it pains me so much that people think capitalism and anarchy can be one. it's like trying to rewrite history. i don't necessarily hate Rothbard of Friedman, but they should have coined their ideologies something different, and not "Anarchy"
I personally would want to live within a group of people in an anarchist society that functioned as a voluntary socialist community. However, in a truly anarchistic society, if someone or a group of people wanted to offer a service in exchange for a currency that they could then use within their own community of currency dependent individuals and businesses. Just because I want to live where everyone works together for common good, doesn't mean other people should have to subscribe to it.
To sum up: I do not believe that any voluntary economic choices are tyrannical. If you choose one or the other, exploitative or not, it is essentially fine. I don't like S&M sex, but I don't want to "abolish" it, or equate it with rape. I do not wish to be a boxer, but I do not consider the fighters victims of assault. To use anarchy as a pejorative in socialism is evidence that socialism has no monopoly on anarchism. It also shows, in it's own words, why markets can be anarchistic.
Problem 2 (cont. again): You can find reference to "anarchy of production" as a concept specifically or implicately in Kapital by Marx, and Anti-Diuring by Engels. If I can quote Leo Panitch, "[f]or Marx, the exploitative social relations of commodity production and the anarchy of competitive markets were more fundamental characteristics of capitalism than financial speculation." So, socialism can actually find anarchy distasteful, whereas it will equate capitalism with anarchy. Markets=anarchy.
Problem 2 (cont.): In the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (an admittedly propaganda filled book), "Anarchy of Production" is defined as "the absence of planning and the state of chaos that develop in the economy of a society when economic laws operate spontaneously. Anarchy of production is a characteristic feature of all commodity production based on private property, but it becomes universal and destructive in a capitalist society." If you leave out the word 'destructive', I agree.
Problem 2: "Anarchy of Production" is a concept espoused by classical/Marxist socialist adherents. It contends markets are anarchistic (to be meant as the pejorative in place of 'chaos'), and socialism is orderly and planned.
Problem 1: Anarchism traces it's roots to 5th and 4th century BC philosophy in Taoist China and Cynical/Stoic Greece. This is CENTURIES before feudalism had a name, before anarchy had a name (although it predates the existance of states), before mercantilism, free markets, communism, and socialism. To lay claim with no chronological perspective is erroneous. NO ECONOMICS HAS A CLAIM ON THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT IS ANARCHISM.
How can you have anarchy and socialsm at the same time? Anarchy is the absence of government, while socialism requires a strong central govermental authority to "redistribute" what citizens produce. You don't know really seem to know what anarchism is.
@marti0668 You don't know what Socialism is. Socialism is: "the commitment to the common ownership of the means of production". Such a commitment doesn't require a coercive State.
@Dunbar0740 Want to bet? If socialism was non-coercive you wouldn't need laws to enforce it, would you? Ah, but I suppose in your fantasyland, that's where the "anarcho" thing comes in. Want to show me one example in the real world where this is has ever worked -- where socialism and/or anarchy has ever been able to survive the slings and arrows of outrageous reality? If you have to change human nature to get your system to function, it just ain't gonna fly, pal.
@marti0668 er... there are many examples of non-State groups with a commitment to the common ownership of production; some of them successful, some not so. The most famous example is the Kibbutz' in Israel, no one is forced to work in them and there is no law to compel people to stay.
@marti0668 I think you have a very confused understanding of anarchism. If you read about the origins of anarchism in the 19th century, you will see that it has nothing to do with silly right wing capitalist thought.
@buddhagem If the government collapsed and we lived in a state of anarchy, would you use physical violence to stop me from using currency and trading with my neighbors? Would you use coercive force to stop an individual from working for me if they were doing so voluntarily and had the option to join your capitalism-free society if they so chose?
@buddhagem So why does your video carry such frustration for the anarcho-capitalist cause when essentially we are struggling for the same goal, a stateless society? If your assertions about pure capitalism are correct, the capitalistic society wouldn't stand a chance to your ideal society since it would be directly competing with it. An exploited workforce would surely migrate voluntarily to your socialist society leaving the capitalistic free market economy destroyed and left to history.
@buddhagem Continued... When ANCAP's state their case, they are only proposing their IDEA of how modern society would most efficiently/ethically organize in the absence of a state. They are in no way inflicting an ideology on anyone. We would all be free to live in the society of our choice. Primarily, ANCAP's are most interested in the dissolution of the state and the non initiation of force. This would mean people would have the freedom to organize a peaceful society in any way they desire.
@buddhagem Continued... You seem to argue against anarcho-capitalism like one would argue with a statist who is intent on using violence to solve social problems. Why shouldn't anarchists from every viewpoint stand with a singularity to dissolve the state... THEN we can go about organizing our societies to see which ones stand and which do not. There would be no force whatsoever preventing a worker from moving his family away from capitalist-land over to the greener pastures of socialist-land.
@dingerness In the simplest terms, anarchism is about much more than opposing the state; the easiest way to understand this is by looking at the word anarchy which literally means no archies, that is no ladders of power or hierarchies; that extends into race, gender, personal relationships, and the wider sphere of society. Opposition to the state is not sufficient in and of itself; and as I've pointed out PDF are essentially private states.
@buddhagem I don't feel like you responded to my point. Let's forget the semantics of "anarchism". All anarcho-capitalists are saying is that no man should ever initiate force on another man. We just hold the view that the most successful society would a capitalist based society. Again, if your society is obviously superior, and mine is obviously oppressive, my society/economy will collapse immediately. I don't know what "PDF" is, but "private state" sounds contradictory.
I don't understand how you claim the all anarchists are socialists. Your creating your own definitions of anarchism. The most common definition of anarchism is: with out a state. So I don't see how you can claim what form of anarchism is is "true". Both of you don't no shit in my honest opinion. Its sad to see people basing there political beliefs on morals. But like I said you don't no shit and there is no use for me to explain any form of free-market anarchism to you.
@DerrEinzige I'm an ancap, but don't understand why you suggest people shouldn't base their political beliefs on ethics. Fundamentally, the state should be abolished simply because it violates the non-initiation principle and is a violent force. That is an ethical argument, and the most relevant one. Free trade is non-violent and cooperative.
@DerrEinzige No, the most common definition of anarchism is without rulers. And if you follow that to its logical conclusion you end up with a stateless form of socialism. If you can eliminate ruled and rulers in your free-market society, that's awesome.
wieso braucht man umbedingt einen herrscher egal in welcher form als politiker, firmenboss usw.? in einer gesellschaft wo alle gleich sein sollen ist das eigentlich auch ein widerspruch! bzw. wieso soll man sie z.B. nicht jederzeit als einfacher bürger absetzen dürfen? wieso sollen arbeiter ihren betrieb nicht selbst verwalten? wieso soll man als einfacher bürger nicht bei gesetzen und z.B. bei kriegseinsätzen oder auch bauvorhaben nicht mitreden dürfen?
Why cant the workers make a corporation? NO one is stoping them in an anarcho society. There is no "law saying "no workers can only work". And you say "in a society were everyone should be equal" I actually lol'd. You whole idea of equality is bullshit. No one is equal to me. And your moral claims thats a whole different subject but non the less complete and utter bullshit. You have this bullshit idea that rich people have some godlike ability to be able to do whatever they want.
"NO one is stoping them in an anarcho society." but employer who pay bad or even no wages und there will be unemployment in your system because employer aren't interested to hire more workers than they really need. stronger richer rivals can break your company with their own mercenaries.
it would mean chaos because corporations fight for control over sales markets and resources, become replacement for government in a negativ way. anarchism?
Know what happens when the evil corporations kill everyone? Who's gonna pay them? Where are they gonna get profit? You say that the rich would fund them. What happens when the rich pay them and they run out of money? Businesses generally look for long term profit so I highly doubt they would kill the whole labor force just for money. Also who says the workers will do what the corporations say? If the workers then commit to the acts then arnt they just as "bad"?
"Also who says the workers will do what the corporations say?" who says the inhabitants of a nation do what the government say? why does a dictator kill people? (i never says everyone!) to spread terror, to enforce the people to do sth. what they don't like. i think enforcing people to work for free and saving the property with terror and eliminating all rivals to dictate prices can be very profitable.
But your blaming the corporations. the workers have more power.... " i think enforcing people to work for free" Who's the one doing the enforcing? "eliminating all rivals to dictate prices can be very profitable" Easier said then done. All your doing is spewing shit that is near impossible.
"the workers have more power...." why they have more power? have they anything to say in any corporation? what power? nothing to say in a corporation and a non existing choice of jobs, employers because of unemployment? strikes can crush by private army, privat police and so you can also kill your rivals, if you have enough money.
Know what would the company owner get out of that? If one really wants profit its would be much safer logical and HIGHLY more likely to just sell your product. Your ideas are nearly impossible.
All these theories can apply to a capitalist society but they cant apply to a socialist one? No one has any form of greed? all your ideas can be applied to a socialist society to.
