Chile's market during the 70s-90s was essentially, a libertarian market. Chile's government only managed the military, and the justice systems at the time. Chile's market became a safe haven for monopolies, abusive colluding corporations, etc. Wages dramatically decreased over time. Sure, Chile's economy grew, but it grew through what was essentially the destruction of the working class, which ironically, proved sustainable - something you claim is not sustainable.
During your walmart segment, you argue that in the case of a complete monopoly, another company will come in and "bid up the labor", and increase wages in general. This argument is incredibly flawed. Do you honestly believe other companies will come in and increase wages?
Case in point, Chile during the 1970s/90s. It was a complete libertarian market, and wages decreased in general. in 1970, 20% of the population was in poverty. By 1990, it was 40% +.
It is easy to start making candle and undermine the oligopoly. But what about industries that are extremely capital intensive? Like cars or microchips? Or really any major intonational franchised corporation that is already completely intrenched? I think you over simply the difficulties of competing with oligopolies.
Every other dude shows up for the opening at wall mart and offers to work for 2$ because they dont feel like stealing food.
You can't sustain your business because you have no money to produce for several thousand people at profit margins as low as 5%, at which rate the huge companies still drain incredible amounts of money from nonproducers.(this is a monopoly)
I'd rather agree with everyone in my country for free access to basic needs of survivability. On that basis a free economy could work.
@munepettan LOL, a free economy could work. Chopping down a tree is free, right? Where's the tax there? The tax is in your muscles, your energy, your well being, your mind... Nothing is free stupid.
I was with you all the way up to Microsoft. haha.. I'm using a Linux operating system which is open source and people are able to tinker with the code at will. Screw WinDOZE and Slackintosh :D
There aren't much capital barriers to candlestick making but there are in steel manufacturing. Monopoly power in a stateless society is easier to enforce when there is an investment barrier, reducing the number of competitors. A monopoly can punish would be competitors using capital and running the business at a loss. This is not addressed.
The government is not required for monopolies or oligopolies, they just make them easier. If you have a few companies get together to make an oligopoly (which they could do easily because it is mutually beneficial) and then they make products which are cheaper to produce because they are produced on a larger scale, they could easily undercut prices and create a monopoly simply by merging.
@fakeham So they can create a monopoly by creating better products at cheaper prices...where is that a bad thing? The only way that's harmful is when they try to abuse their monopoly power. at which point they lose it.
Once they form a monopoly, I don't think it will go down without a fight, when (not if) they abuse their power. They could easily create their own private army and have their own form of martial law.
Too late: Microsoft sells $119 for the Home Premium for Windows 7, compared to the Mac OSX for $19. Luckily, the Windows OS gets improved more every time, and it is shown more every time.
hey a friend of mine has a good question? what is the free-market solution to monopolies that want to use violence to keep out competition? couldn't a monopoly get the funds easily to hire mercenaries that will take out any businesses that try to compete?
@Sean2046 Those monopolies hiring mercenaries would be seen as gangsters. The problem with government-sponsored monopolies is the government is seen as legitimate and necessary for maintaining society, rather than what it is: a criminal organization. After all, people vote, giving themselves the illusion the government is representing them..
@Sean2046, their competitors can afford mercenaries as well. Its no different then any other resource companies can try to buy up to give themselves an advantage. I immagine what you describe might happen once or twice in an anarcho capitalist world, but at some point it would become futile. The mercenaries make out with a bunch of money and the companies fail to become monopolies anyways. They would of course still sign up with some kind of private defense agency also, which would even the odds
@Sean2046 Getting caught institutionalizing violence would easily bring a company down. If violence is legal, then we're no longer talking about a free market.
Hey, how about you put one up explaining how your going to feed a population when farmers have no property rights. I'm sure those crops will be blooming. Just ask Chairman Mao.
private forms are east india company, west india company, private government in pursuit of capitalism or mercantalism. call it what you want we need limited, very limited government. we need more freedoms, more personal freedoms, less taxes, no taxes, stop spending, in theory that period of america when gold was set at 21.00 dollars per oz for 100 years profuced our greatest prosperity. government only has to defend nation and keep things fair. nothing else.
so if someone buys all the land, another person can come along and make more land? land is the mother of all monopolies. that is where your argument breaks down. if someone buys all the land, everyone else are slaves to the person who owns all the land. henry hazlitt was funded by the rockefeller foundation. henry hazlitt is a scam artist.
"if labor isnt being paid what" etc "this is first semestre economics" Yes, this is true in a first semestre economics but not necessarily in real life where a number of factors come into play (Copernicium may sound great but lasts half a minute out of the lab).
Natural Monopoly: If joe doesnt use a product and peter uses a querky alternative but most people for a variety of reasons (practical considerations, circumstances) stick with the natural monopoly, you still have monopolistic effects.
@GuiMarquito I thought i would jump in and tell you that your points are rediculous, please. I have a liberal economist friend whom actually knows too much about econ to tell me bullshit like this and try to make me or himself beleive that the market only brings hardship. Low wages, that's your oppinion. Disposable goods, as opposed to undisposable ones, what does that even mean... Unhealthy goods, yea okay. Force people to eat healthy and see what happens.
@GuiMarquito Harmful to environment? As opposed to government REGULATED uranium shells employed in unnecessary wars...? Or the fact that they monopolize land so there is no incentive not to pollute...
Price dropping? And that's bad for the customer? And no, there are costs to pushing out competition.
Shitty and fragile? Mass production is not for quality, it's to supply as many goods as possible. Buy hand crafted goods if you're picky.
Awesome video , thank you very much for uploading it! Could you please give me examples of a professional associations with proves that in a Stateless society they would have less chance to exist (or the State presently benefits from the professional associations) Do you have any links showing that professional associations are indeed tied to the Govt in any way? I need it to debate the opposing point of view that professional cartels would thrive/harass small business in a stateless society.
Better than many in the series, but still very flawed. What you're proposing is that we trade one evil for another, i.e. rule by the fed. government for rule by giant corporations. And you actually think monopolies/oligopolies wouldn't exist in a world where enough money would buy a company it's own private military, control over the ridiculous court system you have in mind, and anything else that would benefit said company. Think of all the barriers to entry the company could create then...
lol, you have to have some economic understanding to map up what you're offering and will statistically figure out how actually possible the scenario you're offering is.
Exactly! There are state governments that are ruled by corporations & it's called fascism. If you get rid of one state government, what stops powerful corporations from just creating a new state government that they control. Why would powerful corporations not want a government that protects them from competition? It's to the advantage of their profits. If it wasn't for the desire of corporations to maintain power, we wouldn't have the corporatocracy we now have.
free market sweatshops pay people more than what they would earn if those shops weren't there. You seem to have the assumption that the people working in those sweatshops in China, made enough to eat before the sweatshops got there.
Here's a rule of thumb: If it's voluntary, then the transaction is benefitial to both parties. People don't go and work at sweatshops because the pay is less than what they had before. The productiveness of the shops actually raises their pay, and living quality
And soon they'll have office jobs at call centers, and perhaps later even project management work. People love to assume that those in the developing world can jump from sowing seeds at a plantation to becoming rocket scientists in a few years!
The doctor was a company doctor, the schoolteachers hired by the company . . . Political power in Colorado rested in the hands of those who held economic power. This meant that the authority of Colorado Fuel & Iron and other mine operators was virtually supreme . . . Company officials were appointed as election judges. Company-dominated coroners and judges prevented injured employees from collecting damages." [The Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14, pp. 9-11]
I can't stand it when people claim that Capitalism is bad because companies use the power of the State, i.e. its usurpation of law from only protection of life and property, to restrict competition for cronies. It's the State and the law that is to blame, WHETHER bureaucrats and thieves benefit from it or whether fairly useful people gain unfairly high incomes from taking control of this coercive and expropriating tool. Why blame those who gain economic privilege and not welfare moochers?
@Nintendomanwill I don't think that's the intent of the video. Seems to me to be promoting Anarcho-capitalism, and bashing the state, not bashing capitalism.
@Nintendomanwill The power of the state, whatever that may be called, public or private, will always be necessary to defend property beyond that of immediate personal use or possession. The state and law cannot be seperated from capitalism, as they were used to create this institution, and keep it going to this day. The people who gain economic privilege have far more power and pose a vastly greater risk than "welfare moochers", that's why. This should be obvious, but apparently not.
@mcc1789 The ONLY REASON the Colorado plan was able to work was because the government of Colorado sent in military to put down workers and submit them to the company union structure.
The problem wasn't the company, the problem was government.
"Each mining camp was a feudal dominion, with the company acting as lord and master. Every camp had a marshal, a law enforcement officer paid by the company. The 'laws' were the company's rules. Curfews were imposed, 'suspicious' strangers were not allowed to visit the homes, the company store had a monopoly on goods sold in the camp.
Company towns had every feature which anarcho-capitalists propose, private police, courts, military, etc. Company rules were law. Buying at the company store was required by their contracts. If they sturck or formed a union, they were fired and evicted instantly. The contracts were entered voluntarily, in your sense. Since rights can be waived, exactly what stops this? The British East India Co. was its own state, ruling for centuries. Same with King Leopold's Congo, run by his corporation.
@ExquisiteDoom Over-exaggerating how? This stuff really happened in the past, and there is nothing in anarcho-capitalist theory which prevents that. Firms started before others have a competitive advantage. The Private Defense Agencies, those with the power to use physical force, would have to work together or engage in mutually destructive warfare, as many anarcho-capitalists acknowledge.
