of its use are monopolized by a few to the subordination of the many. Modern capitalism is still based on feudal property relations.
TheAzov 1 year ago
no true Scotsmen argument not a true anarchist
i hate
curiositygun93 1 year ago
Don't get me wrong, anarcho-socialists/socialists/communists are ok, but those who claim that their way is the only way, whether they're Capitalists or Socialists, are closed-minded idiots and the more appropriate term for them is "Anarcho-Idiot".
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
Btw, I am neither an Anarcho-capitalist or Anarcho-socialist, I am a Individualist Anarchist and I am a capitalist. To label Anarchists as Anarcho-capitalist or Anarcho-socialist is just as ridiculous as labling them Anarcho-christians or Anarcho-muslims. Anarchism and statism are political systems, capitalism and socialism are economical ones.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
@IngeniousEpithet, Well the problem is that statist capitalism isn't survival of the fittest, the more appropriate term would be survival of the fattest, meaning that the more money you have to start with, the more money is generated on top of that money, and the less work you have to do to make money, and this is not a result of capitalism but, among other things, of the banking system, taxes and states passing laws that protect monopolism. This generates the gap between rich and poor.
delboyzgzg 1 year ago
If it makes you feel better, you never were an anarchist.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
I'm still going to call you anarchist; cause two fundamental tenats of socailist anarchism are in conflict with each other
a)"Work for a boss or starve"
b)Capitalists are exploitive middlemen
Both of these can't be true at the same time. If you say capitalists are exploitive and do not contribute anything than worker co-ops will outcompete capitalist enterprises and therefore "wage slavery" does not exist.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
LMAOOO I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU :"3
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
I think all types of anarchists should work together. For me, your still an anarchist since there are countless different anarchist sub-ideologies.
MrUnkner 1 year ago
2:53 ses it all.
george1punk2 1 year ago
dividing groups into extra subgroups only causes more problems, people focus to much on their differences instead on what connects us all. I don't know if I'm an anarchist, I know that a lot of my beliefs are found in what anarchy is, but if you keep on labeling people into smaller and smaller groups, you'll only cause more problems.
BinRandom 1 year ago
1:20, Im sorry, but appealing to majority is a fallacy
TheAvidAnarchist 1 year ago
capitalism is a regime of control, without control it would be able to survive. The State provides such instruments of control. Capitalism and anarchism (understood as a concept of anti-authoritarianism, on all levels: political, psychological etc) are in my pov really polar-opposites.
Anarchism and communism? I think that is something we dont know, as the term communism is nowadays understood in the Lenin-Stalin tradition. Marx himself was never really clear what he meant under communism.
Marenqo 1 year ago
It's like these communistic collectivist Anarchists are so consumed with their models of how their ideal society would work that they aren't seeing the complexity and diversity that would actually exist in the absence of a state.
Ironically, they behave very anti-socially. It's a shame that they are unwilling to offer others the simple freedom necessary for Anarchism to actually occur. And all over words, over fucking words.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
Yeah, man I came to exactly the same conclusion.
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
Money in an objectivist culture reflects the values of diligence, intelligence, originality and bravery. Now our culture is not objectivist but it is close enuf to a meritocracy that $ does reinforce these attributes to a degree. Hence the paucity of lazy rich people (expcepting trustfund babies).
In communes as i have experienced the traits which bring power are social traits: the ability to lie, to manipulate others, one's personal charisma and of course physical beauty.
cont.
madscirat 2 years ago
I realize that these things can also bring great wealth in our society, but the reason for my preference is that they are not the only means of power aquisition in the mainstream.
Also in a commune ingenuity and hardwork are in a way punished. If you prove capable, the incapable and lazy will pile you with work. Then when that work load finally breaks you, those who do nothing will crucify you. I experienced this dynamic as well as saw it affect a number of other diligent communards.
madscirat 2 years ago
I don't know if I can answer that in a post but I will try. When I began communal life I believed the same as many liberal socialists. Living in an actual commune taught me that people naturally build hierarchies. Taking $ away and expecting it to end the process is like taking twigs away from a bird and expecting it not to build nests. I left bc/ I realized I prefer $ as the basis of hierarchy bc/ it can reflect traits I respect, whereas the other only reflects traits I despise.
madscirat 2 years ago
A better definition of anarchy would be someone against all power. Anarcho-capitalists advocate private property. Private owners would have power over anyone on their private property. Eventually there would be no land and just private property and owners. So the people without private property would be forced to give in to subordination. It would just be a series of oligarchies in which the private owner owned everything.
