So what about Blackwater, Halliburton, and private security companies?
The State has sold out its monopoly to the highest bidder, allowing the free-market to dictate the use of force: Eg. the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned of.
The definition of anarchism is that the people question every form of authority and demand justification.
In the capitalist-anarchist system corporations question every form of authority over them; and Ron Paul would give them even more power
barbarianism - without laws and morale, maybe there are despotic rulers
anarchism - without written laws, people do have morale, no ruler at all
anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism - with written laws based on morale, no common ruler, there may be voluntarily decided people (or agencies) to protect basic human and ownership rights
LOL Only people dumber than Anarcho-Capitalist are the anarcho-socialist.
How can you call yourself anarchist, when you want to replace the state, an dthen enforce your policie son society with force....oh but its not a state!
...and 1% of the population OWNS 40% of the US(near half) will soon be half... and that 40% is the BEST land... so u can say they own 90% or more... and Rockefeller states to Aaron Russo "...why do u care about those people?!..." The BANKERs Rothschilds own all (FEDERAL) banks of the world, with the misleading naming(FEDERAL) as they are really PRIVATE banks, and that gives them total power over all governments via fiat money treachery. What's your point? My point: fuck u, u are brainwashed.
Collaborative production (the division of labor) is so bountiful because it allows people to specialize: to focus on what they are good at and then exchange with each other. Perhaps in a handful of occasions, the people who are best at supporting and directing an enterprise are the same people who are best at operating the equipment. But because of human and natural diversity, that will virtually never be the case.
Collaborative production (the division of labor) is so bountiful because it allows people to specialize: to focus on what they are good at and then exchange with each other. Perhaps in a handful of occasions, the people who are best at supporting and directing an enterprise are the same people who are best at operating the equipment. But because of human and natural diversity, that will virtually never be the case.
The entrepreneurial judgment and capitalist providence of any and all would-be employers whose qualities happen not to be best suited for worker-owned enterprises would be underutilized. And the judgment and providence of any and all would-be employers whose qualities happen not to be at all suited for worker-owned enterprises would be completely unutilized. Because nature spreads her gifts un-uniformly, virtually all would-be employers would fit one of those two categories.
PART 3 Mises: " The victory of the producer interest over the consumer interest means turning away from rational economic organization and impeding all economic progress.
Syndicalism deliberately places the producer interest of the workers in the foreground.… Syndicalism would make all repatterning of production impossible; it leaves no room free for economic progress."
PART 2 Mises: "Such a system may seem discussible when the special interests of small groups are protected against the great mass of others, since the privileged party then gains more from his privilege as a producer than he loses on the other hand as a consumer; it becomes absurd when it is raised to a general principle, since then every individual loses infinitely more as a consumer than he may be able to gain as a producer."
PART 1 Mises: "The ideal of centralist socialism is at least discussible; that of syndicalism is so absurd that one need waste few words on it.…
Preferring the producer interest over the consumer interest, which is characteristic of antiliberalism, means nothing other than striving artificially to maintain conditions of production that have been rendered inefficient by continuing progress."
The truth is pure free markets do not exist. All countries have some state control over businesses through regulations or ownership. Market capitalism that is regulated has PROVEN to be the best economic system so far. America, Canada, Western Europe, the rising Asian tigers, Australia, New Zealand, all prosperous nations and coincidentally...market economies that are pretty free.
I completely agree with what he said about Communist China and Indonesia. Both are GREAT examples of anarcho-capitalism considering that Indonesia is ranked the 115th freest economy in the world and has 164 state OWNED businesses. China is also a good example of how free markets ruin countries. Remember how prosperous and free China was before the 1979 reforms. Remember when the "Great Leap Forward" KILLED 45 million people due to starvation. Boy those were the good times. (sarcasm)
A pure barter system, as enacted by every pre-civilized people, is inherently free trade and therefor absolute capitalism and it existed and worked long before 'the state' or any government.
@metzger90 I understand that it is inefficient and un-doable but the point still stands that capitalism existed before the state and although in contemporary society capitalism relies on the state it doesn't have to and didn't use to we just put that limitation on our own economical system. A mass change would result in mass chaos, as it would with anything, but through that chaos we may find something maybe better, or maybe worse, who knows.
@brokeasdope Why Chaos and not progressive erosion of the government as we free humans take over the governments jobs? Peaceful Parenting will end the government, not revolution.
@sadisticbrujeria I'm not suggesting chaos, I'm simply putting forth that a sudden and mass change on a large scale in anything, such as the american economy, government or anything that effects hundreds of millions, would absolutely result in mass chaos.
@sadisticbrujeria Peaceful Parenting or other passive methods are absolutely not the way to cause effective change, you change the problems of yesterday today and deal with the problems of today tomorrow, direct revolution may not be the way to solve our country's or even world's crises but taking generations to change what you dislike today won't solve anything. At some point confrontation with the state must be had pacifism is just an excuse no not bring about real change.
@sadisticbrujeria Excuse my sarcasm, that's a tough one, the first one that comes to mind was the American Revloution, which was kicked off by a protest at concord Massachusetts which turned violent quickly.
@sadisticbrujeria After two hundred thirty six years, growth happens, government is like a tumor. Benjamin Franklin stated that he felt a revolution was necessary every twenty five years, by his logic we're two hundred eleven years over due.
@brokeasdope The US Government began ignoring the Constitution and its founding principles starting with the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 20 years of being founded as a country, we invaded the Barbary Coast. Then the US Government continued policy resulting in the world's largest genocide.
@brokeasdope This is why the founders did not realize the impossibly of the "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrant" after society becomes comfortable with a over reach of government authority, they did not put enough (despite their tiresome effort) checks and balances in place to prevent what is happening today. They knew the state grew like a cancer, but they did not know the extent to which a people could be manipulated fully, full abolishment of the state or ...
@sadisticbrujeria you dream... and have no clue as to infiltration... cancer... I only hope that by some miracle this wave is settled peacefully, but I don't see it. History repeats yet again... sad.
@ProfessorWilbur123 that is all it really takes the truth is so powerful. its not like i didnt used to argue dumb socialist bullshit too... i went to public school like everyone else
The simple fact that you mix anarchy (no government) with socialism (strong government) should be enough, but I keep giving you guys chances to actually assert a real point. Of course to justify this you're going to have really obscure definitions for socialism. Do you think the word means "social" ? sigh....
And unlike everyone in this debate I have read the literature.
With AnCap I can explain an ethical and rational framework for the issue of property. It conforms to nature, freedom, morality and business. By supporting the pursuit of all people to be secure in their persons and possessions we have defined universal moral principles (Non-Aggression Principle) and applied those principles to government and economics. AnSocs come from the marxist realm of capitalist criticism where every problem is described as systemic and the cure is always less individualism
Let me help you realize that what you've just said, again, fails to actually form a coherent theory of private property. All you have said about your system is that the means of production (tools and resources) are owned communally. This has already been said 5000 times on this channel alone. EXPLAIN how communal property works, do not just repeat this mindless mantra at me like a child. Do you understand what I am asking for?
These are just words. "State", "Anarchy", these are ideas, which we apply to things. The ideas themselves don't actually exist.
I think it's kind of insulting and largely pointless to tell someone who self-identifies as an "Anarcho-Capitalist" that they aren't an Anarchist. They've clearly defined themselves as such.
Here is the thing, AnCaps are proposing a well defined system called private property. You guys have these weird criticisms. Fine. But what not a single one of you have done was propose a coherent alternative. I will say this ten more times and you still won't.
"But what not a single one of you have done was propose a coherent alternative"
If you read some anarchist literature then you wouldn't need to ask youtube users what libertarian socialism offers as an alternative.
Which is; common ownership (indivisible stewardship) of the means of production preventing them being monopolized by an elite of private owners or the state. Thus making them available to any and all individuals and groups for starting their . . .
. . . desired enterprises. By having MOP leased out on long-term contract through usufruct.
And for the record, libertarian socialists only reject "private property" in the means of production (MOP) - for the reason that it allows some to have control over others.
Libertarian socialism fully supports the right to all individually-held property defined by:
1. Active personal use.
2. Occupancy.
The idea that lib-soc opposes ALL property ownership is a fairy tale
In theory then in an anarcho-syndicalist because nobody owns property, you could be sleeping with your wife in a bed and anyone could get in bed with you. According to anarcho-syndicalists anyone can come in to where you live at any time and set up shop, because nobody owns property. Please refute this if I've made an error, according to these supporters the occupy protest could show up at your door and come occupy the area you live, and you could do nothing about it.
@TreeSmoke1999 i will correct you on one thing, which is that instead of nobody owning property, EVERYONE can own property. the state exists to protect capitalist property (along with other things), which means if the state is eradicated, everyone is then put on a level playing field, both economically and politically.
@megaminxmaster thanks but I know all of that. I'm wondering in an anarcho-syndicalist society in theory, a person or persons could occupy or share(without your wishing)the area/land/or home that you live in. Yes or No
In theory you are raising 2 young daughters, 10 men move into where you live or occupy this makes you uncomfortable, however they've committed no crime so they have a right to stay right beside your 2 young daughters.