@DerrEinzige Nobody is saying that this cannot be applied to "socialism", humans are humans. But OK at least in socialism there was very little degree of mobbing (either by elected boss or fellow coworkers), unemployment or whatever. Yet I cannot say that about the state, if you said something pollitically inappropriate.
But what you're advocating here is a society million times worse than the current one. Even in theory it sounds bad.
Also stop being a typical leftist do*che bag and label every business as a "corporation". Please learn the definition first. Limited liabiltiy and special privileges are government granted and are not products of the free markets. People pooling capital together to make mutual investments is a purely free market concept.
@DerrEinzige Your definition is a dictionary definition of anarchism. But anarchism is a political theory, and cannot be expected to be summed up in a sentence or two in a dictionary. Some dictionaries might define anarchism simply as disorder or chaos. It would not stand scrutiny from a political perspective, because anarchism is a coherent body of political thought that arose out of the 19th century workers movement, which was anti-capitalist.
@c00terb00ter14918 No sorry but anarchy hasn't got direct connection to so called government. Anarchy is society without an archon(ruler), that means no despot, president, boss,company owner, lord you name it. A society without hierarchy.Capitalism without an archon is not capitalism. Capitalism cannot exist without an archon. Archon runs capitalism.
When you employ some people to work for you, you gain power over them, you are the archon, anarchy cannot apply to you.
@c00terb00ter14918 Of course it is. In Spanish civil war for instance anarchists sticked with communists and socialists, not fascist who fancied capitalism. LOL
Its funny how communists and socialists always try to link capitalism with fascism but fascism in all of its form is anti capitalist. Have you heard any of Hitlers speeches? like really please try to actually learn what the fuck your talking about before you say something. Talk to any Nazi and they will be anti capitalists. Nazism is a socialists belief system.... (Dont try to say im labeling all socialists as Nazis)
@DerrEinzige It's funny how libertarian capitalists always try to link fascism to socialism or even communism. Fascism is right where it is - in between. Well fascism is pretty much against (international)socialism too. I honestly never heard about some kolkhozy farms or socialist autogestion occurring in Nazi Germany. I might be mistaken, but I doubt.
Yeah I've heard some of Hitler's speeches. And? No common/public control of the means of production, no socialism.I know what I'm writing here.
@DerrEinzige There are high degrees of welfare all over Europe, yet no country is actually socialistic. Socialism is a way of running the economy, not a way of running the social sector in society.
@DerrEinzige What's a free market anarchism? That sounds very oppressive, and would be even despotic for "employees"(more like slaves). If I had to choose between Hitler and your ideas, surely Hitler would be less cruel.
Fascism is not a socialist system. it's a capitalist system with high degree of welfare.
Free Market Anarchism: refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of private institutions offering security, justice, and other defense services. A market would exist where providers of security and law compete for voluntarily paying customers that wish to receive the services rather than individuals being taxed without their consent and assigned a monopoly provider of force.
@DerrEinzige There's no such thing as individualist anarchist in capitalist society. Once you hire someone you become his Archon. The very thing you despise.But I think that you don't despise (Hier)archy, you despise government which is rather unusual. What about state?Why is it unusual that capitalist despises government? Because government ant it's apparatus-the state was actually created by capitalist syndicates to protect themselves against the mob.
Theres hierarchy even in socialism. So your saying that the guy who mows my lawn is my archon? No. He works for me and I pay him. If he becomes dissatisfied with his pay then by all means he can find a new employer. Thats like that with every business. Whats a company gonna do? Kill you if you want to leave? Okay your telling me the workers who make up the majority of a company will be killed by ones working in the cubicles?
@DerrEinzige No why should someone who mows your lawn be your archon? Yeah, that's like with every businesses as long as there are thousands of more efficient poor guys who can replace your employee.
I could replace my lawnmower with a thousand other people. There pently of people in my town who could work for me. I choose not to for a multitude of reasons. I have had him for awhile and I respect him (I pay him twenty bucks so im not looking for cheaper workers)
Let's say that I live in stateless/government-less capitalist society, I don't care about any reasons(except my own financial ones) and I respect nobody. Who can stop me?
And please the way capitalism works there's always gonna be someone who's prepared to work for miserable salary. Correction more like 8/10 of the world if not more. And those people surly will concentrate near your property, since there's no state. What happens if they get mad?
Well if people still have emotions morals etc and being that capitalistic are a minority the others will surely win. Know thats even if someone has that kind of mentality. You said a capitalists main drive is profit. But if his main drive really is profit he wouldn't bite the hand that feeds him. Please note Im not a fan of ancap, like I said im a FREEMARKET anarchist which is what ancap stems from. I disagree with some points like PMCs
@DerrEinzige Abut what kind of "law, justice, defense" are you talking about? There's no such law but your own personal corporate law. Give my a break.
You know, communists believed that average person is good by nature and only corruptible by system in which one lives in.
But you guys actually believe that average, corruptible, materialistic and selfish person would apply any sort of justice.
There you go again with your morals.... Gosh can you please stop calling every business a corporation. Corporations get special benefits from the gov giving them a unfair advantage over other other businesses. But actually technically a corporation is you a minimum of 2 people pooling capital together to make a mutual investment.
@DerrEinzige Well it's more likely that corporations control government. Of course there's an advantage, if they have millions even billions of dollars and you have practically nothing.
I wouldnt say corporations control thte government. most gov is anti business I will say that there are corrupt politicians that give special handouts to business for there support during there campaign. (ie: Earmarks, pork etc)
@DerrEinzige How can republican government be anti business, who installed government anyway? The people? Even among parties there are monopolies that compete.Yeah I admit that's your free market problem, you want to take your share, but they won't let you.
Candidate with best political propaganda wins. Who pays for that?
Indeed thats exactly what I said. " I will say that there are corrupt politicians that give special handouts to business for there support during there campaign. (ie: Earmarks, pork etc)" Anit business as in tons of regulations.
Mutualism which is also free market anarchism: is an anarchist school of thought that originates in the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market.
@DerrEinzige Hmm, collective ownership of the means of production? Man, that sounds so socialist to me. Needless to say that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was actually a socialist.I thought you were anarchist-capitalist or whatever. What's this all about?
Im a free market anarchist . Im not in favor of mutual ownership but you can do what you want in a anarchist society. Mutualism is just one for of free market anarchism. AnCap is the other. I dont follow any text book theory. But I would be satisfied with any form of free market anarchism being that if I disagree with a principle I wouldnt be forced into conforming to there beliefs. Except with the usual forms of aggression that are even in statist societies.
Know how would employees be like slaves? If you dont like the working conditions form a union. If you dont like your job get a new one. Or even better start one with your fellow workers. So your who'll idea of slavery is quite the opposite. Please read about something before labeling it something that it is not.
@DerrEinzige Form a union and corporation would hire mercenaries to beat your ass. But since mercenaries won't probably be sufficient, corporation would ally with another one, therefore government and a state would be created.Nevertheless any corporation would be its own state consuming other more weaker ones. Have you learned noting from history?
Please don't take your "American liberty" concept as granted.
it's enough to use common seance and little logic.
Your whole idea that big business would kill everyone. Then what? What would they do? What do they get from killing everyone. Sure I'll play along they'll get there money. But then once you killed all your workers and your competitors workers what will you do? Who would buy your products? You creating theories that are illogical and highly unlikely to happen.
@DerrEinzige I'm not talking about killing, I'm talking about bullying and mobbing. Nobody will kill you as long as you're useful. But if someone can replace you...
I'm not technically creating any theories here, I'm just using examples from 19 century's "anarcho-capitalism", when government(ruler) never gave a rats ass about what capitalism was doing, as long as everyone payed taxes.
19th century gov was corrupted and gave business special handouts which gave certain business an upper hand over others (ie: leading to monopolies). This throws a wrench into the free market. I do acknowledge that business would try to do this (gain an advantage other other business by using outer market means) thats why it MUST be laissez faire.
@DerrEinzige Oh, it MUST be laissez faire, hmm, OK, right. And how do you plan to convince everyone in your believes and especially how to stop the monopolies that would grow without the presence of the state?
EVERY monopoly ever created was made with the help of the government. they deemed it "to big to fail" so the said "no one can compete with them". In a laissez faire society if a monopoly was created any businessman who has the right mind would them copy the product that the monopoly has (remember there are not copy right laws in laissez faire) and sell it cheaper which inturn would make profit and force the other company to lower prices or go bankrupt.
@DerrEinzige What would the Nazi say? Probably that he hates free market capitalism. True. He want's to control those stupid capitalists who already caused two global financial depressions. But he doesen't dislike capitalism in general. What he really hates is communism. He hates communism so much that he usually declares any communist as sub-human. Tell me which capitalist in Nazi Germany was ever labeled as sub-human? I can think only of Jewish ones.
