Chomsky 'refutes' anarcho capitalism

“[The Libertarian ideology] may sound nice on the surface, but if you think it through, it’s just a call for corporate tyranny. Takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny. It’s a step towards the worst- But it’s all academic, ‘cause the business world would never permit it to happen, since it would destroy the economy. I mean, they can’t live without a powerful nanny state, and they know it.” - Noam Chomsky 

ಠ_ಠ

I don't know of any enlightenment philosopher who is definining liberty as you have.

Rousseau, Humboldt, Kant, Ricardo, Mill and all who have agreed with them have postulated enlightenment ideas about human freedom that today find their expression in libertarian socialism.

I have starter a topic with some quotes from Rousseau and Humbolt, and remarks from Kant, although his instistence on always seeing  people as ends rather then means is familiar and it's implications on any master-servant relation are easily seen, ideas of Ricardo and Mill are explicitly socialist.

It can be found in Smith, too, with his opposition to division of labor, and advocacy of markets because they will lead to equality.

This can't happen in the voluntaryist society. Period.

You see people as having titles of ownership over them. You think something de facto inalienable- labor- should be de jure alienable (possible to tranfer the title of), and the only consistent view is to considet the title of self-ownership also transferable. So, yes, consistent propertarianism supports slavery, people being property of another, who can do literally whatever he wants with them, they being his property, having voluntarily became such.

No one can be forced to obey anyone else in a whimsical way and beyond the need to enforce person and property.

Exacly, someone tranfers the title of ownership over himself to someone else, and that someone else has every right to enforce their possession over his property.

The reason why communism will not end wage slavery and instead exacerbate it is because you'll still have to work in order to eat in this society

Which can be done without employment, like it will be done in a socialist society.

but because of the economic destruction and stagnation that it would bring

Presumption based on bias and ingorance. Socialism was established twice in Europe, and in both cases lead to increace in production and eradication of poverty.

They would also be closer to slavery to begin with as they were thrown to the whim of the majority which has no tendency towards freedom by any definition.

You advocate a system of hierarchy where people are bossed around by their masters, and you say that abolishing bosses will be a move towards liberty? This has absolutely no relation to reality, you are so immersed in capitalist propaganda you sould like someone with a pathological delusion.

“[The Libertarian ideology] may sound nice on the surface, but if you think it through, it’s just a call for corporate tyranny. Takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny.

As John Dewey said- capitalism is industrial feudalism. The lords command, and the serf toil according their decrees.

But it’s all academic, ‘cause the business world would never permit it to happen, since it would destroy the economy. I mean, they can’t live without a powerful nanny state, and they know it.

You accept this, don't see why the underlining- with increaced competition, big business will suffer, that's preciselly because why they have an interest in maintaneing  the nanny state, which they control.

You see people as having titles of ownership over them.

first of all, this isnt true. But secondly, is this your main problem with capitalist theory of property? You keep returning to the issue of slavery, which is a fallacious criticism in this context. If that issue were resolved, what else do you have?

first of all, this isnt true.

Propertarians don't accept in self-ownership?

But secondly, is this your main problem with capitalist theory of property?

The capitalist theory of property in itself is the problem. It should be abolished, and replaced with the (socialist) labor theory of property.

You keep returning to the issue of slavery, which is a fallacious criticism in this context. If that issue were resolved, what else do you have?

You have neither pointed out the fallacy, nor resolved any issue.

Propertarians don't accept in self-ownership?

B-I-N-G-O.

Not all ancaps/voluntaryists believe it is a concept worth exploring. Many do, but not all. Why don't you spend your time reading and educating yourself instead of "being a wise-ass and making 'smart' comments without knowing about what are you talking about."

You have neither pointed out the fallacy, nor resolved any issue.

Neodoxy provided a great definition of slavery, one that many here hold to be their own. Slavery = being the property of another and forced servitude. Voluntary slavery is a contradiction. It's like talking about voluntary rape. The definition of rape is that it isn't voluntary or consensual sex. If you consent, then it isn't rape.

If I consent to be your "slave", then it isn't slavery. The problem is when I rescind my consent. Some here do believe that you should not be allowed to do this, others do believe you should be able to. Rothbard was quite vocal about being allowed to rescind your consent to this arrangement. I agree with him but for different reasons.

So please, quit being an "ignoramus".

Not all ancaps/voluntaryists believe it is a concept worth exploring.

Can you point to some propertarian thinkers that do not accept it?

Slavery = being the property of another and forced servitude. Voluntary slavery is a contradiction.

Ok, slavery means that a person B has a title of ownership over A, and that he is justified in using force in maintaining control over his property.

To say that one does not have the right to use force to maintain his property is to go against the heart of propertarianism, so the only way to be against slavery from a propertarian perspective is to see persons as not being in the realm of property or as having titles over themselves, but inalienable ones, but accepting either of the two would make one inconsistent in accepting alienation of labor, also know as employment.
 

Can you point to some propertarian thinkers that do not accept it?

Sure, I don't accept it. Utilitarian ancaps don't accept it. I'm not an ancap for utilitarian reasons, but I believe the utilitarian arguments are worthwhile, even if many here prefer to be Rothbardians or whatever.

