What would stop a successful organisation in an anarcho-capitalist society from becoming a coercive organisation, the equivalent of our current state?
Competition.
The same thing it's (not) stopping it now: collectivist sheep changing their subjective valuations (preferences) into ones of individualist (free) people through learning (austrian) economics. Today, we're living in the "anarcho-capitalism" commensurate with the level of such knowledge within the human herd -- the level reflected by their present subjective valuations.
The organisation would be very unpopular but it is possible that a new state like organisation could try to form but that risk, is not a reason that should prevent the attempt of ending government. It would require a lot of resources to attempt to force people to pay for taxation. If they ended the current system and taxation then people would not be some what voluntarily paying taxes anymore. Then it would be like a new organisation today, while we currently have a tax system, trying to force people to pay tax. It would be just as difficult for a new organisation to start asking for taxes today, as it would be after ending the state.
Have you had the opportunity yet to read any of the dozens of other threads about this? Also several articles can be found in the archives at mises.org going over this. If your sincere in your curiosity I would start there rather then casually asking here.
We have to repeatedly answer this question at least once a month.
1. Armed rebellion by the subjected people
2. Competition between other defence firms
3. Any organization private or public which keeps an eye on the defence company
4. Any Communal organizations which were against the company
5. Motivating the soldiers under their control to take part in the revolt. It's one thing to fight for god or country, and a totally different one to, in an advanced and modern society, become little less than a bandit. How many people have you ever met who could join the army could fight to establish a monarchy like that commanding America pre-revolutionary war? It would be the similar if they were fighting to reimpose a state in a stateless society.
I think the only force truly powerful enough to stop this from happening is human biology... humans have to evolve to the point that they won't tolerate subjugation. The more I think about it, the more I think that servility is a bred-in trait. The biological effect of slavery and its other more subtle variations (e.g. imperial domination, medieval serfdom, central-bank serfdom, colonization, etc.) is that the most servile are rewarded with the greatest wealth and, therefore, have the greatest capacity for reproductive success. In the case of overt slavery, it is most obvious, since the master chooses the best male - as measured by productivity and obedience - to breed his females. But even in less overt systems of slavery, it is the ass-kissers who get the governorships, monopoly grants, regulatory advantages, tax loopholes and other political favors. They are rewarded with wealth which translates into wives, mistresses and children. Today, we have the greatest wealth transfer ever in history from the productive and independent to the servile and dependent in all the forms of welfare and other transfer payments that exist. This means that human biology is being more greatly distorted today than ever before. The long-term consequences of this cannot be good.
Clayton -
I think what allowed governments to form in the first place were simple divisions of labor, where there wasn't much resistance to the formation of states. In a more modern division of labor, such as ours today, I think that some form of long-term revolution could bring about anarcho-capitalism, and I think that our extensive division of labor would prove competitive enough to disallow a state to form again.
"I think that our extensive division of labor would prove competitive enough to disallow a state to form again."
I'm sorry I just don't understand why, could you elaborate?
The state is legitimized today because it already has the power to redistribute wealth. If we assume that it didn't have this power, there's no reason to assume that a state would emerge out of the market to provide this 'service' of redistribution. There would be no benefit to the majority of individuals. Security would be provided privately, as would education, and other services presently provided by the state.
How would a state emerge? By what means would a bureacracy gain a monopoly on power over a specific geographic area in a society with an extensive division of labor?
Anarcho-capitalism seems to not be heeding history in the assertations that people prefer liberty over safety. In that respect, it seems naive.
If we look at the end of the Roman Republic and its transition to an the Empire we see that it is quite easy for one party to take control, even at the expense of liberty. After Caesar's death Antony refused to acknowledge Octavian as Caesar's heir, this is what happened next:
'The Senate in fact, with Cicero to the fore, took up Octavian, hoping to use the magic of his name, Caesar, to win the soldiers and people away from Antony. Octavian let himself be used, for his own purpose. He got what we could out of collaboration with the Senate, including the consulship before he was twenty, and then made a deal with Antony.'1
It's clear that the acsension to power is often subtle and in this case, often can come about from a set of lose-lose circumstances. The Senate had to use Octavian to stop Antony, but in doing so, they set him up as imperium, or emperor.
