Voluntaryists vs Socialists Debate part 1 of 27 - Introduction

[dubified89]

5:07 So when they're talking about anarchy, they actually mean it, unlike the authoritarian collectivist 'anarchists' on the left.

[eleganz]

I don't have time to watch the entire series right now so who won?

[jksville]

I love it, you can tell by the age of the debaters which philosophy is on it's way out, and which one is on the way in.

[LaughingMage]

Of COURSE it's a at a Cafe in San Diego...

[TreachMarkets]

Wow, it's the oldsters vs the young bloods.

[globalchaos1984]

HOLY LONG INTRO BATMAN!

[silveracer44]

I'm an anarchist college student and I can and do constantly debate my socialist professors. It's easy.

[CivilRights4Olympia]

This is based on a Republic form of govenrment which is all about the common law,not civil statutes...America used to be a Republic....

[socialisteducation]

From the outset, this debate is flawed. The "socialists" are actually social democrats, who believe that capitalism can be regulated to the point of being more ethical. As for referring to the Voluntaryists as Anarchists, Emma Goldman, Tucker, Proudhon, Bakunin, and other ACTUAL anarchist would just shake their heads at such a notion.

[wiljoshill]

@socialisteducation, maybe so, but that does not mean they are not anarchists. Anarchy is from the greek for without rulers. These guys do not advocate rulers, so how are they not anarchists? What makes Goldman, Tucker, Proudhon, and Baakunin anarchists? What is an actual anarchist?

[SpeakMouthWords]

You know when your philosophy takes a full minute to define you're pulling it out of your ass.

[wiljoshill]

@SpeakMouthWords, How do you know? What exactly do you mean by pulling it out your ass?

[beesleeper]

The answer is freedom from capitalism and capitalist exploitation. Capitalism is NOT mentioned in the American Constitution. Americans do not have to tolerate capitalism. Our predecessors achieved freedom from the British; freedom from slavery; it is our turn to achieve freedom from capitalism and capitalist exploitation. Americans can do it.

[mmcloughlin86]

@beesleeper Capitalism is, by definition, a economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. Thus due to corporate and income taxes, America does not have a capitalist economy. "Freedom from capitalism" would mean no rights to private property, and as a result, no rights to the products of your labor.

[thirdshift47]

@mmcloughlin86

The US has never had a pure capitalist economy because the free market system is a legal fiction with both federal & state legislature's footprints on every sq.,inch of it.

"Freedom from capitalism" means nothing in practice,but in theory atleast,it means the ability to challenge capitalism's ideological monopoly in a supposedly democratic society,as well as 'capitalism' being used by both major partys to rationalize their own enslavement to business.

[aluisious]

@mmcloughlin86 That's a complete fallacy. Ownership of means of production, whether social or private, does not mean there cannot be private property. You can still have a house and a car and whatever, you just can't own a factory that 400 people work in. Socialism means they own the factory and decide what to do. And they have the rights to the product of their labor. Capitalism means the guy who owns the factory has rights to the product of their labor.

[cabgt]

@beesleeper So you are against voluntary exchange between consenting adults?

[randomino5]

Attention all Mises/Rothbard/Austrian motherfuckers: You are not Anarchists. You already took "Libertarian" and if you start to take "Anarchist" we will give you the attention you deserve: Destruction.  Back the fuck off.

[ForAVoluntarySociety]

This is imho a very important debate.

[redrajani]

that was a beautiful definition of voluntaryism (and anarchy)

[garden333]

Look up S510bill and see what government is doing to us, and our Gardens.

[ghostofjackie]

So these idiots actually think there should be NO government? This blows my mind

[limitedgovt999]

@ghostofjackie

What will blow your mind more is how much better off you would be if we lived in a society where we weren't subject to a monopolistic govt that deprives us of freedom and prosperity. That is, a society where there is competition in every field and where productivity is alive and well driving down prices so that even the poorest of society can live a decent live.

Don't mistake that with what we have now where govt is involved in every detail, particularly in the banking system.

[fringeelements]

THAT IS!!!!!!!!111

[Germantunedcars]

@limitedgovt999 Sure that's common sense, DUH, but it will never happen with the system we have. Wake up! There's no point on "fixing" a system that was intended to be this way. Know the definition of insanity?