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
@SlashySlash17 please explain how private property can be prevented and distributed without the action of some central authority. If you can not please do not consider yourself an anarchist, bc/ it is misleading. Define whatever it is you want this central authority to be and base your political ideology on that because it is an important part of your 'anarchism.'
madscirat 2 years ago
Is it against anarchist principals to attack authority figures and strip them of their power? This 'central authority' will be the working class. Rather than having private owners of the means of production, the workers own it. you can own a watch, you can not own the watch factory. i suggest you learn the difference between private property and possession. capitalism is hierarchical and it is therefor impossible to be an 'anarcho'-capitalist.
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
Comment removed
glacialmind101 2 years ago
I have lived in an anarchist commune, have you? In the likely case that you haven't and like most social theorists are merely hypothesizing, let me tell you how it actually plays out. Your workers do indeed own the property collectively, but its distribution is always unequal. When people do things collectively that means groups and group dynamics. The result is that the most popular always get more. Imagine an economy based on a high school's social dynamic, this is what occurs in real communes
madscirat 2 years ago
There are no anarchist communes today. At least no 'pure' one that i am aware of. What commune are you talking about so i can research it? why is distribution unequal? which form of 'anarchy' is this if it is indeed anarchy? In the form of anarchy that i vision decisions are based on consensus/direct democracy. In the case of direct democracy the majority of the majority 'win' after a dynamic discussion. no system is perfect but the minority would certainly not be shunned.
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
are you suggesting that having the private owner and his buddies make all the import decisions is better then everyone making decisions? i'm not criticizing i'm just trying to understand. Why is it better to have one person make decisions that affect the masses? What do you mean 'the most popular get more'? do you mean their decision is hierarchical in that it leaves out the minority. This is true but consensus dont always work and sometimes you need to use direct democracy instead.
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
Slash, first I'd like to thankyou for the well reasoned questions and argument. This is not something I expect from youtube and its nice when it happens. To answer everything this might take more than one post.
You mention there being no pure anarchist communes. This is sort of my point. They don't exist bc/ they can't. But there are a number of consensus driven egalitarian communes that define themselves this way. Look up the FEC (Federation of Egalitarian Communes).
madscirat 2 years ago
You ask why distribution is unequal? Because people want, desire, need. Nothing about communal living changed these essentials. Only the method of aquisition changed.
You asked what form of anarchy. My experience is with consensus and pure democratic systems. Ironically you mention shunning. This is the main form of punishment in communes. I have seen people shunned to the point of creating psychopathology in these people. In one instance of which I am aware the end result was suicide.
madscirat 2 years ago
You ask if I think the private owner and his buddies making decisions is better. I answer that any employer who employs people based on some social connection rather than the ability of these people will not have a very successful business. Now in communes this is exactly how things run bc/ the only power is found in social connections so these must be maintained at all cost.
madscirat 2 years ago
You ask why one person making decisions is better than the masses. My answer: because masses aren't human. Groups might be made up of people but they are quite distinct from individuals. They don't have morals, or ethics. They are not conscious, they have no soul. Groups can and only react. I only trust individual persons because only a person is capable of reasoning, people are not. Throughout history people in groups have committed atrocities that no sane individual can even understand
madscirat 2 years ago
You ask 'what do you mean the popular get more.' I mean exactly that, the popular get more.One's popularity determines everything. This has some very negative side effects.One is that the easiest route to happiness in community is to be on good terms with everyone, but this means standing up to no one.Thus cowardice is the most common interpersonal tactic in communities bc/ no one wants to get shunned.For this reason abusive personalities run rampant bc/ no one will risk confronting them
madscirat 2 years ago
Last one. Since your questions were politely addressed I wanted to make sure I answered them all in full. Hence the length.
You ask for the name and I don't see anything wrong with giving it to you. They are called Twin Oaks. They were one of America's first communes. They started out behaviorist, but now are simply egalitarian.