The anarcho-capitalist model seems naive in it's un-warrented claim that no one can be bought, or that a set of circumstances, won't bring a transition from liberty to dictatorship - as was the case in Rome, albeit a rather limited liberty.
If a corporation has 20bn at its disposal, one would have to be a fool to suppose that it wouldn't use that money for its own purposes. Just think about how many people can be silenced with 20bn. There was one video I saw which argued that contracts would be kept, otherwise any party breaking the contract would be discredited; again, I think this is naive. In a society where money is the goal, and everyone wants it, money buys anything.
1: Wells, C., The Roman Empire, Second Edition, Fontana Press
I have never read anything in anarcho-capitalist literature that asserts people prefer liberty of safety.
The anarcho-capitalist model seems naive in it's un-warrented claim that no one can be bought...
I have never read anything in anarcho-capitalist literature that suggests that no one can be bought.
...or that a set of circumstances, won't bring a transition from liberty to dictatorship
This argument has been had a miilion times over between minarchists and anarchists. I think any ancap scholar would concede that it is absolutely possible that a given set of circumstances might transition a society from liberty to dictatorship. The question is over what institution would minimize those odds.
Stop watching youtube videos and try reading a book or journal (not a blog).
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Chris_Bacon:What would stop a successful organisation in an anarcho-capitalist society from becoming a coercive organisation, the equivalent of our current state?
You seem to imply that an anarcho-capitalist society would lack coercive organizations. I think that's a mistake, at least as far as my definition of "coercion" goes. There would be coercion in an anarcho-capitalist society just as there's coercion in statist societies. However, I and other anarcho-capitalists believe that, in the former kind of society, aggressive coercion would be very widely (if not universally) considered illegitimate, leading to a minimization of it.
(Apologies if this has already been brought up.)
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
mikachusetts: This argument has been had a miilion times over between minarchists and anarchists. I think any ancap scholar would concede that it is absolutely possible that a given set of circumstances might transition a society from liberty to dictatorship. The question is over what institution would minimize those odds.
I would say that it is inevitable, power would eventually transfer back to a heirachical leadership of some kind.
mikachusetts: Stop watching youtube videos and try reading a book or journal (not a blog).
Stop being such an elitist; Socrates didn't write any books.
Autolykos: You seem to imply that an anarcho-capitalist society would lack coercive organizations. I think that's a mistake, at least as far as my definition of "coercion" goes. There would be coercion in an anarcho-capitalist society just as there's coercion in statist societies. However, I and other anarcho-capitalists believe that, in the former kind of society, aggressive coercion would be very widely (if not universally) considered illegitimate, leading to a minimization of it.
Just because something is considered illegitimate, doesn't mean it won't happen. Human rights abuses are considered illegitimate now, yet they still occur.
Chris_Bacon:Just because something is considered illegitimate, doesn't mean it won't happen. Human rights abuses are considered illegitimate now, yet they still occur.
I'm sorry but you're attacking a straw man. I never said that aggressive coercion would never occur in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Autolykos:I'm sorry but you're attacking a straw man. I never said that aggressive coercion would never occur in an anarcho-capitalist society.
True that, sorry I misread in my haste. Do you think that aggressive coercion would lead to some party monopolising power; since afterall, you admit that agressive coercion will never, never occur in an A-C society?
Heirarchy is not the same as a dictatorship and is not synonomous with state. Corporations are heirarchical as are families. So I'm not sure whether you really meant that heriarchies are inevitable or central dicatatorial states are inevitiable.
I didn't mean to come off as an elitist, sorry. Its not that books have an inherent virtue, but that they can go into depth regarding the concerns you have whereas a 10 minute youtube video just can't. Arguing against a pretty vast and established political philosophy from youtube videos is like arguing against christianity after listening to a handful of sermons.
Chris_Bacon:True that, sorry I misread in my haste. Do you think that aggressive coercion would lead to some party monopolising power; since afterall, you admit that agressive coercion will never, never occur in an A-C society?