[limitedgovt999]

@Germantunedcars

So what are you saying? Since the system is forked up I should disregard my values and stop trying to educate others on what is best for everyone?

[Leonmao1]

@limitedgovt999 Nonsense, a free market economy works purely for profit even if that profit comes at a cost to society. You only need to look at rising food prices to see that competition is quite clearly not keeping the costs low. Competition is also worse for the workers , since a business needs to keep getting more and more profit to compete with other business , this leads to pay being cut in order to fuel this profit .

Oh and unregulated banking is the no1 cause of recessions.

[stealthswimmer]

@Leonmao1

Actually, you're trying to attribute rising food prices to one thing when there are multiple things changing that affect food prices. For example, the central bank has been creating lots of new money, and the US government subsidies corn for ethanol use, making less available for food, driving up food prices. I encourage you to learn economics(both Austrian and Neoclassical) as it's a very valuable tool for analyzing the world.

[Leonmao1]

@limitedgovt999 For example the recent recession was caused by banks lending out money recklessly and it has been cause of countless other recessions.

[Tougemaster06]

@limitedgovt999 Even though driving down prices, would be counter-intuitive to profit making XD. The highest profit is only possible in a direction towards monopoly. If prices were driven downward, it would only be because of mass production by bigger capitalist, swamping the small capitalist out. Once the crisis is over, the big victors would pick up the pieces and swallow up the remains of the smaller capitalist lol.

[stealthswimmer]

@Tougemaster06

Not really. The entry of new competitors promotes further competition as a process, not a crisis situation. And the way to gain wealth in a free market (which is not what we have right now) is by satisfying customers. Furthermore, profit is revenue minus cost so gaining profit can be done by increasing prices(only if people are still willing to pay the higher price) or keeping price the same while cutting cost(or if cost rises less than price).

[Tougemaster06]

@stealthswimmer A free market is not even humanly possible. If anything, its a moral justification for the capitalist mode of production. Secondly, wealth is generated from labor, not exchanges. Exchanges are equal in the sense that you trade a given amount of money for a commodity, thus no value is made. Profit emerges from the different between the cost of the means of production and the amount a commodity sells for in the market.

[aseriousman91]

@Tougemaster06 Value is subjective. It does not come from labor, which is a concept that has long been disproven. No amount of labor can replace the intangibles neccessary to create wealth such as informational know-how and proper managment. That's why the Ford company produced quality cars while the Soviet Union produced crap cars, the Soviet bureaucracy laked the discipline of a market economy while Ford.

[Tougemaster06]

@aseriousman91 Subjective value is not exchange value. The problem with subjective value theory is that it makes ideal abstractions about how the economy (and economy in a Marxist sense is different from your Austrian worldview) the world works, ignoring history, politics and human psychology. I would imagine its difficult for the USSR to make 'high quality' cars, if they had little industrial development. Demand disciplines private labor in the market, it does not create value

[stealthswimmer]

@Tougemaster06

It's a sliding scale. It's not like black and white where you go "ok this is free and that market isn't free" or something like that. And there have been times when markets were largely free.

Furthermore, wealth is generated from multiple things - deferring of consumption(savings), investment(often done by capitalists but not always), labor, & trade(since value is subjective, trade moves things around to who values them most or as is approximated by compensation)

[Tougemaster06]

@stealthswimmer Yes there was a time when they were free...It was called the dark ages...Welcome to era of Capitalism..

[Tougemaster06]

@Tougemaster06 Investment does not create wealth. Wealth is generated by labor and accumulated. Capital does not increase its own value by itself.

[aseriousman91]

@Tougemaster06 Monopolies can only occur two ways: either through collusion with government to create entry barriers into the market place, or a particular firm becomes so efficient that it is able to lower prices and undercut its competitors, in which case that's hardly a bad thing for consumers since prices go down while production goes up.

[aseriousman91]

@aseriousman91 Standard Oil, for example, acquired 90% of the petrolumn market during the 1890s by increasing production while lowering costs. The result was a dramatic rise in the standard of living for millions as fuel became cheaper. The only reason they were declared a monopoly was because politicians in Congress were bribed by competitors to regulate. By 1913 when SO trust was broken up, competition had eroded their share of the market place to 65%.

