filc: You just need those classes to exist to justify your political world view. Thats all this really is.
You just need those classes to exist to justify your political world view. Thats all this really is.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
Dont do unto others that which you would not want have done unto you.
"What's the bottom line of "anarcho"-capitalism? I'm referring to things like liberty equality solidarity etc etc etc. What is this system trying to achieve."
The system does not try to achieve anything. In fact, the only real system in place in such a society is whatever each individual decides to do. Proponents of the system argue that we'd be better off this way, without a governing force. That's the sum of it. There are no express rules one has to follow. Equality, solidarity, etc, are non-issues, as there is no proclamation enforcing any rules about those concepts. The "system" of how one chooses to live as opposed to another can be as varying as there are numbers of people.
"Absolute liberty like the liberty to rape?"
Absolutely. You see, in order for there to NOT be the liberty to rape, rules would have to be applied, governing people's lives. This is where the idea of non-authoritativeness really shines, however. You see, we have rules against rape. And in an anarcho-capitalist society, people could easily walk around all day saying, "You can't go raping people." But in the end, both worlds have incidents of rape. So what is the difference? What makes one a more attractive idea than the other? The answer is simple. In our world, we are confounded by a battlefield of rules and regulations. It can take weeks to get a handgun. Shooting someone can get you into trouble, even if it is self-defense. What happens if you get raped in the parking lot going to get your gun permit? Indeed, how much more defenseless is each person if a large number of them decide not to get guns just because of the hassle of paperwork? The problem of personal protection is largely eroded in a non-authoritative society, though. All you have to do is find a gun seller and buy guns. You can swing word games with ethics and morality about guns all you like, but in the end, if a lot of people are getting raped, they are going to start protecting themselves, even if they dislike guns, because many of them will view holding a gun as more desirable than getting raped. And the benefit of this is exponential in the sense of a safer society, for if a lot of rapists start getting shot, then many would-be rapists may have second thoughts, valuing their life over quick, violent pleasure. There will, of course, not be a one hundred percent eradication of rape, but it will level the playing field. Consider this. A rapist in such a world would consider a very small, weak person to be more likely to carry protection. So, should the rapist be insistent, he has to gamble the odds of being shot, or consider attacking stronger looking people. But these stronger individuals might be more than a match for our rapist, even if they do not own a gun.
The very act of making people responsible for themselves benefits the safety of all. You might not want to have to own a gun, but even if you choose not to, your neighbors and friends might not think the same way. You still have some margin of protection.
"So what about when the employer is in possession of the employees body during wage-slavery? He's free to exploit him in anyway he deems fit then since he's purchased that persons time right? Like he doesn't have to bother securing the workplace to be free of pollution or other hazards then."
Well, there would have to be a law saying that you have to obey orders when being paid, and that you can't quit. If there were such a law, it would not be an anarcho-capitalist world, which is non-authoritative. That person's time may have been purchased up front, or is to be paid later. It makes no difference. If the worker feels the job is unsatisfactory, nothing prevents that person from leaving. This, in fact, shifts MORE of a burden of responsibility onto the employer, as he clearly needs workers. If they are leaving because of hazards, the employer must try to solve the problem of those hazards or risk losing production time and, in turn, business.
"Wait I thought we just said that a person's body was property why can't I buy that, are you already instituting regulations? An employer owns the means of production, an employee works them. The employer estimates the value of the employees labour, and pays him less, that is the source of profit, exploitation."
Glaring problem, though, at the beginning of this analysis. You see, what would be instituting regulations would be if you told the person who was being paid that they were subject to the will of the employer. Not allowing someone to purchase your obedience is an individual choice. Non-authoritativeness is the point. It's not authoritative to say "I'm not going to do what you tell me." It is authoritative to make someone work that job. Now, nothing prevents an employer from chaining someone to a machine if they can overpower them in some way, but what about when that person's friends come to retrieve them? There are no police to call to rescue you from the ensuing beating. And, where is such a person going to continue to get a work force from? No one will sign up to work with someone who starts chaining people to machines.
As far as exploitation goes, it is the source of profit. My employer exploits my willingness to work in exchange for money, and I exploit his willingness to give me money in exchange for work. If I keep working over fumes that are killing me, that makes me the idiot, not the employer. People will be a lot more responsible if they have to. If you lived in such a society, wouldn't you investigate whether a job is potentially more deadly than you are willing to risk for a paycheck? Or do you just rush in for the position of "razor blade catcher"? And consider: If people are dying at a job site, but people continue to apply for jobs, the employer must be paying a fortune. It turns out exploitation is very expensive in this sense.
"Wage-slavery is the term used to describe conditions after chattel-slavery was gotten rid of, a more polite time when people called things what they were. Since the Employer controls the means of production, the Employee has no choice but to sell his/her labour and therefor time, because you cannot alienate labour from a person, it is not a commodity, which is precisely what you're trying to do. So in essence you're purchasing someone else's liberty."