You seem to be reiterating the straw-man argument at the end of your post. I never asserted nor "admitted" that aggressive coercion will never, ever occur in an anarcho-capitalist society. Certainly it will occur at times, but it will be viewed as crime. Hopefully the occurrences will be minimized - it's my belief that they will be.
That said, do I think aggressive coercion would lead to some party "monopolizing power"? I assume you mean the party in question would monopolize the settling of disputes within a certain area of land and/or among a certain group of people. While it's always possible for such a state of affairs to re-emerge from an anarcho-capitalist social order, I can't say whether it necessarily would. The future is always uncertain.
Autolykos: You seem to be reiterating the straw-man argument at the end of your post. I never asserted nor "admitted" that aggressive coercion will never, ever occur in an anarcho-capitalist society.
You seem to be reiterating the straw-man argument at the end of your post. I never asserted nor "admitted" that aggressive coercion will never, ever occur in an anarcho-capitalist society.
That's why I said sorry for misreading you; but I don't think I reiterated the straw-man argument. You did admit that agressive coercion will never, never occur in an anarcho-capitalist society:
'I never said that aggressive coercion would never occur in an anarcho-capitalist society.'
The use of 'never' acts as negation; double negation would cancel itself out, so that is the equivalent of saying:
I said that aggressive coercion would occur in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Autolykos:That said, do I think aggressive coercion would lead to some party "monopolizing power"? I assume you mean the party in question would monopolize the settling of disputes within a certain area of land and/or among a certain group of people. While it's always possible for such a state of affairs to re-emerge from an anarcho-capitalist social order, I can't say whether it necessarily would. The future is always uncertain.
I agree that the future is always uncertain, to us at any rate. But given the nature of capitalism and human greed under capitalism, I would say that it is quite likely that a monopolising power will re-emerge. That's my point. @mikachusetts
'Heirarchy is not the same as a dictatorship and is not synonomous with state. Corporations are heirarchical as are families. So I'm not sure whether you really meant that heriarchies are inevitable or central dicatatorial states are inevitiable.'
Yeah, I meant some central dictatorial heirachy is inevitable under capitalism.
Chris_Bacon:That's why I said sorry for misreading you; but I don't think I reiterated the straw-man argument. You did admit that agressive coercion will never, never occur in an anarcho-capitalist society: 'I never said that aggressive coercion would never occur in an anarcho-capitalist society.' The use of 'never' acts as negation; double negation would cancel itself out, so that is the equivalent of saying: I said that aggressive coercion would occur in an anarcho-capitalist society.
In that case, I was confused by your wording - I figured "never, never" was just a rhetorical device for emphasis. Sorry about that.
Chris_Bacon:I agree that the future is always uncertain, to us at any rate. But given the nature of capitalism and human greed under capitalism, I would say that it is quite likely that a monopolising power will re-emerge. That's my point.
Well, what reasoning do you have to support this point? I'd also like to know what you take "capitalism" and "human greed" to mean.
Autolykos: In that case, I was confused by your wording - I figured "never, never" was just a rhetorical device for emphasis. Sorry about that.
Sorry, I should have made that clearer; looking back on it, it does look a bit rhetorical.
Autolykos: Well, what reasoning do you have to support this point? I'd also like to know what you take "capitalism" and "human greed" to mean.
By capitalist I mean an economic system where the means of production is privately owned, workers have to sell their labour in a wage system and where the focus is financial profit. By human greed, I am referring to, in this case, financial ambition in which one puts private profit before anything else.
My reasoning is simple. Right now, even with government interference, we see the rich and wealthy driving for more; although an anarchist myself, my fear is that without the government these individuals would have free control to do anything; their greed would know no bounds. And so I object to Anarcho-capitalism.
Chris_Bacon:Sorry, I should have made that clearer; looking back on it, it does look a bit rhetorical.
No worries, I think we have it all cleared up now. :)
Chris_Bacon:By capitalist I mean an economic system where the means of production is privately owned, workers have to sell their labour in a wage system and where the focus is financial profit. By human greed, I am referring to, in this case, financial ambition in which one puts private profit before anything else.
Thanks for the clarification. Forgive me if I feel that I must ask more follow-up questions.