Ok, slavery means that a person B has a title of ownership over A, and that he is justified in using force in maintaining control over his property.

To be clear, the only slavery that I could ever support as legitimate is when it is used as punishment for those who had slaves illegitimately. I don't necessarily support it, but it's the only kind I could back.

To say that one does not have the right to use force to maintain his property is to go against the heart of propertarianism, so the only way to be against slavery from a propertarian perspective is to see persons as not being in the realm of property or as having titles over themselves, but inalienable ones, but accepting either of the two would make one inconsistent in accepting alienation of labor, also know as employment.

If the property is illegitimate, then it would be very much against voluntaryism to use force to maintain that property. "Self-ownership" need not enter the equation.

All that you have done in your other thread is to show that the enlightenment philosophers favored free, spontaneous, and creative action. Not that it was synonymous with freedom and liberty. Also, to suggest that Smith opposed the division of labor is foolish. He was weary of it and though that certain things had to be done to counteract negative effects of the division of labor, but that is all. I think that certain things have to be done to prevent negative impacts of taking too large a quantity of drug X, for instance, by having a recommended dosage, but this does not mean that I oppose drug X. I also find Chomsky's argument that Smith promoted markets because they would lead to equality, and not universal advancement, as very arcane since Smith spends a great amount of time talking about why it is that wage gaps do indeed exist.

Slavery is not the same as employment. I am not holding someone as my property, the matter of the inalienability, or alienability of labor is a different matter from slavery if only because of the extent. But here's something that might make you a little bit frustrated and which, to my knowledge, no one here has actually mentioned. Murray N. Rothbard agreed with you. He thought that labor was something which was indeed inalienable because someone can not stop owning their body. He opposed the idea of employment in terms of "I give you this and you must do this", rather he supported along the lines of a "If you do this then I will give you this". If I acknowledge your premise and build it into my practices, then I can't agree to exchange with someone preemptively for a promise of their labor in the future, but I can tell them that if they do something then they will recieve a cash payment from me, a promissory note to my alienable money to their inalienable labor if they do exchange it to a certain extent. This cannot in any way be considered slavery unless all exchange between men are to be invalid. A mother telling her child that if he sets the table then he will get a treat is enslaving her child, as are all communist interactions.

Here's some quotes for you:

As mentioned above, a man may not agree to permanent bondage by contracting to work for another man for the rest of his life. He might change his mind at a later date, and then he cannot, in a free market, be compelled to continue working thereafter. Because a man’s self-ownership over his will is inalienable, he cannot, on the unhampered market, be compelled to continue an arrangement whereby he submits his will to the orders of another, even though he might have agreed to this arrangement previously...

-Chapter 2 Section 12

On the other hand, take the case of a promise to contribute personal services without an advance exchange of property. Thus, suppose that a movie actor agrees to act in three pictures for a certain studio for a year. Before receiving any goods in exchange (salary), he breaks the contract and decides not to perform the work. Since his personal will is inalienable, he cannot, on the free market, be forced to perform the work there. Further, since he has received none of the movie company property in exchange, he has committed no theft, and thus the contract cannot be enforced on the free market. Any suit for “damages” could not be entertained on an unhampered market. The fact that the movie company may have made considerable plans and investments on the expectation that the actor would keep the agreement may be unfortunate...

Any such enforced payment would be an invasion of his property rights on the free market rather than an attack upon invasion. It may be considered more moral to keep promises than to break them, but the condition of a free market is that each individual’s rights of person and property be maintained, and not that some further standard of morals be coercively imposed on all. Any coercive enforcement of such a moral code, going beyond the abolition of invasive acts, would in itself constitute an invasion of individual rights of person and property and be an interference in the free market

-Chapter 2 Section 13

"On a free market, they cannot purchase labor services outright, as was explained in the preceding chapter. Since man’s personal will is inalienable, he cannot, in a voluntary society, be compelled to work for another against his present will, and therefore no contracts can be made for purchase of his future will. Labor services, therefore, can only be bought for “hire,” on a “pay-as-you-go” basis."

-Chapter 3 section 5

-Murray Rothbard: Man, Economy, and State

Congratulations! Libertarians (because that's what we qualify as now right?) accept that you cannot sell your labor. What's your problem again?

In the socialist society one will still be "employed", just not in the same words. You will still have to do work for goods and services, unless you think it will all be done out of charity which could still come out of the capitalist society, and which would not have to come about in the socialist society.

My belief that socialism (Even in the libertarian sense) will result in destruction is because of an open economic analysis after reading Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Chomsky, Proudhon, and Guerin as well as reading and listening to a lot of material on the subject and talking to socialists and even came to the conclusion that it might be sustainable and could, in some situations, be a good complement to capitalism. That's biased as hell, isn't it? I'm sure that you performed a similar process while rejecting capitalism, right?

Sure, I don't accept it. Utilitarian ancaps don't accept it.

I meant prominent espousers of your views. I have now looked it up, and found one consequentalist stateless capitalist- David Friedman, who, afaik, advocates an open market of laws, which I don't see how differs from moral relativism.