However, collusion between firms, especially ones with police power, can lead to price-fixing, monopolies, oligopolies, trusts, cartels, what have you. Now, in a total capitalist free market ordinary firms may indeed not be able to succeed in this. PDAs are different as we see, and their collusion is far more important, not to mention dangerous
@mcc1789 Assuming that PDA's are your company towns... When i look at your examples they were usually allocated by government, protected by governments or simply created by government. Which should show you right there that you need a considerable amount of capital that only monetary fraud through central banking can afford and even that is extremely limited. I understand your fears, but those cannot be maintained forever.
@ExquisiteDoom Yes, these company towns were protected by governments, but in anarcho-capitalism the functions of government are privatized, so they could protect themselves. I'm not sure about that amount of capital requiring fraud, but with business much freer to do its thing, "legitimate" shafting of consumers and competition makes it possible anyway. They cannot be maintained forever? Probably not, I hope so anyway-they might certainly spark a revolt.
@mcc1789 Yes, and they have sparked revolts, i am not advocating violence but it seems that mistakes have to occur to learn from them, the carnegie example being a good one, carnegie lost the battle but the state fought against the union. At a time when the steel industry's prices have suffered dramatically, he should have sold off a good portion of his infrastructure but instead he decided to lower wages. This sounds to me like he fought the emergeant forces and failed terribly.
@ExquisiteDoom mcc1789@ExquisiteDoom That's very interesting you use the Homestead Steel Strike example. As you say, Pinkertons were sent in (a private police/militia) to break the strike but were defeated. Without a state militia to relieve them, Carnegie probably would have settled.
@mcc1789 Yea, it's hard to speculate on what would have happened since there was military force involved. I don't know if i can agree with you that a privately owned region could be considered "state", i guess it depends on how one defines a state. This word sounds ambiguous to me, and i'm even suspecting it to be rhetoric even on the part of ancaps. I wonder how you would define it?
@ExquisiteDoom Yes it does depend how you define it. Often it's used as rhetoric by different groups indeed. For this we can just go by the an-cap definition: an institution which has a monopoly over physical force in a geographic region. I find that definition accurate, though also ironic. Geographic region is open-ended. So can anything be a "state?" Even a farm say, if someone can hold a "monopoly over physical force" within it? So then is absolute private property "statism"?
@mcc1789 I have heard the argument that the definition is ambiguous but we can clearly define a state in practise. But that just sounds like a non-answer to me. I personally equate the state with government, or perhaps a state of mind. In other words, an ideological view that people share without much inspection, nor logic attached to it, you know, borderline mysticism enforced with emotions and violence. But then i'm sure that's probably inconsistent somehow.
@mcc1789 Yes, sure, do not look at the capitalist point of view. You certainly wouldn't want to damage your points. As if King Leopold wasn't subsidized by the belgian government in the first place. As if Africa had any means to defend themselves from authoritarianism. As for the indian company, it was a corporation which the queen gave a charter to. Your points are irrelevant. And carnegie wasn't that powerful, and the state protected his ass. Good job...
@ExquisiteDoom So, tell me why firms couldn't merge in a stateless society and achieve these same ends? Have you read the points I made about PDAs above? Do you take the "socialist view" my friend? I should point out that I've read what the "capitalists" have to say. Those examples were given to show private states, and clearly public states still existed to protect them. If all functions of the state were privatized, however, it could still turn out that way.
@mcc1789 I'm afraid i'm not following you. I've noticed that you've tried to use fascism to disprove capitalism, but then you seem to ask me why would corporations not decide to opt for a stateless society. That would be denying the fact that fascism comes from a legal framework created by states to be built upon (IE. Corporations). To me, they are just extensions of the state for if they were to bite the hand that feed them; it would be fatal for them.
@ExquisiteDoom I'm not sure what your definition of fascism is (apparently it's state-subsidized corporations in your view?) I don't remember using the word fascism in fact. So I guess I'm not following either completely. However, as I've been saying, in anarcho-capitalism the whole idea is that government functions are in private hands (more than already of course). Using your metaphor, they would not bite the hand that feeds them, no. If they could feed themselves, though...?
@mcc1789 Precisely. Besides, when you are bankrupt.... you are bankrupt, that sets a definitive bottom to how much bad policies you can follow as an entrepreneur. Whereas we all know today some big commercial banks hold up to a 20 to 1 leverage thanks to state subsidized fractional banking, this is litterally sucking up resources to build that which is unnecessary and pursue bad politicies for an extended period of time. I don't think the market can possibly allow frauds to reach this scale.
@ExquisiteDoom I think we agree here, and that raise questions for the system of anarcho-capitalism. Hence my contention is more that in order to maintain itself the firms by necessity become private states. Otherwise it's likely unsubstainable. This isn't the intent but a possible outcome.
Is that not such a monopoly, i.e. state, if private? Contracts that employees signed could have provisions forbidding strikes, organizing, etc., agreeing to pay for police, courts, doctors, stores and militaries hired by the employer.
"[I]f one starts a private town, on land whose acquisition did not and does not violate the Lockean proviso [of non-aggression], persons who chose to move there or later remain there would have no right to a say in how the town was run, unless it was granted to them by the decision procedures for the town which the owner had established." [Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 270] Is that not such a monopoly, i.e. state, if private?
Ok, but what about vertical oligopolies and monopolies, as MettaliarYanto says in his response? Also, what prevents a "monopoly of force in a given area" your definition of the state?
not really... beccause there other much better place than wal mart n wal mart rlly just builds up a central economy and drives out the competition and if the workers try to get more money or go on strike in other countries wal mart can leave or strikers can be killed, so rly they just control minor economies by going global
WalMart is able to offer lower prices than smaller producers because of current FDA regulations. If a farmer/producer was able to produce better quality produce than a wal-mart and sell it at a profit(most are not able to now because of regulations) people would buy from him. You are setting up an axiom that humans will always puchase according to price. We all know this is not the case. A large monopoly could not exist in an anarchist society.
This is the most convoluted non sense I have ever heard! You conveniently leave out intellectual property rights as in "we came up with the idea of a candle and we feel we shouldn't have to loose our business to someone who will not have to pay for the R&D and undercut our prices to the bone. Ergo putting us out of business."
Microsoft's Windows has a large market share because of it's quality, and marketing. I don't see how one operating system for everyone is necessarily beneficial. A lot of software today are cross platform compatible across Linux distros, Windows, and Mac OSX, or have OS specific builds of the same software. Having multiple platforms competing in the long run can only create a larger market, thus create more openings for jobs that deal with computers, not just create a superior platform.
I don't buy the wage/price theory. Walmart has low prices because it utilizes cheap foreign labor and products. Companies attempting to compete with Walmart essentially compete for the same market and thus have to keep wages low in order to make a profit to stay in business or risk being undercut by low prices from Wal-Mart. There is no "natural" price for labor, that is a fallacy of logic. It is essentially an opinion based upon a power share in the economy. That is why the wealthy always win.
Intellectual property is not something I am a proponent of. It's a legal monopoly. The myth is that intellectual property creates progress in one's work. While it does this, it also hurts the production potential, and encourages price gouging. Inventions are created not for patents, copyrights, or legal monopolies, but to create a new consumer base. When man invented the wheel, I am pretty sure he didn't invent the wheel and got a patent for it, made riches.
Even with intellectual property, catallitic competition is still a force. However such laws, for example, also restrict certain technologies from being used innovatively into other technologies unless the license is bought, or given with permission. Contrary to belief, such laws restrict innovation, just as much as it was meant to create incentive to be innovative. Intellectual property laws wouldn't exist in anarchy, because when you own something, you own it 100%, and do what you wish with it
What I mean by ownership is that of physical ownership. Whether you bought a music CD, or you replicated a computer program, whatever. Do you really own a music CD 100% when you can scratch it, break it, do what you will with it, but you can't copy it, and distribute it however you wish, even though you bought this with your own money? Intellectual property didn't create art, music, storytelling. All that came before, and without it, I imagine that such things would still be around.
What about the fact that a large initial capital investment can itself be a barrier to entry? Not all barriers to entry are hard, and not all are government-created.
This was capitalism does- oligopoly do u want perfect competiton? Forget it, corprate "oligopoly" companies stop u!!! So really in capitalism, it seems YOU have freedom but to the truth is it isn't free. So is communism really unfree?
dancthegr, this is incorrect. Monopolies are only created by the consumer. Consumers want to drive down prices, sellers/providers want to increase prices. Even if there was a monopoly by choice of consumers, the monopoly still must compete for the consumers dollars. This is why newspapers are going out of business, as Internet based news has taken the market share of providing news. It's called catallitic competition. There is no coersed monopolies in free market, as consumers decide spending.
The US rarely ever exercised antitrust laws, because antitrust laws don't make any sense. Competition laws are nonsense, and not based on market sciences. Price gouging, rebates, tying, predatory pricing to thwart competition is all ludacris, and never lead to a successful monopoly of any kind. The only real successful monopolies are those that were propped up by the state such as making laws against competition, and subsidizing.
Or maybe the monopoly manufactures things that are difficult to manufacture in a small market, limiting the emergence of competition. Maybe they control that much of the market share that new competition will not affect it or can run at a loss for a while to eliminate the competitions capital. Maybe the monopoly sells a recourse that you can't get from anywhere. Maybe the monopoly controls something that is expensive and time consuming to construct like transport. Candle making is a bad example.