If you want to try community living, I suggest a small one (5-10). At this size you avoid the group dynamic. These r really more extended families than communes tho
madscirat 2 years ago
Thanks for your honesty and detailed posts. I'm obviously not going to change my political views until perhaps i experience this first hand like you did. Sounds like a nice commune though. Perhaps it will evolve in time assuming it doesn't 'die out'. I'm not too far from the commune maybe i will check it out. Anarchy is not a new theory but 'civilized' anarchy has only been experimented with a handful of times i wouldnt expect it to be 'absolute'.
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
If you really are going to try the FEC please try Acorn, they are a sister commune of Twin Oaks and boast a much reduced incidence of psychopathology. They are also a pure consensus model and so are probably more what you are looking for. They accept interns on a fairly regular basis. Also a plus IMO is that their main source of income is not poorly organized industry as is the case with TO but a lucrative organic seeds business which has the noble goal of preserving agricultural biodiversity.
madscirat 2 years ago
I was just going to say hi :)
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
Comment removed
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i'll keep an open mind. I'm curious how this commune was established. By anarchists or just by people who want a 'low key' lifestyle. Im very new to the anarchist political theory (not the idea but the theory) but i do feel pretty strong about it.
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
Hierarchy is natural. The lion is king of the jungle. Top of the food chain. Prides have Alpha males who get most of the females. natural hierarchy appliers to humans also. You can oppose that want, but you might as well be opposing gravity.
as for your neo-fuedal property distopia, I hear that all the time and it's just not true. Defense of property has to be proportionate because property rights are usually not absolute. Common law was is emergent. There is adverse possession, etc.
billyjoeallen 2 years ago
Nobody will be able to shoot you for fetching a baseball that went over a fence or picking an apple off of someone's tree. Worse case, they might shoot you with a paint ball if local custom would permit it.
billyjoeallen 2 years ago
@billyjoeallen
Actually you're oversimplifying and technically false. The lion being the "king" of the jungle is a human label, he's not actually on some kind of hierarchal ladder. For over 90% of our history, anatomically modern humans lived in tribes/bands, by definition these exhibited no real or lasting hierarchies, our ancestors were preeminently Anarchists. Capitalism/property-based society is a perversion of survival of the fittest/hierarchy/competition just as Eugenics is.
IngeniousEpithet 1 year ago
@billyjoeallen Hierarchy may be on display in lower animals, but it's certainly not a given or "natural" in humans (cerebral cortex). In fact, I would argue that democratic action & cooperation are the natural mode of interaction for free human beings. Mind you, in the personal realm, a person is his own agent; but, in the social realm, where freedoms & interests overlap, free people have to work things out TOGETHER. Nothing utopian about democracy--it's the antidote to concentrated power.
2Majesties 1 year ago
@billyjoeallen A central autority is natural too, strutures like state there will be forever, and the monopoly of justice and force... there are so natural like hierarchy.
The lion king of the jungle rules, like a govermment rules a country, is in our nature.
Look at Aristoteles theories!!!
Can be property right without state, is like having a human society without hierarchy, or a jungle!
Mikesmonteiro 1 year ago
@billyjoeallen This comparison between humans and other animals seems to suppose we're basically no more intelligent than they are. Humans are highly intelligent (arguably) and able to rise above the law of the jungle for the greater good, and that's what we have done. In fact, we choose cooperation and form highly developed societies where, ideally, we work as a whole for the betterment of all of our living conditions. There are those who take more than they need, but that's not what lions do.
London2272 11 months ago
@London2272 In theory, it would seem that humans can be far more educated than any of us currently are today, and if educated, could, in time, get to the point of lasting peace and even immortality. The biggest problem is getting to that point. After much consideration, working out many scenarios in my mind, the only realistic solution i could arrive at is; we need someone with the technology, knowledge, wisdom, and desire to educate humanity, our creator, our intelligent designer.
Automation2BFree 8 months ago
@Automation2BFree We have all that technology and wisdom, but it isn't collectively. Better education is only really available to those who can afford it, and those who can afford it have no interest in educating those who don't have such a large slice of the pie. It serves no purpose to them, to educate those who create the wealth they enjoy, and may work against them. All they need is basic numeracy and literacy in us, with political ignorance, and their wealth can continue to be created.