Anyone? Not being a smart ass I sincerely want to know.
@TreeSmoke1999 simple.. the answer is to communicate in an attempt to reach an understanding with these hypothetical or actual "men" who are moving in to your home or neighborhood.. with no communication, there is no understanding.. with no understanding.. there is bound to be misunderstands and probable tragedy.. hope that helps :) people that are set on being abusive are going to be abusive, but.. if you at least make an open friendly attempt at understanding, other people..
You are wrong, one of the caracteristics of the state is to steal property via the uso of force.
And then using historic myths... Sorry I found this video really cheap and empty of real reasoning, just a bunch of quotes from some autors put together and not much else.
First of all, people need to understand what something is before they decide to be against it. I've had too many debates (more like arguments) over libertarianism only to find out that they have HUGELY misinterpretations of it.
Fact is, a free market doesn't mean anarchy. It is the voluntary exchange of commercial goods. The same goes for charity. If you use government to force others into giving, it is not moral because it is not voluntary. In other words, Socialism is immoral by definition.
It seems that a lot of the capitalist here have an ill-defined capitalism. Capitalism does not simply equal free trade/exchange or what-have-you. Any system that is capitalist has to exhibit private ownership of the means of production, a relatively free market (which in the classical sense has more to do with pricing than regulatory intervention), and wage labor. If you don't have all three, you don't have capitalism.
All this talk about some guy making 'widgets' in his basement and having the right to freely sell them is fine and good, but we're not talking about capitalism. That definitely doesn't account for wage labor and honestly doesn't really even account for private ownership.
@walkthejosh1 You can't make widgets on your own: so you hire someone. The wage you pay him is in exchange for his/her labor. Employers set a price you are willing to pay for wages, and workers set a price they are willing to work for, so that employers can find people who fit their budget and employees can seek out wages worthy of their time. If you offer too little you get substandard employees, if you charge too much you dont get hired. This is the equilibrium of supply/demand
@sadisticbrujeria Capitalism is a complex economic system; it's not reducible to the simple definition you posit. A system of independent artisans trading their goods by means capital instead of direct barter doesn't make those artisans capitalists or their system capitalism. The neoclassical economists have written volumes defending capitalism via theories such as 'marginal product' precisely because it includes wage labor (and therefore is more than merely using money).
@sadisticbrujeria Not to mention a great many anarchists who openly were opposed to capitalism and even called themselves socialists (Benjamin Tucker comes to mind) would be shocked to discover that they were capitalists after all because they advocated the use of currency in one form or another.
@walkthejosh1 This is the embarrassing reality of anarchy from the left. Like any leftist they fail to devise a coherent theory of the state, and because of that their theories are riddled with logical fallacies, utopian ideologies, and worse yet utilitarian ethics. It is less a philosophy and more a rant against the statusquo which ansocs tend to mischaracterize using Marxist jargon instead of sound empirical evidence. I agree capitalsm also includes wage (paid) labor not slavery
@walkthejosh1 Free Markets or Laissez Faire markets are not about pricing, they have always been about tariffs, taxes, and fees which are all Mercantile economic tools. Wage labor, or employment, sure beats slavery.
If you hadn't realized, the defense companies are separate from and subject to the system of decentralized arbitration, and just like private security, their clients may very well overlap, so the premise of your entire video is null. "We've had free market capitalism". Try to research state intervention a bit. cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n4-1.html
Either you do not understand basic anarco capitalism, or you are simple manipulating facts to rationalise your steal from others to pay for stuff contention. If the former is true don't make a f**$&n YouTube video! If the ladder is true why can you not convince others of your position without having to stoop to manipulating the information in your presentation?
There is no separating the state from the government. the government's role limited within the confides of the constitution to protect rights. The voluntary exchange of goods and services without coercion is capitalism however all examples given have coercion. The extortion of the fruits of ones labor to give to both more and less fortunate is immoral. Private property is a right not a privilege. We are not defending this! We are slaughtering to further empire. listen to Stefan Molyneux.
"There is no separating the state from the government"
Then clearly you don't understand how either works.
The state is the "monopoly on the use of coercion", a tool that is exercised by the government; which is the administrative and coordinate body that uses the state to control society.
Governments can be made more accountable through increasing democracy, the state however remains an unnecessary concentration of political and economic power
The libertarian socialist solution is to dissolve the state and decentralize government; so that it ceases to be an authoritarian concentration of decision-making power and becomes a lateral, inclusive and anti-hierarchical polity based on direct, participatory democracy
The AC solution however, is to abolish government (which at least allows some accountability) and decentralize the STATE into Private Defense Agencies or "DROs" as your Stephan Molyneux calls them
There is nothing more funny that a collectivist/statist trying to convince me that he has a moral basis for taking the results of my productive efforts.
@pastafarianprophet Yes Anarcho-Capitalists have a presidential candidate, a pile of modern philosophers, libraries of books on economics, not to mention a solid theory of ethics, the state, and trade. Anarcho-Communists have vague and often fake association with European movements 100 years ago. No modern movement, no comprehensive theory of the state, ZERO ethics, and your best philosopher is Peter Josephs! lol.
I agree..it is like Hitler being a socialsit lol..nothing social on Auschwitz..they are dumb f** and we should create good info and vids for them..to educate a few.
@Danarchistic1 Check out these videos by Anarcho-capitalists to understand. 1) Grahampwright's 3 videos called "Law Without Government" 2) Nielsio's video "How Could A Voluntary Society Function?" 3) Stargazer 5781's video "Protecting Statelessness" Then check out Mises . org and LewRockwell . com
@Danarchistic1 How would COLLECTIVE control function without a state? Think about that.... What is inherently statist about trading with people? nothing. What is inherently statist about taking people's money and spending it on other people? EVERYTHING.
@sadisticbrujeria But capitalism isn't just bartering. Who will keep workers "in line" should they go on strike? Without a state, who would the police work for? Would there be private police forces? I'm assuming there will have to be police to defend private property and class-rule.
Ancaps propose decentralizing the state into what are called "Private Defense Agencies" (PDAs) or "Dispute Resolution Organizations" (DROs) which people would sign up to and pay for private defense of themselves and all property they own.
Problem is, these would basically just be states which you pay for instead of voting for. So those with more money automatically get more say. So a business owner could easily get them to use violence against a striking workforce.
@Danarchistic1 Workers on strike do not need to be kept in line as long as they are not harming people or destroying property. If they are attacking the scabs they are being violent and using force which is NOT a free market solution. Private police? Yes, but more like private security guards. They don't have arrest powers, they don't set up sting operations, they don't bust you for vice crimes, they simply protect your property like a security guard. And you can FIRE them!!!!
@sadisticbrujeria Thanks for the clear and concise response. You've given food for thought. What's to stop individual caps from coagulating into corporations (there's always pressure to capture more market-share) and using their economic power to form feudal fiefdoms? Or degeneration into something like the old Roman republic(handful of wealthy families with private armies and police competing with one another for more)?
@Danarchistic1 So Company A and B sell security. Company A charges $50/mo for security to patrol the area. B charges $100. Why? They take $50 and use it to protect you and another $50 to build a private army to squash you. So you have to pay for an army. If you can't use tax money how could you ever fund an army? If Walmart was building an elite unit of commando strike forces all their products would cost more and Target and other competitors would replace Walmart.
@Danarchistic1 Also unlike Rome or Feudal kingdoms we have not only education roads and the internet, but insurance companies. If our homes were insured against acts of government as well as god there could be billions in loses to some companies if a government returns.
Circular Logic: The argument being made that private property is theft is circular. Theft is defined by the right to own private property. So, if there is no private property, how was the capitalist "stealing" the land from everyone else? In the model of private property we can actually define theft and legitimize means of ownership. We can say, he owns something because he is using it or paid for it or made it. In your model NOTHING determines anything (because its not a real philosophy)
Im afraid the guy in this video has absolutely no understanding of what free markets are. Judging from the rhetoric, he appears to be an anarcho communist which take their understanding of economics from Marx who had a completely warped view of economics and history.
@IxenBlaze buddhagem is not a communist, or at least he doesnt say so. buddhagem is mutualist, aka MARKET SOCIALIST. not only this, but not all communists are marxists. market socialism IS the free market, as compared to laze fair capitalism which is far from it as capitalism requires a state to exist. no my friend, it appears you do not understand what free markets are.
@megaminxmaster There is no such thing as a market socialist. They are called Market Anarchists. A free market is 100% incommensurable with a socialist system, they are antonyms.
@sadisticbrujeria so not true. in fact, the only form of a free market IS socialism. let me explain: capitalism needs a state to exist (unless of course a community in anarchist society wants capitalism to exist, which is irrational and unlikely). why? because a state is needed to protect capitalists(their property, their means of production, etc.) without it, capitalists have no power. ALL anarchists are socialists, including market anarchists. it is capitalism and anarchism that are not alike.