Wouldn't the elimination of intellectual property crush small inventers? I know the typical arguement is that stopping small business from selling things that are copyrighted crushes them. But, if I invent something and start my little business to sell it, a large company can take my invention and mass produce it for a lower price than I can, pushing me out of the business and creating a near oligopily.
Actually a pretty good video. I almost listened to the whole thing. The conclusion however, is that we should adopt a minimal libertarian state to prevent government assisted monopolies, not anarchism which leads to chaos, misery, and death.
Why don't you ask the native peoples that were slaughtered or forcefully relocated. How about the 2.5 million Russian refuges the US rounded up at the end of WWII to send to the USSR and certain death under an agreement made at Yalta called Operation Keelhaul. How about the over 100 million people that died due to war, death camps, extermination marches, artificial famines and other government activities in the 20th century. The state is second to none in chaos, misery and death.
Your numbers are inflated and you make no comparison. I contend that if you compare our republic to an actual socialist model, our history is nothing but cheerful daisies by comparison. When we make a mistake, we call our own fouls. Dictatorships, socialist states, etc have no need to do this and, as history has shown, take a long time to do so. We have never had anything close to the misery of the early USSR nor VietNam under the Camir Ruge. Not even close.
USSR (Lenin, Stalin and all the leaders leading up to the fall) killed millions of people due to state made famines (see Ukraine) Ethiopia (forgot the Col's name but state made famine (1980s-90s) killed hundreds of thousands, Cambodia ( It wasn't Vietnam) (the killing fields) hundreds of thousands killed. The World Wars (socialist ideas that led to total wars where civilians are targeted as well). The Spanish Civil war (socialists and "anarchists" fighting each other with the socialists winning
Point of information, Ethiopia didn't start as an artificial crisis, but once the government saw the advantages of it, they ensured the poverty continued.
Well it didn't start as one however, once forced resettlement (to deserts) and collectivization started more.. a lot more people started dying of.. a famine.. correct.
Its the government that creates monopolies. The free market gives everyone a fair chance. Anarcho Capitalism would end many monopolies that exist today with state Capitalism.
wtf? when did government become part of anarchy? this seems like capitalists twisted anarchy to maintain the class system. profit making is not anarchism. the presence of a state is not anarchism. and his statement on labor, if the company employs the whole town and pays slave wages, any company trying to take over and pay better wages will get their throats cut on prices of products. thats how wal-mart is able to take over towns in the first place.
Vegan Tim Government isn't part of Anarchy. Anarcho Capitalism isn't the same as state controlled Capitalism. With the phony monetary system that the federal reserve has, it actually helps China and definitely helps Wal-Mart.
monopolies under capitalism youtube video- "Get government to create trade barriers"
that sounds like government to me. I'm not referring to anarchism in general, im referring to the ideas presented in this video. a comrade of mine is an anarcho capitalist and ive been trying to grasp the concept and this video doesn't seem to be presenting a branch of anarchism as i understand it.
The "you can set up communes" arguement is a lame point. If I don't have enough money to purchase property, move with other communists etc. Then I am out of luck and forced to participate in a system I hate, at the bottom of the food chain. Wheras in anarcho communism I am free to travel where I want all around the world, in anarcho capitalism I need a whole lot of money (imagine taking a road trip and having to pay $5 for every road you take!. "Anarcho" capitalism will deny me that.
But with enough other Anarcho-Communists, you can raise enough money to buy the land. Plus, if government-owned land is broken up to individual owners, the price of land will go down as there is a larger supply.
Also, in Anarcho-Capitalism you would NOT need a lot of money! If no one can afford to use the roads, no one will, and the road-owner will literally be forced to lower the fair to a resonable rate.
In True Capitalism, the People control the Buissinessmen.
Technically capitalism cannot exist as the means of production (other than for personal use) cannot be privately owned. But you can still have markets etc, the only question is why you would want to?
Another thing, "anarcho" capitalism is an oxymoron, not redundant. Say your workers rise up and take over your factory, your defense company is not going to attack them once you're dead, so this can happen all the time. In all its history anarchism has been a working class idea, not bourgeois.
But your Defense Company would have to pursue your killers once your dead, otherwise the other Defense Companies will point to your killing as propaganda and your Defense Company would lose bussiness. (Who'd want a Defense Company that let it's customers die?)
You should really learn at least the basic principles of Competition before you rail against Capitalism!
"In all its history anarchism has been a working class idea, not bourgeois."
Also, what the heck do ya mean by this?! It is you who clearly don't understand Anarchism! Anarchism is the opposition of all class structure, thus there is no "working class" or "bourgeois," just people, free to choose to do what they want.
Your the one implimenting a class system here. Get your terms straight, you're a Communist! You're not Anarcho-Anything, just a plain and Simple Communist!
Under your system, if I choose to do no work, I would most likely be lynched. Your system fits exactly into Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariot. You are NO ANARCHIST. You asre Simply Communist!
Plus, the majority of Anarcho-Capitalist supporters are Working Class! I'm working class, and like it here.
I know plenty on the History of Anarchism. Like, for example, I know that "Anarcho"-Communism and Syndicatism has ONLY been implemented on a large scale by extreme violence.
The thing that puzzles me most about you "Anarcho" Communists is How do you expect to stop Free Trade? Really, who is there to stop me from trading my goods with my nieghbor?
In a stateless society, the Free Market is the ONLY economy!
Sure I'm not going to stop you, nor should you stop me when I run up my workplace, shoot my boss, and put it in the hands of the workers (OH GOD THE COERCION!!!).
Where is this "exteme violence" anarchists have used, it has been largely in defense. So have you ever left the suburbs kid? How does Communism impletment a class system when it is the negation of it?
Listen, child, pick up a history book, get a job, and stop living off of mommy and daddy. Live in the real world you child.
Communism is a STATELESS, CLASSLESS society by definition, so you just described Capitalism. Wealth=power.
I guess Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, Guerin, Day, and Bookchin all just wanted death and destruction.
Honestly, do you know anything about history? What do you think about the scandal with Nestle sellingbaby formula to 3rd world countries where they couldn't afford it, but were convinced into buying it and they had to water it down, many died
Would the situation be any better under YOUR system?
Let's see, since trade is uninhibitted there is nothing to stop the same people from trading the same formula to the same poor people. Since there are no governments or courts, they will not be persecuted for it.
The only different thing that would happen in your system is that they would get away with it.
I've read their theories and think they, like Marxism, would not apply to the real world.
They did not advocate death and destruction. At least not tha much, anyhow.
You however do. Even when I was an Anarcho-Communist (before becoming Capitalist) I denounced the violent anomists like you. You do nothing but hurt your own cause!
Of course not! You can choose who you want to work for in a True Capitalistic world! It is only the State regulation that has moved the economy into big bussinesses hands.
You assume that all roadowners would be complete a**holes? Sure, SOME would, but most would not persecute the homeless. They'd find food in Charities. Since Anarcho-Communsim is a Pure-Charity system, you should have no problem with that
I find it very unlikely that, based on your past comments, that you are a history teacher.
Honestly, with the state of Teacher's Unions these days your boss probably can't cut your wages no matter what you do without going through piles of paperwork first!
Also, that comment were you claimed you wanted to shoot up your workplace would be even more disturbing if you were a schoolteacher.
I was in manufacturing from 19 to whn I graduated, but I was speaking in general terms and I didn't specify MY workplace, I said "A".
In anarchism there is nothing enforcing the bougeois status quo. When Capitalism is let unbridled workers resist (Russian Revolution, Cuban, Chinese, Sandinista, all the various general strikes, the CNT, etc)
What do you think about the general strike in Guadalupe, or the riots in Greece, both recent acts against Capitalism.
C'mon, America hasn't been truely Capitalist since before the "Progressive" Era. Regulatory Socialism is what allows Big Bussiness to claim Oligopolies! (Do you even watch these videos, or do you just look for someone to argue with in the comments?)
Pre-Revolution Russia was Socialist. Cuba and Spain, like all fascist states, were Socialist. Guadalupe and Greece are both Regulatory Socialist, not Capitalist. China was Nationalist, which has strong Socialist and even Mercantilist pull.
Even if others define this Regulatory Socialism as Capitalism, WE ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS DO NOT! You must use arguements against how WE define Capitalism, or your arguements are not valid against us. That's how a debate works.
So there was a Socialist revolution against Socialism? Nevermind that it was Marxist in mind before being hijacked by Lenin.
So because there are regulations and a few social services it doesn't qualify as Capitalism? Because the same problem we have with it still exists, exploitation, wage labor, and private property. Lassie Faire would be wonderful, nevermind the thousand of children forced into the factories already, lets remove MORE regulations! Awesome!
Your naivety astounds me. Do you really, truly believe that in this day in age, with the internet in media, that a bussiness that used and abused children for labor would get any bussiness? Do you think anyone went to mentioned meatpacking companies after Sinclair's The Jungle. Muckrakers are perfectly capable of regulating against corruption!
Plus, in your system there is no regulation either! If a rat falls in my meat grinder, what's my incentive not to serve it?
Ever hear of Nike and Adidas? I wouldn't bring up child labor if it wasn't happening. McDonalds has a massive propaganda campaign going against it and it's sales are actually increasing. Coca Cola has killed 6 trade unionists and people haven't stopped buying coke. What about things like Pinkertons who kill trade unionists and strikers?
There is no incentive TO is the difference, because you aren't losing any money by throwing that meat out.
Right. it's happening. in a socialist economy. Thus it is invalid arguement. Again.