When you say "privately owned", do you mean "individually owned" or "exclusively owned"? My own sense of it falls to the latter, but you might differ.
If workers don't sell their labor in a wage system, how else would they sell it? Or is your contention with workers selling their labor at all?
Where do you think the focus on financial profit comes from? I'd say it's derived from the more general desire for a state of affairs that's seen as "better" over one that isn't - what I'd call "profit" in the general sense.
Now with those questions out of the way, I'd say that an anarcho-capitalist society would be a society where the Non-Aggression Principle is honored by most everyone, most of the time. (We can't expect to be honored by all people, all the time - that's utopianism.) This means that most people would not put financial profit before anything else (most of the time), because if they did, that would mean they'd be willing to aggress against others to obtain it.
Chris_Bacon:My reasoning is simple. Right now, even with government interference, we see the rich and wealthy driving for more; although an anarchist myself, my fear is that without the government these individuals would have free control to do anything; their greed would know no bounds. And so I object to Anarcho-capitalism.
A quibble, but "rich and wealthy" seems to be redundant. What I mean is, I don't see how the two groups can really be considered different from one another.
I feel that I have to ask whether you think all means of "driving for more" are equivalent. My own opinion here is that they aren't. I have no problem with a person driving for more wealth, as long as he doesn't aggress against others in so doing. Maybe I need you to clarify what you mean by "the rich and wealthy driving for more".
Do you think everyone in the government is perfectly and completely altruistic - that they really are "public servants"? Or do you think at least some people in the government are just as greedy as people outside of it?
Autolykos: When you say "privately owned", do you mean "individually owned" or "exclusively owned"? My own sense of it falls to the latter, but you might differ.
I agree - exclusively owned, I think that would explain how a company could come to own something.
Autolykos:If workers don't sell their labor in a wage system, how else would they sell it? Or is your contention with workers selling their labor at all?
It's my contention with workers selling their labour in the first place.
Autolykos:Where do you think the focus on financial profit comes from? I'd say it's derived from the more general desire for a state of affairs that's seen as "better" over one that isn't - what I'd call "profit" in the general sense.
I think you're right, it seems that people often think something like, 'more wealth=better life'. But I don't think that that is the case.
Autolykos:Now with those questions out of the way, I'd say that an anarcho-capitalist society would be a society where the Non-Aggression Principle is honored by most everyone, most of the time. (We can't expect to be honored by all people, all the time - that's utopianism.) This means that most people would not put financial profit before anything else (most of the time), because if they did, that would mean they'd be willing to aggress against others to obtain it.
Purhaps, but a dictatorship only requires one party.
Autolykos:A quibble, but "rich and wealthy" seems to be redundant. What I mean is, I don't see how the two groups can really be considered different from one another.
Yeah, you're right; would I be correct in saying that 'rich and wealthy' would be somewhat of a tautology?
Autolykos:I feel that I have to ask whether you think all means of "driving for more" are equivalent. My own opinion here is that they aren't. I have no problem with a person driving for more wealth, as long as he doesn't aggress against others in so doing. Maybe I need you to clarify what you mean by "the rich and wealthy driving for more".
I would have no problem with ambition, providing it isn't at the expense of other people's happiness. An example of the rich driving for more could be the Iraq war, no doubt it's all for oil, at the expense of our soldiers and the Iraq populace.
Autolykos:Do you think everyone in the government is perfectly and completely altruistic - that they really are "public servants"? Or do you think at least some people in the government are just as greedy as people outside of it?
I think government is another example of authority that needs to be removed, there is no doubt in my mind as to the horros the governments are responsible for. But I also am equally as weary of the corporations and their power. So, for the moment, the government counteracts the corporations.
Chris_Bacon.:My reasoning is simple. Right now, even with government interference, we see the rich and wealthy driving for more; although an anarchist myself, my fear is that without the government these individuals would have free control to do anything; their greed would know no bounds. And so I object to Anarcho-capitalism.
Chris_Bacon.:I think government is another example of authority that needs to be removed, there is no doubt in my mind as to the horros the governments are responsible for. But I also am equally as weary of the corporations and their power. So, for the moment, the government counteracts the corporations.