@DerrEinzige Who's being a communist? You probably don't even know what communism is, which is no big wonder, especially because you're mixing socialism and fascism(corporatism).
Der Führer hismelf : Hitler said: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
why is the president of big corporation better than a president of a country? corporations don't care about people, about proverty in a state compared to a government. coperations don't arrest and torture you or something like that but they would let you to die of thirst, hunger, if you can't pay for it and they will shoot you if you threated to their property in anyway. the right of the richer person would rule, i think.
It doesn't matter if you "believe" in anarchism and "opposition to capitalism", that doesn't merge the two concepts into one inseperable notion. They are fundamentally separate ideals. You also can make a false statement that anarcho-capitalism "just doesn't work" when, like socialist anarchy, it has never been thoroughly tested. Not believeing in something does not refute it in a logical argument.
Ever since the word "anarchism" became defined in the popular consciousness - in defiance of the history of the anarchist movement - as merely "opposition to state government".
@ed9s How so? Anything that interferes or hampers the happiness or well being of others is morally wrong. Just because people have subjective views of what is morality does not mean that morality does not objectively exist. And how so does equality no exist? In our current world I might agree. Perhaps humans are not born equal, but how is it not possible to have a society of socially equal humans with equal power and wealth?Elaborate on your opinions, because I find them to be far from the truth
@ed9s ...the freedom to rent yourself out to someone and have less opportunity than others because of the family you were born into? Perhaps we have different definitions of freedom.
@ed9s So... a society with no starving, free education for all, and with equal opportunity for every single person regardless of material wealth or class is flawed? Why? Perhaps should actually make points instead of stating your views as fact.
@kenshin80401 I should probably ad that any governmental system is going to be flawed in some way. Still, I find socialism (Libertarian socialism or anarcho syndicalism in particular.) to be far superior to capitalism, or any other human governmental system that has been implemented thus far. (Note that socialism as it is commonly held today { The Soviet Union, People's Republic of China etc.} are far from what I'd define as "socialism", and are also, terrible, terrible systems of government.)
"For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest."
Then according to Aristotle, intellectual thinkers are naturally superior to manual workers and deserve to be masters. Yet theoretical knowledge stems from nowhere else but practical activities. So much for the technocratic hierachy.
These capitalists ARE NOT ANARCHISTS because they, via private property- wage slavery,rent, interest and usury, directly FORCE other men to live for their sake. When Rand came up with the oath saying "I swear by my life and my love of it I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another to live for mine" it was a nice sounding individualistic oath- the "anarcho" caps like the oath as well but then what is rent, wage slavery, interest and usury if not living for another mans sake?
Anarcho-socialists are just broken records. "Spanish revolution...Noam Chomsky...Haymarket commune...hierarchy baaaaad...Spanish Revolution...Noam Chomsky..."
Jeez, play something else for a change. I recommend some Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe.
But Roderick T. Long, a free-market left libertarian, was certain not amongst the rank of such vulgar libertarians. He pleaded for public property which can only earn through collective efforts and even prove that a collective will also have incentives to protect its property.
Honestly, you come up with nor arguments. All you say in this video is that anarchism is not capitalism because it's not, and that if you think that capitalism is fair and free, you should read Karl Marx, 'cause he says otherwise.
Where are the arguments?
Anyway, what does it really matter? If there is no state then there is no state, noone to force you to work or not work, to be a capitalist or to live in a socialist community. You are free to chose what YOU prefer.
Anarcho-Capitalism Defined in One Sentence: Wage-Slavery without meddlesome Statist Bureaucrat Boogeymen.
What is the Boss in the Workplace? Hey, but at least you can change bosses. The wage-slaves doesn't belong merely to any individual capitalists, but the whole class of bourgeoisie.
Bottom-up revolts of wage-slaves against their capitalist bosses are enough. They are many, the bosses are few. I don't mean that they should kill of the boss, but the boss must then take part in Practical Production. I am for workers' self-management, not scientific management.
So basically you want _all_ people to agree on your model and then use social force to undermine the remaining 500 or so top company owners?
Well, good luck. Personally I assume it would be easier if you just started your own "workers' self-management" group and competed against the evil capitalists. Then those masses of dissatisfied "wage slaves" could join in when they saw how great you were doing.
Is your motto: Don't tread on my Capitalist Masters?
Don't worry, the workers do thir jobs everyday, they know how to manage it. Without their workers, thinking entrepreneurs are useless. Moreover, whence their knowledge without observing workers' activities everyday?
Are you purposely avoiding any response to what I actually write?
If you think your system is so great, why don't you just start your own "workers' self-management" group?? I'm guessing that would be too hard compared to just telling people how the whole world must be like.
Autogestion is working successfully in ArgnArgentina. As of 2005, 15,000 workers run recovered factories WITHOUT entrepreneurs thinking for them and dictating their every action under a "voluntary" technocratic hierachy. The Three prominent examples are the Brukman factory, the Hotel Bauen and FaSinPat. Empirically verified, waiting to be theoretically falsified.
That's great for them! What is the problem then? Apparently some people prefer to be self-employed, some prefer to work for a private company and others prefer some sort of worker's organization. None of those structures are ruled out in an anarcho-capitalist society as long as they are all voluntary.
Anarcho-capitalism is basically just the consistent implementation of abstinence from coercion. It's really not that different from the non-violent branch of anarcho-syndicalism.
I dare say that Capitalism pre-supposes wage-labour and a TECHNOCRATIC HIERARCHY consisting of thinking entrepreneurs and manual wage-earners, the former dictating every action of the latter pleading a "voluntary" hierarchy.
Very different. Anarcho-Capitalism is Technocratic, Hierarchical with Scientific Management of thinkers over workers.
As long as you can leave whenever you want, then you are engaging in a completely voluntary association. If you don't like working for boss you are free to find another employee, start your own or engage in corporation with others. That is the simple essence of voluntarism: Freedom from force.
That is why Auberon Herbert found it nonsensical to call non-governmental capitalism anarchistic. Since "Anarchy" means "No Boss." The technocratic, hierarchical nature of Capitalism renders it impossible to be counted as "Anarchistic," as recognized by Molinari. But Anarchism may also be coercive. For example, you are forcibly instructed not to boss anybody. Anarchist Catalonia is an example of bourgeois sympathizers are coercively deprived of their lives.
I also think the "risk-taker" rhetoric non-sensical. For example, an entrepreneur took risk and went bankrupt, rendering all his workers unemployed. Even if they had entered into relationship with each other by contract, the workers have nothing to do with thinking entrepreneur's irresponsible [mis]calculation. Therefore, their misfortune is undeserved. If only the thinker be sacked by his workers, then that is anarcho-syndicalism. Why, because the thinker did not rule over his workers
Against argument for contract, in the intitial contract almost all thinking entrepreneurs would not portray themselves as risky but safe. So contractually the workers look for safety. The thinkers must then assure his workers' safety not to [mis]calculate irresponsibly. If the entrepreneurs took risk and harm the workers, thus violating the freedom to safety of the workers (the prior contract promising safety only), the workers have the right to kick him off and seize his company.
Furthermore, I think the noun "panarchy" would suit anti-statist capitalism more. You are free to voluntarily choose a boss (-arch) wheresover (pan-) you want to.
I love of how you say capitalism isn't part of anarchism, yet you proclaim socialism to be part of anarchism. If I refuse to contribute to society, then do you have the right to threaten and force me to do so? Isn't that authoritarianism and a de facto state anyway?
Clearly just a Marxist who hasn't read Tucker or Rothbard
Of course none would. After we will overthrow our dictatorial landlord, the land will be parcelled equally amongst us. If we form an agrarian commune and you don't want to join us because you can fend for yourself on your own plot of land, we will leave you their. Similar with a guild, after the downfall of the guildmaster, each craftsman will be distributed an equal portion of tools to fend for themselves or to co-operate.
But, if you and I and many others are workers in an assembly line oppressed by a industrialist. After our sucessful revolt we find ourself with the assembly line production. You being the only one who wants not to contribute, but losing just one worker doesn't affect production too negatively, you are free to leave and... perish.
"I was horrified at his [Tucker's] dictum that the child was a labor-product of the mother and she had a right to do anything she pleased with it." (William Lloyd)
Rothbard, starting from the same point, argue that "But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." "The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."
Against any objection that I have taken Rothbard's quote concerning children out of context, thus will I say:
Rothbard asserted that with a child-market, children will not be starved by heartless parents. But what if there be a baby-boom and nobody want to adopt?
Object not my apriorism, Rothbard's arguments is equally a priori and not yet empirically verified.
I think Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist moreso because she didn't CARE about rulership and those ideas. Her main worry was "altruism is evil" whereas anarchocapilasts worry about "having no rulers." I honestly think most of the similarities (and there are many) between Ayn Rand and libertarianism are coincidental. She even disliked libertarians, and most Objectivists I know have no problem with state capitalism.