"What about things like Pinkertons who kill trade unionists and strikers?"
Well, once again, the Gov is inclined to side with Big Bussiness and thus the Media also sides with it and blocks those facts from the mainstream. In a Stateless Society, your own DRO would care much more about your right to strike then the current Gov.
Pinkertons was a private defense company. Most strikers that have been killed have been killed by people acting on behalf of the bourgeoisie. If the capitalists wanted to they could have called them off because they weren't doing anything illegal, but they encouraged it. What would stop me from killing those damn unionists in "anarcho" capitalism?
Your forgetting that each Unionist has their own DRO as well. Those DRO's are obligated to protect the unionist's rights, and will most likely send protection. Also, the company's DRO has nothing to gain by moving aggressively against the strikers. The media would pick up on it, and the DRO would lose bussiness due to the loss of reputation.
The media has traditionally come out on behaf of the capitalists. Go to the New York Times website and search "IWW" or even just "strikers", you'll see almost all the articles are against the strikers (calling them Communist infiltrators etc).
Charity doesn't work, over 1 trillion dollars in aid has been given to Africa since 1945 (exluding money to governments) and it hasn't worked. If your system was good then why would people have to pick up after it?
No, the media traditionally sides with the government, which sides with Socialist Big Bussiness because Big Bussiness pays more to the Gov then workers.
The best thing one can do is too get media from the internet, where a variety of opinions are expressed. Internet Media is gaining ground fast, and may soon surpass televised biased media.
Socialism is when the working class controls the means of production, which is why I don't call any "socialist" state socialist, though it would be an easy swpie at state socialism, I like to be fair and call it state capitalism. Socialist Big Business? That's an oxymoron.
You're right, I'm a nihilistic punk (coming from someone named Doom, that's totally KRVST!!) Nevermind that I have my masters.
Whatever, I'm done argueing with kids trying to play the age card on someone older than them.
Socialism - Noun, Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Typical. Your out of arguements so you throw attacks at symantics, my name (chosen purely for irony) as well as trying to end the debate. In short, your trying to do anything other then admit that you have lost.
I find it interesting that once I refute one of your arguements against Capitalism, you drop the point and attack from another angle. Do you really have no counterarguements?
I have also expressed the fact that your arguments often contradict each other. You refuse to comment on this fact either.
Instead, you attempt to play the age card, downrate my comments, and throw out off-topic arguements to distract from the fact that you really DON'T know what your talking about.
Okay, okay, okay. Now I am 100% sure that you are not Anarchist in ANY sense of the word. Your just some nihilistic punk throwing around the word "Anarchy" like you understand what it means.
You now claim that Charity does not work. Interesting, since EVERY ANARCHIST NON-CAPITALIST ECONOMY IS DRIVEN PURELY ON A CHARITABLE BASIS!
You really have no clue what you're talking about, you just wanna kill some bourgous, don't you? Dude, you're thinking of Communism, not Anarchy.
Capitalism cannot cover everything, it mainly fails in covering the poor. However, the cool thing about a Free Market is that Volunteerism fills in the gaps that Capitalism cannot. There would be non-profit, volunteer staffed DRO's to cover the rights of those who can't afford DRO's. Charitable organizations ALWAYS arise to meet the needs of the needy.
Socialist Bureocracies always insist that even Charities go through all of the regulatory nonsense, thus limiting what a Charity can do.
It's kinda odd that you point out flaws that both our systems have. And at least the Anarcho-Capitalist system has privatized regulation, where as Anarcho-Communism has... No Regulation! Nothing! Zilch! Nada!
Are you REALLY sure you're an Anarchist at all? You seem to not understand what "No Government" truly means. It would also mean no regulation. Which would essentially mean Capitalism, regardless of what you choose to call it!
A teacher needs food, housing, and a classroom then they can create. The musician needs an instrument and food/housing. The farmer needs a feild. Randists feel that people should have to work for that, but that can subdue someone's creativity and urge to create. If their needs are satified however they will contribute to society. Look at how even some of the richest people in the world still keep their jobs, because even with their needs satisfied they still want to contribute to society.
Just a few questions though... without the government wouldn't the money be worth nothing? I mean generally speaking money's backed by two things, gold and faith in the government. Oh and who would enforce these property rights? (sense the gov't usually would in a normal situation.)
The government is the reason our dollar is worthless. It's not backed by anyhting any longer. They are the ones working with the fed creating booms and busts.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Real anarchists are anticapitalist. The entire history of the movement has been anticapitalist until the recent Objectivist spinoff. "Anarcho" capitalism is a strictly North American idea, and has no bearing outside of there. "Anarcho" capitalists are not anarchists.
Jackriter: The problem with Anarcho-Capitalism and even "Pure" Anarchists is that there needs to be a transitionary Gov't (to go from where we are to where we'd like to be)one that is close to an Anarchy as possible; some call this a Min-Archy (or limited gov't libertarianism).
I've developed a type of "min-archy" that seems agreeable to most Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalist, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Socialists - essentially, believers in the voluntary society.
Chile's market during the 70s-90s was essentially, a libertarian market. Chile's government only managed the military, and the justice systems at the time. Chile's market became a safe haven for monopolies, abusive colluding corporations, etc. Wages dramatically decreased over time. Sure, Chile's economy grew, but it grew through what was essentially the destruction of the working class, which ironically, proved sustainable - something you claim is not sustainable.
IMAGIMATIONanimation 1 month ago
During your walmart segment, you argue that in the case of a complete monopoly, another company will come in and "bid up the labor", and increase wages in general. This argument is incredibly flawed. Do you honestly believe other companies will come in and increase wages?
Case in point, Chile during the 1970s/90s. It was a complete libertarian market, and wages decreased in general. in 1970, 20% of the population was in poverty. By 1990, it was 40% +.
IMAGIMATIONanimation 1 month ago
It is easy to start making candle and undermine the oligopoly. But what about industries that are extremely capital intensive? Like cars or microchips? Or really any major intonational franchised corporation that is already completely intrenched? I think you over simply the difficulties of competing with oligopolies.
joshuaoha 6 months ago
hiring blackwater is as expensive as buy congress
death9719 7 months ago
in a stateless society you just hire blackwater to kill your competition or destroy there product
death9719 7 months ago
@death9719 Oh, oh, only problem! Blackwater is NOT a private company, it is a Congress-hired corporation.
AnarchisThinker 7 months ago
@AnarchisThinker really semantics, that proves your argument is weak, for you sake all just say baldwin felts knock off's or Pinkertons
death9719 7 months ago
Every other dude shows up for the opening at wall mart and offers to work for 2$ because they dont feel like stealing food.
You can't sustain your business because you have no money to produce for several thousand people at profit margins as low as 5%, at which rate the huge companies still drain incredible amounts of money from nonproducers.(this is a monopoly)
I'd rather agree with everyone in my country for free access to basic needs of survivability. On that basis a free economy could work.
munepettan 8 months ago
@munepettan LOL, a free economy could work. Chopping down a tree is free, right? Where's the tax there? The tax is in your muscles, your energy, your well being, your mind... Nothing is free stupid.
hotfudgemoney 7 months ago
how many channels has fringe elements had. FUCCCK
greenghost2008 10 months ago
I was with you all the way up to Microsoft. haha.. I'm using a Linux operating system which is open source and people are able to tinker with the code at will. Screw WinDOZE and Slackintosh :D
NewVinland 10 months ago
There aren't much capital barriers to candlestick making but there are in steel manufacturing. Monopoly power in a stateless society is easier to enforce when there is an investment barrier, reducing the number of competitors. A monopoly can punish would be competitors using capital and running the business at a loss. This is not addressed.
thefredsays 11 months ago
The government is not required for monopolies or oligopolies, they just make them easier. If you have a few companies get together to make an oligopoly (which they could do easily because it is mutually beneficial) and then they make products which are cheaper to produce because they are produced on a larger scale, they could easily undercut prices and create a monopoly simply by merging.
fakeham 11 months ago
@fakeham So they can create a monopoly by creating better products at cheaper prices...where is that a bad thing? The only way that's harmful is when they try to abuse their monopoly power. at which point they lose it.
shamgar001 8 months ago
@shamgar001
Once they form a monopoly, I don't think it will go down without a fight, when (not if) they abuse their power. They could easily create their own private army and have their own form of martial law.
fakeham 8 months ago
@fakeham This is true, and that's why I'm not an anarchist.
shamgar001 8 months ago
Too late: Microsoft sells $119 for the Home Premium for Windows 7, compared to the Mac OSX for $19. Luckily, the Windows OS gets improved more every time, and it is shown more every time.
Denon333dash888 11 months ago
fringeelement?
flynn2008 1 year ago
*wince* you misspelled the word "licensed"....
fairiebee 1 year ago
hey a friend of mine has a good question? what is the free-market solution to monopolies that want to use violence to keep out competition? couldn't a monopoly get the funds easily to hire mercenaries that will take out any businesses that try to compete?
Sean2046 1 year ago
@Sean2046 Those monopolies hiring mercenaries would be seen as gangsters. The problem with government-sponsored monopolies is the government is seen as legitimate and necessary for maintaining society, rather than what it is: a criminal organization. After all, people vote, giving themselves the illusion the government is representing them..