London2272 8 months ago
@London2272
Ouch, so many semantical terms to define. i will try to get back to you soon though. i'm pretty sure i understand your point of view. But mine takes time to clearly describe. For now i will say; i agree that the wealthy have been brainwashed to think that creating equality serves no purpose to them, although the opposite is true in reality. Which is one of the main reasons why i calculate the only solution to be a government without any human control. Vote Jesus 2012! (hey, a joke!)
Automation2BFree 8 months ago
I wouldn't quite agree that the organisation that plotted and executet the assassination of Ferdinand was anarchist. And I would much less agree that that exact act 'started' WW1. Austria-Hungary just needed a cause to start what they were already planning to start anyway. Had the assassination not happened, there would most certainly be an another event that could give them a 'justification' for the start of the war.
HamletOmlet 2 years ago
You can't know that Austria wanted a war. Considering how the empire was destroyed, there was plenty of reason to want to prevent it.
billyjoeallen 2 years ago
No, I can't know with absolute certainty. But I do believe it had strong expansionist tendencies which were directed towards the east, with Serbia in the way.
HamletOmlet 2 years ago
@billyjoeallen Well you see in history multiple times empires trying stage an event for starting a war. Roman empire did it numerous times, England in Medieval times, the Crusades, Spanish-American War, Kiev Russia, Napoleon, i can keep going with this. The problem their empire being destroyed, that was after the war not before. So there was definite reason why countries start conflict: More Land=More Money and More Money=More Power.
deeden76 1 year ago
I've been told I'm not an anarchist too.
HiFiSmith 2 years ago
Very good video. What do we need to call ourselves now? Anarchist has already been twisted and its meaning corrupted. We need a new name.
TheThreeWeavers 2 years ago
Was this asshole named jack from the P.J. Proudhon memorial website?
tiecuando 2 years ago
Unless you get rid of the monetary system people will never grow and detach themselves from this materialistic mentality. We need a new type of system to manage our resources! something that you cant corrupt and its %100 transparent! I am sick of being as free as my purchasing power allows me to be!!
Occultname 2 years ago 2
//We need a new type of system to manage our resources! something that you cant corrupt and its %100 transparent!//
*Pulls out wand and waves it; sparkles ensue* Presto magic government of perfection.... oh wait I forgot about the whole human being thing, sorry 8-(
madscirat 2 years ago
I don't really understand the anarcho-socialist hostility towards market anarchists. I don't see the same kind of hostility coming from anarcho-capitalists. We're both much closer than we'd like to admit. Anarcho-socialists seem to think that cooperatives would be banned in anarcho-capitalism. Although we doubt if there would be that many, there is nothing to stop them from being made. There could be only syndicates, communes etc. and we could still call it anarcho-capitalism if it was voluntary
Tharapita 2 years ago
Good point with the video. Maybe we should just leave that word to the violent punks and socialists. Let them carry the burden of the ugly negative connotations they brought upon it.
Libertarian seems like a properly descriptive term, even though it still harbors divisions within its ranks regarding just how much liberty we are talking about. I personally take it to its logical and ethical conclusion which is a stateless society based simply on the non-aggression principle.
rmcdaniel423 2 years ago
Power = money
johnrcoben 2 years ago 6
@johnrcoben Tottaly right!
Mikesmonteiro 1 year ago
why are all anarchocapitalists american? i dont mind it so much, its something i have noticed however
in my opinion the belief that anarcho caoitalists are not anarchists is based on the definition of anarchism, the social anarchist definition is "against hierarchy" but anarcho capitalists believe in wage slavery (what people called capitalism in the 19th century), this is seen as a form as hierarchy by social anarchists like me, but i dont care, if you think your an anarchist, fine, cool
Aeon135 2 years ago 5
Calling a job "wage slavery" minimizes the evil of actual slavery. Even if you are forced to take a job you don't want, it still isn't slavery unless your employer created the circumstances that made you take it.
billyjoeallen 2 years ago
@billyjoeallen is a poor and 'povertyish' like life style if you dont sell your labor not coercion? yes you technically have a choice as you always do but you don not have the option of 'work with' you only have the option 'work for' difference between legit hierarchy and illegitimate. I just oppose hierarchy that makes decisions for everyone. No system is perfect but I think it would be less coercive if decisions were made by direct democracy/consensus instead of obey/command the private owner
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
@billyjoeallen so the only thing wrong with slavery is the slave didnt consent to it? even if the circumstances basically forced him to? The employer's do create the circumstances. they own everything including the means of production. Without their pay you would struggle for basic needs and wants. Are sweatshops okay because they consent even though the owners didn't create the circumstances? everyone needs food but thats nature and the employer didnt create nature so its okay?