@megaminxmaster Why is a state needed to protect private property? Insurance companies seem to do a lot better job than any government ever has. See I appreciate that you're trying, I really do, but it is very important to prove your points instead of assert them. Again, why is a state needed to protect private property? Why couldn't private businesses protect private property?
In Socialism there has to be a government because socialism means a gov controlled economy period
Anarcho-capitalism is basically legalizing criminal behavior and turning society into a primitive, jungle-like war zone. You starve people, you put them in horrible jails, you deprive them of medical care, and don't educate them...your streets are going to be FILLED with crime, violence, ignorance, and stupidity.
@sadisticbrujeria It wasn't stated as an argument, it's a fact. If you take away most, if not all, regulations from the free market, it will self destruct. Not self regulate. Anarcho Crapitalism is a mere fantasy.
@RMJChannel It is neither a fact nor an argument, just a statement with no proof. No one is talking about self-regulation or an unregulated market. In a voluntary system of exchange regulations would be effective, plentiful, secure, and reliable. Advocates of market monopoly on regulation (or people who think the government should exclusively own the regulatory agencies) have no economic or moral argument.
@sadisticbrujeria - "In a voluntary system of exchange regulations would be effective, plentiful, secure, and reliable" is an unsupported claim. If a company can externalize a cost (like dumping toxic waste, as opposed to footing the bill to safely dispose of said waste) it will. It will do so because footing the bill and taking the high road will put it as a competitive disadvantage compared to those not taking the high road. Regulation is needed to ensure everyone plays by the same rules.
There is not real substance in your video. For the most part you are preaching to the coir. The state should be very limited, contract rights should be heavily enforced. So should be bankruptcies. I really have no idea what you are talking about. i see my self as an capitalist/ libertarian, put what ever label you want on it. Surely no one in their right mind wants an empire or 900 bases in 132 countries. That's why the state needs to be cut down to size, military funding must be cut.
@turbofritz2 - I dont know how you can say that Cuba and China have an identical political system. And its not because there is a strong state presence (like in China) that there isnt capitalism. The chineese industrialization, in a lot of respects, is a form of savage capitalism and with labor laws, its completly deragulated. In a anoher way sense, communist-like politics stil exist very strongly. China is a hybrid as capitalism is. There was never (and never will be) a pure form of capitalism.
@turbofritz2 - And the problem with libertarian is the definition of capitalism. For them, its a rational tool. This is a very limited definition that is shared mostly in America. In reality its a system of existence, matierally and culturally. And quite a mediocre one.
@PatrickMartels One which has existed independent of contact amongst every single developing tribe. Money or Capitol is simply a tool for making trading easier, nothing more nothing less. Sounds like you still live at home with your parents.
@turbofritz2 no china is capitalist, just like almost all if not all countries on the planet. the only difference is that china is state capitalist, not laze fare capitalist, the difference being that the state owns the means of production.
@megaminxmaster Socialism means the state owns the means of production. You're clearly using the wrong meaning for words, which explains your confusion.
@sadisticbrujeria NO IT DOES NOT. if you look at the history of socialism, it was first (in a group sense, ) used by anarchists in France in the 1880s and 90s. due to anti-anarchist in France, they started using the term "libertarian socialism" to describe their beliefs. the "socialism" you are describing is not socialism at all, it is actually another form of capitalism, commonly referred to as "state capitalism."
@megaminxmaster Let me save you a lot of time in your life: use the current definitions of words. Mirriam Webster, "1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. (a) A system of society or group living in which there is no private property (b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"
@sadisticbrujeria Now let me make it more simple for you: do you think it is okay to use force to harm anyone or remove anyone of their possessions? If you answer no, then you respect and embrace the theory of private property and voluntary association. Otherwise you think it is okay to initiate violence or force to deprive people of things which they feel that they posses. I mean... do you run around robbing old ladies or what?
@sadisticbrujeria You're confusing 'private property' with 'possession.' No one has any right to demand from you anything that your labor created; do with it what you please. Equally, you have no right to charge people to use a plot of land because you "feel" it is yours because you put a fence around it. All anarchists believe in the legitimacy of private possession, but none believe in private land ownership apart from occupancy and use.
@walkthejosh1 The theory of private property is that which you labor towards is yours. If you build a fence around some land without using the land, you did not labor towards anything. If, however, you build a home on land you have labored and therefor own the home. Do you own the air 100 miles above it? Do you own the river that runs through it? Do you own the ground water or oil right? These complex questions can only be answered once you accept the theory private property
@sadisticbrujeria governmental ownership of the means of production IS socialism. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. private ownership in itself means that you possess economic/political power while others do NOT (AKA YOU CAN EXPLOIT THEM). communal (governmental) ownership means that EVERYONE can produce as oppose to the minority. as for the "B" definition, that is a bunch of shit. the only reason there is a "definition like that is because Europe "socialist" states CLAIMED to support socialism.
@megaminxmaster Dude, get over your really pathetic public education (socialism) and catch up. This isn't really a debate worth having, it is extremely evident that you're an apologist for a philosophy responsible for the most horrible acts in history. I hate it when people say it isn't the "true" socialist state because X Y and Z. Yes, it was socialism, National Socialists, Bolsheviks, The Chinese, all socialists.
Now define exploitation because this should be a laugh.
@sadisticbrujeria Dude, we are the only country in the world that views socialism as state capitalism. just because something claims to be something doesnt mean it's true. everywhere else, they view it as what it is, a system in which EVERYONE owns the means of production, not the state (the government is everyone). as for my education, i am self-educated and i can clearly see that your is MUCH more pathetic than mine. CONTINUED...
@megaminxmaster Sigh. No we are not. Having traveled the world personally I can assure you that socialism is used universally the way I use it. In fact, only in America do I ever hear about how the famous socialist countries of the 20th century (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and the Republic of China) are in fact not actually socialist.
The Government is not Everyone. The Government is a CLASS of people who use POLITICAL MEANS (violence) to control the economy.
@sadisticbrujeria i HIGHLY doubt that, especially in Spain not to mention Europe as a whole. the Spanish Revolution, the most famous anarchist movement in history, took place in Spain (as the name suggests). it is remembered and celebrated in Spain to this day (by those who went through it mainly im guessing). as for defining government, what you are describing is a state, which is a FORM of government. having said this, not all governments are states, an example being an anarchist government.
@sadisticbrujeria CONTINUED... as for exploitation, that is simply when you use something that doesn't belong to you for your own economic/political gain. Benjamin Tucker talked about what he called The 4 Monopolies: the Land monopoly (property), the Money monopoly, Tariffs (taxation), and Patents. it is through these monopolies that the state and capitalists exploit people. rent is a perfect example; you are taking wealth from a person who occupies a space that you do not (its taxation).
@megaminxmaster lol oh man this is hard. You have very uniquely blended things all up in the way. You're right that the monopoly on land, money, tariffs, and patents are all created by the state. You're right if you see these things as immoral. To maintain these monopolies government must use force and prevent FREE TRADE. In a Free Market, or under Anarcho-Capitalism, the government would have no monopoly on land, money, taxes or patents.
@sadisticbrujeria Free Market means no force. Without force you can not maintain a monopoly on land, money, taxes or patents. Laissez-Faire or Free Market economies DO NOT HAVE THE EXPLOITATION YOU DESCRIBED. Please just read some books on the topic.
@Huboons so if you have little money and cannot afford anywhere to live other than a rented space, how is that voluntary exactly? meanwhile, the person you are paying rent to doesn't occupy the space, doesnt pay for utilities, basically doesnt pay for shit. as for me "growing up," i feel more grown up than i ever have, considering i have embraced the anarchist perspective which i feel would solve many of the world's problems we face today.
@megaminxmaster "so if you have little money and cannot afford anywhere to live other than a rented space, how is that voluntary exactly?" Because you voluntarily signed a lease agreement. Not having money does not mean you are owed anything. What it means is you are either lazy or stupid. The landlord own the property or pays a mortgage, they are free to use it as they please. You have no right to their property. Feeling is not fact. You do not understand basic economics.
@Huboons being forced to pay tax to a possessor of property or become homeless is not voluntary. if you could "own" or rent a living space, which would you chose? no rational person would rent over own, unless they had some special living arrangement, like traveling all the time or something. i can see with this comment that you are justifying elitist capitalist behavior, as most capitalists do. what we anarchists want is for everyone to possess land to live on, equality for all. is that so bad?
@megaminxmaster We all pay property Tax even if we own our land outright. The government does not believe you can completely own your land. I don't think it maters if some people rent or others own. You chose to rent, it is voluntary (even if there are consequences, there is no FORCE). The free (voluntary) market is about buying what you want, not what others think you want. Real anarchists respect freedom of choice and association.
@megaminxmaster If you voluntarily chose to work for someone, how is that exploitation? When the state forces you to give them everything you make for redistribution, that is clearly exploitation.