All that you have done in your other thread is to show that the enlightenment philosophers favored free, spontaneous, and creative action. Not that it was synonymous with freedom and liberty.

Their point is clear to any able-minded person not wanting to delve into forgeries for propagnda purposes.

Also, to suggest that Smith opposed the division of labor is foolish.

In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become... His dexterity at his own particular trade seems to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilised society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.

In a civilized society goverment should intervene to prevent consequences of it. You said that like "I don't support some of it's consequences but I'm not against it" like Smith wanted to counteract it's consequences by "market spontaneity" or something of the sort.

I also find Chomsky's argument that Smith promoted markets because they would lead to equality, and not universal advancement, as very arcane since Smith spends a great amount of time talking about why it is that wage gaps do indeed exist.

Yes, like "that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"; "In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence, or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it."; "No other sovereigns ever were, or, from the nature of things, ever could be, so perfectly indifferent about the happiness or misery of their subjects, the improvement or waste of their dominions, the glory or disgrace of their administration, as, from irresistible moral causes, the greater part of the proprietors of such a mercantile company are, and necessarily must be."; "When the toll upon carriages of luxury upon coaches, post-chaises, etc., is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, etc., the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor", toghether with similar quotes such as calling the profit motive "the vile maxim of masters of manking" and his insistence on the centrality of labor in the economy make Adam Smith at least equaly close to what some people call libertarian socialism as to the principles of capitalism, if not closer.

Slavery is not the same as employment.

It is not, slaves are sold, employees are rented. I don't find that difference a reason for approval.

He thought that labor was something which was indeed inalienable because someone can not stop owning their body. He opposed the idea of employment in terms of "I give you this and you must do this", rather he supported along the lines of a "If you do this then I will give you this". If I acknowledge your premise and build it into my practices, then I can't agree to exchange with someone preemptively for a promise of their labor in the future, but I can tell them that if they do something then they will recieve a cash payment from me, a promissory note to my alienable money to their inalienable labor if they do exchange it to a certain extent.

It a form of institutionalized fraud because de facto product of laborer de jure belongs to the employer, de jure, the laborer is consider a tool, a piece of property, and the employer, by virtue of his propety being used, is imputed with the responsibility for (given the ownership of) someone else's act.

It is theoreticaly possible that under socialism people could voluntarily replicate all the relations that exist in capitalism- that a guy comes to a coop and convinces the members to run their business insted of them and that they obey his orders and give him all their earnings, and he will then give a part of it to them as wages. Without there being any the illegitimate employment contract between such parties, but just the voluntary action where everyone knows what is legitimately whose, such a scenario would not be opposed. But I'm pretty sure that no such thing would happen in socialism, maybe only if some people with some strange view of fun are really bored and do it for kicks.

Libertarians (because that's what we qualify as now right?)

No, you don't, you are propertarians / voluntaryists. Hijacking our name that we invented for our views (totally different then yours) cannot in no way be legitimate.

accept that you cannot sell your labor. What's your problem again?

You support employment, which is a de jure transfer of title over one's labor-hours, that is, rent of one's labor. Preciselly because labor is de facto non-transferable, such contracts are illegitimate and should abolished.

In the socialist society one will still be "employed", just not in the same words.

And who will be the "employer"?

My belief that socialism (Even in the libertarian sense) will result in destruction is because of

I'd say because of rejection of historical facts.

I'm sure that you performed a similar process while rejecting capitalism, right?

We don't have to theoretize, we live in it. Leissez faire capitalism has not existed, but that doesn't mean we can't reject it on that basis of living in mixed economy capitalism- because we are not against free markets, as I have said a few times, IMO, socialism will be primarily mutualism, which is based on market free of state intervention; we are against capitalism itself, because we are against hierarchical organization of people and against unearned incomes.

It is theoreticaly possible that under socialism people could voluntarily replicate all the relations that exist in capitalism

thats awesome. Youre clinging to semantics, in 12 to 24 months you will be an ancap.

I meant prominent espousers of your views. I have now looked it up, and found one consequentalist stateless capitalist- David Friedman, who, afaik, advocates an open market of laws, which I don't see how differs from moral relativism.

Consequentialist libertarianism is not a prominent libertarian view. Natural rights is. However, libertarianism as a worldview is young, just as communism is. Give it time. Anyway, Mises was a utilitarian classical liberal. So was Hayek. Sure, Hayek supported the state, but by the time he was old, he was actually an anarchist. In an interview with Reason Magazine, Milton Friedman stated he would have liked to have been a no government libertarian, but he didn't think it were possible. So, there are prominent libertarians who are consequentialists other than David Friedman. And then of course there are those of us who are not prominent who either sympathize with consequentialism or are quasi-consequentialists.

Also, with people of this generation such as Jonathan Catalan being attracted to consequentialism to some degree, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a more prominent view among libertarians.

I'm not even sure what to say to you regarding moral relativism other than it has nothing to do with libertarianism of any kind.

Where exactly did any of those Smith quotes did you show that he opposed the division of labor? He supported the division of labor but thought it would have negative consequences which the government had to counteract. This is not the same as opposing it. The same goes for the idea that markets would bring equality, none of your quotes show what you think that they show.