DanMorin007 1 year ago
@Sean2046, their competitors can afford mercenaries as well. Its no different then any other resource companies can try to buy up to give themselves an advantage. I immagine what you describe might happen once or twice in an anarcho capitalist world, but at some point it would become futile. The mercenaries make out with a bunch of money and the companies fail to become monopolies anyways. They would of course still sign up with some kind of private defense agency also, which would even the odds
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Sean2046 Getting caught institutionalizing violence would easily bring a company down. If violence is legal, then we're no longer talking about a free market.
yuppyguitar1 7 months ago
Hey, how about you put one up explaining how your going to feed a population when farmers have no property rights. I'm sure those crops will be blooming. Just ask Chairman Mao.
soyuski 1 year ago
private forms are east india company, west india company, private government in pursuit of capitalism or mercantalism. call it what you want we need limited, very limited government. we need more freedoms, more personal freedoms, less taxes, no taxes, stop spending, in theory that period of america when gold was set at 21.00 dollars per oz for 100 years profuced our greatest prosperity. government only has to defend nation and keep things fair. nothing else.
Rico8458 1 year ago
land ownership is fiction of the state
jeepndesert 1 year ago
so if someone buys all the land, another person can come along and make more land? land is the mother of all monopolies. that is where your argument breaks down. if someone buys all the land, everyone else are slaves to the person who owns all the land. henry hazlitt was funded by the rockefeller foundation. henry hazlitt is a scam artist.
jeepndesert 1 year ago
oligopoly =/= cartel
kingOFtheFISHpeople 1 year ago
what if a company took over an industry, and cut off competition by manipulating prices? this has happened throughout history.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
"Competition is sin" - John D. Rockefeller
Brilliant video!
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
"if labor isnt being paid what" etc "this is first semestre economics" Yes, this is true in a first semestre economics but not necessarily in real life where a number of factors come into play (Copernicium may sound great but lasts half a minute out of the lab).
Natural Monopoly: If joe doesnt use a product and peter uses a querky alternative but most people for a variety of reasons (practical considerations, circumstances) stick with the natural monopoly, you still have monopolistic effects.
Rickdeckard2020 1 year ago
I agree with the first 5 minutes which is not stateless but state facilitated (state that is more plutocratic than democratic)
From 5:00 on, I have to disagree;
1-buying out competition provides advantages (aggregation/networking)
2-Oligarchy can outmatch a startup w vertical acquisitions and leveraging
3- An oligarchy an constitute a war chest with which to undercut and bankrupt an upstart(seen this personally)
4- can use price variance strat to saturate/intimidate(low) and reap profits(high)
Rickdeckard2020 1 year ago
...and the credit goes to Ryan Faulk, right?
FightBadIdeas 1 year ago
overcharging only? ahem
low wages (hidden)
excessively disposable goods
unhealthy goods
harmful for the environment
you forgot price dropping
shitty quality/fragile
GuiMarquito 1 year ago
@GuiMarquito I thought i would jump in and tell you that your points are rediculous, please. I have a liberal economist friend whom actually knows too much about econ to tell me bullshit like this and try to make me or himself beleive that the market only brings hardship. Low wages, that's your oppinion. Disposable goods, as opposed to undisposable ones, what does that even mean... Unhealthy goods, yea okay. Force people to eat healthy and see what happens.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@GuiMarquito Harmful to environment? As opposed to government REGULATED uranium shells employed in unnecessary wars...? Or the fact that they monopolize land so there is no incentive not to pollute...
Price dropping? And that's bad for the customer? And no, there are costs to pushing out competition.
Shitty and fragile? Mass production is not for quality, it's to supply as many goods as possible. Buy hand crafted goods if you're picky.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
Ogopolies/ Monopolies are the state.
timetraveler3797 2 years ago
very good vid. learned alot
SanJuanCreole 2 years ago
its true Government literally gets people to pay for their crap they do to us.
Solutionstoourworld 2 years ago
piece of shit ...YOU
donfernandotequila 2 years ago
Awesome video , thank you very much for uploading it! Could you please give me examples of a professional associations with proves that in a Stateless society they would have less chance to exist (or the State presently benefits from the professional associations) Do you have any links showing that professional associations are indeed tied to the Govt in any way? I need it to debate the opposing point of view that professional cartels would thrive/harass small business in a stateless society.
alennna 2 years ago
AT&T
D0g63rt 2 years ago
Comment removed
diabolicalman 2 years ago
idk, he sounds like steve buscimi lmao
espdv8MINE 2 years ago
Better than many in the series, but still very flawed. What you're proposing is that we trade one evil for another, i.e. rule by the fed. government for rule by giant corporations. And you actually think monopolies/oligopolies wouldn't exist in a world where enough money would buy a company it's own private military, control over the ridiculous court system you have in mind, and anything else that would benefit said company. Think of all the barriers to entry the company could create then...
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
lol, you have to have some economic understanding to map up what you're offering and will statistically figure out how actually possible the scenario you're offering is.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
@ShaneSaw83
Exactly! There are state governments that are ruled by corporations & it's called fascism. If you get rid of one state government, what stops powerful corporations from just creating a new state government that they control. Why would powerful corporations not want a government that protects them from competition? It's to the advantage of their profits. If it wasn't for the desire of corporations to maintain power, we wouldn't have the corporatocracy we now have.
MarmaladeINFP 2 years ago
Yea...inspectors...like in sweatshops...god forbid they make enough to eat.
rolpho 2 years ago
free market sweatshops pay people more than what they would earn if those shops weren't there. You seem to have the assumption that the people working in those sweatshops in China, made enough to eat before the sweatshops got there.
Here's a rule of thumb: If it's voluntary, then the transaction is benefitial to both parties. People don't go and work at sweatshops because the pay is less than what they had before. The productiveness of the shops actually raises their pay, and living quality
Sam26100 2 years ago
And soon they'll have office jobs at call centers, and perhaps later even project management work. People love to assume that those in the developing world can jump from sowing seeds at a plantation to becoming rocket scientists in a few years!
domaineer 2 years ago
When did I assume any such thing?
Most people aren't rocket scientists, it doesn't take one to work in an industrial economy.
It does take competence and dedication however
Sam26100 2 years ago
The doctor was a company doctor, the schoolteachers hired by the company . . . Political power in Colorado rested in the hands of those who held economic power. This meant that the authority of Colorado Fuel & Iron and other mine operators was virtually supreme . . . Company officials were appointed as election judges. Company-dominated coroners and judges prevented injured employees from collecting damages." [The Colorado Coal Strike, 1913-14, pp. 9-11]
mcc1789 2 years ago 4
I can't stand it when people claim that Capitalism is bad because companies use the power of the State, i.e. its usurpation of law from only protection of life and property, to restrict competition for cronies. It's the State and the law that is to blame, WHETHER bureaucrats and thieves benefit from it or whether fairly useful people gain unfairly high incomes from taking control of this coercive and expropriating tool. Why blame those who gain economic privilege and not welfare moochers?
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill I don't think that's the intent of the video. Seems to me to be promoting Anarcho-capitalism, and bashing the state, not bashing capitalism.
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill The power of the state, whatever that may be called, public or private, will always be necessary to defend property beyond that of immediate personal use or possession. The state and law cannot be seperated from capitalism, as they were used to create this institution, and keep it going to this day. The people who gain economic privilege have far more power and pose a vastly greater risk than "welfare moochers", that's why. This should be obvious, but apparently not.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789 The ONLY REASON the Colorado plan was able to work was because the government of Colorado sent in military to put down workers and submit them to the company union structure.
The problem wasn't the company, the problem was government.
ASherbuck84 11 months ago
"Each mining camp was a feudal dominion, with the company acting as lord and master. Every camp had a marshal, a law enforcement officer paid by the company. The 'laws' were the company's rules. Curfews were imposed, 'suspicious' strangers were not allowed to visit the homes, the company store had a monopoly on goods sold in the camp.
mcc1789 2 years ago 3
Company towns had every feature which anarcho-capitalists propose, private police, courts, military, etc. Company rules were law. Buying at the company store was required by their contracts. If they sturck or formed a union, they were fired and evicted instantly. The contracts were entered voluntarily, in your sense. Since rights can be waived, exactly what stops this? The British East India Co. was its own state, ruling for centuries. Same with King Leopold's Congo, run by his corporation.
mcc1789 2 years ago 3
@mcc1789 Except that you're overexagerating.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom Over-exaggerating how? This stuff really happened in the past, and there is nothing in anarcho-capitalist theory which prevents that. Firms started before others have a competitive advantage. The Private Defense Agencies, those with the power to use physical force, would have to work together or engage in mutually destructive warfare, as many anarcho-capitalists acknowledge.
mcc1789 1 year ago
However, collusion between firms, especially ones with police power, can lead to price-fixing, monopolies, oligopolies, trusts, cartels, what have you. Now, in a total capitalist free market ordinary firms may indeed not be able to succeed in this. PDAs are different as we see, and their collusion is far more important, not to mention dangerous
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789 Assuming that PDA's are your company towns... When i look at your examples they were usually allocated by government, protected by governments or simply created by government. Which should show you right there that you need a considerable amount of capital that only monetary fraud through central banking can afford and even that is extremely limited. I understand your fears, but those cannot be maintained forever.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom Yes, these company towns were protected by governments, but in anarcho-capitalism the functions of government are privatized, so they could protect themselves. I'm not sure about that amount of capital requiring fraud, but with business much freer to do its thing, "legitimate" shafting of consumers and competition makes it possible anyway. They cannot be maintained forever? Probably not, I hope so anyway-they might certainly spark a revolt.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789 Yes, and they have sparked revolts, i am not advocating violence but it seems that mistakes have to occur to learn from them, the carnegie example being a good one, carnegie lost the battle but the state fought against the union. At a time when the steel industry's prices have suffered dramatically, he should have sold off a good portion of his infrastructure but instead he decided to lower wages. This sounds to me like he fought the emergeant forces and failed terribly.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom mcc1789@ExquisiteDoom That's very interesting you use the Homestead Steel Strike example. As you say, Pinkertons were sent in (a private police/militia) to break the strike but were defeated. Without a state militia to relieve them, Carnegie probably would have settled.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789 Yea, it's hard to speculate on what would have happened since there was military force involved. I don't know if i can agree with you that a privately owned region could be considered "state", i guess it depends on how one defines a state. This word sounds ambiguous to me, and i'm even suspecting it to be rhetoric even on the part of ancaps. I wonder how you would define it?