Assigning collective ownership to everything is as arbitrary as assigning private ownership, except the later model is non-violent and moral. We are all individuals, it is an incredibly dangerous and futile task to presume to ever be able to speak for the community. How would any resources ever get used? Did you guys even think about this for like 5minutes? I want some land for a home, but the community owns it, so I can't use the land and instead sleep outside? This is a better economy?
Even then, it would just be unratified the moment someone is born who did not agree to the purchase you made. I don't get how you anarcho-capitalists can speak of voluntaryism. Property rights are involuntary and coerced!
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH So you're saying that if I attempt to rape you or steal your car, you're the immoral one for using force to defend yourself or your property? I don't quite see the argument.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH What do my purchases have to do with the unborn? In a socialist or syndicalist or communal society the actions of others have consequences on you, but much less so in an individualist society. Property rights are voluntary, you're free not to claim any rights to your property all you want.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Property Rights are voluntary. You can chose to not have any right to property. Look: you can either chose to believe things can be owned, or you do not. If you do not think things should be owned, how can you justify using anything? If you intend to use something you do not own without owning it, how can you defend someone trying to take that property from you?
Where does your right to deny people, born on this Earth (just like you), access to certain parts of the Earth come from? Where is it founded in, other than the greed of people who thought up this arbitrary right? Why should anyone respect your desire to exclude people from a part of the Earth?
The only way I could see that founded or voluntary or unforced is if you got literally every living person on this Earth to agree with your purchase of land from everyone on this Earth.
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
Something is Stolen only if it is owned by someone else. If you take land not being used by anyone that is not theft by any means. If you take land already in use by other people, then yes, you are stealing. Governments, for example, claim ownership over ALL land in their domain and tax people who own a title to that land. That is theft.
Come on, don't try the semantics argument. Property owned by the community is in effect the same as 'property' owned by no one. The theft occurs when an individual or organization takes it from the community and denies them access to the land and its resources. The fact that it changed hands thousands of times in exchange for money does not mean the private ownership was turned legitimate.
The claim that the entire community is entitled to all unused land needs to be supported, not just stated. The moral framework you're developing is not reasoned from first principle. How, exactly, are you making the argument that if I start digging in some unused dirt for gold that I am robbing someone living elsewhere? More absurd you're saying I am robbing everyone everywhere. Yet I have taken nothing from anyone. Odd. Semantics at its best, really.
Nobody owns a title to any land. All of that is completely artificial. No one gave you rights to own a piece of the Earth, that's pure make-belief. Property rights are an artificial construct. You don't actually "own" land, not the government, not individuals. You are just lucky many people aren't thinking about it. The Earth belongs to everyone and nobody. If you want to paste a group on it, the closest we come is saying it is owned by the community. A horizontal community.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Yes ownership is a human concept, it includes communal ownership, private ownership, and government ownership... all of which are also human concepts. You're expressing a human concept right now. Model A: Things are either privately owned are not owned at all. Model B: everyone owns everything. Which will people choose NATURALLY AND VOLUNTARILY? Model A, of course, as the evidence of History shows us.
That's funny you should bring that up, considering that virtually every stateless society that ever existed (before and after civilization) choose for model B. Hunter-gathers, tribalists, anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia, Ukranian Free Territory. This is not a surprise and would actually once again demonstrate that you need the government to protect your property rights. So by all means, fight for anarchism, because once it's here, it won't be anarcho-capitalism that follows.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I'm not going to play the cherry pick history to prove a point game. Hunter Gatherer cultures created the first currency using drugs, precious metals, sea shells, sticks, and more. In Spain, state currency was replaced with vouchers. In the Ukrainian Free Territory they used currency.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The reason of course is that the use of capitol and the belief in property rights have determined the economic success of the people employing them. A communal society simply can not out compete a capitalist society. Cultures with clear property rights are always more competitive than cultures without them.
That's because you measure competition in the only way capitalists know how to: profit. This is a false comparison, since the goal of anarcho-socialism is not profit. It's creating a more humane society where more people can benefit and less people doie because of the lack of things that you would trade as commodities. To be fair, we can't really compare the two in practice here, since we've never seen anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-socialism in peace time).
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH When talking about economies it is important to talk about which creates the most wealth. As it would happen and according to Austrian economists, any system free from violence or coercion will produce more wealth. If somehow you can maintain a society without violence which does not employ the theory of private property I am open to understanding how you imagine this society will calculate the demand and supply of resources.
Wealth in the monetary sense of the word is again, irrelevant to anarcho-socialism.
Well, I think we're facing incommensurability at this point because I don't understand how you can maintain property rights without violence. If someone could tell me where these rights come from, if they are founded in a nature or such and not just sprang to the mind of some guy who wanted to deny people access to land,I could respect them. Until then, they are as stupid as social contracts.
The right to property is a MORAL theory, not a physical theory. It doesn't correspond to nature, only to humanity. Morality is beyond animals, of course. The principle is that universally preferable behavior is to refrain from initiating force. This principle is called universal because it applies to everyone outside of cultural relativity. This isn't about living a backwards tribalist lifestyle. I like my car and ps3 and do not want to force regression
True, there was some form of currency or value-representative in both anarcho-syndicalist Spain and anarcho-commnist Ukranian Free Territory. I don't see how that undermines any of my stances and that was not the argument, was it? Rome wasn't build in one day.
So what about Blackwater, Halliburton, and private security companies?
The State has sold out its monopoly to the highest bidder, allowing the free-market to dictate the use of force: Eg. the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned of.
The definition of anarchism is that the people question every form of authority and demand justification.
In the capitalist-anarchist system corporations question every form of authority over them; and Ron Paul would give them even more power
ThereAreNoUnionThugs 1 day ago
@buddhagem I'm thinking you don't have a real good grasp on the concept of MONOPOLY on violence.
Nor much anything else.
jeffiek 1 day ago
barbarianism - without laws and morale, maybe there are despotic rulers
anarchism - without written laws, people do have morale, no ruler at all
anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism - with written laws based on morale, no common ruler, there may be voluntarily decided people (or agencies) to protect basic human and ownership rights
nolekulikali 3 days ago
if you believe in groups of people using force to maintain regulations youre clearly not an anarchist
sadisticbrujeria 4 days ago 2
Same paradox can be found in anarcho-socialism.
1337bard 4 days ago
LOL Only people dumber than Anarcho-Capitalist are the anarcho-socialist.
How can you call yourself anarchist, when you want to replace the state, an dthen enforce your policie son society with force....oh but its not a state!
AK49Gunner 5 days ago
@AK49Gunner Socialism was founded by workers who were fed up of being ruled over by all-powerful/tyrannical capitalists... Read some history, mate..
MrCipriani18 4 days ago
...and 1% of the population OWNS 40% of the US(near half) will soon be half... and that 40% is the BEST land... so u can say they own 90% or more... and Rockefeller states to Aaron Russo "...why do u care about those people?!..." The BANKERs Rothschilds own all (FEDERAL) banks of the world, with the misleading naming(FEDERAL) as they are really PRIVATE banks, and that gives them total power over all governments via fiat money treachery. What's your point? My point: fuck u, u are brainwashed.
DormantIdeasNIQ 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Collaborative production (the division of labor) is so bountiful because it allows people to specialize: to focus on what they are good at and then exchange with each other. Perhaps in a handful of occasions, the people who are best at supporting and directing an enterprise are the same people who are best at operating the equipment. But because of human and natural diversity, that will virtually never be the case.
sadisticbrujeria 6 days ago
Collaborative production (the division of labor) is so bountiful because it allows people to specialize: to focus on what they are good at and then exchange with each other. Perhaps in a handful of occasions, the people who are best at supporting and directing an enterprise are the same people who are best at operating the equipment. But because of human and natural diversity, that will virtually never be the case.
sadisticbrujeria 6 days ago
The entrepreneurial judgment and capitalist providence of any and all would-be employers whose qualities happen not to be best suited for worker-owned enterprises would be underutilized. And the judgment and providence of any and all would-be employers whose qualities happen not to be at all suited for worker-owned enterprises would be completely unutilized. Because nature spreads her gifts un-uniformly, virtually all would-be employers would fit one of those two categories.
mises.org/daily/5590
sadisticbrujeria 6 days ago
PART 3 Mises: " The victory of the producer interest over the consumer interest means turning away from rational economic organization and impeding all economic progress.