The idea that because someone is critical of the rich and profit that he's closer to a libertarian socialist than capitalist is foolish. Most in that time were exceedingly critical of profit and the rich, and yet I don't think that you'd find many in the 18th century church libertarian socialists.

"It a form of institutionalized fraud because de facto product of laborer de jure belongs to the employer, de jure, the laborer is consider a tool, a piece of property, and the employer, by virtue of his propety being used, is imputed with the responsibility for (given the ownership of) someone else's act."

... Did you read anything I just wrote? This is not the case in the system that Rothbard argues for, at any rate we have shown that labor is in no way slavery unless you're going for the wage slavery argument which originates from another point.

"You support employment, which is a de jure transfer of title over one's labor-hours, that is, rent of one's labor. Preciselly because labor is de facto non-transferable, such contracts are illegitimate and should abolished."

... Are you joking me? Are you f***ing serious? I give you three Rothbard quotes which say you cannot make labor contracts and then you say that I support labor contracts. That was the meat of the post, that was the whole point and you practically ignore it because it obviously makes your entire argument irrelevant  You might want to try reading what someone's put in a response if you want to be considered seriously, which I'm increasingly sure you don't want to be.

"And who will be the "employer"?"

The commune.

"I'd say because of rejection of historical facts."

That's not a response to what you quoted?

"We don't have to theoretize, we live in it. Leissez faire capitalism has not existed, but that doesn't mean we can't reject it on that basis of living in mixed economy capitalism- because we are not against free markets, as I have said a few times, IMO, socialism will be primarily mutualism, which is based on market free of state intervention; we are against capitalism itself, because we are against hierarchical organization of people and against unearned incomes."

You don't have to theoretize because that's not a word, nor is leissez .

Anyway, you just admitted that you don't actually need a framework for understanding, you don't need theory, you just need to look out the window and know that we're in a mixed economy, right? If your system doesn't cause destruction and does call for abundance then you should be calling for the anarcho-capitalist system just as much as anyone here is because it will result in your preferred system since mutualism is so much better for the workers and the consumers... Oh wait, theory is invalid... Oh well, I guess that that's invalid but at least I don't have to attend my math class tommorrow!

Also, if you want to talk about history the way you are you should dawn the conservative mantle right quick, because history has shown the system you're advocating as being unsustainable.

Please try to manage some actual logic, try to understand the implications of what you're saying and what actual evidence for this might be. Don't just quote stuff and spit off arguments which were just disproven.

stsoc:

We don't have to theoretize, we live in it. Leissez faire capitalism has not existed, but that doesn't mean we can't reject it on that basis of living in mixed economy capitalism.

You just went full retard. Never go full retard.

That movie was aweome, by the way. The director's cut was even more absurd

I dont know what its called, I just know the sound it makes when it takes a man's life.

It is theoreticaly possible that under socialism people could voluntarily replicate all the relations that exist in capitalism- that a guy comes to a coop and convinces the members to run their business insted of them and that they obey his orders and give him all their earnings, and he will then give a part of it to them as wages. Without there being any the illegitimate employment contract between such parties, but just the voluntary action where everyone knows what is legitimately whose, such a scenario would not be opposed. But I'm pretty sure that no such thing would happen in socialism, maybe only if some people with some strange view of fun are really bored and do it for kicks.

I also think our friend knows the game is up, based on the para above

Lol, black Robert Downey Jr

Did anyone else see how he totally sidestepped my extremely relevant Rothbard quote?

It's not a side step. It's a dance known as the Communist Two-Step.

Not to be confused with the following:

 

lol what a find.

thats awesome. Youre clinging to semantics, in 12 to 24 months you will be an ancap.

Did you read how would that have to look like? There is one in gazzilion chance that such a thing would happen in socialism.

However, libertarianism as a worldview is young, just as communism is.

Also, I don't see how is communism young, it was advocated by Pythagoras, Zeno of Citium, Apostles, by groups in the middle ages like Muntzerites or Diggers, by Enrages, Marechal and Babeuf, in the French revolution, by Fourier, Dejacque (who first used the word libertarian for anarcho-communism), not to talk about the latter espousers such as Cafiero, Malatesta, Kropotking, and Makhno who were long dead before people started espousing leissezfaiseism.

Anyway, Mises was a utilitarian classical liberal. So was Hayek. Sure, Hayek supported the state, but by the time he was old, he was actually an anarchist. In an interview with Reason Magazine, Milton Friedman stated he would have liked to have been a no government libertarian, but he didn't think it were possible.

I know three of them were consequentalists (although I don't know if theye were utilitarian), but they weren't stateless capitalists.

He supported the division of labor but thought it would have negative consequences which the government had to counteract.

It that way the socialists, too, support the division of labor. Very different then the way the capitalists support it.