Only a state, since it has the monopoly of force, has the power to decide which mode of production it wants to enforce. It might want to enforce socialism, a mixed economy or a minarchist economy. As soon as the state is away there will only be one mode of production possible, the one that naturally will arise of free interaction between people. Since only free market economists are able to explain from scratch how subjective values are expressed and how exchange of goods and services among different people works, I guess it will be anarcho capitalism. Point is that without a state like organization you cannot prevent people from using the capitalistic mode of production. The only thing you can hope for is that syndicalist/socialistic mode of production is by far superior over capitalistic one, so that people just wouldn't engage in capitalistic mode of production.
Big corporations have too much power because of the government, not despite of them. Big corps use the government to get that power -> lobbying, without government no lobbying.
BTW: I still don't have any clue how the anarcho-syndicalistic/socialistic mode of production would work. Info about where I could find this would be highly appreciated.
skylien: Only a state, since it has the monopoly of force, has the power to decide which mode of production it wants to enforce. It might want to enforce socialism, a mixed economy or a minarchist economy. As soon as the state is away there will only be one mode of production possible, the one that naturally will arise of free interaction between people. Since only free market economists are able to explain from scratch how subjective values are expressed and how exchange of goods and services among different people works, I guess it will be anarcho capitalism. Point is that without a state like organization you cannot prevent people from using the capitalistic mode of production. The only thing you can hope for is that syndicalist/socialistic mode of production is by far superior over capitalistic one, so that people just wouldn't engage in capitalistic mode of production.
I would say by definition you can't enforce socialism, otherwise it would be this so-called state-socialism; however, socialism is defined as, 'the means of production being in the hands of the workers', which excludes any state control, and so I don't know how you could enforce it without the state. I think you are purhaps right about corporate power partially being due to the government; but I see them both as needing to be removed, not just the government.
skylien:BTW: I still don't have any clue how the anarcho-syndicalistic/socialistic mode of production would work. Info about where I could find this would be highly appreciated.
Rudolf Rocker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Rocker) was an anarcho-syndicalist historian who wrote about the Syndicalist movement in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. One of his works which might be of interest: 'Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practise'. Noam Chomsky is contemporary anarcho-syndicalist as well, he gives a good account of it in: 'Chomsky on Anarchism'.
Chris_Bacon:I agree - exclusively owned, I think that would explain how a company could come to own something.
In that case, all ownership seems to be exclusive, doesn't it? Even in a socialist commonwealth, those who aren't members of the commonwealth would be excluded from possessing, using, or otherwise controlling the means of production within it.
Chris_Bacon:It's my contention with workers selling their labour in the first place.
Okay. What do you think workers could/would do instead of selling their labor?
Chris_Bacon:I think you're right, it seems that people often think something like, 'more wealth=better life'. But I don't think that that is the case.
That's actually a narrower meaning than I intended. A "better" state of affairs to one person may actually be that which leaves him with less wealth, not more. My point is that what constitutes a "better" state of affairs is entirely subjective. It's certainly not always dependent on financial wealth.
Chris_Bacon: Now with those questions out of the way, I'd say that an anarcho-capitalist society would be a society where the Non-Aggression Principle is honored by most everyone, most of the time. (We can't expect to be honored by all people, all the time - that's utopianism.) This means that most people would not put financial profit before anything else (most of the time), because if they did, that would mean they'd be willing to aggress against others to obtain it. Purhaps, but a dictatorship only requires one party.
A dictatorship doesn't require just one party. It requires large numbers of people, both to follow the dictator's orders and to not engage in resistance. Otherwise, every crime would be a civil war in the making.
Chris_Bacon:Yeah, you're right; would I be correct in saying that 'rich and wealthy' would be somewhat of a tautology?
It's not a tautology because it doesn't assert any relationship between "rich" and "wealthy". I'd rather call it a pleonasm - a redundant phrase.
Chris_Bacon:I would have no problem with ambition, providing it isn't at the expense of other people's happiness. An example of the rich driving for more could be the Iraq war, no doubt it's all for oil, at the expense of our soldiers and the Iraq populace.