SlashySlash17 2 years ago
@billyjoeallen
You're saying there is only one definition of slavery and there cannot be multiple shades of it. I disagree. People can be coerced into doing things they wouldn't normally do by all manner of forces both covert/overt, peaceful/violent, you name it. Wage slavery is a soft tyranny, it tells you you can do whatevvver you want! But it comes at a price and the price is pretty steep for the majority of people (perpetual underclass), there are no reasonable alternatives offered/allowed.
IngeniousEpithet 1 year ago
@billyjoeallen if you could go build a house and live in a sustainable way tax free, you wouldnt be a "wage slave" but i don tthink there are many countries where thats possible? you need planning permission etc
djdnauk1977 1 year ago
@billyjoeallen +1 Everyone is bound by reality and circumstance, no need to call yourself a slave because of it, or blame your employer.
barccy 1 year ago
@billyjoeallen CALLING A TAXE OF THEFT OR AGRESSION IS MINIMAZING THE EVIL OF ACTUAL AGRESSION AND THEFT TOO! Paying taxes is not like being brutally punched in the face or being invaded.
Mikesmonteiro 1 year ago
@Aeon135 Actually, the word Anarcho-Capitalist was coined by members of the Austrian School of Ecnomics under Ludwig von Mises. Another key figure of the movement was Fredriech von Hayek, a German. The philosophy of total economic liberalism* (n the original form : free) became popular amongst anti-state libertarian social groups in the US. The idea of an stateless capitalism if foreign to the US, it comes from Europe during the industrial revolution. But it's ideas came along with it's imm.
SunBeamsan 1 year ago
I like you, but see the problem with capitalism is that creates conflict, division, exploitation, among other negative elements.
:)
Dont label yourself, or put yourself in a group, have a position, be free of positions, be open and emergent, just wise without the actual culture syndrome of winning-losing debate.
AzoreanProud 2 years ago
Excellent monologue.. For years i didn't want to label myself an Ⓐnarchist because of the stigma and negative programmed response to such a term. These days, when i tell people i'm an Ⓐnarchist you see them pale over with a fearful yet blank look of confusion until I explain the philosophy.
DHMIII 2 years ago
anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists because there are still rulers in an ancap society - the bosses.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago 2
That is not correct. A voluntary contract does not equate to an involuntary one.
Capitalism is based on voluntary interaction, not force. The evils commonly associated with it are misplaced.
JiayoJames 2 years ago
so you are saying that the workers like having a boss?
The thing is it is the boss who controls the workplace. He can do as he pleases with the production of workers without actually doing anything. Even if he works along with them, does that entitle him to own the whole production? In capitalism there are four choices - work for a boss, be a boss or start your own business (which i doubt will have only you working). Either way your life gets controlled.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Even when you work on your own you're subjected to market phenommenons and sponsoring by big corporations which makes you dependant on them.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
If your contract is voluntary then your boss is not your ruler. So answer your own questions--it's your choice.
Also capitalism does not = corporatism.
JiayoJames 2 years ago
First of all, being it a negotiable contract or not (not so negotiable most of the time), the member of the working class will always have to submit to the will of a boss in order not to starve. This is unfair and unnecessary. And it is the boss who determines how much each worker will receive and it is him who gets most of the profit. He claims to have more right to own the production just because he has more capital. And that last sentence seems interesting. Could you explain it better?
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
No. They aren't rulers. They can't coerce you. There are also no rules against owning property in common in an anarcho-capitalist society. Individuals can come together and form their own collectivist communities if that's what they wish to do. Again, there are no rules against this in an anarcho-capitalist society. You just can't force people to stay in such communities if they don't want to.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Well individuals aren't forced to follow anarcho-syndicalist rules, there is no coercive force to stop them also. But yes, bosses can coerce people. Even if they are friendly, people are still forced to work to bosses and they will own everything they do. They still determine wages. Workers rent themselves to bosses. Maybe that's not ruling in the sense you referred to, but it's at least submission.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Ah ok, well you see the other people I've heard that subscribe to anarcho-syndicalism/socialism/communism have said they ARE in support of using violence against people that want to privately own something. There have only been like two people that have told me otherwise. So to me they always end up coming off as state apologists.