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom Yes it does depend how you define it. Often it's used as rhetoric by different groups indeed. For this we can just go by the an-cap definition: an institution which has a monopoly over physical force in a geographic region. I find that definition accurate, though also ironic. Geographic region is open-ended. So can anything be a "state?" Even a farm say, if someone can hold a "monopoly over physical force" within it? So then is absolute private property "statism"?
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789 I have heard the argument that the definition is ambiguous but we can clearly define a state in practise. But that just sounds like a non-answer to me. I personally equate the state with government, or perhaps a state of mind. In other words, an ideological view that people share without much inspection, nor logic attached to it, you know, borderline mysticism enforced with emotions and violence. But then i'm sure that's probably inconsistent somehow.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@mcc1789 Yes, sure, do not look at the capitalist point of view. You certainly wouldn't want to damage your points. As if King Leopold wasn't subsidized by the belgian government in the first place. As if Africa had any means to defend themselves from authoritarianism. As for the indian company, it was a corporation which the queen gave a charter to. Your points are irrelevant. And carnegie wasn't that powerful, and the state protected his ass. Good job...
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom So, tell me why firms couldn't merge in a stateless society and achieve these same ends? Have you read the points I made about PDAs above? Do you take the "socialist view" my friend? I should point out that I've read what the "capitalists" have to say. Those examples were given to show private states, and clearly public states still existed to protect them. If all functions of the state were privatized, however, it could still turn out that way.
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789 I'm afraid i'm not following you. I've noticed that you've tried to use fascism to disprove capitalism, but then you seem to ask me why would corporations not decide to opt for a stateless society. That would be denying the fact that fascism comes from a legal framework created by states to be built upon (IE. Corporations). To me, they are just extensions of the state for if they were to bite the hand that feed them; it would be fatal for them.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom I'm not sure what your definition of fascism is (apparently it's state-subsidized corporations in your view?) I don't remember using the word fascism in fact. So I guess I'm not following either completely. However, as I've been saying, in anarcho-capitalism the whole idea is that government functions are in private hands (more than already of course). Using your metaphor, they would not bite the hand that feeds them, no. If they could feed themselves, though...?
mcc1789 1 year ago
@mcc1789 Precisely. Besides, when you are bankrupt.... you are bankrupt, that sets a definitive bottom to how much bad policies you can follow as an entrepreneur. Whereas we all know today some big commercial banks hold up to a 20 to 1 leverage thanks to state subsidized fractional banking, this is litterally sucking up resources to build that which is unnecessary and pursue bad politicies for an extended period of time. I don't think the market can possibly allow frauds to reach this scale.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
@ExquisiteDoom I think we agree here, and that raise questions for the system of anarcho-capitalism. Hence my contention is more that in order to maintain itself the firms by necessity become private states. Otherwise it's likely unsubstainable. This isn't the intent but a possible outcome.
mcc1789 1 year ago
Is that not such a monopoly, i.e. state, if private? Contracts that employees signed could have provisions forbidding strikes, organizing, etc., agreeing to pay for police, courts, doctors, stores and militaries hired by the employer.
mcc1789 2 years ago 4
"[I]f one starts a private town, on land whose acquisition did not and does not violate the Lockean proviso [of non-aggression], persons who chose to move there or later remain there would have no right to a say in how the town was run, unless it was granted to them by the decision procedures for the town which the owner had established." [Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 270] Is that not such a monopoly, i.e. state, if private?
mcc1789 2 years ago 4
Ok, but what about vertical oligopolies and monopolies, as MettaliarYanto says in his response? Also, what prevents a "monopoly of force in a given area" your definition of the state?
mcc1789 2 years ago 4
not really... beccause there other much better place than wal mart n wal mart rlly just builds up a central economy and drives out the competition and if the workers try to get more money or go on strike in other countries wal mart can leave or strikers can be killed, so rly they just control minor economies by going global
isellJesusinacan 2 years ago
Wal-mart is a monopoly now? I didn't know.
OpineTime 2 years ago
WalMart is able to offer lower prices than smaller producers because of current FDA regulations. If a farmer/producer was able to produce better quality produce than a wal-mart and sell it at a profit(most are not able to now because of regulations) people would buy from him. You are setting up an axiom that humans will always puchase according to price. We all know this is not the case. A large monopoly could not exist in an anarchist society.
cclodfe 2 years ago
Good job Anton. Two points, though.
First, first semester economics exists to indoctrinate young minds into Keynesianism as well as confiscation (income taxation) and re-distribution.
Second, Congress went after Gates because at the time
1) Gates became the richest man on earth
2) Microsoft had zero lobby presence in D.C.
In other words, Congressmen strong-armed Gates into becoming an ATM for future political campaigns.
TruthAxe 2 years ago
Talk to Shanedk about microsoft and patents/copyright laws.
Microsoft is NOT a natural monopoly. It wouldn't have those rights in a free market: no patents or copyright laws.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
ShaneDK gives an outstanding presentation of why monopolies can't happen in a free market.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
This is the most convoluted non sense I have ever heard! You conveniently leave out intellectual property rights as in "we came up with the idea of a candle and we feel we shouldn't have to loose our business to someone who will not have to pay for the R&D and undercut our prices to the bone. Ergo putting us out of business."
Get down from there and go do your homework!
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
Microsoft's Windows has a large market share because of it's quality, and marketing. I don't see how one operating system for everyone is necessarily beneficial. A lot of software today are cross platform compatible across Linux distros, Windows, and Mac OSX, or have OS specific builds of the same software. Having multiple platforms competing in the long run can only create a larger market, thus create more openings for jobs that deal with computers, not just create a superior platform.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
I don't buy the wage/price theory. Walmart has low prices because it utilizes cheap foreign labor and products. Companies attempting to compete with Walmart essentially compete for the same market and thus have to keep wages low in order to make a profit to stay in business or risk being undercut by low prices from Wal-Mart. There is no "natural" price for labor, that is a fallacy of logic. It is essentially an opinion based upon a power share in the economy. That is why the wealthy always win.
TheJoker7682 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheJoker7682 2 years ago
So... what is the solution, i mean, how is it to be implemented?
mjalloxxxx 2 years ago
Another note on the Microsoft "natural monopoly," this is also in part created by draconian intellectual property right laws.
priapus512 2 years ago
Intellectual property is not something I am a proponent of. It's a legal monopoly. The myth is that intellectual property creates progress in one's work. While it does this, it also hurts the production potential, and encourages price gouging. Inventions are created not for patents, copyrights, or legal monopolies, but to create a new consumer base. When man invented the wheel, I am pretty sure he didn't invent the wheel and got a patent for it, made riches.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago 2
Even with intellectual property, catallitic competition is still a force. However such laws, for example, also restrict certain technologies from being used innovatively into other technologies unless the license is bought, or given with permission. Contrary to belief, such laws restrict innovation, just as much as it was meant to create incentive to be innovative. Intellectual property laws wouldn't exist in anarchy, because when you own something, you own it 100%, and do what you wish with it
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
What I mean by ownership is that of physical ownership. Whether you bought a music CD, or you replicated a computer program, whatever. Do you really own a music CD 100% when you can scratch it, break it, do what you will with it, but you can't copy it, and distribute it however you wish, even though you bought this with your own money? Intellectual property didn't create art, music, storytelling. All that came before, and without it, I imagine that such things would still be around.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
What about the fact that a large initial capital investment can itself be a barrier to entry? Not all barriers to entry are hard, and not all are government-created.
tkwsni 2 years ago
This was capitalism does- oligopoly do u want perfect competiton? Forget it, corprate "oligopoly" companies stop u!!! So really in capitalism, it seems YOU have freedom but to the truth is it isn't free. So is communism really unfree?
dancthegr 2 years ago
Yes, by definition. In communism the state tells you how and when to do everything, hence by definition it is not free.
Crazypower274 2 years ago
dancthegr, this is incorrect. Monopolies are only created by the consumer. Consumers want to drive down prices, sellers/providers want to increase prices. Even if there was a monopoly by choice of consumers, the monopoly still must compete for the consumers dollars. This is why newspapers are going out of business, as Internet based news has taken the market share of providing news. It's called catallitic competition. There is no coersed monopolies in free market, as consumers decide spending.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
The US rarely ever exercised antitrust laws, because antitrust laws don't make any sense. Competition laws are nonsense, and not based on market sciences. Price gouging, rebates, tying, predatory pricing to thwart competition is all ludacris, and never lead to a successful monopoly of any kind. The only real successful monopolies are those that were propped up by the state such as making laws against competition, and subsidizing.