Syndicalism deliberately places the producer interest of the workers in the foreground.… Syndicalism would make all repatterning of production impossible; it leaves no room free for economic progress."
sadisticbrujeria 6 days ago
PART 2 Mises: "Such a system may seem discussible when the special interests of small groups are protected against the great mass of others, since the privileged party then gains more from his privilege as a producer than he loses on the other hand as a consumer; it becomes absurd when it is raised to a general principle, since then every individual loses infinitely more as a consumer than he may be able to gain as a producer."
sadisticbrujeria 6 days ago
PART 1 Mises: "The ideal of centralist socialism is at least discussible; that of syndicalism is so absurd that one need waste few words on it.…
Preferring the producer interest over the consumer interest, which is characteristic of antiliberalism, means nothing other than striving artificially to maintain conditions of production that have been rendered inefficient by continuing progress."
sadisticbrujeria 6 days ago
anarchism opposes hierarchies
capitalism relies on hierarchies
37butterflyprincess 6 days ago 2
isnt Anarcho-Capitalistism just a nice way of saying "law of the jungle", where the bully of the block pretty much rules you like a god?
rule by criminals ... doesnt seem much different than what we have right now :-\
paragshah2112 1 week ago
The truth is pure free markets do not exist. All countries have some state control over businesses through regulations or ownership. Market capitalism that is regulated has PROVEN to be the best economic system so far. America, Canada, Western Europe, the rising Asian tigers, Australia, New Zealand, all prosperous nations and coincidentally...market economies that are pretty free.
JasonCIAHudson 1 week ago
I completely agree with what he said about Communist China and Indonesia. Both are GREAT examples of anarcho-capitalism considering that Indonesia is ranked the 115th freest economy in the world and has 164 state OWNED businesses. China is also a good example of how free markets ruin countries. Remember how prosperous and free China was before the 1979 reforms. Remember when the "Great Leap Forward" KILLED 45 million people due to starvation. Boy those were the good times. (sarcasm)
JasonCIAHudson 1 week ago
The capitalist system sucks!
Karl Liebknecht: "The basic law of capitalism is you or I, not both you and I."
Free market capitalism is sick and evil.
THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!
Laoch111 1 week ago
@Laoch111 YEah!!! Cause freedom is a terrible idea! WOO
mtstatehk14090914 6 days ago
Soon as the music started, and the red text rolled up over an image -making it hard to read- I switched off.
Goat777Face 1 week ago
everyone knows china's anarcho capitalist. youre so full of shit its coming out your ears.
ThePatriot1123 1 week ago
Still waiting on the specific explanation of how anarcosocialism functions economically.
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria and i will be waiting until the end of time
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria anarcho-socialsim=contradiction
brokeasdope 1 week ago
@brokeasdope yup
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@brokeasdope
Umm no...
Anarchism was always based on Socialism. Do your fuckin homework.
IngeniousEpithet 4 days ago
@IngeniousEpithet
I think you need to do your home work.
Most of the 19th century anarchist where NOT socialist, example: lysander spooner.
AK49Gunner 1 day ago
@sadisticbrujeria I would assume you "volunteer" to share your wealth lol, anarco-socialism is an oxymoron.
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 1 week ago
@XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX I think you have the wrong guy I am not an Anarcho-socialist
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
A pure barter system, as enacted by every pre-civilized people, is inherently free trade and therefor absolute capitalism and it existed and worked long before 'the state' or any government.
brokeasdope 1 week ago
@brokeasdope Bartering is very inefficient and impossible in an economy larger then a couple dozen people.
metzger90 1 week ago
@metzger90 Obviously, though he is right about it being the original-pure capitalism.
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 1 week ago
@metzger90 I understand that it is inefficient and un-doable but the point still stands that capitalism existed before the state and although in contemporary society capitalism relies on the state it doesn't have to and didn't use to we just put that limitation on our own economical system. A mass change would result in mass chaos, as it would with anything, but through that chaos we may find something maybe better, or maybe worse, who knows.
brokeasdope 1 week ago
@brokeasdope Why Chaos and not progressive erosion of the government as we free humans take over the governments jobs? Peaceful Parenting will end the government, not revolution.
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria I'm not suggesting chaos, I'm simply putting forth that a sudden and mass change on a large scale in anything, such as the american economy, government or anything that effects hundreds of millions, would absolutely result in mass chaos.
brokeasdope 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria Peaceful Parenting or other passive methods are absolutely not the way to cause effective change, you change the problems of yesterday today and deal with the problems of today tomorrow, direct revolution may not be the way to solve our country's or even world's crises but taking generations to change what you dislike today won't solve anything. At some point confrontation with the state must be had pacifism is just an excuse no not bring about real change.
brokeasdope 1 week ago
@brokeasdope Can you give me an example of where violent protests successfully ended government to support your claim?
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria Excuse my sarcasm, that's a tough one, the first one that comes to mind was the American Revloution, which was kicked off by a protest at concord Massachusetts which turned violent quickly.
brokeasdope 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria Both the Boston tea party and the Boston Massacre were violent also
brokeasdope 1 week ago
@brokeasdope And now America is the world's and hsitory's largest government
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria After two hundred thirty six years, growth happens, government is like a tumor. Benjamin Franklin stated that he felt a revolution was necessary every twenty five years, by his logic we're two hundred eleven years over due.
brokeasdope 1 week ago
@brokeasdope The US Government began ignoring the Constitution and its founding principles starting with the Whiskey Rebellion. Within 20 years of being founded as a country, we invaded the Barbary Coast. Then the US Government continued policy resulting in the world's largest genocide.
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria Hardly an Anarchist society, lol.
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria right on... nothing more need be said really. History speaks loud and clear.
DormantIdeasNIQ 5 days ago
@brokeasdope This is why the founders did not realize the impossibly of the "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrant" after society becomes comfortable with a over reach of government authority, they did not put enough (despite their tiresome effort) checks and balances in place to prevent what is happening today. They knew the state grew like a cancer, but they did not know the extent to which a people could be manipulated fully, full abolishment of the state or ...
XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria you dream... and have no clue as to infiltration... cancer... I only hope that by some miracle this wave is settled peacefully, but I don't see it. History repeats yet again... sad.
DormantIdeasNIQ 5 days ago
Just wait. He'll read a few books. He'll be an Anarcho-Capitalist in a week.
ProfessorWilbur123 1 week ago
@ProfessorWilbur123 that is all it really takes the truth is so powerful. its not like i didnt used to argue dumb socialist bullshit too... i went to public school like everyone else
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
MUTE
thekeithchannel 1 week ago
The simple fact that you mix anarchy (no government) with socialism (strong government) should be enough, but I keep giving you guys chances to actually assert a real point. Of course to justify this you're going to have really obscure definitions for socialism. Do you think the word means "social" ? sigh....
And unlike everyone in this debate I have read the literature.
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
With AnCap I can explain an ethical and rational framework for the issue of property. It conforms to nature, freedom, morality and business. By supporting the pursuit of all people to be secure in their persons and possessions we have defined universal moral principles (Non-Aggression Principle) and applied those principles to government and economics. AnSocs come from the marxist realm of capitalist criticism where every problem is described as systemic and the cure is always less individualism
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
Let me help you realize that what you've just said, again, fails to actually form a coherent theory of private property. All you have said about your system is that the means of production (tools and resources) are owned communally. This has already been said 5000 times on this channel alone. EXPLAIN how communal property works, do not just repeat this mindless mantra at me like a child. Do you understand what I am asking for?
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
These are just words. "State", "Anarchy", these are ideas, which we apply to things. The ideas themselves don't actually exist.
I think it's kind of insulting and largely pointless to tell someone who self-identifies as an "Anarcho-Capitalist" that they aren't an Anarchist. They've clearly defined themselves as such.
Jcolinsol 1 week ago
Here is the thing, AnCaps are proposing a well defined system called private property. You guys have these weird criticisms. Fine. But what not a single one of you have done was propose a coherent alternative. I will say this ten more times and you still won't.
sadisticbrujeria 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria
"But what not a single one of you have done was propose a coherent alternative"
If you read some anarchist literature then you wouldn't need to ask youtube users what libertarian socialism offers as an alternative.
Which is; common ownership (indivisible stewardship) of the means of production preventing them being monopolized by an elite of private owners or the state. Thus making them available to any and all individuals and groups for starting their . . .
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@sadisticbrujeria
. . . desired enterprises. By having MOP leased out on long-term contract through usufruct.
And for the record, libertarian socialists only reject "private property" in the means of production (MOP) - for the reason that it allows some to have control over others.
Libertarian socialism fully supports the right to all individually-held property defined by:
1. Active personal use.
2. Occupancy.
The idea that lib-soc opposes ALL property ownership is a fairy tale
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
TLDW
uhclem 1 week ago
In theory then in an anarcho-syndicalist because nobody owns property, you could be sleeping with your wife in a bed and anyone could get in bed with you. According to anarcho-syndicalists anyone can come in to where you live at any time and set up shop, because nobody owns property. Please refute this if I've made an error, according to these supporters the occupy protest could show up at your door and come occupy the area you live, and you could do nothing about it.
TreeSmoke1999 1 week ago
@TreeSmoke1999 i will correct you on one thing, which is that instead of nobody owning property, EVERYONE can own property. the state exists to protect capitalist property (along with other things), which means if the state is eradicated, everyone is then put on a level playing field, both economically and politically.
megaminxmaster 1 week ago
@megaminxmaster thanks but I know all of that. I'm wondering in an anarcho-syndicalist society in theory, a person or persons could occupy or share(without your wishing)the area/land/or home that you live in. Yes or No
In theory you are raising 2 young daughters, 10 men move into where you live or occupy this makes you uncomfortable, however they've committed no crime so they have a right to stay right beside your 2 young daughters.