There are many different forms of Anarchy. You don't own the term. Your definition of Capitalism is state Capitalism not a free market Capitalism. And all hierarchies are not evil.
Doesn't anarchy mean a society free from an over-arching authority? Do you then want us to think that socialism doesn't require rule by an authority? If so, how would you get people to comply with the rules of the community? If you say that people would freely abide by the rules of the community aren't you simply describing a free society & not necessarily a socialistic one? Or are you so confident that freedom & socialism are one and the same?
You don't have to agree with the community. If you don't want to go along with something, you don't have to.
"Anarcho"-capitalists would have all the power handed over to a small minority of people and, as long as its "their property", they can do whatever they like. That would be dictatorship.
So communism requires no force? I don't buy it. Even so, let communism stand or fall in the clean air of liberty. Let people choose or reject it freely.
"Anarcho-capitalists would have all the power handed over to a small..."
Not so. We just want a society free from monopolized force (i.e. the state) where people are free to behave & trade as they wish. The hidden caveat here is that there are always consequences for one's behavior.
I don't buy this. Businesses are in the business of making stuff & providing services for customers. They are not in the business of creating & running big costly armies. Guns & weapons are bad for business. Besides, if a company was crazy and/or stupid enough to start an army they would be much easier to oppose than the gargantuan armies formed by the state.
Look at big business today - they use violent means to get what they want. They do this through the state and without a state they would contract armies/militias. And other businesses would do the same, resulting in conflict. To illustrate my point: a business wants land owned by someone else, but this person/these people don't want to sell; so they use force to obtain it. What is stopping them doing that? Nothing. The drive for capital is not respective of rights.
If you are going to have capitalism, it can only work with a government to protect the property of the less powerful. Although I think anarcho-capitalism could work in some societies (and even be desirable in some societies), it would by tyranny in an advanced industrial society. For starters, there would be no legislation about workers' rights. Personally, I don't want to work 16 hours a day. Secondly employment is coercive - like with democracy, you choose first and take orders later.
(cont) and as an anti-authoritarian I find this unacceptable. I mean, most people do not own a means of production, and will end up taking orders from bosses. As an anarchist, how can you find this acceptable? Sure, you CAN quit your job, but the same argument could be made for anti-statists who hate government: "move to Somalia if you hate it so much". That is not freedom.
Then there is the argument that you'd have to take orders from the community. I don't think that this is true - we believe that you should only do things voluntarily, and the anarchist societies that have existed so far have stayed true to this.
But if the community does become like a state, and collectivism is evil, the only really anti-authoritarian philosophy that can possibly hold true is primitivism.
KafkaCrow: Instead of addressing your issues one-by-one it might be more efficient to address your underlying philosophy. I see all of the issues you raise as branches belonging to a single philosophical trunk.
You seem to believe that people's interests are fundamentally antagonistic & unharmonious. You then think that this supposed fault in our nature can be improved upon through artificial means such as government, communism, etc. Am I correct?
Youtube comments are not a good way to address minutia. Besides I have a busy life & can't spend all day swatting at flies. As I said, it's the fundamental philosophy that is most important & which undergirds all you say. I'll try re-phrasing my question.
Are people's interests fundamentally & inherently antagonistic? In other words, in a stateless world free from top-down planning where people could do as they pleased, would a natural order of harmony spontaneously arise? Yes or no & why?
You are dodging the issues. If the comment section is not good enough, then you can send me a message if you have time. "Are people's interests fundamentally & inherently antagonistic?" Antagonistic towards what, exactly?
"In other words, in a stateless world free from top-down planning where people could do as they pleased, would a natural order of harmony spontaneously arise?" Possibly, yes. I am an anarchist, and I do believe that society would be better along (social) anarchist lines, but I have no illusions about it.
There are your answers, and I'd appreciate it if you could address the criticisms I've made of anarcho-capitalism. So far with my discussions with other anarcho-capitalists, I have not seen them sufficiently addressed.
I can address your issues but not until I get a definitive answer. Saying that people's interests are "possibly" harmonious is not the Yes/No answer I need.
Let me offer the question this way. If it were up to you as to how society should be organized which of the following would you choose...
a. Society naturally organizes itself into a harmony that can't be improved upon.
b. Society does not naturally organize itself into harmony & therefore needs the guiding hand of wise planners.
KafkaCrow (1): Now weigh this answer against the issues you've raised. You say businesses will be in constant war with each other & their workers. How can this be if you also believe in a natural harmony that brings people together? Which is it, constant contention or harmony? Yes some people will do bad things but, since people prefer harmony, the bad guys will find it not in their interest. After all who wants to do business with a person who harms them?
(2)Adults & children used to work 12 hrs/day but they PREFERRED it to their previous agrarian hardships. As they became more productive the hours fell & children didn't need to work. Productivity brings more choices. Imagine if someone invented a Wish Machine. You tell it what you want & it automatically makes it for you. This would bring about enormous productivity & the work week would fall drastically. Not because of a law but because of the drive to please one another (i.e. natural harmony).
(3) We all possess means of production in our hands & minds. We can offer one another our ideas, services, & labor. These are means of production. True, we only prosper to the extent we help others but it can be no other way as there is no Santa Claus. And since people's wants are infinite there will always be a demand for our productive faculties. I don't take orders from my boss as much as I trade my skills for his money. Employment is not coercive if you VOLUNTEER for it & are free to leave.
(4) By the way, while not your argument, there is much about Somalia that renders the "move to Somalia" argument not compelling. Freedom doesn't work overnight & Somalia has been without a government for about 17 years. The biggest problem with Somalia is the meddling from the US, Ethiopia, & Islamic militants. Freedom can't thrive amidst lots of interference. If you check out the wiki article on "Anarchy in Somalia" you will see that key facets of their lives are improving dramatically.
"Employment is not coercive if you VOLUNTEER for it & are free to leave."
What about those who was WITHOUT any means of production and will DIE of THIRST and HUNGER if they will not work for the barest necessities for employers? I do not lie at all, Third World sweatshops employ folks who were deprived of their means of production by giant national corporations.
it pains me so much that people think capitalism and anarchy can be one. it's like trying to rewrite history. i don't necessarily hate Rothbard of Friedman, but they should have coined their ideologies something different, and not "Anarchy"
wbhyatt 3 months ago
I personally would want to live within a group of people in an anarchist society that functioned as a voluntary socialist community. However, in a truly anarchistic society, if someone or a group of people wanted to offer a service in exchange for a currency that they could then use within their own community of currency dependent individuals and businesses. Just because I want to live where everyone works together for common good, doesn't mean other people should have to subscribe to it.
Bulldog22031 7 months ago
Anyone that violates the Non-Coercion Principle should be charged as such.
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
Excuse me, why is hierarchy necessarily immoral? So long as it's voluntary I don't see how this really violates any moral principle.
alistairproductions 11 months ago
To sum up: I do not believe that any voluntary economic choices are tyrannical. If you choose one or the other, exploitative or not, it is essentially fine. I don't like S&M sex, but I don't want to "abolish" it, or equate it with rape. I do not wish to be a boxer, but I do not consider the fighters victims of assault. To use anarchy as a pejorative in socialism is evidence that socialism has no monopoly on anarchism. It also shows, in it's own words, why markets can be anarchistic.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
Problem 2 (cont. again): You can find reference to "anarchy of production" as a concept specifically or implicately in Kapital by Marx, and Anti-Diuring by Engels. If I can quote Leo Panitch, "[f]or Marx, the exploitative social relations of commodity production and the anarchy of competitive markets were more fundamental characteristics of capitalism than financial speculation." So, socialism can actually find anarchy distasteful, whereas it will equate capitalism with anarchy. Markets=anarchy.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
Problem 2 (cont.): In the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (an admittedly propaganda filled book), "Anarchy of Production" is defined as "the absence of planning and the state of chaos that develop in the economy of a society when economic laws operate spontaneously. Anarchy of production is a characteristic feature of all commodity production based on private property, but it becomes universal and destructive in a capitalist society." If you leave out the word 'destructive', I agree.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
Problem 2: "Anarchy of Production" is a concept espoused by classical/Marxist socialist adherents. It contends markets are anarchistic (to be meant as the pejorative in place of 'chaos'), and socialism is orderly and planned.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
Problem 1: Anarchism traces it's roots to 5th and 4th century BC philosophy in Taoist China and Cynical/Stoic Greece. This is CENTURIES before feudalism had a name, before anarchy had a name (although it predates the existance of states), before mercantilism, free markets, communism, and socialism. To lay claim with no chronological perspective is erroneous. NO ECONOMICS HAS A CLAIM ON THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT IS ANARCHISM.
ProIndividual 1 year ago
I have been anarchist since 1982, and i am NOT a socialist. I doubt socialism would ever work in America, but Universe knows our gov't keeps trying.
kbinco 1 year ago
How can you have anarchy and socialsm at the same time? Anarchy is the absence of government, while socialism requires a strong central govermental authority to "redistribute" what citizens produce. You don't know really seem to know what anarchism is.
marti0668 1 year ago
@marti0668 You don't know what Socialism is. Socialism is: "the commitment to the common ownership of the means of production". Such a commitment doesn't require a coercive State.