PontiffMystic 2 years ago
Or maybe the monopoly manufactures things that are difficult to manufacture in a small market, limiting the emergence of competition. Maybe they control that much of the market share that new competition will not affect it or can run at a loss for a while to eliminate the competitions capital. Maybe the monopoly sells a recourse that you can't get from anywhere. Maybe the monopoly controls something that is expensive and time consuming to construct like transport. Candle making is a bad example.
b0b0maj0 2 years ago
So I'm going to ask a serious question this time:
Wouldn't the elimination of intellectual property crush small inventers? I know the typical arguement is that stopping small business from selling things that are copyrighted crushes them. But, if I invent something and start my little business to sell it, a large company can take my invention and mass produce it for a lower price than I can, pushing me out of the business and creating a near oligopily.
jackriter 2 years ago
Actually a pretty good video. I almost listened to the whole thing. The conclusion however, is that we should adopt a minimal libertarian state to prevent government assisted monopolies, not anarchism which leads to chaos, misery, and death.
pterodromamollis 2 years ago
Chaos, misery, and death are created by the state too.
ZuzoFriend 2 years ago
You really believe the 233 year history of the United States as one of chaos, misery, and death?!!!
pterodromamollis 2 years ago
for other nations a part of this time was..
abrockkalypse 2 years ago
Why don't you ask the native peoples that were slaughtered or forcefully relocated. How about the 2.5 million Russian refuges the US rounded up at the end of WWII to send to the USSR and certain death under an agreement made at Yalta called Operation Keelhaul. How about the over 100 million people that died due to war, death camps, extermination marches, artificial famines and other government activities in the 20th century. The state is second to none in chaos, misery and death.
Crazypower274 2 years ago
Your numbers are inflated and you make no comparison. I contend that if you compare our republic to an actual socialist model, our history is nothing but cheerful daisies by comparison. When we make a mistake, we call our own fouls. Dictatorships, socialist states, etc have no need to do this and, as history has shown, take a long time to do so. We have never had anything close to the misery of the early USSR nor VietNam under the Camir Ruge. Not even close.
Goohuman 2 years ago
USSR (Lenin, Stalin and all the leaders leading up to the fall) killed millions of people due to state made famines (see Ukraine) Ethiopia (forgot the Col's name but state made famine (1980s-90s) killed hundreds of thousands, Cambodia ( It wasn't Vietnam) (the killing fields) hundreds of thousands killed. The World Wars (socialist ideas that led to total wars where civilians are targeted as well). The Spanish Civil war (socialists and "anarchists" fighting each other with the socialists winning
D34thSetX 2 years ago
Excellent examples.
Point of information, Ethiopia didn't start as an artificial crisis, but once the government saw the advantages of it, they ensured the poverty continued.
Goohuman 2 years ago
Well it didn't start as one however, once forced resettlement (to deserts) and collectivization started more.. a lot more people started dying of.. a famine.. correct.
D34thSetX 2 years ago
Yes
MachineLegion 2 years ago
Its the government that creates monopolies. The free market gives everyone a fair chance. Anarcho Capitalism would end many monopolies that exist today with state Capitalism.
Gold0ilDrugs 3 years ago
wtf? when did government become part of anarchy? this seems like capitalists twisted anarchy to maintain the class system. profit making is not anarchism. the presence of a state is not anarchism. and his statement on labor, if the company employs the whole town and pays slave wages, any company trying to take over and pay better wages will get their throats cut on prices of products. thats how wal-mart is able to take over towns in the first place.
VeganTim0Deadbeat 2 years ago
Vegan Tim Government isn't part of Anarchy. Anarcho Capitalism isn't the same as state controlled Capitalism. With the phony monetary system that the federal reserve has, it actually helps China and definitely helps Wal-Mart.
Gold0ilDrugs 2 years ago
monopolies under capitalism youtube video- "Get government to create trade barriers"
that sounds like government to me. I'm not referring to anarchism in general, im referring to the ideas presented in this video. a comrade of mine is an anarcho capitalist and ive been trying to grasp the concept and this video doesn't seem to be presenting a branch of anarchism as i understand it.
VeganTim0Deadbeat 2 years ago
you guy's write alot
KedsDeks 3 years ago
cont
The "you can set up communes" arguement is a lame point. If I don't have enough money to purchase property, move with other communists etc. Then I am out of luck and forced to participate in a system I hate, at the bottom of the food chain. Wheras in anarcho communism I am free to travel where I want all around the world, in anarcho capitalism I need a whole lot of money (imagine taking a road trip and having to pay $5 for every road you take!. "Anarcho" capitalism will deny me that.
jackriter 3 years ago
But with enough other Anarcho-Communists, you can raise enough money to buy the land. Plus, if government-owned land is broken up to individual owners, the price of land will go down as there is a larger supply.
Also, in Anarcho-Capitalism you would NOT need a lot of money! If no one can afford to use the roads, no one will, and the road-owner will literally be forced to lower the fair to a resonable rate.
In True Capitalism, the People control the Buissinessmen.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Technically capitalism cannot exist as the means of production (other than for personal use) cannot be privately owned. But you can still have markets etc, the only question is why you would want to?
Another thing, "anarcho" capitalism is an oxymoron, not redundant. Say your workers rise up and take over your factory, your defense company is not going to attack them once you're dead, so this can happen all the time. In all its history anarchism has been a working class idea, not bourgeois.
jackriter 3 years ago
But your Defense Company would have to pursue your killers once your dead, otherwise the other Defense Companies will point to your killing as propaganda and your Defense Company would lose bussiness. (Who'd want a Defense Company that let it's customers die?)
You should really learn at least the basic principles of Competition before you rail against Capitalism!
DoomHippie 3 years ago
"In all its history anarchism has been a working class idea, not bourgeois."
Also, what the heck do ya mean by this?! It is you who clearly don't understand Anarchism! Anarchism is the opposition of all class structure, thus there is no "working class" or "bourgeois," just people, free to choose to do what they want.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
It has always been supported by the working class, and there is ALWAYS a class system in Capitalism. I answered your "I can buy land" thing below.
Do you know anything about the history of Anarchism? You don't because your just a little bourgeois teenage PUXXRAWKERZZ!!11!1
jackriter 3 years ago
Your the one implimenting a class system here. Get your terms straight, you're a Communist! You're not Anarcho-Anything, just a plain and Simple Communist!
Under your system, if I choose to do no work, I would most likely be lynched. Your system fits exactly into Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariot. You are NO ANARCHIST. You asre Simply Communist!
Plus, the majority of Anarcho-Capitalist supporters are Working Class! I'm working class, and like it here.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
I know plenty on the History of Anarchism. Like, for example, I know that "Anarcho"-Communism and Syndicatism has ONLY been implemented on a large scale by extreme violence.
The thing that puzzles me most about you "Anarcho" Communists is How do you expect to stop Free Trade? Really, who is there to stop me from trading my goods with my nieghbor?
In a stateless society, the Free Market is the ONLY economy!
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Sure I'm not going to stop you, nor should you stop me when I run up my workplace, shoot my boss, and put it in the hands of the workers (OH GOD THE COERCION!!!).
Where is this "exteme violence" anarchists have used, it has been largely in defense. So have you ever left the suburbs kid? How does Communism impletment a class system when it is the negation of it?
Listen, child, pick up a history book, get a job, and stop living off of mommy and daddy. Live in the real world you child.
jackriter 3 years ago
Communism unwittingly places people into two classes: in power and not in power.
Here, you also proove my point. You are not a true anarchist, just some pop-punk teenager wanting death and destruction.
It is no suprise that you advocate killing the bourgeois, as your form of "Anarchism" has ONLY ever come about by violent means!
DoomHippie 3 years ago
I'm 29, your 15/16, who's the teenager?
Communism is a STATELESS, CLASSLESS society by definition, so you just described Capitalism. Wealth=power.
I guess Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, Guerin, Day, and Bookchin all just wanted death and destruction.
Honestly, do you know anything about history? What do you think about the scandal with Nestle sellingbaby formula to 3rd world countries where they couldn't afford it, but were convinced into buying it and they had to water it down, many died
jackriter 3 years ago
You assume to know my age?
Communism in Theory is different then Communism in Practice!
Seriously, read history yourself.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Would the situation be any better under YOUR system?
Let's see, since trade is uninhibitted there is nothing to stop the same people from trading the same formula to the same poor people. Since there are no governments or courts, they will not be persecuted for it.
The only different thing that would happen in your system is that they would get away with it.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
How many 15 or 16 year olds do you think advocate AnarchoCapitalism anyway? I bet more then 90% wouldn't even know what it is.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, ect.
I've read their theories and think they, like Marxism, would not apply to the real world.
They did not advocate death and destruction. At least not tha much, anyhow.
You however do. Even when I was an Anarcho-Communist (before becoming Capitalist) I denounced the violent anomists like you. You do nothing but hurt your own cause!
DoomHippie 3 years ago
But it is NOT anarchism you advocate. In your system the working class kills all who dissent with the consensus.
AKA, a group of people impossing their will on others.
AKA, a government.
Sure, not a very good government. Not even a very stable government, but a government none the less!
You advocate Mob Rule Democracy (the kind found in France shortly after they killed the king), NOT Anarchy!!
Stop using words you have no understanding of.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
I??? have no undertanding of?
<--- Is a History teacher for one thing.
Isn't my boss telling me what to do make him a ruler? Can't he punish me by taking away wages if I disobey him?
Listen kid, you have no clue of the real world. What are the homeless supposed to do when roads are privatised and they can't find any food?