"Happiness" seems like a very vague term to use here. For example, by your reasoning, I could say that you preventing me from stealing your wallet is an instance of you pursuing ambition at the expense of someone else's (namely my) happiness.
Did "the rich" form their own private armies and invade Iraq? Otherwise, I don't know how you can say that the Iraq "war" was solely an example of the rich "driving for more".
Chris_Bacon:I think government is another example of authority that needs to be removed, there is no doubt in my mind as to the horros the governments are responsible for. But I also am equally as weary of the corporations and their power. So, for the moment, the government counteracts the corporations.
Why are you equally wary of corporations? I don't see how they and governments have the same kind of "power" at all. Furthermore, whatever "power" corporations do have, it pales in comparison to that of governments. On the other hand, governments often seem to do things for the benefit of corporations, so I think it's hardly true that governments always counteract corporations.
Autolykos: In that case, all ownership seems to be exclusive, doesn't it? Even in a socialist commonwealth, those who aren't members of the commonwealth would be excluded from possessing, using, or otherwise controlling the means of production within it.
Not if ownership is democratic. The workers who would own the means of production, could decide to let anyone use it.
Autolykos:Okay. What do you think workers could/would do instead of selling their labor?
Something meaningful; what I mean by that is that it would be something which they wanted to do, and something which they aren't forced to do - out of [wage] slavery, that is.
Autolykos:That's actually a narrower meaning than I intended. A "better" state of affairs to one person may actually be that which leaves him with less wealth, not more. My point is that what constitutes a "better" state of affairs is entirely subjective. It's certainly not always dependent on financial wealth.
Autolykos:A dictatorship doesn't require just one party. It requires large numbers of people, both to follow the dictator's orders and to not engage in resistance. Otherwise, every crime would be a civil war in the making.
Well, in a sense that's correct. What I meant is that it only takes one party to actually engage in some action to power, the rest of us would just have to be passive. Although, you're correct in saying that being passive is some form of action, I didn't mean it like that.
Autolykos:"Happiness" seems like a very vague term to use here. For example, by your reasoning, I could say that you preventing me from stealing your wallet is an instance of you pursuing ambition at the expense of someone else's (namely my) happiness. Did "the rich" form their own private armies and invade Iraq? Otherwise, I don't know how you can say that the Iraq "war" was solely an example of the rich "driving for more".
I think by 'vague' you meant 'subjective'? Also, by my reasoning you could justify killing a whole race if it brought you happiness. Well, I wouldn't say so. I guess I need to clarify my position. I think when considering what action to take - when it involves someone else's happiness, in fact, I think it would be more accurate to say 'well-being' than happiness - then the best action would be that which take's into account the other persons well-being and equally weighs each preference. But when it comes to stealing someone's wallet, it is entirely dependent on the situation - if you were starving you might think differently about someone's wallet.
That's because the rich don't need a private army, they have yours and mine - why would they pay people, when they can just use the tax payers money?
Autolykos:Why are you equally wary of corporations? I don't see how they and governments have the same kind of "power" at all. Furthermore, whatever "power" corporations do have, it pales in comparison to that of governments. On the other hand, governments often seem to do things for the benefit of corporations, so I think it's hardly true that governments always counteract corporations.
The reason the government seems to work for the corporations is because it is the corporations who put the government in place. Take the US election, you only win if you have huge sums of money to promote your campaign, so whoever gives that money then is owed by the winning president. Consider the power of the media, which is corporately owned, you think they don't have power? Look at the links between President Bush and the corporate world, it is often hard to distinguish between government and coporate power.
Chris_Bacon: Autolykos: In that case, all ownership seems to be exclusive, doesn't it? Even in a socialist commonwealth, those who aren't members of the commonwealth would be excluded from possessing, using, or otherwise controlling the means of production within it. Not if ownership is democratic. The workers who would own the means of production, could decide to let anyone use it.
As Autolykos said, the owners still decide. The non-owners, don't. Or could anyone just walk in and also decide?
z1235: As Autolykos said, the owners still decide. The non-owners, don't. Or could anyone just walk in and also decide?