[Tougemaster06]

@aseriousman91 I think the fact that imperialism became a reality after the conference of Berlin in the 1885-1887 lead to a dramatic rise of living standards. IN fact, many nations in their governments debated that colonialism would be good because it would be improve living conditions for the working class. That is why people are able to buy 10 packs of underwear for $3. If you want to understand Capitalism, you have to understand the whole of society, not ideal abstractions.

[Tougemaster06]

@aseriousman91 There is such thing as inherently monopolistic constructs. If we look at the real world, commerce requires means of exchange, including roads, telecommunications. If all of these were privatized, the overhead cost on these commodities would be expensive, and shut out smaller competitors who lack the money to operate a business dependent on such means. The State is an integral part of industrial development.

[chorizo1337]

@ghostofjackie So how are things working now bro?

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@ghostofjackie

How the hell is that stupid? If anything, you're the idiotic one, thinking that a coercive social institution with sole decision-making authority can be a positive force for society.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Look up "mutualism". It's a fusion of voluntaryism and socialism... worker ownership, anarchism, and a free market combined into one thing.

[chorizo1337]

@vaguelyhumanoid cool ideology, i actually liked mutualism before I became a voluntaryist. Unfortunatley I am not fond of democracy, and I felt that voluntaryism/agorism was more effective. check out laughingman0x, he is a mutualist but actually knows his stuff and supports free market ideas collectively, unlike most collectivist types who legtimize government theft/programs

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@chorizo1337

I'm not a collectivist at all, though. I'm a free-market, counter-economic individualist anarchist with a tendency towards mutualism.

[Rainmaker1113]

How could you possibly say there should be NO government.

[pulsatingremedy]

@Rainmaker1113

Well if you say stealing is bad.

Then automatically you say taxes are bad. Because taxes are gained under threat of violence.

And without taxes, a government cannot exist.

This is just a very very simple version of one of the smaller arguments against government, there are better and more in dept ones.

[cabgt]

@Rainmaker1113 A) because government screws things up and is a coercive force (immoral). B) People can govern themselves through freedom as oppose to oppressive regulation that creates more problems.

[Rainmaker1113]

@cabgt Name one civilization that thrives w/o ANY government.

[wiljoshill]

@Rainmaker1113, the human race for a majority of its existance. empires and the modern state have only been around for a few thousand years.

[Rainmaker1113]

@wiljoshill And do you deny the fact that our standard of living has increased substantially during those few thousand years?

[wiljoshill]

@Rainmaker1113 No I do not, but the standard of living increased because of advances in science and technology not because of the state and governments.

[Rainmaker1113]

@wiljoshill . Those advancements would have never happened if there were not laws protecting scientists and inventors right's to hold patents. Not only that, what incentive would there be to make something if there was nothing preventing others from stealing it. Government does many things wrong, but it is not government as a whole, it's the mistakes of the people running it.

[fly8oy51]

@Rainmaker1113 There isnt any point of reference. Anarchism hasn't been tried.

[Rainmaker1113]

@fly8oy51 Yes it has, It's just that every time some people always come together to form a govt. ALWAYS its not that it hasn't been tried, it's that it never lasts. Trying to instill an anarchy is impossible, because you're fighting against human nature.

[reapfreak]

Dammit, I was just about to go to bed.

[sean0milan0]

could she be anymore boring? for real...what's up with debate these days?

[sean0milan0]

@sean0milan0 actually, notice the camera quality, editing job, the room they're in, but they're having intelligent debate at least, regardless of how boring. Better than wasting thousands and millions of dollars on BORING useless television entertainment.

[nogl0001]

sweeden's economy is probably not as "socialist" as these people think. reason tv had a couple videos about the very issue.

[Z0mgZ0mbies]

Voluntaryism is the wave of the future.

[kiduk]

"Most socialists envision a mixed economy...." Uh, no socialists envision a mixed economy. That is ignoring half of the ideals of socialism, beyond everyone getting the same rights, destroying the classes.

[chorizo1337]

@kiduk except state socialism aka social democrats do like such a society, aka some form of property rights. That's the people that were being debated in this video. But all socialism always end up being a religious like worship of government/rising dictator

[rockstarofredondo]

The socialist definition of government sounded like a convoluted rambling answer that a high school kid would put on a test question that he was trying to bullshit his way out of. Nice.