Dunbar0740 8 months ago
@Dunbar0740 Want to bet? If socialism was non-coercive you wouldn't need laws to enforce it, would you? Ah, but I suppose in your fantasyland, that's where the "anarcho" thing comes in. Want to show me one example in the real world where this is has ever worked -- where socialism and/or anarchy has ever been able to survive the slings and arrows of outrageous reality? If you have to change human nature to get your system to function, it just ain't gonna fly, pal.
marti0668 8 months ago
@marti0668 er... there are many examples of non-State groups with a commitment to the common ownership of production; some of them successful, some not so. The most famous example is the Kibbutz' in Israel, no one is forced to work in them and there is no law to compel people to stay.
Dunbar0740 8 months ago
@marti0668 I think you have a very confused understanding of anarchism. If you read about the origins of anarchism in the 19th century, you will see that it has nothing to do with silly right wing capitalist thought.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@buddhagem If the government collapsed and we lived in a state of anarchy, would you use physical violence to stop me from using currency and trading with my neighbors? Would you use coercive force to stop an individual from working for me if they were doing so voluntarily and had the option to join your capitalism-free society if they so chose?
dingerness 1 year ago
@dingerness no
buddhagem 1 year ago
@buddhagem So why does your video carry such frustration for the anarcho-capitalist cause when essentially we are struggling for the same goal, a stateless society? If your assertions about pure capitalism are correct, the capitalistic society wouldn't stand a chance to your ideal society since it would be directly competing with it. An exploited workforce would surely migrate voluntarily to your socialist society leaving the capitalistic free market economy destroyed and left to history.
dingerness 1 year ago
@buddhagem Continued... When ANCAP's state their case, they are only proposing their IDEA of how modern society would most efficiently/ethically organize in the absence of a state. They are in no way inflicting an ideology on anyone. We would all be free to live in the society of our choice. Primarily, ANCAP's are most interested in the dissolution of the state and the non initiation of force. This would mean people would have the freedom to organize a peaceful society in any way they desire.
dingerness 1 year ago
@buddhagem Continued... You seem to argue against anarcho-capitalism like one would argue with a statist who is intent on using violence to solve social problems. Why shouldn't anarchists from every viewpoint stand with a singularity to dissolve the state... THEN we can go about organizing our societies to see which ones stand and which do not. There would be no force whatsoever preventing a worker from moving his family away from capitalist-land over to the greener pastures of socialist-land.
dingerness 1 year ago
@dingerness In the simplest terms, anarchism is about much more than opposing the state; the easiest way to understand this is by looking at the word anarchy which literally means no archies, that is no ladders of power or hierarchies; that extends into race, gender, personal relationships, and the wider sphere of society. Opposition to the state is not sufficient in and of itself; and as I've pointed out PDF are essentially private states.
buddhagem 1 year ago 4
@buddhagem I don't feel like you responded to my point. Let's forget the semantics of "anarchism". All anarcho-capitalists are saying is that no man should ever initiate force on another man. We just hold the view that the most successful society would a capitalist based society. Again, if your society is obviously superior, and mine is obviously oppressive, my society/economy will collapse immediately. I don't know what "PDF" is, but "private state" sounds contradictory.
dingerness 1 year ago
Comment removed
dingerness 1 year ago
Comment removed
dingerness 1 year ago
I don't understand how you claim the all anarchists are socialists. Your creating your own definitions of anarchism. The most common definition of anarchism is: with out a state. So I don't see how you can claim what form of anarchism is is "true". Both of you don't no shit in my honest opinion. Its sad to see people basing there political beliefs on morals. But like I said you don't no shit and there is no use for me to explain any form of free-market anarchism to you.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige I'm an ancap, but don't understand why you suggest people shouldn't base their political beliefs on ethics. Fundamentally, the state should be abolished simply because it violates the non-initiation principle and is a violent force. That is an ethical argument, and the most relevant one. Free trade is non-violent and cooperative.
dingerness 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige No, the most common definition of anarchism is without rulers. And if you follow that to its logical conclusion you end up with a stateless form of socialism. If you can eliminate ruled and rulers in your free-market society, that's awesome.
buddhagem 1 year ago 4
@buddhagem Even socialism and communism has rulers.... So obviously you dont know shit.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige
wieso braucht man umbedingt einen herrscher egal in welcher form als politiker, firmenboss usw.? in einer gesellschaft wo alle gleich sein sollen ist das eigentlich auch ein widerspruch! bzw. wieso soll man sie z.B. nicht jederzeit als einfacher bürger absetzen dürfen? wieso sollen arbeiter ihren betrieb nicht selbst verwalten? wieso soll man als einfacher bürger nicht bei gesetzen und z.B. bei kriegseinsätzen oder auch bauvorhaben nicht mitreden dürfen?
yakuzagen 1 year ago
@yakuzagen
Why cant the workers make a corporation? NO one is stoping them in an anarcho society. There is no "law saying "no workers can only work". And you say "in a society were everyone should be equal" I actually lol'd. You whole idea of equality is bullshit. No one is equal to me. And your moral claims thats a whole different subject but non the less complete and utter bullshit. You have this bullshit idea that rich people have some godlike ability to be able to do whatever they want.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige
Have you ever heard of mutualism? Thats free market anarchy....
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige
@DerrEinzige
"NO one is stoping them in an anarcho society." but employer who pay bad or even no wages und there will be unemployment in your system because employer aren't interested to hire more workers than they really need. stronger richer rivals can break your company with their own mercenaries.
it would mean chaos because corporations fight for control over sales markets and resources, become replacement for government in a negativ way. anarchism?
yakuzagen 1 year ago
@yakuzagen
Know what happens when the evil corporations kill everyone? Who's gonna pay them? Where are they gonna get profit? You say that the rich would fund them. What happens when the rich pay them and they run out of money? Businesses generally look for long term profit so I highly doubt they would kill the whole labor force just for money. Also who says the workers will do what the corporations say? If the workers then commit to the acts then arnt they just as "bad"?
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige
"Also who says the workers will do what the corporations say?" who says the inhabitants of a nation do what the government say? why does a dictator kill people? (i never says everyone!) to spread terror, to enforce the people to do sth. what they don't like. i think enforcing people to work for free and saving the property with terror and eliminating all rivals to dictate prices can be very profitable.
they are both power structures!
yakuzagen 1 year ago
@yakuzagen
But your blaming the corporations. the workers have more power.... " i think enforcing people to work for free" Who's the one doing the enforcing? "eliminating all rivals to dictate prices can be very profitable" Easier said then done. All your doing is spewing shit that is near impossible.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige
"the workers have more power...." why they have more power? have they anything to say in any corporation? what power? nothing to say in a corporation and a non existing choice of jobs, employers because of unemployment? strikes can crush by private army, privat police and so you can also kill your rivals, if you have enough money.
yakuzagen 1 year ago
Comment removed
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@yakuzagen
Who works for Private Military/Security Companies?
Workers....
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige You know there's an old bourgeoisie proverb: you can always hire half of the mob to slaughter the other half.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Know what would the company owner get out of that? If one really wants profit its would be much safer logical and HIGHLY more likely to just sell your product. Your ideas are nearly impossible.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
All these theories can apply to a capitalist society but they cant apply to a socialist one? No one has any form of greed? all your ideas can be applied to a socialist society to.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Nobody is saying that this cannot be applied to "socialism", humans are humans. But OK at least in socialism there was very little degree of mobbing (either by elected boss or fellow coworkers), unemployment or whatever. Yet I cannot say that about the state, if you said something pollitically inappropriate.
But what you're advocating here is a society million times worse than the current one. Even in theory it sounds bad.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Your arguing perspective so therefore I cant really argue much more then what I have already said.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@yakuzagen
Also stop being a typical leftist do*che bag and label every business as a "corporation". Please learn the definition first. Limited liabiltiy and special privileges are government granted and are not products of the free markets. People pooling capital together to make mutual investments is a purely free market concept.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@buddhagem
Once again your creating a objective definition for something that is subjective....
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@buddhagem
Also have you never heard of individualist anarchism?
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Your definition is a dictionary definition of anarchism. But anarchism is a political theory, and cannot be expected to be summed up in a sentence or two in a dictionary. Some dictionaries might define anarchism simply as disorder or chaos. It would not stand scrutiny from a political perspective, because anarchism is a coherent body of political thought that arose out of the 19th century workers movement, which was anti-capitalist.
agapeiron 8 months ago
what translation of kapital would you think is more accurate?