Anyone? Not being a smart ass I sincerely want to know.
TreeSmoke1999 1 week ago
@TreeSmoke1999 simple.. the answer is to communicate in an attempt to reach an understanding with these hypothetical or actual "men" who are moving in to your home or neighborhood.. with no communication, there is no understanding.. with no understanding.. there is bound to be misunderstands and probable tragedy.. hope that helps :) people that are set on being abusive are going to be abusive, but.. if you at least make an open friendly attempt at understanding, other people..
FlameStreak7 1 week ago
@FlameStreak7 ..can be observers and make appropriate rules and regulations for any concerns
FlameStreak7 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NDAA Signed by Obama, Defended by McCain who supports and endorses Mitt Romney. Whats going on here?
Revolution2012RP 2 weeks ago
"The state exists to protect private property"
You are wrong, one of the caracteristics of the state is to steal property via the uso of force.
And then using historic myths... Sorry I found this video really cheap and empty of real reasoning, just a bunch of quotes from some autors put together and not much else.
Sorry for my poor english, It's not my launguage.
xXSEGISMUNDOXx 2 weeks ago
Anarcho-Capitalism? dafuq? Capitalism sucks! Anarchy is against capitalism or communism
666JumpStyler666 2 weeks ago
ok so he's an anarchist. i didnt really get that until the end
ariues 2 weeks ago
god bless this brother for speaking up for the working class but public speaking isnt the brother's strong-suit. zzzzzzzzz
ariues 2 weeks ago
First of all, people need to understand what something is before they decide to be against it. I've had too many debates (more like arguments) over libertarianism only to find out that they have HUGELY misinterpretations of it.
Fact is, a free market doesn't mean anarchy. It is the voluntary exchange of commercial goods. The same goes for charity. If you use government to force others into giving, it is not moral because it is not voluntary. In other words, Socialism is immoral by definition.
Deadwind002 2 weeks ago
You are a sad confused man
ekeyra 2 weeks ago
It seems that a lot of the capitalist here have an ill-defined capitalism. Capitalism does not simply equal free trade/exchange or what-have-you. Any system that is capitalist has to exhibit private ownership of the means of production, a relatively free market (which in the classical sense has more to do with pricing than regulatory intervention), and wage labor. If you don't have all three, you don't have capitalism.
walkthejosh1 2 weeks ago
All this talk about some guy making 'widgets' in his basement and having the right to freely sell them is fine and good, but we're not talking about capitalism. That definitely doesn't account for wage labor and honestly doesn't really even account for private ownership.
walkthejosh1 2 weeks ago
@walkthejosh1 You can't make widgets on your own: so you hire someone. The wage you pay him is in exchange for his/her labor. Employers set a price you are willing to pay for wages, and workers set a price they are willing to work for, so that employers can find people who fit their budget and employees can seek out wages worthy of their time. If you offer too little you get substandard employees, if you charge too much you dont get hired. This is the equilibrium of supply/demand
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@walkthejosh1 Keep it simple. Capitalism is the use of capitol (money) as a intermediary for easier trade.
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria Capitalism is a complex economic system; it's not reducible to the simple definition you posit. A system of independent artisans trading their goods by means capital instead of direct barter doesn't make those artisans capitalists or their system capitalism. The neoclassical economists have written volumes defending capitalism via theories such as 'marginal product' precisely because it includes wage labor (and therefore is more than merely using money).
walkthejosh1 2 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria Not to mention a great many anarchists who openly were opposed to capitalism and even called themselves socialists (Benjamin Tucker comes to mind) would be shocked to discover that they were capitalists after all because they advocated the use of currency in one form or another.
walkthejosh1 2 weeks ago
@walkthejosh1 This is the embarrassing reality of anarchy from the left. Like any leftist they fail to devise a coherent theory of the state, and because of that their theories are riddled with logical fallacies, utopian ideologies, and worse yet utilitarian ethics. It is less a philosophy and more a rant against the statusquo which ansocs tend to mischaracterize using Marxist jargon instead of sound empirical evidence. I agree capitalsm also includes wage (paid) labor not slavery
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@walkthejosh1 Free Markets or Laissez Faire markets are not about pricing, they have always been about tariffs, taxes, and fees which are all Mercantile economic tools. Wage labor, or employment, sure beats slavery.
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
If you hadn't realized, the defense companies are separate from and subject to the system of decentralized arbitration, and just like private security, their clients may very well overlap, so the premise of your entire video is null. "We've had free market capitalism". Try to research state intervention a bit. cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n4-1.html
SecondAgeOfReason 2 weeks ago
Either you do not understand basic anarco capitalism, or you are simple manipulating facts to rationalise your steal from others to pay for stuff contention. If the former is true don't make a f**$&n YouTube video! If the ladder is true why can you not convince others of your position without having to stoop to manipulating the information in your presentation?
14bigthor88 2 weeks ago
There is no separating the state from the government. the government's role limited within the confides of the constitution to protect rights. The voluntary exchange of goods and services without coercion is capitalism however all examples given have coercion. The extortion of the fruits of ones labor to give to both more and less fortunate is immoral. Private property is a right not a privilege. We are not defending this! We are slaughtering to further empire. listen to Stefan Molyneux.
14bigthor88 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@14bigthor88 (1/2)
"There is no separating the state from the government"
Then clearly you don't understand how either works.
The state is the "monopoly on the use of coercion", a tool that is exercised by the government; which is the administrative and coordinate body that uses the state to control society.
Governments can be made more accountable through increasing democracy, the state however remains an unnecessary concentration of political and economic power
(cntd)
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@14bigthor88 (2/2)
The libertarian socialist solution is to dissolve the state and decentralize government; so that it ceases to be an authoritarian concentration of decision-making power and becomes a lateral, inclusive and anti-hierarchical polity based on direct, participatory democracy
The AC solution however, is to abolish government (which at least allows some accountability) and decentralize the STATE into Private Defense Agencies or "DROs" as your Stephan Molyneux calls them
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
There is nothing more funny that a collectivist/statist trying to convince me that he has a moral basis for taking the results of my productive efforts.
Huboons 3 weeks ago
It should be mentioned that "anarcho-capitalists" nowadays call themselves "libertarians."
pastafarianprophet 3 weeks ago
nutters like Ron Paul
pastafarianprophet 3 weeks ago
@pastafarianprophet Yes Anarcho-Capitalists have a presidential candidate, a pile of modern philosophers, libraries of books on economics, not to mention a solid theory of ethics, the state, and trade. Anarcho-Communists have vague and often fake association with European movements 100 years ago. No modern movement, no comprehensive theory of the state, ZERO ethics, and your best philosopher is Peter Josephs! lol.
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
I agree..it is like Hitler being a socialsit lol..nothing social on Auschwitz..they are dumb f** and we should create good info and vids for them..to educate a few.
SiouxSyndicate 3 weeks ago
@SiouxSyndicate Nazis = National Socialist Party
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
I didn't even know there were Anarcho-capitalists. How would capitalism function without the bourgeois state?
Danarchistic1 3 weeks ago 2
@Danarchistic1 Check out these videos by Anarcho-capitalists to understand. 1) Grahampwright's 3 videos called "Law Without Government" 2) Nielsio's video "How Could A Voluntary Society Function?" 3) Stargazer 5781's video "Protecting Statelessness" Then check out Mises . org and LewRockwell . com
ErikLiberty 3 weeks ago
@Danarchistic1 How would COLLECTIVE control function without a state? Think about that.... What is inherently statist about trading with people? nothing. What is inherently statist about taking people's money and spending it on other people? EVERYTHING.
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria But capitalism isn't just bartering. Who will keep workers "in line" should they go on strike? Without a state, who would the police work for? Would there be private police forces? I'm assuming there will have to be police to defend private property and class-rule.
Danarchistic1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Danarchistic1
Ancaps propose decentralizing the state into what are called "Private Defense Agencies" (PDAs) or "Dispute Resolution Organizations" (DROs) which people would sign up to and pay for private defense of themselves and all property they own.
Problem is, these would basically just be states which you pay for instead of voting for. So those with more money automatically get more say. So a business owner could easily get them to use violence against a striking workforce.
MsSexySocialist 2 weeks ago
@Danarchistic1 Workers on strike do not need to be kept in line as long as they are not harming people or destroying property. If they are attacking the scabs they are being violent and using force which is NOT a free market solution. Private police? Yes, but more like private security guards. They don't have arrest powers, they don't set up sting operations, they don't bust you for vice crimes, they simply protect your property like a security guard. And you can FIRE them!!!!
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria Thanks for the clear and concise response. You've given food for thought. What's to stop individual caps from coagulating into corporations (there's always pressure to capture more market-share) and using their economic power to form feudal fiefdoms? Or degeneration into something like the old Roman republic(handful of wealthy families with private armies and police competing with one another for more)?