Pick up a history book.
jackriter 3 years ago
Of course not! You can choose who you want to work for in a True Capitalistic world! It is only the State regulation that has moved the economy into big bussinesses hands.
You assume that all roadowners would be complete a**holes? Sure, SOME would, but most would not persecute the homeless. They'd find food in Charities. Since Anarcho-Communsim is a Pure-Charity system, you should have no problem with that
DoomHippie 3 years ago
I find it very unlikely that, based on your past comments, that you are a history teacher.
Honestly, with the state of Teacher's Unions these days your boss probably can't cut your wages no matter what you do without going through piles of paperwork first!
Also, that comment were you claimed you wanted to shoot up your workplace would be even more disturbing if you were a schoolteacher.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
I was in manufacturing from 19 to whn I graduated, but I was speaking in general terms and I didn't specify MY workplace, I said "A".
In anarchism there is nothing enforcing the bougeois status quo. When Capitalism is let unbridled workers resist (Russian Revolution, Cuban, Chinese, Sandinista, all the various general strikes, the CNT, etc)
What do you think about the general strike in Guadalupe, or the riots in Greece, both recent acts against Capitalism.
jackriter 3 years ago
Big Buissiness does not Equal Capitalism.
You're a history teacher?
C'mon, America hasn't been truely Capitalist since before the "Progressive" Era. Regulatory Socialism is what allows Big Bussiness to claim Oligopolies! (Do you even watch these videos, or do you just look for someone to argue with in the comments?)
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Pre-Revolution Russia was Socialist. Cuba and Spain, like all fascist states, were Socialist. Guadalupe and Greece are both Regulatory Socialist, not Capitalist. China was Nationalist, which has strong Socialist and even Mercantilist pull.
Even if others define this Regulatory Socialism as Capitalism, WE ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS DO NOT! You must use arguements against how WE define Capitalism, or your arguements are not valid against us. That's how a debate works.
Seriously, you're a teacher?
DoomHippie 3 years ago
So there was a Socialist revolution against Socialism? Nevermind that it was Marxist in mind before being hijacked by Lenin.
So because there are regulations and a few social services it doesn't qualify as Capitalism? Because the same problem we have with it still exists, exploitation, wage labor, and private property. Lassie Faire would be wonderful, nevermind the thousand of children forced into the factories already, lets remove MORE regulations! Awesome!
jackriter 3 years ago
"So because there are regulations and a few social services it doesn't qualify as Capitalism?"
Right. By the very definition of a Free Market. It's called a FREE Market. Not a Kinda-free-market.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Your naivety astounds me. Do you really, truly believe that in this day in age, with the internet in media, that a bussiness that used and abused children for labor would get any bussiness? Do you think anyone went to mentioned meatpacking companies after Sinclair's The Jungle. Muckrakers are perfectly capable of regulating against corruption!
Plus, in your system there is no regulation either! If a rat falls in my meat grinder, what's my incentive not to serve it?
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Ever hear of Nike and Adidas? I wouldn't bring up child labor if it wasn't happening. McDonalds has a massive propaganda campaign going against it and it's sales are actually increasing. Coca Cola has killed 6 trade unionists and people haven't stopped buying coke. What about things like Pinkertons who kill trade unionists and strikers?
There is no incentive TO is the difference, because you aren't losing any money by throwing that meat out.
jackriter 3 years ago
Right. it's happening. in a socialist economy. Thus it is invalid arguement. Again.
"What about things like Pinkertons who kill trade unionists and strikers?"
Well, once again, the Gov is inclined to side with Big Bussiness and thus the Media also sides with it and blocks those facts from the mainstream. In a Stateless Society, your own DRO would care much more about your right to strike then the current Gov.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
How would it not happen in "anarcho" capitalism?
Pinkertons was a private defense company. Most strikers that have been killed have been killed by people acting on behalf of the bourgeoisie. If the capitalists wanted to they could have called them off because they weren't doing anything illegal, but they encouraged it. What would stop me from killing those damn unionists in "anarcho" capitalism?
What if I can't afford a DRO?
What about all the homeless children out there?
jackriter 3 years ago
Your forgetting that each Unionist has their own DRO as well. Those DRO's are obligated to protect the unionist's rights, and will most likely send protection. Also, the company's DRO has nothing to gain by moving aggressively against the strikers. The media would pick up on it, and the DRO would lose bussiness due to the loss of reputation.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
The media has traditionally come out on behaf of the capitalists. Go to the New York Times website and search "IWW" or even just "strikers", you'll see almost all the articles are against the strikers (calling them Communist infiltrators etc).
Charity doesn't work, over 1 trillion dollars in aid has been given to Africa since 1945 (exluding money to governments) and it hasn't worked. If your system was good then why would people have to pick up after it?
jackriter 3 years ago
No, the media traditionally sides with the government, which sides with Socialist Big Bussiness because Big Bussiness pays more to the Gov then workers.
The best thing one can do is too get media from the internet, where a variety of opinions are expressed. Internet Media is gaining ground fast, and may soon surpass televised biased media.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Socialism is when the working class controls the means of production, which is why I don't call any "socialist" state socialist, though it would be an easy swpie at state socialism, I like to be fair and call it state capitalism. Socialist Big Business? That's an oxymoron.
You're right, I'm a nihilistic punk (coming from someone named Doom, that's totally KRVST!!) Nevermind that I have my masters.
Whatever, I'm done argueing with kids trying to play the age card on someone older than them.
jackriter 3 years ago
Socialism - Noun, Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Typical. Your out of arguements so you throw attacks at symantics, my name (chosen purely for irony) as well as trying to end the debate. In short, your trying to do anything other then admit that you have lost.
You've got some growing up to do.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
I told you I was done, kid, yet you press me.
Don't tell people with real jobs to "grow up".
Are you done now?
jackriter 3 years ago
Not at all. I dislike people who can't admit when they've lost.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
I find it interesting that once I refute one of your arguements against Capitalism, you drop the point and attack from another angle. Do you really have no counterarguements?
I have also expressed the fact that your arguments often contradict each other. You refuse to comment on this fact either.
Instead, you attempt to play the age card, downrate my comments, and throw out off-topic arguements to distract from the fact that you really DON'T know what your talking about.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Okay, okay, okay. Now I am 100% sure that you are not Anarchist in ANY sense of the word. Your just some nihilistic punk throwing around the word "Anarchy" like you understand what it means.
You now claim that Charity does not work. Interesting, since EVERY ANARCHIST NON-CAPITALIST ECONOMY IS DRIVEN PURELY ON A CHARITABLE BASIS!
You really have no clue what you're talking about, you just wanna kill some bourgous, don't you? Dude, you're thinking of Communism, not Anarchy.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Capitalism cannot cover everything, it mainly fails in covering the poor. However, the cool thing about a Free Market is that Volunteerism fills in the gaps that Capitalism cannot. There would be non-profit, volunteer staffed DRO's to cover the rights of those who can't afford DRO's. Charitable organizations ALWAYS arise to meet the needs of the needy.
Socialist Bureocracies always insist that even Charities go through all of the regulatory nonsense, thus limiting what a Charity can do.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
But please, keep ranting on about Socialism, since it helps my side of the arguement. When you want to talk Capitalism, let me know.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
It's kinda odd that you point out flaws that both our systems have. And at least the Anarcho-Capitalist system has privatized regulation, where as Anarcho-Communism has... No Regulation! Nothing! Zilch! Nada!
Are you REALLY sure you're an Anarchist at all? You seem to not understand what "No Government" truly means. It would also mean no regulation. Which would essentially mean Capitalism, regardless of what you choose to call it!
DoomHippie 3 years ago
A teacher needs food, housing, and a classroom then they can create. The musician needs an instrument and food/housing. The farmer needs a feild. Randists feel that people should have to work for that, but that can subdue someone's creativity and urge to create. If their needs are satified however they will contribute to society. Look at how even some of the richest people in the world still keep their jobs, because even with their needs satisfied they still want to contribute to society.
jackriter 3 years ago
the idea of*
ArwenApathy 3 years ago
Anarcho-Capitalism is just an excuse to be lazy by steering away from the idea self-sustainability.
ArwenApathy 3 years ago
Just a few questions though... without the government wouldn't the money be worth nothing? I mean generally speaking money's backed by two things, gold and faith in the government. Oh and who would enforce these property rights? (sense the gov't usually would in a normal situation.)
NoSurrenderLeftistPr 3 years ago
The government is the reason our dollar is worthless. It's not backed by anyhting any longer. They are the ones working with the fed creating booms and busts.
Liberty654 3 years ago
I agree. The only thing that creates monopolies and oligopolies is the Government.
DoomHippie 3 years ago
Microsoft wasn't natural, unless you believe that IP is a valid concept.
murphycline 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Real anarchists are anticapitalist. The entire history of the movement has been anticapitalist until the recent Objectivist spinoff. "Anarcho" capitalism is a strictly North American idea, and has no bearing outside of there. "Anarcho" capitalists are not anarchists.
jackriter 3 years ago
Jackriter: The problem with Anarcho-Capitalism and even "Pure" Anarchists is that there needs to be a transitionary Gov't (to go from where we are to where we'd like to be)one that is close to an Anarchy as possible; some call this a Min-Archy (or limited gov't libertarianism).
I've developed a type of "min-archy" that seems agreeable to most Anarchists, Anarcho-Capitalist, Anarcho-Communists, Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Socialists - essentially, believers in the voluntary society.
GoGoOcto 3 years ago