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
explain to me how all anarchists are communists....they are two completely different things
c00terb00ter14918 1 year ago
@c00terb00ter14918 No they aren't they are quite related.Problem is that you guys keep on mixing state socialism with communism.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend no govt control is what we need. AKA anarchy(no govt)....or strong capitalism(nearly no govt interaction)
c00terb00ter14918 1 year ago
@c00terb00ter14918 No sorry but anarchy hasn't got direct connection to so called government. Anarchy is society without an archon(ruler), that means no despot, president, boss,company owner, lord you name it. A society without hierarchy.Capitalism without an archon is not capitalism. Capitalism cannot exist without an archon. Archon runs capitalism.
When you employ some people to work for you, you gain power over them, you are the archon, anarchy cannot apply to you.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago 2
@SloveintzWend but you cant say that anarchy is even close to socialism or communism
c00terb00ter14918 1 year ago
@c00terb00ter14918 Of course it is. In Spanish civil war for instance anarchists sticked with communists and socialists, not fascist who fancied capitalism. LOL
SloveintzWend 1 year ago 2
@SloveintzWend The US were allied with Iraq at one time too....oh look now were at war with them
c00terb00ter14918 1 year ago
@c00terb00ter14918 Was Iraq and USA one and the same country, where far leftist and far rightist fought each other?
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
"fascists who fancied capitalism"
Its funny how communists and socialists always try to link capitalism with fascism but fascism in all of its form is anti capitalist. Have you heard any of Hitlers speeches? like really please try to actually learn what the fuck your talking about before you say something. Talk to any Nazi and they will be anti capitalists. Nazism is a socialists belief system.... (Dont try to say im labeling all socialists as Nazis)
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige It's funny how libertarian capitalists always try to link fascism to socialism or even communism. Fascism is right where it is - in between. Well fascism is pretty much against (international)socialism too. I honestly never heard about some kolkhozy farms or socialist autogestion occurring in Nazi Germany. I might be mistaken, but I doubt.
Yeah I've heard some of Hitler's speeches. And? No common/public control of the means of production, no socialism.I know what I'm writing here.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
There was some control but the main socialist aspect was the high degree of welfare.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige There are high degrees of welfare all over Europe, yet no country is actually socialistic. Socialism is a way of running the economy, not a way of running the social sector in society.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Im a free market anarchist but sure. I said fascism is a socialists system. I acknowledge that the two do though have different aspects.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige What's a free market anarchism? That sounds very oppressive, and would be even despotic for "employees"(more like slaves). If I had to choose between Hitler and your ideas, surely Hitler would be less cruel.
Fascism is not a socialist system. it's a capitalist system with high degree of welfare.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Free Market Anarchism: refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of private institutions offering security, justice, and other defense services. A market would exist where providers of security and law compete for voluntarily paying customers that wish to receive the services rather than individuals being taxed without their consent and assigned a monopoly provider of force.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige There's no such thing as individualist anarchist in capitalist society. Once you hire someone you become his Archon. The very thing you despise.But I think that you don't despise (Hier)archy, you despise government which is rather unusual. What about state?Why is it unusual that capitalist despises government? Because government ant it's apparatus-the state was actually created by capitalist syndicates to protect themselves against the mob.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Theres hierarchy even in socialism. So your saying that the guy who mows my lawn is my archon? No. He works for me and I pay him. If he becomes dissatisfied with his pay then by all means he can find a new employer. Thats like that with every business. Whats a company gonna do? Kill you if you want to leave? Okay your telling me the workers who make up the majority of a company will be killed by ones working in the cubicles?
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige No why should someone who mows your lawn be your archon? Yeah, that's like with every businesses as long as there are thousands of more efficient poor guys who can replace your employee.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
I could replace my lawnmower with a thousand other people. There pently of people in my town who could work for me. I choose not to for a multitude of reasons. I have had him for awhile and I respect him (I pay him twenty bucks so im not looking for cheaper workers)
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzigeAnd You wouldn't.
Let's say that I live in stateless/government-less capitalist society, I don't care about any reasons(except my own financial ones) and I respect nobody. Who can stop me?
And please the way capitalism works there's always gonna be someone who's prepared to work for miserable salary. Correction more like 8/10 of the world if not more. And those people surly will concentrate near your property, since there's no state. What happens if they get mad?
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Well if people still have emotions morals etc and being that capitalistic are a minority the others will surely win. Know thats even if someone has that kind of mentality. You said a capitalists main drive is profit. But if his main drive really is profit he wouldn't bite the hand that feeds him. Please note Im not a fan of ancap, like I said im a FREEMARKET anarchist which is what ancap stems from. I disagree with some points like PMCs
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Being that most anarcho societies are small im in favor for more of a communal militia being that would be more efficient in my mind.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Abut what kind of "law, justice, defense" are you talking about? There's no such law but your own personal corporate law. Give my a break.
You know, communists believed that average person is good by nature and only corruptible by system in which one lives in.
But you guys actually believe that average, corruptible, materialistic and selfish person would apply any sort of justice.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
There you go again with your morals.... Gosh can you please stop calling every business a corporation. Corporations get special benefits from the gov giving them a unfair advantage over other other businesses. But actually technically a corporation is you a minimum of 2 people pooling capital together to make a mutual investment.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Well it's more likely that corporations control government. Of course there's an advantage, if they have millions even billions of dollars and you have practically nothing.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
I wouldnt say corporations control thte government. most gov is anti business I will say that there are corrupt politicians that give special handouts to business for there support during there campaign. (ie: Earmarks, pork etc)
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige How can republican government be anti business, who installed government anyway? The people? Even among parties there are monopolies that compete.Yeah I admit that's your free market problem, you want to take your share, but they won't let you.
Candidate with best political propaganda wins. Who pays for that?
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Indeed thats exactly what I said. " I will say that there are corrupt politicians that give special handouts to business for there support during there campaign. (ie: Earmarks, pork etc)" Anit business as in tons of regulations.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Mutualism which is also free market anarchism: is an anarchist school of thought that originates in the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Hmm, collective ownership of the means of production? Man, that sounds so socialist to me. Needless to say that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was actually a socialist.I thought you were anarchist-capitalist or whatever. What's this all about?
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Im a free market anarchist . Im not in favor of mutual ownership but you can do what you want in a anarchist society. Mutualism is just one for of free market anarchism. AnCap is the other. I dont follow any text book theory. But I would be satisfied with any form of free market anarchism being that if I disagree with a principle I wouldnt be forced into conforming to there beliefs. Except with the usual forms of aggression that are even in statist societies.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Yeah you can pretty much do everything you want in anarchist society until some private state grows again and consumes you. Good luck.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Know how would employees be like slaves? If you dont like the working conditions form a union. If you dont like your job get a new one. Or even better start one with your fellow workers. So your who'll idea of slavery is quite the opposite. Please read about something before labeling it something that it is not.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Form a union and corporation would hire mercenaries to beat your ass. But since mercenaries won't probably be sufficient, corporation would ally with another one, therefore government and a state would be created.Nevertheless any corporation would be its own state consuming other more weaker ones. Have you learned noting from history?
Please don't take your "American liberty" concept as granted.
it's enough to use common seance and little logic.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Your whole idea that big business would kill everyone. Then what? What would they do? What do they get from killing everyone. Sure I'll play along they'll get there money. But then once you killed all your workers and your competitors workers what will you do? Who would buy your products? You creating theories that are illogical and highly unlikely to happen.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige I'm not talking about killing, I'm talking about bullying and mobbing. Nobody will kill you as long as you're useful. But if someone can replace you...
I'm not technically creating any theories here, I'm just using examples from 19 century's "anarcho-capitalism", when government(ruler) never gave a rats ass about what capitalism was doing, as long as everyone payed taxes.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
19th century gov was corrupted and gave business special handouts which gave certain business an upper hand over others (ie: leading to monopolies). This throws a wrench into the free market. I do acknowledge that business would try to do this (gain an advantage other other business by using outer market means) thats why it MUST be laissez faire.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Oh, it MUST be laissez faire, hmm, OK, right. And how do you plan to convince everyone in your believes and especially how to stop the monopolies that would grow without the presence of the state?
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
EVERY monopoly ever created was made with the help of the government. they deemed it "to big to fail" so the said "no one can compete with them". In a laissez faire society if a monopoly was created any businessman who has the right mind would them copy the product that the monopoly has (remember there are not copy right laws in laissez faire) and sell it cheaper which inturn would make profit and force the other company to lower prices or go bankrupt.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige What would the Nazi say? Probably that he hates free market capitalism. True. He want's to control those stupid capitalists who already caused two global financial depressions. But he doesen't dislike capitalism in general. What he really hates is communism. He hates communism so much that he usually declares any communist as sub-human. Tell me which capitalist in Nazi Germany was ever labeled as sub-human? I can think only of Jewish ones.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Im not gonna even get started about what caused the global depressions. And I could truly care less about the "plights" of being a communist.
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@DerrEinzige Who's being a communist? You probably don't even know what communism is, which is no big wonder, especially because you're mixing socialism and fascism(corporatism).