Danarchistic1 2 weeks ago
@Danarchistic1 So Company A and B sell security. Company A charges $50/mo for security to patrol the area. B charges $100. Why? They take $50 and use it to protect you and another $50 to build a private army to squash you. So you have to pay for an army. If you can't use tax money how could you ever fund an army? If Walmart was building an elite unit of commando strike forces all their products would cost more and Target and other competitors would replace Walmart.
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@Danarchistic1 Also unlike Rome or Feudal kingdoms we have not only education roads and the internet, but insurance companies. If our homes were insured against acts of government as well as god there could be billions in loses to some companies if a government returns.
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
Circular Logic: The argument being made that private property is theft is circular. Theft is defined by the right to own private property. So, if there is no private property, how was the capitalist "stealing" the land from everyone else? In the model of private property we can actually define theft and legitimize means of ownership. We can say, he owns something because he is using it or paid for it or made it. In your model NOTHING determines anything (because its not a real philosophy)
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
Im afraid the guy in this video has absolutely no understanding of what free markets are. Judging from the rhetoric, he appears to be an anarcho communist which take their understanding of economics from Marx who had a completely warped view of economics and history.
IxenBlaze 3 weeks ago
@IxenBlaze buddhagem is not a communist, or at least he doesnt say so. buddhagem is mutualist, aka MARKET SOCIALIST. not only this, but not all communists are marxists. market socialism IS the free market, as compared to laze fair capitalism which is far from it as capitalism requires a state to exist. no my friend, it appears you do not understand what free markets are.
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster There is no such thing as a market socialist. They are called Market Anarchists. A free market is 100% incommensurable with a socialist system, they are antonyms.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria so not true. in fact, the only form of a free market IS socialism. let me explain: capitalism needs a state to exist (unless of course a community in anarchist society wants capitalism to exist, which is irrational and unlikely). why? because a state is needed to protect capitalists(their property, their means of production, etc.) without it, capitalists have no power. ALL anarchists are socialists, including market anarchists. it is capitalism and anarchism that are not alike.
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster Why is a state needed to protect private property? Insurance companies seem to do a lot better job than any government ever has. See I appreciate that you're trying, I really do, but it is very important to prove your points instead of assert them. Again, why is a state needed to protect private property? Why couldn't private businesses protect private property?
In Socialism there has to be a government because socialism means a gov controlled economy period
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
Anarcho-capitalism is basically legalizing criminal behavior and turning society into a primitive, jungle-like war zone. You starve people, you put them in horrible jails, you deprive them of medical care, and don't educate them...your streets are going to be FILLED with crime, violence, ignorance, and stupidity.
RMJChannel 4 weeks ago
@RMJChannel very good analysis.
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@RMJChannel no, I have to tell you this is not an argument, just so you don't think you came here and actually contributed something of value.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria It wasn't stated as an argument, it's a fact. If you take away most, if not all, regulations from the free market, it will self destruct. Not self regulate. Anarcho Crapitalism is a mere fantasy.
RMJChannel 3 weeks ago
@RMJChannel It is neither a fact nor an argument, just a statement with no proof. No one is talking about self-regulation or an unregulated market. In a voluntary system of exchange regulations would be effective, plentiful, secure, and reliable. Advocates of market monopoly on regulation (or people who think the government should exclusively own the regulatory agencies) have no economic or moral argument.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sadisticbrujeria - "In a voluntary system of exchange regulations would be effective, plentiful, secure, and reliable" is an unsupported claim. If a company can externalize a cost (like dumping toxic waste, as opposed to footing the bill to safely dispose of said waste) it will. It will do so because footing the bill and taking the high road will put it as a competitive disadvantage compared to those not taking the high road. Regulation is needed to ensure everyone plays by the same rules.
ObamaFTWdotcom 3 weeks ago
Capitalism = hijerarhija. anarchism = anti Hijerarhija free society.
TheBuzzo01 1 month ago
There is not real substance in your video. For the most part you are preaching to the coir. The state should be very limited, contract rights should be heavily enforced. So should be bankruptcies. I really have no idea what you are talking about. i see my self as an capitalist/ libertarian, put what ever label you want on it. Surely no one in their right mind wants an empire or 900 bases in 132 countries. That's why the state needs to be cut down to size, military funding must be cut.
paweleve 1 month ago
Just one error out of many.
You can't take China as an example of capitalism and freemarket.
China is COMMUNIST!
turbofritz2 1 month ago
@turbofritz2 - I dont know how you can say that Cuba and China have an identical political system. And its not because there is a strong state presence (like in China) that there isnt capitalism. The chineese industrialization, in a lot of respects, is a form of savage capitalism and with labor laws, its completly deragulated. In a anoher way sense, communist-like politics stil exist very strongly. China is a hybrid as capitalism is. There was never (and never will be) a pure form of capitalism.
PatrickMartels 1 month ago
@turbofritz2 - And the problem with libertarian is the definition of capitalism. For them, its a rational tool. This is a very limited definition that is shared mostly in America. In reality its a system of existence, matierally and culturally. And quite a mediocre one.
PatrickMartels 1 month ago
@PatrickMartels One which has existed independent of contact amongst every single developing tribe. Money or Capitol is simply a tool for making trading easier, nothing more nothing less. Sounds like you still live at home with your parents.
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@turbofritz2 no china is capitalist, just like almost all if not all countries on the planet. the only difference is that china is state capitalist, not laze fare capitalist, the difference being that the state owns the means of production.
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster Socialism means the state owns the means of production. You're clearly using the wrong meaning for words, which explains your confusion.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria A dictionary will solve this issue for you
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria NO IT DOES NOT. if you look at the history of socialism, it was first (in a group sense, ) used by anarchists in France in the 1880s and 90s. due to anti-anarchist in France, they started using the term "libertarian socialism" to describe their beliefs. the "socialism" you are describing is not socialism at all, it is actually another form of capitalism, commonly referred to as "state capitalism."
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster Let me save you a lot of time in your life: use the current definitions of words. Mirriam Webster, "1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. (a) A system of society or group living in which there is no private property (b) a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria Now let me make it more simple for you: do you think it is okay to use force to harm anyone or remove anyone of their possessions? If you answer no, then you respect and embrace the theory of private property and voluntary association. Otherwise you think it is okay to initiate violence or force to deprive people of things which they feel that they posses. I mean... do you run around robbing old ladies or what?
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria You're confusing 'private property' with 'possession.' No one has any right to demand from you anything that your labor created; do with it what you please. Equally, you have no right to charge people to use a plot of land because you "feel" it is yours because you put a fence around it. All anarchists believe in the legitimacy of private possession, but none believe in private land ownership apart from occupancy and use.
walkthejosh1 2 weeks ago
@walkthejosh1 The theory of private property is that which you labor towards is yours. If you build a fence around some land without using the land, you did not labor towards anything. If, however, you build a home on land you have labored and therefor own the home. Do you own the air 100 miles above it? Do you own the river that runs through it? Do you own the ground water or oil right? These complex questions can only be answered once you accept the theory private property
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria governmental ownership of the means of production IS socialism. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. private ownership in itself means that you possess economic/political power while others do NOT (AKA YOU CAN EXPLOIT THEM). communal (governmental) ownership means that EVERYONE can produce as oppose to the minority. as for the "B" definition, that is a bunch of shit. the only reason there is a "definition like that is because Europe "socialist" states CLAIMED to support socialism.
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster Dude, get over your really pathetic public education (socialism) and catch up. This isn't really a debate worth having, it is extremely evident that you're an apologist for a philosophy responsible for the most horrible acts in history. I hate it when people say it isn't the "true" socialist state because X Y and Z. Yes, it was socialism, National Socialists, Bolsheviks, The Chinese, all socialists.
Now define exploitation because this should be a laugh.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria Dude, we are the only country in the world that views socialism as state capitalism. just because something claims to be something doesnt mean it's true. everywhere else, they view it as what it is, a system in which EVERYONE owns the means of production, not the state (the government is everyone). as for my education, i am self-educated and i can clearly see that your is MUCH more pathetic than mine. CONTINUED...
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster Sigh. No we are not. Having traveled the world personally I can assure you that socialism is used universally the way I use it. In fact, only in America do I ever hear about how the famous socialist countries of the 20th century (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and the Republic of China) are in fact not actually socialist.
The Government is not Everyone. The Government is a CLASS of people who use POLITICAL MEANS (violence) to control the economy.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria i HIGHLY doubt that, especially in Spain not to mention Europe as a whole. the Spanish Revolution, the most famous anarchist movement in history, took place in Spain (as the name suggests). it is remembered and celebrated in Spain to this day (by those who went through it mainly im guessing). as for defining government, what you are describing is a state, which is a FORM of government. having said this, not all governments are states, an example being an anarchist government.
megaminxmaster 2 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster more semantics, again, use a dictionary, problem solved
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria CONTINUED... as for exploitation, that is simply when you use something that doesn't belong to you for your own economic/political gain. Benjamin Tucker talked about what he called The 4 Monopolies: the Land monopoly (property), the Money monopoly, Tariffs (taxation), and Patents. it is through these monopolies that the state and capitalists exploit people. rent is a perfect example; you are taking wealth from a person who occupies a space that you do not (its taxation).