The same goes for the idea that markets would bring equality

The whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock must, in the same neighbourhood, be either perfectly equal or continually tending to equality. If in the same neighbourhood, there was any employment evidently either more or less advantageous than the rest, so many people would crowd into it in the one case, and so many would desert it in the other, that its advantages would soon return to the level of other employments. This at least would be the case in a society where things were left to follow their natural course, where there was perfect liberty, and where every man was perfectly free both to chuse what occupation he thought proper, and to change it as often as he thought proper.

none of your quotes show what you think that they show.

The quotes clearly show the he didn't thougt market's are an end in themselves, and show that he supports redistribution of wealth and in general opposes the elites.

If he were alive today I don't see him supporting capitalism.

The idea that because someone is critical of the rich and profit that he's closer to a libertarian socialist than capitalist is foolish.

Because capitalists are critical of the rich and of profit, sure, right.

Most in that time were exceedingly critical of profit and the rich

Becuase they were against concentration of power, being enlightement thinkers and as such against power inequality among people and for liberty as the central value (as opposed to the modern voluntaryists).

Did you read anything I just wrote? This is not the case in the system that Rothbard argues for

Rothbard was for workers geting the product of their labor, against the capitalist taking any part of their earnings and against the capitalist commanding them how, where and at what times to work? Cause if he wasn't (which he wasn't), then he was in favor of employment, and thus in favor of de jure alienation of labor which means treating people like property in seeing not them, but someone else responsible for their actions and the product of their action, and seeing it right that they are commanded by others.

I give you three Rothbard quotes which say you cannot make labor contracts and then you say that I support labor contracts.

Was Rothbard for abolishing employment?

The commune.

The commune will be the customer.

That's not a response to what you quoted?

You said think socialism will result in destruction, yet it was established and it not only didn't fail, but increaced productivity and eradicated poverty.

 

You're argument is getting increasingly weak.

Smith clearly thought (correctly) that freedom would eradicate price differentials between jobs of the same caliber, he did not think that it would equalize all income because of different temperaments and natural traits. Furthermore yes, any libertarians have classically been relatively critical of seeking profit including Mises himself depending upon the situation.

If you read the quote then Rothbard clearly opposed the right of an employer to tell anyone what they must do and to work entirely on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. This makes any connection to slavery and the inalienability of labor utterly irrelevant. As for the product of the laborer's work is most certainly alienable, If you're saying, then, that no one can tell someone "if you do this then I will do this" then no sort of cooperation is possible in this world, communistic or otherwise.

And yes, the commune or syndicate would either act as the employer by taking the labor of one in exchange for goods or employers already act as consumer's in the same fashion. The only way that this could not be the case would be if they did not give any advice on how people had to work, in which case the division of labor itself would break down and poverty would result.

"You said think socialism will result in destruction, yet it was established and it not only didn't fail, but increaced productivity and eradicated poverty."

You employ a methodologyless ideology, probably without even understanding the philosophical repercussions of what you advocate. You aren't in a position to determine what causes what. Maybe the stars were in the right position when socialism came about. Anyway, it doesn't matter because you're not a socialist, you're a hard man who believes in evidence, and evidence has shown in 100% of cases that socialism is obliterated by statism. Using your own logic I don't even have to touch the actual subject, your view refutes itself so I don't even have to use a real refutation of your argument.

It's also important to note that you believe in facts, yet the "mixed economy" which you oppose has caused unparalleled increases in the standard of living and in decreasing poverty everywhere it has actually been implemented.

If you read the quote then Rothbard clearly opposed .....

You really seem to be trolling. Rothbard was a capitalist. Therefore, he was for hierarchy and certainly for employment.

And yes, the commune or syndicate would either act as the employer by taking the labor of one in exchange for goods or employers already act as consumer's in the same fashion

Commune would consume the products, meaning it's the consumer. The workers' councils will be what would be called cooperatives in mutualism, and they would not be employers of the individual workers, but, because they would be constituted by the workers of a mine/ factory/ firm, would be a collective of jointly self-employed workers (same as coops would be in mutualism).

Anyway, it doesn't matter because you're not a socialist, you're a hard man who believes in evidence, and evidence has shown in 100% of cases that socialism is obliterated by statism.

Yes, both socialist societies were destroyed by a large statist army, and what does that prove? Nothing.

yet the "mixed economy" which you oppose has caused unparalleled increases in the standard of living and in decreasing poverty everywhere it has actually been implemented.

Technology did that, not the system. Technology can increase in fascism or bolshevism, like it did, they had rapid industrializations, fascism was one of the most popular ideologies, almost the entirety of the nations where it was established supported it because of the rise in living standards (people experienced rising of living standards in slave societies, too), and I don't see how can that in any way justify that socio-economic systems.

You really seem to be trolling. Rothbard was a capitalist. Therefore, he was for hierarchy and certainly for employment.

You really seem to be dodging. This is just more of your redefining reality to suit your argument.

Commune would consume the products, meaning it's the consumer. The workers' councils will be what would be called cooperatives in mutualism, and they would not be employers of the individual workers, but, because they would be constituted by the workers of a mine/ factory/ firm, would be a collective of jointly self-employed workers (same as coops would be in mutualism).

Ah, so you will end hierarchical slavery by instituting DEMOCRATIC hierarchical slavery, where a select group of slavemasters decree what the slaves need to do. How efficient and humane.