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SloveintzWend
Der Führer hismelf : Hitler said: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
DerrEinzige 1 year ago
@c00terb00ter14918
why is the president of big corporation better than a president of a country? corporations don't care about people, about proverty in a state compared to a government. coperations don't arrest and torture you or something like that but they would let you to die of thirst, hunger, if you can't pay for it and they will shoot you if you threated to their property in anyway. the right of the richer person would rule, i think.
yakuzagen 1 year ago
It doesn't matter if you "believe" in anarchism and "opposition to capitalism", that doesn't merge the two concepts into one inseperable notion. They are fundamentally separate ideals. You also can make a false statement that anarcho-capitalism "just doesn't work" when, like socialist anarchy, it has never been thoroughly tested. Not believeing in something does not refute it in a logical argument.
fairiebee 1 year ago
Been anarchists mean denied all power even the money power
darksid007 1 year ago
@StatelessCapitalist When have anarchists ever NOT been socialist?
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123
Ever since the word "anarchism" became defined in the popular consciousness - in defiance of the history of the anarchist movement - as merely "opposition to state government".
StormLogic 1 year ago
damn, this was funny. I tried to watch his response but the audio somehow was only static. he did not look happy, though... quotation fingers, etc.
unabonger777 1 year ago
there is no such thing as morality, right and wrong, and there is no such thing as equality
ed9s 2 years ago
@ed9s How so? Anything that interferes or hampers the happiness or well being of others is morally wrong. Just because people have subjective views of what is morality does not mean that morality does not objectively exist. And how so does equality no exist? In our current world I might agree. Perhaps humans are not born equal, but how is it not possible to have a society of socially equal humans with equal power and wealth?Elaborate on your opinions, because I find them to be far from the truth
kenshin80401 1 year ago
capitalism is about freedom, the right to freely buy and sell. anything wrong with exploitation of labor for a profit?
ed9s 2 years ago
@ed9s ...the freedom to rent yourself out to someone and have less opportunity than others because of the family you were born into? Perhaps we have different definitions of freedom.
kenshin80401 1 year ago
socialism has been proven to be a flawed system. you are not benefiting from it now.
ed9s 2 years ago
@ed9s So... a society with no starving, free education for all, and with equal opportunity for every single person regardless of material wealth or class is flawed? Why? Perhaps should actually make points instead of stating your views as fact.
kenshin80401 1 year ago
@kenshin80401 I should probably ad that any governmental system is going to be flawed in some way. Still, I find socialism (Libertarian socialism or anarcho syndicalism in particular.) to be far superior to capitalism, or any other human governmental system that has been implemented thus far. (Note that socialism as it is commonly held today { The Soviet Union, People's Republic of China etc.} are far from what I'd define as "socialism", and are also, terrible, terrible systems of government.)
kenshin80401 1 year ago
"For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest."
Then according to Aristotle, intellectual thinkers are naturally superior to manual workers and deserve to be masters. Yet theoretical knowledge stems from nowhere else but practical activities. So much for the technocratic hierachy.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
These capitalists ARE NOT ANARCHISTS because they, via private property- wage slavery,rent, interest and usury, directly FORCE other men to live for their sake. When Rand came up with the oath saying "I swear by my life and my love of it I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another to live for mine" it was a nice sounding individualistic oath- the "anarcho" caps like the oath as well but then what is rent, wage slavery, interest and usury if not living for another mans sake?
crud4 2 years ago
Capitalism is not anarchism.
PersianPaladin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism is not anarchism. [1]
greenhell666 2 years ago
Anarcho-socialists are just broken records. "Spanish revolution...Noam Chomsky...Haymarket commune...hierarchy baaaaad...Spanish Revolution...Noam Chomsky..."
Jeez, play something else for a change. I recommend some Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe.
VanDoodah 2 years ago
cool story bro
since the free market doesnt even have a record,
oh wait, is has, it is just capitalism with a pretty name
now go back to the mises store and buy some shit
greenhell666 2 years ago
But Roderick T. Long, a free-market left libertarian, was certain not amongst the rank of such vulgar libertarians. He pleaded for public property which can only earn through collective efforts and even prove that a collective will also have incentives to protect its property.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Honestly, you come up with nor arguments. All you say in this video is that anarchism is not capitalism because it's not, and that if you think that capitalism is fair and free, you should read Karl Marx, 'cause he says otherwise.
Where are the arguments?
Anyway, what does it really matter? If there is no state then there is no state, noone to force you to work or not work, to be a capitalist or to live in a socialist community. You are free to chose what YOU prefer.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
anarchism wont work with capitalism for sure!!
jesselakerr 2 years ago
1. Why not?
2. What is your definition of capitalism?
3. How are you going to suppress capitalism without the force of government?
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
Anarcho-Capitalism Defined in One Sentence: Wage-Slavery without meddlesome Statist Bureaucrat Boogeymen.
What is the Boss in the Workplace? Hey, but at least you can change bosses. The wage-slaves doesn't belong merely to any individual capitalists, but the whole class of bourgeoisie.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Your argument makes no sense. I asked how you will stop capitalism if there is no government. Force?
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
Bottom-up revolts of wage-slaves against their capitalist bosses are enough. They are many, the bosses are few. I don't mean that they should kill of the boss, but the boss must then take part in Practical Production. I am for workers' self-management, not scientific management.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
So basically you want _all_ people to agree on your model and then use social force to undermine the remaining 500 or so top company owners?
Well, good luck. Personally I assume it would be easier if you just started your own "workers' self-management" group and competed against the evil capitalists. Then those masses of dissatisfied "wage slaves" could join in when they saw how great you were doing.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
Is your motto: Don't tread on my Capitalist Masters?
Don't worry, the workers do thir jobs everyday, they know how to manage it. Without their workers, thinking entrepreneurs are useless. Moreover, whence their knowledge without observing workers' activities everyday?
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Are you purposely avoiding any response to what I actually write?
If you think your system is so great, why don't you just start your own "workers' self-management" group?? I'm guessing that would be too hard compared to just telling people how the whole world must be like.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
Autogestion is working successfully in ArgnArgentina. As of 2005, 15,000 workers run recovered factories WITHOUT entrepreneurs thinking for them and dictating their every action under a "voluntary" technocratic hierachy. The Three prominent examples are the Brukman factory, the Hotel Bauen and FaSinPat. Empirically verified, waiting to be theoretically falsified.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
That's great for them! What is the problem then? Apparently some people prefer to be self-employed, some prefer to work for a private company and others prefer some sort of worker's organization. None of those structures are ruled out in an anarcho-capitalist society as long as they are all voluntary.
Anarcho-capitalism is basically just the consistent implementation of abstinence from coercion. It's really not that different from the non-violent branch of anarcho-syndicalism.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
I dare say that Capitalism pre-supposes wage-labour and a TECHNOCRATIC HIERARCHY consisting of thinking entrepreneurs and manual wage-earners, the former dictating every action of the latter pleading a "voluntary" hierarchy.
Very different. Anarcho-Capitalism is Technocratic, Hierarchical with Scientific Management of thinkers over workers.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
As long as you can leave whenever you want, then you are engaging in a completely voluntary association. If you don't like working for boss you are free to find another employee, start your own or engage in corporation with others. That is the simple essence of voluntarism: Freedom from force.
MigDanskeren 2 years ago
That is why Auberon Herbert found it nonsensical to call non-governmental capitalism anarchistic. Since "Anarchy" means "No Boss." The technocratic, hierarchical nature of Capitalism renders it impossible to be counted as "Anarchistic," as recognized by Molinari. But Anarchism may also be coercive. For example, you are forcibly instructed not to boss anybody. Anarchist Catalonia is an example of bourgeois sympathizers are coercively deprived of their lives.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I also think the "risk-taker" rhetoric non-sensical. For example, an entrepreneur took risk and went bankrupt, rendering all his workers unemployed. Even if they had entered into relationship with each other by contract, the workers have nothing to do with thinking entrepreneur's irresponsible [mis]calculation. Therefore, their misfortune is undeserved. If only the thinker be sacked by his workers, then that is anarcho-syndicalism. Why, because the thinker did not rule over his workers
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Against argument for contract, in the intitial contract almost all thinking entrepreneurs would not portray themselves as risky but safe. So contractually the workers look for safety. The thinkers must then assure his workers' safety not to [mis]calculate irresponsibly. If the entrepreneurs took risk and harm the workers, thus violating the freedom to safety of the workers (the prior contract promising safety only), the workers have the right to kick him off and seize his company.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
@MigDanskeren
Furthermore, I think the noun "panarchy" would suit anti-statist capitalism more. You are free to voluntarily choose a boss (-arch) wheresover (pan-) you want to.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
David Friedman, preferring a society "almost everyone is self-employed," is unbeknownst to himself an anarcho-syndicalist.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
I love of how you say capitalism isn't part of anarchism, yet you proclaim socialism to be part of anarchism. If I refuse to contribute to society, then do you have the right to threaten and force me to do so? Isn't that authoritarianism and a de facto state anyway?