As for bosses ending up owning everything, that's still not coercion(it's voluntary authority), AND it just so happens to have never happened in a free market.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Oh ok. But anarcho-syndicalism/socialism/communists is all pretty different you can't really agregate the whole left like that. I have no doubts communists would use coersion, about socialism it is something present on every leftarian movement (even liberals) and you can't really talk about it as something speciic, and about anarcho-syndicalism, or (maybe) Libertarian Communism, there are the insurrectionists, who defend violent action, an the anarchopacifists who defend passive resistance.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Again, being it coercion or not technically, its still subordination, and there is no such thing as voluntary authority. Were it by the workers they would control the workplace, but either they work for the boss or they starve...
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
No you don't starve just because you choose not to work for someone. You could form a cooperative or be slef-employed, and self-employment wouldn't necessarily mean self-subsistence farming. It could be anything. You might repaire computer parts, or make candles, or bake stuff, or make shoes or whatever. However, the fact is that it's voluntary if there's no violence or threat of violence. Again, subordination can be voluntary.Ex: If you're in an orchestra, you're subordinate to the conductor
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
About the first argument, let me point out we are talking about the low class. And they have lots of small businesses already, but there still will be lots of people working for bosses and receiving low wages in comparison with their masters and the middle class. Weren't it for them how could people start businesses (medium and big businesses, to which ancap doesn't oppose to)? Plus what has private ownership given us?
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Why shouldn't people receive "low" wages in comparison to their bosses(not masters)? In the market, pay is based on productivity. If workers do work that is just as productive relative to the scarcity of labor as the boss's level of productivity relative to the scarcity of people with skills that can allow them to be bosses/managers, then it means their wages will be bid up because productivity is what determines wages. It means someone ELSE would hire the workers to gain a higher market share
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Why should they? lol that's what I'm asking. In your system, they do. And maybe I'm being dumb :P but I didn't understand the second argument in terms of why are bosses better paid than workers. And what entitles a boss to be a boss? It is merely his capital and his initiative. but I personally i don't think this is ethical.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
I don't see why it's unethical for a boss to get paid more if his jobs is more productive. People mistakenly believe that just anyone can be a good boss. If that were the case then there would be a lot more businesses because that would make it so that they could have fewer workers and more bosses. However, the boss manages people and keeps things running efficiently, while the people even higher up predict what the firm should make based on customer preferences and bear the risk.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Yes, the boss manages people and maybe works hard than some other employees, but that still doesn't give him the right to own the production. the boss hierarchy is still not justified. lIke mr 1001 nights pointed out, just because a slave owner works hard to manage his production and just because he takes risks doesn't give him the right to be slave owner. And while in some companies work is quite simple, in others the worker risks his life everyday.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
The worker-boss hierarchy is justified because it's voluntary. mr 1001 nights makes ridiculous arguments which come from his lack of understanding of economics. A slave is a slave not because the master owns what he produces. A slave is a slave because the master owns HIM, and because the slave is kept from leaving under threat of violence. THat's what makes them a slave. It's not the ownership of production that makes them a slave.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
I mean the productiveness has increased but the hours of work have remained the same or even increased, and why? Because of the dog-eat-dog competitivity: a factory will stay behind if their workers work less. I'd also like to point out that consumism is stupidity. Everything in our society is stupifying, with ads captivating us to satisfy our every need, rules that narrow thinking, brainwashing campaigns....
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Advertising in itself can't promote a debt-based spending society. A constantly rising price level is what does it, and that's a result of the central bank increasing the money supply. When our money was gradually gaining value,there was incentive to save and therefore people saved
And no our productivity increase can't be solely be explained by "dog-eat-dog" competitiveness,also has to do with capital, which makes labor more productive. But from what I hear, our productivity increase is suspect
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
I didn't talk about debt, I'm only talking about stupidity. People can't be politically and economically aware in a society that stupifies.