Yes, both socialist societies were destroyed by a large statist army, and what does that prove? Nothing.

Surely you must be rejoicing in the destruction of these two democratic hierarchical slave-societies?

Also, I don't see how is communism young, it was advocated by Pythagoras, Zeno of Citium, Apostles, by groups in the middle ages like Muntzerites or Diggers, by Enrages, Marechal and Babeuf, in the French revolution, by Fourier, Dejacque (who first used the word libertarian for anarcho-communism), not to talk about the latter espousers such as Cafiero, Malatesta, Kropotking, and Makhno who were long dead before people started espousing leissezfaiseism.

Trade has been about forever, but you don't see me talking about how capitalism has been around as long. Communism is young by human standards. 200 years, even 300 years is not a long time for a worldview to develop, especially if it isn't a predominant worldview. It's the same with libertarianism. The roots have been around for a very long time. Modern libertarians look to many philosophers of the past, but libertarianism itself is very young.

This is not meant to diminish either philosophy. It is merely that you cannot expect either to be completely fleshed out in such a short time.

I know three of them were consequentalists (although I don't know if theye were utilitarian), but they weren't stateless capitalists.

It doesn't matter if they were not stateless capitalists. Libertarians look to the classical liberals all the time for wisdom and knowledge to build on. Anyway, Mises was about as close to being a stateless capitalist as one could get without actually being a stateless capitalist. Hayek continued to become more radical with age, even calling for the abolition of a central bank, which is a massive arm of the state. Milton Friedman, as I pointed out, in an interview with Reason Magazine stated that he would have liked to have been "a no government libertarian".

The point is that you were lumping all libertarians into one group when it is not the case. This is something you were getting irritated about when people started talking about Marx as if you ought to agree with him because he is the most well known communist. Well, we don't all agree with Rothbard, and there is no need to lump all of us into his camp just because he's all you know.

DEMOCRATIC hierarchical

Contradiction in terms

hierarchical slavery

Pleonasm.

I think these three words you wrote are most stupid thing I have ever read.

Trade has been about forever, but you don't see me talking about how capitalism has been around as long.

Because that would be plain wrong, trade not being an exclusivity of capitalism.

Libertarians look to the classical liberals all the time for wisdom and knowledge to build on.

Yes, we do. But you propertarians don't have much to do with classical liberal ideas (only with some of their conclusions), their ideas have continued to exist in (libertarian) socialism.

This is something you were getting irritated about when people started talking about Marx as if you ought to agree with him because he is the most well known communist.

Not really similar. People have mentioden Marx when talking to me because they have no idea what are they talking abou and only know propaganda, I pressupose deontology in stateless capitalism because it's main definers such as Rothbard and Hoppe etc, accepted such framework of ethics.

Because that would be plain wrong, trade not being an exclusivity of capitalism.

No kidding. I was insinuating that you are full of it when you state that communism has been around for millenia. I did a search on "Pythagoras communism", and there are pretty much no relevant links. So I would greatly appreciate you backing up your claim that Pythagoras was a communist. Also, I did a search of him on wikipedia, and guess what? PYTHAGORAS WAS INTO HIERARCHIES:

As to the internal arrangements of the sect, we are informed that what was done and taught among the members was kept a profound secret towards all. Porphyry stated that this silence was "of no ordinary kind." Candidates had to pass through a period of probation, in which their powers of maintaining silence (echemythia) were especially tested, as well as their general temper, disposition, and mental capacity. There were also gradations among the members themselves. It was an old Pythagorean maxim, that every thing was not to be told to every body. Thus the Pythagoreans were divided into an inner circle called the mathematikoi ("learners") and an outer circle called the akousmatikoi ("listeners").

So, you really need to provide some proof instead of just listing off a bunch of names. We are on the internet. I don't know you. You have no reputation here, so I can't just take your word for it. You need to source these claims.

Yes, we do. But you propertarians don't have much to do with classical liberal ideas (only with some of their conclusions), their ideas have continued to exist in (libertarian) socialism.

Well, you heard it here first, folks. Mises, Hayek, Mark Twain, etc., all have more in common with libertarian socialism than they do with libertarian capitalism. I can't tell if you are trolling.

Not really similar. People have mentioden Marx when talking to me because they have no idea what are they talking abou and only know propaganda, I pressupose deontology in stateless capitalism because it's main definers such as Rothbard and Hoppe etc, accepted such framework of ethics.

It's very similar. You mention Rothbard and Hoppe because you don't know what you are talking about. You had never even heard of David Friedman before. You are an arrogant ass.

 

"You really seem to be trolling. Rothbard was a capitalist. Therefore, he was for hierarchy and certainly for employment."

You're begging the question all over in here. More importantly despite how heavily you have improperly quoted in the past. Perhaps the reason for this is clear, you cannot interpret quotations or material in a way that does not fit your preexisting idea of things. I don't think you're trolling, but I do think you're doing a bad job of not looking very wrong.

Then the worker's councils or syndicates would be employers then. You're not a libertarian, you support slavery through employment. Only individual workers are capable of not being enslaved through the evil that is employment

"Yes, both socialist societies were destroyed by a large statist army, and what does that prove? Nothing."