[chorizo1337]

the stupidity of these old fucks is the reason why we shouldnt have SS, also etzel33 is a stupid fuck who does not know shit about economics. Hurr why cant we have socialism and Free markets?

[Stargazer5781]

Generational divide much?

[mythrail]

@Stargazer5781 if you were old and wasted your life chasing socialist fantasies instead of accruing wealth you would want to fleece young people for their productivity too.

[etzel33]

How about this for a reasonable middle-ground.

Instead of seceding, why don't we just kick out anybody who doesn't agree with us? No recognition of land titles, no rights to use public highways, no access to court protections... Banishment for failure ot volunteer! lol

After all, why should society be forced to deal with these jackoffs?

[egokick]

@etzel33 redefining violence does not  make it disappear.

[etzel33]

@egokick Sorry, I was just making a snide comment to illustrate the impossibility of "voluntaryism" to resolve issues of land rights, infrastructure and even police protection. The "initiation of force" argument is based on individual judgment, since "defensive force" is always approved. When two parties try to use "defensive force" against each other, there will be violence. This problem applies to the 3 topics I've mentioned.

[egokick]

@etzel33 Let me assume that everything you said was correct, you are pointing out that the problem with anarchism is that in some situations people may redefine "defensive force" so that they can initiate force and those instances of violence will be a big problem within an anarchist society.

How then can you not also apply this disdain for violence to the state, where violence is institutionalized and made law?

[etzel33]

@egokick "How then can you not also apply this disdain for violence to the state"

I think I do. The "state" is a fiction. Right and wrong are ultimately determined by each of us. I don't see an actual disagreement between us, except perhaps when it comes to the rules that govern our particular Fictions.

My point is that "initiation of force" is a useless concept. A better concept is simply "individual rights" and leave it at that. The "state" then is there to preserve our rights.

[egokick]

@etzel33 non initiation of force is my preference, what is individual rights? where do they come from, if that is something natural which exists inherently in the world you must at least define your terms.

[etzel33]

@egokick That's a good question, and in the end I have to simply say "I believe" we have individual rights. I could argue that they're "natural", but it's really unnecessary. In the end it's the good guys vs. bad guys, and the bad guys are winning. I see this "voluntaryism" and NIF-clause psychology as a retreat from reality more than a prescription for winning. So "rights" are my preference.

The choice behind the force... that's an issue of "morality", between Right and Wrong IMO

[egokick]

@etzel33 that's nice but you haven't defined what you mean by individual rights and have so far just made baseless appeals to right and wrong.

[egokick]

@etzel33 if you believe initiation of force is such a useless concept then I guess the difference between you accidentally loosing your wallet and getting mugged at gunpoint is not one of significance to you.

[etzel33]

@egokick I HOPE you understand my point. I think you do. The guy that mugged me might (just sayin) think it was his wallet that I bought from a guy who stole it from him... hence his sense of justification for violence (defensive force).

[egokick]

@etzel33 The initiation of force is pretty clearly defined, clearer than any government definition of when it is ok and when it is not ok to use force. It is as much ones individual judgment as a square being a labeled a square, you can be awkward and redefine it as a triangle but you aren't changing the properties of a square... No one is claiming there will never be an act of violence in a voluntarist society, only that there be an absence of institutionalized violence.

[etzel33]

@egokick Napoleon said that morality is on the side with the most cannon. So is any claim you may have to land or natural resources. There are simply some things in the real world that don't fit well with "voluntaryism" as a concept, as well-intentioned as the notion may be.

[egokick]

@etzel33 I don't believe in morality. Napoleon was right though, who ever has the most fire power will get their way, usually.

[etzel33]

Socialists don't believe in free markets. They believe in state operated systems like State Farms, State Hospitals, State Schools, State Utilities, State Stores... as if the military can somehow run our society better than free markets.

But conservatism, and all their backwash philosophies, defeat good arguments for free markets by hooking to anarchism as a moral argument. It's absurd.

[etzel33]

I'm 100% for individual rights to life and liberty. I'm 100% for free markets. I'm not an anarchist, and I don't believe in conservatism. A strong government, to protect our rights, should include basic protections through direct subsidies like tuition-vouchers, food stamps and medicare. As long as the revenue is "morally acquired", there's no moral reason not to.