I never really thought of it as wage slavery. I always thought of it as forcing an employer to pay me for using what is his to satisfy my desire to work. No, really though, it's just a word game to call it slavery. The civil rights movement didn't get started because black people weren't being paid enough to work on the farms. It was because they were getting beat or shot if they tried to stop working. The employees have exactly the choice as to whether to work for one person or another, or to get others to work for them. They have to be willing to work hard to meet any of those criteria, though. How is it any different to call an employee a slave to an employee than it would be, for instance, to say that the employee is forced to employ others in order to survive himself? And what if he doesn't build the means of production? You can't alienate the idea of the printing press from a person, so what exactly are you proposing is done? Nothing? Will you pay him to build the printing press? Because according to you that would be purchasing his liberty, even if he wants to build it. You're just saying that everyone is forced to work for a certain person, with no real basis for doing so. Not everyone works for Bill Gates. Not everyone is employed by Google. If you suggest, perhaps, that the workers should own the means by which things are produced, haven't they enslaved those willing to design and build the means of production? Wouldn't such slavery be happening constantly, everytime someone builds a machine that does a job? Your definition is no different in this situation. You're saying that, because something is a commodity, and something that a person can be separated from without impairing any freedom, that anyone should be able to use it any way they want. This removes all responsibility for any given commodity, and means that people can use what they like, how they like. For myself, I plan on going around and hiding all the oxygen masks, because I love watching people gasp for air. This may be a problem inherent in what you suggest.
"He/she owns the means of production, he's in the minority. There are tons of people looking for work, if a few die so what?"
Sounds like a ton of people are going to find other work. What, you seriously think that if there wasn't a factory to work at somewhere, nobody would be able to find anything else to do? People have started there own businesses in the past. Just sayin'.
"I'm unfamiliar with Calvinism, do enlighten me. Most of my education comes from the First Internationals. As an aside why are you guys called ANARCHO-capitalists anyway, I see no bearing to actual Anarchy?"
The very first of several definitions of "anarchy" given by Merriam-Webster is "absence of government".
"I've been told An-Cap is Capitalism without regulation, I've been told my body is property. What's stopping someone from buying property?"
I don't know...perhaps the seller could decide to not sell? It's a stretch, I know. Just say "no".
"Okay they can quit their job... now what are they going to do starve? that sounds practical. I do agree with the idea of a general strike though to permanently get-rid of capitalism, all the workers of the world must do is fold their arms and the world comes to a crawl. Then once they seize the means of production and abolish private property as they did during the Spanish Revolution we can truly be rid of Capitalism (I'm an actual Anarchist btw)."
This is going to be very difficult for you to grasp, perhaps, but I want you to imagine a tangible world in which you live. There is a Starbucks on one corner, and a McDonald's on the other. You don't like the atmosphere at Starbucks. Do you:
A) quit, go outside, and sit around drooling until you starve,
B) go work at McDonald's,
C) start a coffee shop to compete, expecting more people to come work for you since you believe you can provide a better work environment?
Because two of those sound like very good alternatives to what you arrived at in your statement. In fact, two of these answers sound quite...practical. Hey, instead of hoping the whole world goes on strike, how about you just go on a crusade to get people to stop working for Starbucks? When they aren't making any money any more, you can bet your ass they'll make it a better place to work. After all, they're only after profit, right? Hey, how exactly are you going to get all these workers to do exactly what you envision? How will you force them to abolish private property? You know, the ones that didn't starve when everyone stopped working? You're talking about cold-hearted employers letting people die while working in factories, but you apparently have no trouble with people collapsing in starvation because the whole world goes on strike. It wouldn't take but a few days before people starved to death. If you stopped everything, just imagine how long it would take to get the ball moving for the whole world. Even after the "victory", there wouldn't be enough time to start distributing food. Many people would probably have looted the shops by that point anyway. They'd be fine, but everyone else would have to hope the truck gets to them first. You're a good samaritan, though, don't worry. Such a compassionate person. As long as you believe it'll work out, it's okay if people die. Damn factory-owning burgeoise...
"Because the means of production are limited, and once you own the means of production and start employing people.. well you become the employer >_>."
Hey...hey.....hey.....got a question....What if someone needs help lifting something in order to get a job done? Which person is the exploiting burgeoise?
""Anarchy is a system without governmental authority. It literally means no ruler. Economic theories are abound with such implications."
Wrong, Anarchy is a system based around the maximization of Liberty Equality and Solidarity, these three cannot exist without the other. As such a consistent Anarchist will oppose all forms of Vertical Hierarchy such as the State, Sexism, Racism, Capitalism, Discrimination based upon sexual orientation etc."
Actually, you're both right, if you want to bother and crack open a dictionary. You're just saying "wrong" because you think vocalization of the word makes you right. Also, why can't those three exist without one another? How do you maximize all three without using a lowest common denominator? You can't control equality unless you can magically make every person have the exact same beliefs and views, you can't have maximum liberty if you force solidarity, you can't have solidarity if you insist everyone is treated exactly equally, and you can't have everyone treated equally if you want liberty. So you have to settle for a bastardized version of all three, rather than maximizing liberty and giving people the choice of solidarity, and leaving equality to the wind, which you are about to horribly misinterpret, but I'll wait and shred that when you go there. How will you get everyone to be a consistent Anarchist? How exactly do you stop someone from being a racist? How do you prove they aren't just pretending to not be racist? Sexism is wildly interpreted as it is. You could make the claim that someone is being sexist if they only cough in the presence of men. How is it determined what is sexism and what is coincidence? And if there is no vertical hierarchy, who is enforcing all of this?
"I don't want to debate semantics though so lets not,"
I have to deny you that privilege if you are going to just toss the request out after butchering several definitions. You read one definition and say that's it. Well, I got news for you, buddy. "Socks" aren't just those things on your feet. It's also a verb, present tense.
A system of no coercion.
Promoting Liberty at the expense of Tyranny.
www.e-renegade.com
This thread was old, but great. Esuric had me cracking up.
Esuric:What if he's like, "I'll give you an apple for an orange," and you're like "I don't have an orange, but I can get one from Henry who wants my cherries."