Umm, no. I don't have to theorize anymore after being convinced through reading your writings about the proper way to develop hypothesis about social interaction. Because historically all socialist societies have been destroyed by large statist armies they will forever and always be destroyed by statist armies, it's in their nature. Why don't you stop being Utopian and become a social democrat, which has shown to be both sustainable and capable of improving living standards.

"Technology did that"

No, we've seen the results of the capitalist system, as hampered as they were by technology, and they've been massive increases in the standard of living.

... See what it's like arguing against people who argue using your arguments?

 

Laertius, Lives, 7,10

According to Timaeus, he was the first to say, "Friends have all things in common" and "Friendship is equality"; indeed, his disciples did put all their possessions into one common stock.

The second mentioned maxim goes against the notion that there was hierarchy among Pythagoreans, akousmatoi and mathematikoi were not hierarchical, they were simply two groups, like e.g. two Lutheran denominations with differences in theology. Let's not go into Pythagoreanism, it is off-topic, and it will go off topic very much, because I know a lot on the topic, being that I consider myself somewhat a Pythagorean (of the mathematikos kind), you can notice the representation of the Pythagorean theorem on my avatar.

Mises, Hayek, Mark Twain, etc., all have more in common with libertarian socialism

Mises and Hayek are not classical liberals. Rousseau, Kant, and mostly Humboldt, are representative of classical liberal and enlightenment thought. Twain was a classical liberal in the true sence, he was a socialist.

than they do with libertarian capitalism.

A contradiction in terms, libertarianism means anarcho-communism. You are propertarians and voluntaryists, not libertarians.

You're begging the question all over in here.

Rothbard was for abolition of employment?

Then the worker's councils or syndicates would be employers then.

Sure, let's say so. But councils are not individuals that boss around workers, councils are constituted of workers in a firm. So, the employer of the workers is- the worker themselves. As I said- they are jointly self-employmed.

You're not a libertarian, you support slavery through employment.

Exactly what I'm telling you all along- you are not libertarians.

"Rothbard was for abolition of employment?"

Yes

"As I said- they are jointly self-employmed."

But in any but an extremely small concern the individual will have to, at very least, cede his control at most an extremely small amount of control, so he is then, at least, 99% a slave. Furthermore if he ever disagrees with exactly what the group decides what to do then he's being told what to do by his fellow workers, so he's a slave. He's also a wage slave, because he has to work or starve. You monster.

Me "You're not a libertarian, you support slavery through employment."

You:"Exactly what I'm telling you all along"

Ah, I see, so you aren't a libertarian and you do support slavery. I am glad that you have finally aknowledged this.

 

Laertius, Lives, 7,10

According to Timaeus, he was the first to say, "Friends have all things in common" and "Friendship is equality"; indeed, his disciples did put all their possessions into one common stock.

That's pretty vague stuff.

The second mentioned maxim goes against the notion that there was hierarchy among Pythagoreans, akousmatoi and mathematikoi were not hierarchical, they were simply two groups, like e.g. two Lutheran denominations with differences in theology. Let's not go into Pythagoreanism, it is off-topic, and it will go off topic very much, because I know a lot on the topic, being that I consider myself somewhat a Pythagorean (of the mathematikos kind), you can notice the representation of the Pythagorean theorem on my avatar.

I don't know you. You have no established reputation here. I'm not going to just take your word for it. From the wikipedia entry I cited, it said that Pythagoras treated those groups differently. They were within a hierarchy. You can either source your claim that he didn't actually treat them differently, or you can concede the point. You may very well be correct and wikipedia might be wrong. Maybe I'm misreading wikipedia. But I'm not just going to take your word for it.

Explain.

Mises and Hayek are not classical liberals. Rousseau, Kant, and mostly Humboldt, are representative of classical liberal and enlightenment thought. Twain was a classical liberal in the true sence, he was a socialist.

This is false. Are you trolling me or are you just stupid? From the wikipedia entry on classical liberalism:

 

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress.

Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the "British tradition" and the "French tradition". Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Rousseau, Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Constantand Tocqueville as belonging to the "British tradition" and the British Thomas Hobbes, Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the "French tradition". Hayek also rejected the label "laissez faire" as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume, Smith and Burke.

Regarding the nonsense you wrote about Mark Twain, please see this essay by Jeffrey Tucker, Mark Twain's Radical Liberalism.

A contradiction in terms, libertarianism means anarcho-communism. You are propertarians and voluntaryists, not libertarians.

There is no contradiction. You just don't like the concepts we associate with those terms. That's your problem, not mine.

Yes

Wow, Rothbard was a socialist. I'll learn all kinds of stuff here.

Furthermore if he ever disagrees with exactly what the group decides what to do

He is a part of that group, meaning he is a part of all decision making.

so you aren't a libertarian and you do support slavery

I've been saying that to you all along- you are propertians and you support slavery.

Pythagoras treated those groups differently.