The workers decide, the non-workers don't. You could walk in and become a worker, in which case you would also help in deciding what to do with the means of production.
Anyone could just walk in and become a worker (i.e. owner, decider)? 20 guys from Bangladesh could walk into a metal shop in Pennsylvania and start "deciding", too? How many places would one be allowed to walk (work) in at the same time? How long (days, hrs per day) must one be "working" to become an owner/decider? Who decides that?
Chris_Bacon:Rudolf Rocker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Rocker) was an anarcho-syndicalist historian who wrote about the Syndicalist movement in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. One of his works which might be of interest: 'Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practise'. Noam Chomsky is contemporary anarcho-syndicalist as well, he gives a good account of it in: 'Chomsky on Anarchism'.
I could not find it for free. I only can buy it, which I won't do. This information should be available online somewhere for free. I read already some of the anarchist FAQ, but that does not address my questions. Since you are proposing this ideology I am sure you understand it and can answer my questions. There are several, but I guess one will do for the moment. Since it does not fit into this thread, I invite you to a new one.
Chris_Bacon:Not if ownership is democratic. The workers who would own the means of production, could decide to let anyone use it.
As I understand it, "democratic ownership" simply distinguishes a certain way in which ownership decisions are made. Furthermore, it implies that more than two people (jointly) own something, which I think is already perfectly legitimate in private ownership. That said, if the worker-owners of certain means of production decide to let anyone use them, my understanding is that they can still revoke that privilege at any time in the future. So the ownership still rests with them, and it's still exclusive.
However, I realize my earlier statement about a socialist commonwealth is inaccurate - it should read "could be excluded", not "would be excluded". Unfortunately it's too late to edit that post.
Chris_Bacon:Something meaningful; what I mean by that is that it would be something which they wanted to do, and something which they aren't forced to do - out of [wage] slavery, that is.
I strongly suspect that your definition of "forced" here is much different from mine. Typically people are not threatened with, or subjected to, physical violence unless they sell their labor for a wage.
Chris_Bacon:Well, in a sense that's correct. What I meant is that it only takes one party to actually engage in some action to power, the rest of us would just have to be passive. Although, you're correct in saying that being passive is some form of action, I didn't mean it like that.
How did you mean it, then?
I guess the real issue here is the likelihood that the rest of us would be completely passive in the face of an aggressor.
Chris_Bacon:I think by 'vague' you meant 'subjective'? Also, by my reasoning you could justify killing a whole race if it brought you happiness. Well, I wouldn't say so. I guess I need to clarify my position. I think when considering what action to take - when it involves someone else's happiness, in fact, I think it would be more accurate to say 'well-being' than happiness - then the best action would be that which take's into account the other persons well-being and equally weighs each preference. But when it comes to stealing someone's wallet, it is entirely dependent on the situation - if you were starving you might think differently about someone's wallet.
Not only did I mean "subjective", I also meant "imprecise" - but maybe I'm repeating myself. :P
It sounds to me like you're essentially talking about the Non-Aggression Principle. I don't think that's an accident, as I think the NAP is essentially hard-wired in all of us - except in dire survival situations, as you point out.
Chris_Bacon:That's because the rich don't need a private army, they have yours and mine - why would they pay people, when they can just use the tax payers money?
Good point! To take it one step further, do you see how using taxpayers' money effectively makes things cheaper for the rich (or whoever's using it) to do? If the rich had to field armies solely from their personal stockpiles of wealth, do you think they'd be so carefree in embarking on military (mis)adventures?
On the other hand, politicians and bureaucrats may not have a lot of personal wealth, but they may nevertheless have control over a lot of "public wealth". They may not be rich, but they'll certainly feel rich. Even better, since they didn't have to earn that control the hard way, through hard work and accumulation of ownership, their care in managing it will be substantially lower - i.e. they'll be more willing to blow it on boondoggles and frivolities that give them mainly psychic profit (and mainly nothing to anyone else).
Chris_Bacon:The reason the government seems to work for the corporations is because it is the corporations who put the government in place. Take the US election, you only win if you have huge sums of money to promote your campaign, so whoever gives that money then is owed by the winning president. Consider the power of the media, which is corporately owned, you think they don't have power? Look at the links between President Bush and the corporate world, it is often hard to distinguish between government and coporate power.