[knowwatimeanlike]

(cont) still believe in good orderly government, but government that is based off voluntary participation, rather than coercian. Example, my government recently established "blasphemy laws", that will see me put in jail for offending someone (bullshit) and still demands my tax money. I would like to say, "no thank you, your policies contradict my freedoms. I wont give you anymore money, I'm seceding" I can't because the state coerces my allegiance and gives me no other option. See now?

[etzel33]

@knowwatimeanlike So your advice to Somalia is "try to get along"?

Secede all you want. If you claim that 10,000 acres of coal is yours for the taking, I might not be so amicable to your arbitrary claims. Argue for Spooner all you want. Bottom line is that land and natural resources is controlled by force, no matter how "moral" you might claim to be.

Titles and Deeds are privileges of government. The weight of gov't funding should be from those sources.

[knowwatimeanlike]

Okay hold on first of all, when was I ever giving advice on how to solve the problem in Somalia, I was criticising your use of Somalia as an argument against voluntaryism, which is a overused and very weak argument. So I don't see where exactly I was proposing a solution for Somalia!

Secondly, if we landed on a uninhabited planet, and I declared that x amount of previously unowned coal is mine, then every amount of coal I extract from the ground is my property. My effort was put into(cont)

[etzel33]

@knowwatimeanlike Hey, whatever helps you get through life. I don't think the american indians really volunteered to give us their land, but whatever. Now it's yours I guess.... thanks to the US military that protects it from Canada etc..

If you want to quit on society, go ahead, go live in the mountains and hide. Don't use the roads or telephones (rights of way granted by gov't) etc..

Somalia is a very effective argument against anarchism... proof that it doesn't apply to real life.

[etzel33]

@lizard450 It's not ad hominem to call anarchist moral cowards. I'm being perfectly to the point, arguing a position. It isn't meant at you personally.

The anarchist world view is achieved by closing the eyse to reality. The fact is that any thug outside the utopian morality, any sin unchecked by the individual, results in a failure of the anarchist model to achieve the peace and prosperity it claims to champion.

[knowwatimeanlike]

(cont) That our constitution grants freedom of property. These individuals who are having their business taken from them most still pay taxes to the organisation that has confiscated their livelyhood and wares. How is that fair?

Secondly your talk of titles,deeds and government priviledge falls on deaf ears with a voluntaryist, because if you follow the idea of freedom of property to its logical conclusion I, not the state, have absolute authority over my property. If not, then it is not mine!

[etzel33]

@knowwatimeanlike You have a right to your life. To your liberty. Do you have the right to claim monopoly use of a valley or stream? To a vein of coal? To the air we breath? Title can be granted to you by your neighbors, by the respect of others passing through, or by governments. People can't "buy" land, they buy titles. You have an inherent right to the fruits of your labor. The term "Property" includes this, but also includes land ... and even slaves, by definition.

[knowwatimeanlike]

You really honestly have no idea what voluntaryism means do you. I mean over the extent of this discussion it has become screamingly apparent that you haven't got a fucking clue what voluntaryism advocates. If my neighbour sells me his land, the land plus all it's rescources become mine and no one has claim to that land other than me. No where does this involve waltzing on to said neighbours land, sticking my flag in the ground and claiming it as my own. The title to the land is granted to(cont)

[lizard450]

@etzel33 I'm no longer going to engage with your idiocy and apparent psychological disorders. This is my virtual version of walking away. Have a nice day.

[etzel33]

@lizard450 Remove your fucked up comment and I'll believe you.

[knowwatimeanlike]

@etzel33(cont)me by the previous owner. Oh and etzel, as for your piss poor comparison between me and the white settlers who stole native american land. Native americans had a virtually stateless society. Anyone who disagreed with the tribe left with their belongings to start a new life(voluntaryism).

The white settlers on the other hand believed in states, taxation and taking what didn't belong to them by force, which actually has more in common with what you advocate than what I advocate.

[etzel33]

@knowwatimeanlike First you're a constitutionalist, then you're a voluntaryist. I guess that means you're not an anarchist. So I'm learning. You accept that Title is a grant from government, secured by the force of government. This is good. Accepting reality is important.