There were differences:" As the disciples were naturally dissimilar, it was impracticable for them to participate in all things equally... some Pythagoreans, and others Pythagorists, just as we discriminate poets from poetasters. ... The Pythagoreans’ possessions were to be shared in common inasmuch as they were to live together, while the Pythagorists should continue to manage their own property, though by assembling
frequently they might all be at leisure to pursue the same activities."

Was there hierarchy? The maxime "friendship is equality" says enough, but here's another sentence: "nor would it have been fair for some to share in the deepest revelations, while others might get excluded therefrom, or others from everything, such discriminations being unjust."

Why the difference? "While he communicated some suitable of his discourses to all, he sought to benefit everybody, preserving the proportion of justice, by making every man’s merit the index of the extent of his teachings." So the difference between those living a communal life and those who don't depended on the individualy of those people, it could be said- on their personal preferance, and there was no hierarchical relation between those groups, like e.g. priests to layman.

They were within a hierarchy.

As I said, the akousmatoi and the mathematikoi were different theological groups:

"Among the Pythagoreans there were also two forms of philosophy, pursued by two groups, the Hearers and the Students. ... The philosophy of the Hearers consisted in lectures without demonstrations or conferences or arguments merely directing something to be done in a certain way, unquestioningly preserving them as so many divine dogmas, non-discussible. ...  The Pythagorean Students, however, insist that the reasons and demonstrations were added by Pythagoras himself."

Quotes are from Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras.

Also a couple more quotes, about society, first about law: "Law is useful to the political society if it is not monarchical, if it does not constitute privileged classes, if it is made in the interest of all, and is equally imposed on all."

And about hierarchy: "The best chief would be he who would closest approach the law, for he would never act in his own interest, and always in that or others, since the law does not exist for itself, but for its subjects."

So, Pythagoreanism can rightly be called a sort of ancient anarchism and anarcho-communism.

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Socialist support almost all of that, except we are for no government.

John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress

I wouldn't put toghether Locke, Say and Malthus with Ricardo and Smith, who were both against concentration of power as a principle and insisted upon the centrality of labor in economy. I've mentioned Humboldt. He's wrintings were in the vein Ricardo and Smith, but even more explicitly socialist, with rejection of alienation of labor in itself, he can rightly be called a philosophical anarchist, being that he talked both against the state as an anti-human institution and employment as being against liberty (which is according to him, and entire Enlightenment thought, central to human nature).

Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the "British tradition" and the "French tradition".

Nice to see a propertarian recognizing the difference between the thinkers of that age and not claiming support for principles of capitalism where there is not much of it, although, as I said, I wouldn't put Smith in that "anti-govenrment" group, I see him as closer to the "anti-governance" group of Rousseau, Humboldt, Kant, Ricardo, Mill, and similar thinkers.

Regarding the nonsense you wrote about Mark Twain

A couple of quotes of his.

When all the bricklayers, and all the machinists, and all the miners, and blacksmiths, and printers, and hod-carriers, and stevedores, and house-painters, and brakemen, and engineers, and conductors, and factory hands, and horse-car drivers, and all the shop-girls, and all the sewing-women, and all the telegraph operators; in a word all the myriads of toilers in whom is slumbering the reality of that thing which you call Power ... when these rise, call the vast spectacle by any deluding name that will please your ear, but the fact remains a Nation has risen.

Who are the oppressors? The few: the King, the capitalist, and a handful of other overseers and superintendents. Who are the oppressed? The many: the nations of the earth; the valuable personages; the workers; they that make the bread that the soft-handed and idle eat.

You just don't like the concepts we associate with those terms.

Of cource, because you have hijacked our names and use it for your ideas that are opposite to ours.

I've been saying that to you all along- you are propertians and you support slavery.

Explain how. Offer precise definitions of your terms.

 

He is a part of that group, meaning he is a part of all decision making.

I love this classical socialist obfuscation. How does this address the scenario quoted, exactly? You are defining it away.

Sure, let's say so. But councils are not individuals that boss around workers, councils are constituted of workers in a firm. So, the employer of the workers is- the worker themselves. As I said- they are jointly self-employmed.

Rofl. So because the worker belongs to some arbitrary group you conjured out of your imagination, therefore they pretty much are that group. How many drugs do you ingest on a daily basis to perpetrate such fallacies of equivocation?

Of cource, because you have hijacked our names and use it for your ideas that are opposite to ours.

The labels apply with more force to our theories than yours. For someone who dislikes ownership, you sure do cry like a little baby when "your" terms are utilised by another movement.

Lol,

"He is a part of that group, meaning he is a part of all decision making. "

Except for when he decides to work for someone, then it's slavery. God, democracy just makes everything better

DEMOCRATIC hierarchical

Contradiction in terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_hierarchy

Oops, looks like you done goof'd.

 

Pleonasm.

 

 

It's not a pleonasm when it's a necessary use of words, and it is certainly necessary when talking to someone who uses wildly changing definitions that exist only outside of common conversation.

I think these three words you wrote are most stupid thing I have ever read.

Then you should have an idea of what it's like to read your posts for people not indoctrinated into your little slave cult.

 

But I will accept your concession that your ideal society is one where people vote themselves into slavery, rather than 'choose' to be a 'slave'.