If the corporations put the government in place, then doesn't the government actually work for the corporations instead of just seeming to? However, the power exercised by the government is still much different from that exercised by corporations per se. Corporations don't wage war or force people to do things at the point of a gun. Again, you could say that corporations subcontract out to the government for that, but that's not saying all that much. Some extra specificity would be appreciated there.
On a final note - are you using the word "corporation" refer to any business, or specifically to those (typically large) businesses that enjoy limited liability?
Chris_Bacon,
So your argument is keep the big bad evil organization, because without it there's a minute chance that another one might form?
Autolykos:I strongly suspect that your definition of "forced" here is much different from mine. Typically people are not threatened with, or subjected to, physical violence unless they sell their labor for a wage.
Well, they don't need to be threatened, they have a simple choice: either get a job, or starve to death.
Autolykos:How did you mean it, then? I guess the real issue here is the likelihood that the rest of us would be completely passive in the face of an aggressor.
I meant by saying it only takes one party, that it only takes one party to form a dictatorship with everyone else being passive.
Autolykos:Not only did I mean "subjective", I also meant "imprecise" - but maybe I'm repeating myself. :P It sounds to me like you're essentially talking about the Non-Aggression Principle. I don't think that's an accident, as I think the NAP is essentially hard-wired in all of us - except in dire survival situations, as you point out.
I don't think it is hard-wired into all of us. If it were hard-wired into all of us, then how do you explain aggression in non-threatening, or non-dire survival circumstances; for instance, aggression over a game of cards?
Autolykos:Good point! To take it one step further, do you see how using taxpayers' money effectively makes things cheaper for the rich (or whoever's using it) to do? If the rich had to field armies solely from their personal stockpiles of wealth, do you think they'd be so carefree in embarking on military (mis)adventures? On the other hand, politicians and bureaucrats may not have a lot of personal wealth, but they may nevertheless have control over a lot of "public wealth". They may not be rich, but they'll certainly feel rich. Even better, since they didn't have to earn that control the hard way, through hard work and accumulation of ownership, their care in managing it will be substantially lower - i.e. they'll be more willing to blow it on boondoggles and frivolities that give them mainly psychic profit (and mainly nothing to anyone else).
Well, to see how US companies shape US politics, consider a different case. Would the US government's foreign policy be what it is if the majority of the US energy sector was solar powered and not oil focussed? I think both, government and corporations, are as bad as each other.
Autolykos:If the corporations put the government in place, then doesn't the government actually work for the corporations instead of just seeming to? However, the power exercised by the government is still much different from that exercised by corporations per se. Corporations don't wage war or force people to do things at the point of a gun. Again, you could say that corporations subcontract out to the government for that, but that's not saying all that much. Some extra specificity would be appreciated there. On a final note - are you using the word "corporation" refer to any business, or specifically to those (typically large) businesses that enjoy limited liability?
In using 'seem' I was just carrying on from what you said a little earlier, but I don't think it is of much consequence since I'm sure you got what I meant. I would say that the government works in the interest of the corporations. An example of a clear instance of this is the Wisconsin bill that will effectively shatter the worker's unions; if the workers can't organise effectively then this will benefit the corporations. Or you could say that the government is one big corporation. My view is that in our current society government and corporation work hand in hand; if you remove government, then the corporations will come to govern. Generally, I'm using it to refer to big business, but it could refer to small as well.
Zephyr: Chris_Bacon, So your argument is keep the big bad evil organization, because without it there's a minute chance that another one might form?
My argument is remove government and replace capitalism - I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.
Chris_Bacon:Well, they don't need to be threatened, they have a simple choice: either get a job, or starve to death.
In the purely anarcho syndicalist society it is: Become a memeber of a syndicate or.. ?
Ideally, but this might be a bit utopian for you, they would be able to do whatever they want to do - providing they harm no-one.
The same is true for capitalism.
Quite a few comments smack of "When capitalism is abolished there will be a New Socialist Man."