I'm not saying that, maybe I didn't express myself clearly (I don't speak english as a first language). What I'm saying is that though the productivity has increased, people are forced to work as hard or harder than before because of the dog-eat-dog competitivity.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Again, the economy becomes consumption-based because of inflation. That's the culture that inflation creates. It's no coincidence. If prices are always going up, there's no incentive to save. People spend the money sooner while it has more value.
As for productivity, no that's not why it has increased. Capital makes labor more productive. People usually don't just all-of-a-sudden start working harder.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
No, it's the culture society of consumption creates in general. People are not going to spend money right away because they know sooner or later prices will go up. It is advertising that makes consumption raise. It is proven that advertising works. Which is terrible. Because that way we just discovered how easily the average person is lured to consumption.
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
No, you're simply wrong. The culture itself arises because of inflation. People borrow and spend more because when your money is losing value over time, there is no incentive to save. People are given incentive to borrow and spend, thus arises the culture of consumption.
Advertising doesn't MAKE consumption rise. The consumer has to actually be satisfied, AND they have to have the means to purchase something.
watch?v=1o_0ZixqAq8
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
yes, people are given incentive to borrow and spend, and that's through advertising. Now if you are saying people are all intelligent and pay attention to prices dropping or rising in order to save or not that is pretty naive. Then how do you explain the advertising and consumption raising at the same time?
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
You're simply wrong on that. It's not advertising that does it. THat can make you want to spend....but it has the limit that when people can no longer afford to buy, they simply won't be able to do it. It's the loose monetary policy and near-subsidization of borrowing that arises from the ever-rising price level that allows people to have borrow-and-spend actions in the first place.
Advertising increases demand for goods when successful...but it doesn't give people the MEANS to buy
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Sure, the consumer has to be satisfied, but I didn't say that the products advertised don't have the quality they seem to have (although they don't most of the time). i'm only talking about psychology and conditioning. .
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
What matters is people actually like the products. It's the job of the entrepreneur to predict consumer preferences and/or to create new products that people may want to market them. If the consumer has to be satisfied, that in itself is enough to provide a check on business. The "conditioning" usually doesn't matter as much as the general system, for the most part. People saved back in teh day when money gained value, and yet there was advertising back then. People saved cus it paid to save.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
If people have all their needs satisfied by others and always seem to have everything they want (regardless of them REALLY being able to buy, which many times they aren't, although they do it because of consumtion culture), this creates lazyness and stupidity, thus making the people incapable of making conscious choices regarding politics and economy
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Again, you simply ignore incentives. You're just making baseless assertions of some bizarre culture...but you're not explaining why it exists, because if if the reasons you give were true, then it would've occurred LONG ago....and yet it generally happens in times of inflation....because that's when it pays to borrow. When interest rates are high and money gains value, it pays to save, and more people in general tend to save.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
Again I didn't mean to say only «free markets» raised productiveness, I would agree with you on that. What I'm saying is that people still work hard AFTER productivity BECAUSE of «free markets».
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
I don't get what you're saying here. If you're saying that the free market causes people to work hard after productivity increases, then that's incorrect. People aren't forced to work more. They work more because they want to. However, some people work harder because their money loses value, which comes from central banking. Other people that don't worry about this often take more time for leisure.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
No, they are forced to work or they'll get fired and starve. Because of the dog-eat-dog competitivity. Again most of people aren't intelligent enough to think about the value of money and make their choices that way. That's not how it works in capitalism. By the way you are a libertarian right?
GuiMarquito 2 years ago 2
No, wrong. They aren't forced. They can get fired sure, but that doesn't mean starvation. Even if it did, you're conflating positive rights with negative rights. Nobody holds a positive obligation to another because that's logically invalid since it necessarily violates some people's rights to benefit others. Furthermore, people can be self-employed or engage in self-subsistence farming. Granted this ability is somewhat curtailed by taxes and regulations put in place by the state.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago 2
sorry for lumping all of them together, but it's cus the people who call themselves those things all always make the same arguments when they address me or when I've seen them have vids(granted I haven't seen many of their vids, and thus most of their views come to me through comments on other people's vids).
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
The problem with a government run society is that after we voted the candidates in, they can do whatever they want. They can lie about their views when running for election, and then go for their own agendas when they make it into office. It has happened before, and it still happens to this very day.
Zennuts1 2 years ago
Good! I like him!
SofozMc 2 years ago