Clearly just a Marxist who hasn't read Tucker or Rothbard
Nothwithstanding 2 years ago
Why wouldnt you wany to contribute to society? If you refuse to,then ya must not have much self love fore yourself if you did.
SgtBastard101 2 years ago
Of course none would. After we will overthrow our dictatorial landlord, the land will be parcelled equally amongst us. If we form an agrarian commune and you don't want to join us because you can fend for yourself on your own plot of land, we will leave you their. Similar with a guild, after the downfall of the guildmaster, each craftsman will be distributed an equal portion of tools to fend for themselves or to co-operate.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
But, if you and I and many others are workers in an assembly line oppressed by a industrialist. After our sucessful revolt we find ourself with the assembly line production. You being the only one who wants not to contribute, but losing just one worker doesn't affect production too negatively, you are free to leave and... perish.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
"I was horrified at his [Tucker's] dictum that the child was a labor-product of the mother and she had a right to do anything she pleased with it." (William Lloyd)
Rothbard, starting from the same point, argue that "But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." "The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."
DonKhoi 2 years ago
Against any objection that I have taken Rothbard's quote concerning children out of context, thus will I say:
Rothbard asserted that with a child-market, children will not be starved by heartless parents. But what if there be a baby-boom and nobody want to adopt?
Object not my apriorism, Rothbard's arguments is equally a priori and not yet empirically verified.
DonKhoi 2 years ago
A Marxist response
benjamaiLL 2 years ago
you came off sounding like an idiot
swingdocta 3 years ago 2
I think Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist moreso because she didn't CARE about rulership and those ideas. Her main worry was "altruism is evil" whereas anarchocapilasts worry about "having no rulers." I honestly think most of the similarities (and there are many) between Ayn Rand and libertarianism are coincidental. She even disliked libertarians, and most Objectivists I know have no problem with state capitalism.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
There are many different forms of Anarchy. You don't own the term. Your definition of Capitalism is state Capitalism not a free market Capitalism. And all hierarchies are not evil.
BambooFortress 3 years ago
Some crackpot who is only famous because of his father is what "anarcho" capitalists get their ideas from.
jackriter 3 years ago
You say "All anarchists are socialists".
Doesn't anarchy mean a society free from an over-arching authority? Do you then want us to think that socialism doesn't require rule by an authority? If so, how would you get people to comply with the rules of the community? If you say that people would freely abide by the rules of the community aren't you simply describing a free society & not necessarily a socialistic one? Or are you so confident that freedom & socialism are one and the same?
cfbastiat 3 years ago
You don't have to agree with the community. If you don't want to go along with something, you don't have to.
"Anarcho"-capitalists would have all the power handed over to a small minority of people and, as long as its "their property", they can do whatever they like. That would be dictatorship.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
KafkaCrow:
"You don't have to agree with the community..."
So communism requires no force? I don't buy it. Even so, let communism stand or fall in the clean air of liberty. Let people choose or reject it freely.
"Anarcho-capitalists would have all the power handed over to a small..."
Not so. We just want a society free from monopolized force (i.e. the state) where people are free to behave & trade as they wish. The hidden caveat here is that there are always consequences for one's behavior.
cfbastiat 3 years ago
Anarcho-communism does not, no. You want society free from monopolized force? Then why are you a capitalist? Big business would act like a state.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
KafkaCrow:
"Big business would act like a state."
I don't buy this. Businesses are in the business of making stuff & providing services for customers. They are not in the business of creating & running big costly armies. Guns & weapons are bad for business. Besides, if a company was crazy and/or stupid enough to start an army they would be much easier to oppose than the gargantuan armies formed by the state.
cfbastiat 3 years ago
Look at big business today - they use violent means to get what they want. They do this through the state and without a state they would contract armies/militias. And other businesses would do the same, resulting in conflict. To illustrate my point: a business wants land owned by someone else, but this person/these people don't want to sell; so they use force to obtain it. What is stopping them doing that? Nothing. The drive for capital is not respective of rights.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
If you are going to have capitalism, it can only work with a government to protect the property of the less powerful. Although I think anarcho-capitalism could work in some societies (and even be desirable in some societies), it would by tyranny in an advanced industrial society. For starters, there would be no legislation about workers' rights. Personally, I don't want to work 16 hours a day. Secondly employment is coercive - like with democracy, you choose first and take orders later.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
(cont) and as an anti-authoritarian I find this unacceptable. I mean, most people do not own a means of production, and will end up taking orders from bosses. As an anarchist, how can you find this acceptable? Sure, you CAN quit your job, but the same argument could be made for anti-statists who hate government: "move to Somalia if you hate it so much". That is not freedom.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
Then there is the argument that you'd have to take orders from the community. I don't think that this is true - we believe that you should only do things voluntarily, and the anarchist societies that have existed so far have stayed true to this.
But if the community does become like a state, and collectivism is evil, the only really anti-authoritarian philosophy that can possibly hold true is primitivism.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
KafkaCrow: Instead of addressing your issues one-by-one it might be more efficient to address your underlying philosophy. I see all of the issues you raise as branches belonging to a single philosophical trunk.
You seem to believe that people's interests are fundamentally antagonistic & unharmonious. You then think that this supposed fault in our nature can be improved upon through artificial means such as government, communism, etc. Am I correct?
cfbastiat 3 years ago
You're going to have to elaborate on what this "supposed fault" is. But really, you seem to be avoiding the issues I've raised.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
Youtube comments are not a good way to address minutia. Besides I have a busy life & can't spend all day swatting at flies. As I said, it's the fundamental philosophy that is most important & which undergirds all you say. I'll try re-phrasing my question.
Are people's interests fundamentally & inherently antagonistic? In other words, in a stateless world free from top-down planning where people could do as they pleased, would a natural order of harmony spontaneously arise? Yes or no & why?
cfbastiat 3 years ago 2
You are dodging the issues. If the comment section is not good enough, then you can send me a message if you have time. "Are people's interests fundamentally & inherently antagonistic?" Antagonistic towards what, exactly?
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
"In other words, in a stateless world free from top-down planning where people could do as they pleased, would a natural order of harmony spontaneously arise?" Possibly, yes. I am an anarchist, and I do believe that society would be better along (social) anarchist lines, but I have no illusions about it.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
There are your answers, and I'd appreciate it if you could address the criticisms I've made of anarcho-capitalism. So far with my discussions with other anarcho-capitalists, I have not seen them sufficiently addressed.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
I can address your issues but not until I get a definitive answer. Saying that people's interests are "possibly" harmonious is not the Yes/No answer I need.
Let me offer the question this way. If it were up to you as to how society should be organized which of the following would you choose...
a. Society naturally organizes itself into a harmony that can't be improved upon.
b. Society does not naturally organize itself into harmony & therefore needs the guiding hand of wise planners.
cfbastiat 3 years ago
a.) obviously.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
KafkaCrow (1): Now weigh this answer against the issues you've raised. You say businesses will be in constant war with each other & their workers. How can this be if you also believe in a natural harmony that brings people together? Which is it, constant contention or harmony? Yes some people will do bad things but, since people prefer harmony, the bad guys will find it not in their interest. After all who wants to do business with a person who harms them?
cfbastiat 3 years ago
(2)Adults & children used to work 12 hrs/day but they PREFERRED it to their previous agrarian hardships. As they became more productive the hours fell & children didn't need to work. Productivity brings more choices. Imagine if someone invented a Wish Machine. You tell it what you want & it automatically makes it for you. This would bring about enormous productivity & the work week would fall drastically. Not because of a law but because of the drive to please one another (i.e. natural harmony).
cfbastiat 3 years ago
(3) We all possess means of production in our hands & minds. We can offer one another our ideas, services, & labor. These are means of production. True, we only prosper to the extent we help others but it can be no other way as there is no Santa Claus. And since people's wants are infinite there will always be a demand for our productive faculties. I don't take orders from my boss as much as I trade my skills for his money. Employment is not coercive if you VOLUNTEER for it & are free to leave.
cfbastiat 3 years ago
(4) By the way, while not your argument, there is much about Somalia that renders the "move to Somalia" argument not compelling. Freedom doesn't work overnight & Somalia has been without a government for about 17 years. The biggest problem with Somalia is the meddling from the US, Ethiopia, & Islamic militants. Freedom can't thrive amidst lots of interference. If you check out the wiki article on "Anarchy in Somalia" you will see that key facets of their lives are improving dramatically.
cfbastiat 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Employment is not coercive if you VOLUNTEER for it & are free to leave."
What about those who was WITHOUT any means of production and will DIE of THIRST and HUNGER if they will not work for the barest necessities for employers? I do not lie at all, Third World sweatshops employ folks who were deprived of their means of production by giant national corporations.
DonKhoi 2 years ago