And it appears that you believe in 100% absolute ownership of territorial rights. Perhaps you have ideas on Trespass? Rights of Way? Roads & Highways? Hydroelectric Plants?

(cont...)

[etzel33]

(...) If the source of your legitimate claim to land is Government, should not the weight of government finance fall on these claims? I'm 100% against income and sales taxes. Why not land taxes though?

I suggest voluntary assessment of property, a single, flat tax on those values, and a single, yet sizeable deductible for each person. This would be morally defensible, and could finance both common defense and general welfare.

All in support of Libertarian society.

[knowwatimeanlike]

mining it ergo it belongs to me. Now on our already inhabited planet, a better examplecan be found in the narcotics debate in my country at the moment. Recently a string of legal narcotics stores called head shops begun selling "legal highs" on the open market. These legal drugs have been bought by the shop owner with hard earned money and therefore is his to hold or sell. The State disagrees. It has decreed that these shops be closed down and the drugs confiscated despite the fact that(cont)

[knowwatimeanlike]

No sorry, Etzel33. The land taken by white settlers from Native americans was taken by force, i.e. stealing. Therefore it does not fall under the principal of what i gain through my labour is mine.

Also, quitting society? That's a new one. I though I was all about quitting the state, not society, but thanks for setting me straight pal. I though I advocated privatising roads not avoiding their use but hell what do I know!

Oh, and the somalia argument still sucks balls! Live free or die, Bitch!

[knowwatimeanlike]

@etzel33 Finally etzel, the bullshit idea that slavery is permissable under voluntaryism is well....bullshit! Under voluntaryism , nothing I do can violate somebody else's right to liberty, thus leaving your slavery argument null and void.

The state however thinks it owns me. The Irish state tells me I can't use drugs, the Irish state tells women they can't have abortions(as much as I hate abortion). Thus so long as the state tells me what to do and what not to do with my body I am a slave!

[etzel33]

I don't agree with either side. The socialist want to nationalize everything. The anarchists don't want any government at all. Why can't government simply help people directly instead of nationalizing everything? Food stamps work fine, and use free markets to deliver the food. Why advocate state farms? And the anarchists: not impressed with their logic at all.

[etzel33]

@lizard450 Military power is paid for by money that is forcibly taken. If you don't have a solution to government finance, then the issue of what government spends its money on is moot.

Of course, I'd like to know what your anarcho-gang would use to finance its defense, and by what right you claim territorial rights. Force?

[etzel33]

@lizard450 Bottom line is that anarchy is bereft of any honest reason. It's just a bunch of platitudes about morality, with zero substance for how it actually helps people to believe it.

Somalia has zero government, zero social programs and everyone has guns. Dream the dream... anarchist utopia?

Of course not. Gang leaders rule society.  If you don't have any policies of what YOUR gang is, then you're no better.

[knowwatimeanlike]

Okay you have fallen into the trap of the Somalia argument, which all statists use in thinking that they have caught their anarchist opponent out. Quite the contrary, Somalia is a collapsed state, the vicious gangs that roam Somalia were the cause not the result of the collapse of state control in Somalia. Furthermore Voluntaryism doeas not advocate the forceful abolition of the state like other anarchist sects do, i recognition that this would cause a somalia scenario. Voluntaryist still(cont)

[Stationsig]

When was this happening? Wish I knew about it.

[CNCAddict]

It surely has no merit, but notice how this is an "old vs young" debate ;)

[Spideynw]

@CNCAddict

I can't wait until another 30 years when many of these uneducated old people die off and those that are plugged into the internet start gaining much more credibility.

[mouser98k]

@Spideynw lol, the same old fucks that gave us our current political/economic situation... they should be beaten severely

[Sivels]

@Spideynw lol, yeah, thank God for the internet

[beesleeper]

@Spideynw

Perhaps you won't make it. You seem like the fork-in-the-socket type.

[DoctorCapitalist]

@Spideynw I agree, it seems that people on the internet are more informed than the old farts XD

[SoapBoxIdol]

Awesome, subscribed!

[nicademus1974]

NIce. I was hoping I would get to see this.

[russiantraitor]

Finally, I've been waiting for this. Hey the audio turned out great!