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster lol oh man this is hard. You have very uniquely blended things all up in the way. You're right that the monopoly on land, money, tariffs, and patents are all created by the state. You're right if you see these things as immoral. To maintain these monopolies government must use force and prevent FREE TRADE. In a Free Market, or under Anarcho-Capitalism, the government would have no monopoly on land, money, taxes or patents.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria Free Market means no force. Without force you can not maintain a monopoly on land, money, taxes or patents. Laissez-Faire or Free Market economies DO NOT HAVE THE EXPLOITATION YOU DESCRIBED. Please just read some books on the topic.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster "(its taxation)." This is laughable. Taxation is not voluntary, rent is. Please do grow the fuck up.
Huboons 3 weeks ago 2
@Huboons so if you have little money and cannot afford anywhere to live other than a rented space, how is that voluntary exactly? meanwhile, the person you are paying rent to doesn't occupy the space, doesnt pay for utilities, basically doesnt pay for shit. as for me "growing up," i feel more grown up than i ever have, considering i have embraced the anarchist perspective which i feel would solve many of the world's problems we face today.
megaminxmaster 2 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster "so if you have little money and cannot afford anywhere to live other than a rented space, how is that voluntary exactly?" Because you voluntarily signed a lease agreement. Not having money does not mean you are owed anything. What it means is you are either lazy or stupid. The landlord own the property or pays a mortgage, they are free to use it as they please. You have no right to their property. Feeling is not fact. You do not understand basic economics.
Huboons 2 weeks ago
@Huboons being forced to pay tax to a possessor of property or become homeless is not voluntary. if you could "own" or rent a living space, which would you chose? no rational person would rent over own, unless they had some special living arrangement, like traveling all the time or something. i can see with this comment that you are justifying elitist capitalist behavior, as most capitalists do. what we anarchists want is for everyone to possess land to live on, equality for all. is that so bad?
megaminxmaster 2 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster We all pay property Tax even if we own our land outright. The government does not believe you can completely own your land. I don't think it maters if some people rent or others own. You chose to rent, it is voluntary (even if there are consequences, there is no FORCE). The free (voluntary) market is about buying what you want, not what others think you want. Real anarchists respect freedom of choice and association.
sadisticbrujeria 2 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster I'm sorry you simply do not understand the terms you are using.
Huboons 2 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster If you voluntarily chose to work for someone, how is that exploitation? When the state forces you to give them everything you make for redistribution, that is clearly exploitation.
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
Assigning collective ownership to everything is as arbitrary as assigning private ownership, except the later model is non-violent and moral. We are all individuals, it is an incredibly dangerous and futile task to presume to ever be able to speak for the community. How would any resources ever get used? Did you guys even think about this for like 5minutes? I want some land for a home, but the community owns it, so I can't use the land and instead sleep outside? This is a better economy?
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria
Even then, it would just be unratified the moment someone is born who did not agree to the purchase you made. I don't get how you anarcho-capitalists can speak of voluntaryism. Property rights are involuntary and coerced!
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH So you're saying that if I attempt to rape you or steal your car, you're the immoral one for using force to defend yourself or your property? I don't quite see the argument.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH What do my purchases have to do with the unborn? In a socialist or syndicalist or communal society the actions of others have consequences on you, but much less so in an individualist society. Property rights are voluntary, you're free not to claim any rights to your property all you want.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Property Rights are voluntary. You can chose to not have any right to property. Look: you can either chose to believe things can be owned, or you do not. If you do not think things should be owned, how can you justify using anything? If you intend to use something you do not own without owning it, how can you defend someone trying to take that property from you?
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I make a widget. You come to use my widget.
"This is mine, I own it"
"Well, I don't believe people can own things so I am going to use it anyways"
You take it
"as it turns out I also don't believe in ownership so I am going to take the widget back"
"I was using that" you say
"So was I, before you took it from me and now I am going to take it back"
"But you weren't using it right now, like I am"
"So what? Does using something mean you own it?"
"No, I guess not"
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria This is insanely circular logic and has no practical application in the real world.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria anarchists DO believe in property, just not exploitative forms of it.
megaminxmaster 3 weeks ago
@megaminxmaster Define exploitative forms of property
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
@sadisticbrujeria wow stumped this asshole i guess, next
sadisticbrujeria 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sadisticbrujeria
Where does your right to deny people, born on this Earth (just like you), access to certain parts of the Earth come from? Where is it founded in, other than the greed of people who thought up this arbitrary right? Why should anyone respect your desire to exclude people from a part of the Earth?
The only way I could see that founded or voluntary or unforced is if you got literally every living person on this Earth to agree with your purchase of land from everyone on this Earth.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
kopellhinex 1 month ago
great vid dude
A lesson in history about private security is the Pinkertons and their involvement in the Homestead strike.
oofay789 1 month ago
Something is Stolen only if it is owned by someone else. If you take land not being used by anyone that is not theft by any means. If you take land already in use by other people, then yes, you are stealing. Governments, for example, claim ownership over ALL land in their domain and tax people who own a title to that land. That is theft.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria
Come on, don't try the semantics argument. Property owned by the community is in effect the same as 'property' owned by no one. The theft occurs when an individual or organization takes it from the community and denies them access to the land and its resources. The fact that it changed hands thousands of times in exchange for money does not mean the private ownership was turned legitimate.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
The claim that the entire community is entitled to all unused land needs to be supported, not just stated. The moral framework you're developing is not reasoned from first principle. How, exactly, are you making the argument that if I start digging in some unused dirt for gold that I am robbing someone living elsewhere? More absurd you're saying I am robbing everyone everywhere. Yet I have taken nothing from anyone. Odd. Semantics at its best, really.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria
Nobody owns a title to any land. All of that is completely artificial. No one gave you rights to own a piece of the Earth, that's pure make-belief. Property rights are an artificial construct. You don't actually "own" land, not the government, not individuals. You are just lucky many people aren't thinking about it. The Earth belongs to everyone and nobody. If you want to paste a group on it, the closest we come is saying it is owned by the community. A horizontal community.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Yes ownership is a human concept, it includes communal ownership, private ownership, and government ownership... all of which are also human concepts. You're expressing a human concept right now. Model A: Things are either privately owned are not owned at all. Model B: everyone owns everything. Which will people choose NATURALLY AND VOLUNTARILY? Model A, of course, as the evidence of History shows us.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria
That's funny you should bring that up, considering that virtually every stateless society that ever existed (before and after civilization) choose for model B. Hunter-gathers, tribalists, anarcho-syndicalist Catalonia, Ukranian Free Territory. This is not a surprise and would actually once again demonstrate that you need the government to protect your property rights. So by all means, fight for anarchism, because once it's here, it won't be anarcho-capitalism that follows.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I'm not going to play the cherry pick history to prove a point game. Hunter Gatherer cultures created the first currency using drugs, precious metals, sea shells, sticks, and more. In Spain, state currency was replaced with vouchers. In the Ukrainian Free Territory they used currency.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH The reason of course is that the use of capitol and the belief in property rights have determined the economic success of the people employing them. A communal society simply can not out compete a capitalist society. Cultures with clear property rights are always more competitive than cultures without them.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria
That's because you measure competition in the only way capitalists know how to: profit. This is a false comparison, since the goal of anarcho-socialism is not profit. It's creating a more humane society where more people can benefit and less people doie because of the lack of things that you would trade as commodities. To be fair, we can't really compare the two in practice here, since we've never seen anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-socialism in peace time).
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH When talking about economies it is important to talk about which creates the most wealth. As it would happen and according to Austrian economists, any system free from violence or coercion will produce more wealth. If somehow you can maintain a society without violence which does not employ the theory of private property I am open to understanding how you imagine this society will calculate the demand and supply of resources.
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria
Wealth in the monetary sense of the word is again, irrelevant to anarcho-socialism.
Well, I think we're facing incommensurability at this point because I don't understand how you can maintain property rights without violence. If someone could tell me where these rights come from, if they are founded in a nature or such and not just sprang to the mind of some guy who wanted to deny people access to land,I could respect them. Until then, they are as stupid as social contracts.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH
The right to property is a MORAL theory, not a physical theory. It doesn't correspond to nature, only to humanity. Morality is beyond animals, of course. The principle is that universally preferable behavior is to refrain from initiating force. This principle is called universal because it applies to everyone outside of cultural relativity. This isn't about living a backwards tribalist lifestyle. I like my car and ps3 and do not want to force regression
sadisticbrujeria 1 month ago
@sadisticbrujeria
True, there was some form of currency or value-representative in both anarcho-syndicalist Spain and anarcho-commnist Ukranian Free Territory. I don't see how that undermines any of my stances and that was not the argument, was it? Rome wasn't build in one day.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH