"Full disclosure: Porco Rosso is my brother, and he (gently) goaded me into coming on here. And, I don't know why the avatar's a woman. It just came up that way."
Mmm, wonderful we're in the middle of a little family dispute.
"Well I don't really have much to take. My bike? My debts? They're already taking my house."
"Mmm, wonderful we're in the middle of a little family dispute."
No need for that. It's just a friendly debate.
You ignored my entire argument against wealth limits.
My point is actually that the system we have in place now functions as a vampire, living off the work that others do
Consider talking to F4L, the resident individualist hunter/gatherer if you would not like to live off of the work of others.
the rest of us
You mean these guys or these guys?
Why defend capitalists when you probably aren't one of them and may never be one?
Why defend people's freedom of speech? Why intervene in WWII to help the Jews? Heck, why give any charity to the poor? Why doesn't everyone advocate a monarchy with themselves as king?
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Furthermore, the free market works. Why not support a system that can get bananas from Madagascar delivered to a restaurant in Kansas served to a man who makes his money investing in iron mined in the Alps? This incredible system of interactions solves the coordination problem better than any one entity can.
"we're in the middle of a little family dispute."
You weren't in the middle of anything until you decided to comment.
"You have absolutely no clue how well off you have it compared to at least half of humanity"
It comes off as very presumptuous to assume how one lives and what they know about the world after reading a few internet forum posts.
"Being rid of the opressions of the state would end most of what you're complaining about"
Agreed. I never argued otherwise. Conversely, I think the state and capitalism (what you call corporatism) go hand in hand.
"You ignored my entire argument against wealth limits."
Yeah, because, to be honest, I don't believe in the accumulation of wealth, period. Not in the sense of a capitalist enterprise. For one, it's a constant growth machine, and nothing can grow forever. Maybe in Unicornlandia.
"...the free market works. Why not support a system that can get bananas from Madagascar delivered to a restaurant in Kansas served to a man who makes his money investing in iron mined in the Alps?"
I thought Miseans argued that we don't have a free market? I guess my point would be that, eventually the people who pick Mr Kansas' bananas, deliver them to his restaurant, and mine his iron will decide that they can get a better deal working together as a class for their class; thus expropriating the expropriator. Just because this system is the 'best' we've come up with so far doesn't mean we can't do better. Besides this current system means misery for lots of people on the planet. (Maybe some of them aren't as miserable as they were as peasants, but is that really the point?)
The reason I joined in on this post is because of the article the OP referenced, wherein people in the real world are experimenting with an alternative currency. Something similar is occuring in Greece. I don't actually think that's the best way to go about changing the world, but at least they're trying something. So that brings up a question: What is the Misean project for action in the real world? Where are Miseans putting theory into practice? Ideas that are not tested in the real world are just ideas.
"I think the state and capitalism (what you call corporatism) go hand in hand."
If that is true, then it is even more so the case with socialism since socialism and the state are almost indistinguishable.
And no, the food in my fridge and the car in my driveway is not wealth accumulation.
"It comes off as very presumptuous to assume how one lives and what they know about the world after reading a few internet forum posts."
If you have enough money to have acess to the internet in the United States you're guaranteed to have a better standard of living that 3 billion people. That isn't a hard concept to grasp and shouldn't be considered presumptuous.
"Agreed. I never argued otherwise. Conversely, I think the state and capitalism (what you call corporatism) go hand in hand."
Are you arguing the marxist/socialist libertarian view that the state is a result of capitalism or that capitalism in the absence of the state benefits almost all participants?
"Yeah, because, to be honest, I don't believe in the accumulation of wealth, period. Not in the sense of a capitalist enterprise. For one, it's a constant growth machine, and nothing can grow forever. Maybe in Unicornlandia."
"I thought Miseans argued that we don't have a free market? I guess my point would be that, eventually the people who pick Mr Kansas' bananas, deliver them to his restaurant, and mine his iron will decide that they can get a better deal working together as a class for their class; thus expropriating the expropriator. Just because this system is the 'best' we've come up with so far doesn't mean we can't do better. Besides this current system means misery for lots of people on the planet. (Maybe some of them aren't as miserable as they were as peasants, but is that really the point?)"
Neodoxy: "Yeah, because, to be honest, I don't believe in the accumulation of wealth, period. Not in the sense of a capitalist enterprise. For one, it's a constant growth machine, and nothing can grow forever. Maybe in Unicornlandia." First of all the "growth" that you are talking about is a consistent rise in productive output and standard of living, it is not a growth machine as such, the "machine" will pursue growth at all costs, but this is a sign of its efficiency. We have never seen a period in human history where no further growth and productive output is possible, until we do it will keep growing, if we see such a day then it must stop and there will be nothing that "the machine" can do about it. So what's your point. It's not a growth machine, it's a machine that pursues growth in the same way that an ambitious farmer moves to more and more promising farmland. He will keep doing this, but nothing negative happens when he finally reaches the most fertile field which he can find. "I thought Miseans argued that we don't have a free market? I guess my point would be that, eventually the people who pick Mr Kansas' bananas, deliver them to his restaurant, and mine his iron will decide that they can get a better deal working together as a class for their class; thus expropriating the expropriator. Just because this system is the 'best' we've come up with so far doesn't mean we can't do better. Besides this current system means misery for lots of people on the planet. (Maybe some of them aren't as miserable as they were as peasants, but is that really the point?)" Those places which have seen capitalism for the longest see the greatest numbers of people who have escaped poverty. Those places which are the most primitive are those areas which have seen the most government for the longest. There is little that can deny the wonders that liberalized markets bring. Misesians do not argue that we live in a free market, instead they argue that what good we have seen is a result of those aspects of capitalism and free exchange which have been allowed to flourish. "The reason I joined in on this post is because of the article the OP referenced, wherein people in the real world are experimenting with an alternative currency. Something similar is occuring in Greece. I don't actually think that's the best way to go about changing the world, but at least they're trying something. So that brings up a question: What is the Misean project for action in the real world? Where are Miseans putting theory into practice? Ideas that are not tested in the real world are just ideas." I would argue that something put directly into an experamental phase without a period of theory first is almost certainly doomed to failure. However, I agree with you. Who knows if capitalism is the best method of production? But why must it be a choice between systems? The wonder of a voluntaryist society is that it does not necessarily favor capitalism, it simply favors voluntary behaviors. Communes, horizontal firms, and any sort of organization possible is allowed, you just have to convince people that it's a good idea. Social experamentation is how human kind moves forward, the most essential aspect of this is to remove the absolutest mindset of statism from social experamentation. Libertarians have embarked on a number of projects, the first and currently most evident is the Ron Paul campaigns. Others involve: The formation of the Mises Institute and other free market think tanks in order to help to educate, which is obviously a form of action The free state project The various sea steading institutes (which I personally think is the stupidest idea ever) Agorist ideas (I do not know if anyone has ever attempted seriously to institute them) The formation of the libertarian party The tea party protests, which, ORIGINALLY included a large percentage of libertarians.
Or, you know, reducing government intervention in the market, liberalizing trade, etc.
"Or, you know, reducing government intervention in the market, liberalizing trade, etc."
... What?
Edit
I'm sorry I just don't know what exactly you're responding to.
Neodoxy: "Or, you know, reducing government intervention in the market, liberalizing trade, etc." ... What? Edit I'm sorry I just don't know what exactly you're responding to.
You just kind of mentioned the really minor kinds of things that libertarians have accomplished or try to accomplish. I think free trade is the most important thing that past classical liberals worked towards and now libertarians are trying to work towards.
"It's not a growth machine, it's a machine that pursues growth in the same way that an ambitious farmer moves to more and more promising farmland. He will keep doing this, but nothing negative happens when he finally reaches the most fertile field which he can find."
So, in theory, we'd be close to the most fertile field. I think the Marxist (a la Loren Goldner) read on this is that the rate of profit is dwindling, and that the current crisis is part of the sequence of crisis beginning in the '70s. This analysis is not my strong suit, but it's clear that capitalism is in crisis, and left with very few avenues to bring the rate of profit back up. I think Goldner points out three: intensification of labor exploitation; liquidation of old capital; green products/DNA products/other crazy shit.
"There is little that can deny the wonders that liberalized markets bring."
Markets just bring the wonders. Human creativity and labor creates the wonders. Surely there are plenty of ways to 'deliver' the wonders that would be non-hierarchical, unlike the way markets are.
"Social experamentation is how human kind moves forward, the most essential aspect of this is to remove the absolutest mindset of statism from social experamentation."
I totally agree. At its base statism is power and control. A democratic, egalitarian, classless society would allow human creativity to flourish. Incidentally, of the examples you gave, at least four of them entail seizing state power.
occupy_octopi: "It's not a growth machine, it's a machine that pursues growth in the same way that an ambitious farmer moves to more and more promising farmland. He will keep doing this, but nothing negative happens when he finally reaches the most fertile field which he can find." So, in theory, we'd be close to the most fertile field. I think the Marxist (a la Loren Goldner) read on this is that the rate of profit is dwindling, and that the current crisis is part of the sequence of crisis beginning in the '70s. This analysis is not my strong suit, but it's clear that capitalism is in crisis, and left with very few avenues to bring the rate of profit back up. I think Goldner points out three: intensification of labor exploitation; liquidation of old capital; green products/DNA products/other crazy shit. "There is little that can deny the wonders that liberalized markets bring." Markets just bring the wonders. Human creativity and labor creates the wonders. Surely there are plenty of ways to 'deliver' the wonders that would be non-hierarchical, unlike the way markets are. "Social experamentation is how human kind moves forward, the most essential aspect of this is to remove the absolutest mindset of statism from social experamentation." I totally agree. At its base statism is power and control. A democratic, egalitarian, classless society would allow human creativity to flourish. Incidentally, of the examples you gave, at least four of them entail seizing state power.
Could you post that marxist study here? As for higher exploitation of workers you mean the asian workers? They are bearing the burden of manufacturing base for the world's consumerist economies underneath a STATE-capitalist regime. Workers in countries with high capital accumulation can hardly be said to be exploited.
As for your comment on markets: why do you think humans do the things they do? They do it because they will be rewarded proportionately to their successes. They'd do it at the very least because their success would make them self-sustainable. No system utilizes the way the human mind works to the benefit of everyone the way that capitalism does. Look at the past two centuries, the dawn of liberalism. Look what happened. Machines, internet, freedom, automobiles, and that wasn't even under a purely free system. All these things were accomplished despite state-enforced monopoly and other forms of 'inequality'. Why would an inventor invent something in a world where his work will not be given credit? Where he will not reap as he sows?
Also by refusing to define 'enough', you really can't make any claim on wealth inequality. Is enough when we all have 2 swimming pools and beach houses? We would have to enslave the rest of the world to do that.
At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I don't think anyone here means you to take any offense at their comments. They merely are trying to stimulate you to realize the subtleties of reality and economic law that don't mesh well with socialism. These realities make it such that in a socialist society the working man is poorer and less free than in the free market society.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
There's a lot to cover since I left, I think you guys are letting octopi get away with a lot of stuff that you shouldn't let slip by. :)
It's easy to lose these discussions in the dogpile that often occurs. Wanted to touch on this quote though:
Firstly, the market IS human creativity and labor. Secondly, and related to the first point, the market does not "deliver", it allows people to exchange goods with lots of information in the price, so they can make the best decisions as to how to use resources available. Without this free exchange, complicated projects, products, or services become almost impossible to implement, or you end up with huge amounts of waste. It's all about information. I've watched many discussions among leftists trying to implement a "democratized" system of exhange, and it's quite funny, almost every time they end up suggesting a system where people's "votes" are inherent in thier economic activites. That is, rather than getting everybody together in a big General Assembly or comittee and deciding what to produce (because this obviously becomes prohibitively time consuming, inflexible, and cumbersome), people collect more voting power by producing more, and can exchange these "votes" with others for what they want. They don't even realize they've just recreated money.
The "market" is not some nebulous heirarchical order. It's the direct result of "human labor and creativity" interacting among individuals. You're placing the blame in the wrong places.
?"So, in theory, we'd be close to the most fertile field. I think the Marxist (a la Loren Goldner) read on this is that the rate of profit is dwindling, and that the current crisis is part of the sequence of crisis beginning in the '70s. This analysis is not my strong suit, but it's clear that capitalism is in crisis, and left with very few avenues to bring the rate of profit back up. I think Goldner points out three: intensification of labor exploitation; liquidation of old capital; green products/DNA products/other crazy shit."
With new markets opening up and a vast variety of new technologies appearing there are pleanty of areas for profit to occur. Furthermore "the average rate of profit" means nothing and has nothing to do with the current crisis.
"Markets just bring the wonders. Human creativity and labor creates the wonders. Surely there are plenty of ways to 'deliver' the wonders that would be non-hierarchical, unlike the way markets are."
Hierarchy in the work place exists specifically because it has proven to be more efficient than all other forms of industrial organization that has been tried and allowed to exist. So the answer to that question is that I don't know an neither do you, and the market is not inherently hierarchical in the same way that democracy is not inherently statist, that is simple a piece of historical data. The market creates an inherently collectivist environment where men must use their talents and strengths to satisfy the wants of others.
"I totally agree. At its base statism is power and control. A democratic, egalitarian, classless society would allow human creativity to flourish. Incidentally, of the examples you gave, at least four of them entail seizing state power."
I don't trust democracy and I hate the idea of egalitarianism, but with that being said I don't wish to enforce my views on you. I can tell you why capitalism will bring prosperity, I cannot tell you if this will be more prosperous than the free commune, but I can give you reasons why this would be. Let's have both systems side by side and let the better one win out, or discuss why one or the other would be more efficient.
http://johnlocke.org/news_columns/display_jhcolumns.html?id=8351
"You just kind of mentioned the really minor kinds of things that libertarians have accomplished or try to accomplish. I think free trade is the most important thing that past classical liberals worked towards and now libertarians are trying to work towards."
That's because libertarianism is an extremely small movement in the world today and there isn't much that it's actually doing right now besides slowley spreading. The request was to name things have actually been worked towards by libertarians today, not just the theory of what they want done. I didn't consider the work of the classical liberals because of the fact that we haven't seem much of them for about a century now, and as for the real influence that they have wielded since the 50's it has always been through others who have mismanged the procedure (reagan/Thatcherism)
red pig will your brother not respond to the questions? I'm curious to see what he says.
Jargon: red pig will your brother not respond to the questions? I'm curious to see what he says.
I think this is a good point for the left to meet the right. There are probably a lot of misunderstandings and such. I mean the whole rate of profit thing makes no sense whatsoever to me. I've heard of that before, but to me, now, it seems like a load of bullshit, a Marxist delusion perhaps.
" I mean the whole rate of profit thing makes no sense whatsoever to me. I've heard of that before, but to me, now, it seems like a load of bullshit, a Marxist delusion perhaps."
It makes perfect sense if you're dealing in Marxist aggregates.
Damn. I had a big reply typed up and the computer lost it. Basically, I'm not offended. If you want to know more about Loren Goldner go to his website (read eg. The Historical Moment That Produced Us) and check out his Vimeo video on the periodization of capitalist crisis.
My other point was to argue against economic laws. It's not a science, as there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history. I'll use David Graeber's quote from when he ripped into the guy who kind of reviewed his book on this website: 'What you seem to be doing is projecting certain types of behavior created by certain social institutions backwards as an explanation of the institution themselves, rather like saying that the game of chess was invented to fulfill people’s preexisting desire to checkmate their opponents’ king – and then justifying it by saying that well, people are competitive, they like to win games, therefore, the desire to checkmate must always have existed.'
I like Graeber's idea of a communist baseline, ie. a consistent current through society where cooperation is the norm. Basically, we act in all kinds of ways beyond economics. We're having this dialogue on a free website, and nobody is charging anyone to share opinions. You don't charge someone who stops you to ask the time. Those seem like trivial examples compared to all the ways we actually look out for one another in society. This is probably true for any society, as that's what determines the thing: a group of people acting as a community. Obviously, our society elevates competition to such a level as to distort this cooperative tendency. So, the task becomes one of negating the structures that put competition above all else.
As far as, "Workers in countries with high capital accumulation can hardly be said to be exploited", wage theft is rampant, the 'social wage' paid for by taxes is being decimated, etc. Wage labor is exploitation: I'll pay you to do something, and then live off the profits.
As far as real, on-the-ground experiments in anti-authoritarian (read: anti-statist), anti-capitalist attempts to create a free society look at the solidarity network model (Seattle Solidarity, SeaSol being the foremost one). It's a form of direct action casework in which workers help one another fight abuses by bosses or landlords. Very successful. We're taking on our second fight this week in the Albuquerque Solidarity Network.
That was mostly a reply to Jargon. As far as the swimming pool thing, my post awhile back addressed your point, ie. enslaving people to ensure my swimming pool gets built means we're no longer in a free society.
Graeber isn't an economist and there is a better reply that I believe I sent to you on the libertarian standard.
occupy-
Are you willing not to work for a wage? That is, are you willing to put in the time, energy, risk, and stress in producing something yourself?
My other point was to argue against economic laws. It's not a science, as there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history.
I wouldn't compare economic laws to gravity. Like Marshall, I'd compare them to the law of tides.
This problem that you mention can be solved in three different ways. The first would be to claim that economic laws are not discovered by empirical methods, but rather through a priori reflection on action, and then deducing certain fundamental axioms which then comprise these economic laws.
The second would be to make an inductive generalization about the entirety of economic history that we have in our grasp. Surely some laws such as supply and demand will make themselves apparent. It isn't necessary to project backwards into the pass to even serve our purposes here. Nor is it necessary to claim that supply and demand--on this method--will hold for eternity in the future. But the burden of proof would be heavily on the 'economic reformers' to knock supply and demand off the pedestal that it currently enjoys. I doubt it could be met.
However, why couldn't we project back into the past? If we have a solid basis for supply and demand based on probability, then there isn't any real reason to think that it couldn't be applied backwards.
The third approach: Abstract the essence of man through Aristotelian induction, and once the essence is in the intellect, deduce certain fundamental truths.
The first approach seems nonsensical, although that tends to be the Austrian approach. I'll admit that my summary of it isn't totally complete, but it is sufficient. For me, the second and third are much more appealing. But I don't at all buy that there aren't any economic laws, weren't any economic laws, or that economic laws will cease to be.
occupy_octopi: Damn. I had a big reply typed up and the computer lost it. Basically, I'm not offended. If you want to know more about Loren Goldner go to his website (read eg. The Historical Moment That Produced Us) and check out his Vimeo video on the periodization of capitalist crisis. My other point was to argue against economic laws
My other point was to argue against economic laws
occupy_octopi:It's not a science, as there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history.
Strawman. It's not that their are universally observable behaviors, but that there is something that drives those behaviors. For example, people eat because they need to in order to survive.
occupy_octopi: I'll use David Graeber's quote from when he ripped into the guy who kind of reviewed his book on this website: 'What you seem to be doing is projecting certain types of behavior created by certain social institutions backwards as an explanation of the institution themselves, rather like saying that the game of chess was invented to fulfill people’s preexisting desire to checkmate their opponents’ king – and then justifying it by saying that well, people are competitive, they like to win games, therefore, the desire to checkmate must always have existed.'
This is entirely nonsensiical, but is to be expected from an empiricist/positivist. His analogy makes no sense whatsoever and is irrelevant.
occupy_octopi:I like Graeber's idea of a communist baseline, ie. a consistent current through society where cooperation is the norm. Basically, we act in all kinds of ways beyond economics. We're having this dialogue on a free website, and nobody is charging anyone to share opinions. You don't charge someone who stops you to ask the time. Those seem like trivial examples compared to all the ways we actually look out for one another in society. This is probably true for any society, as that's what determines the thing: a group of people acting as a community. Obviously, our society elevates competition to such a level as to distort this cooperative tendency. So, the task becomes one of negating the structures that put competition above all else.
Another strawman. No one ever said that people don't cooperate. No one ever said that people don't help each other out, etc.
occupy_octopi:As far as, "Workers in countries with high capital accumulation can hardly be said to be exploited", wage theft is rampant, the 'social wage' paid for by taxes is being decimated, etc. Wage labor is exploitation: I'll pay you to do something, and then live off the profits.
Nonsensical.
occupy_octopi:As far as real, on-the-ground experiments in anti-authoritarian (read: anti-statist), anti-capitalist attempts to create a free society look at the solidarity network model (Seattle Solidarity, SeaSol being the foremost one). It's a form of direct action casework in which workers help one another fight abuses by bosses or landlords. Very successful. We're taking on our second fight this week in the Albuquerque Solidarity Network.
So, workers can't abuse bosses, or workers can't abuse other workers?
Occupy I read your post and to be honest I'm having trouble understanding you. How do you intend create a society which normalizes against hierarchy? For your second paragraph, do you think that there are no universally recognizable traits in humanity? Not even that say, humans tend to prefer things that are more preferable over things that are less preferable? To a non-austrian I would think that Mr. Schnapps' second example of forming economic law would be very rational as long as quantity and quality are both accounted for. That is, that economic history is not totally quanticized, as keynesians tend to attempt to do. This would be ignoring human motives, and to do so I believe is dangerously naive and generally an unsound method. By the second definition, economic laws aren't concrete but just extremely probable. As probable as say, a whale not falling on my head at this very moment. Not impossible, but not probable at all.
As for your third paragraph I can't make sense of it.
As for your fourth, my words were carelessly chosen. As long as there are state controlled economies, everyone's real wages will be artificially lowered. But how do you define exploitation? Doesn't the employee prefer his job to... not his job? If he did wouldn't he leave? Is the employer keeping him from leaving? I think an explicit definition of exploitation would be helpful here.
Thanks for sticking around to chat, I don't really expect marxists or socialists to stay long enough for a fleshed out discussion.
Wage labor is exploitation: I'll pay you to do something, and then live off the profits.
Wage labor is mutually beneficial. This is not to say that all things that are mutually beneficial are justifiable, but you're trying to label wage labor as inherently and deontologically wrong, and there's just no basis for this at all, especially since the labor theory of value mixes positive and normative analysis.
The idea that other economic systems can remove scarcity and the disutility of labor is borderline lunacy. It just really is.
@Mr.Schnaps
How do you feel about Austrian economics in general? I.E the conclusions that it produces.
@Occupy
There are economic laws if one applies reason correctly, however these laws are in and of themselves explaining human TENDANCIES because the very nature of man is variability in behavior, that is why Austrian economics limits many of its conclusions. This is the one school of economics that does not make this mistake. Austrian economics deals specifically in tendancy of individuals, which, when taken in conjunction with real human behavior and decision yields real results.
I would like to point out two things. The first is the fact that the fact that there are no laws of economics is the outcome of the fact that there are no laws of rational human action after a certain point, and this applies itself equally to communism and anti-capitalism as it does to capitalism itself. The second is that you have in no way disproven the overriding tendancies which have been shown to emerge and which are most likely to emerge. If I put 50 cards in a deck and 49 of them are diamonds and one is a club, and I say that I make assumptions upon what I am doing based off of pulling out a diamond, and you state quite rightly that there's no guarantee that it's a diamond then you have made a valuable contribution, but you have in no way told me why it is that I should labor under the assumption that my next draw will be a club when it's very unlikely that this will happen and assuming that the next draw is a diamond will see me right in 98% of cases
occupy_octopi:My other point was to argue against economic laws. It's not a science, as there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history. I'll use David Graeber's quote from when he ripped into the guy who kind of reviewed his book on this website: 'What you seem to be doing is projecting certain types of behavior created by certain social institutions backwards as an explanation of the institution themselves, rather like saying that the game of chess was invented to fulfill people’s preexisting desire to checkmate their opponents’ king – and then justifying it by saying that well, people are competitive, they like to win games, therefore, the desire to checkmate must always have existed.'
This - at least in part - is why praxeology is a priori.
It seems that your own semantics for the words "cooperation", "economics", and "competition" (at the very least) are different from those of anarcho-capitalists who ascribe to the Austrian School of economics*. For example, they would say that market competition is a form of social cooperation. They'd also say that "economic behavior" covers more than trade/exchange.
Take your example of us having this dialogue on a free website, for instance. It's true that no one is charging anyone any goods (including money) or services to share opinions. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalists who ascribe to the Austrian School of economics* would consider this activity to be "economic" in the sense of currently preferring to share opinions here over doing anything else. Furthermore, they'd say that we're engaging in this activity right now because we believe that, by doing so, we'll somehow be better off than beforehand.
On another note, the fact that you point out myriad activities (or actions) that don't involve trade/exchange, but are nevertheless done routinely by the vast majority of people, seems to be counter-evidence to the notion that "our society" puts "competition" above all else.
* If not most or even all anarcho-capitalists per se.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
A democratic, egalitarian, classless society would allow human creativity to flourish
You call yourself an anarchist and you still believe in the fable of democracy? Or do you mean in a non-statist way? I agree that in some cases a voluntary democracy will act as a system to shore-up certain situations, but it will hardly be the optimal system for everything.
The "market" is not some nebulous heirarchical order. It's the direct result of "human labor and creativity" interacting among individuals.
Bingo! The market is not an entity. It is an emergent system made of spontaneous order. It's not a person who decides where capital goes. It's the billions of daily free interactions of individuals.
The market creates an inherently collectivist environment where men must use their talents and strengths to satisfy the wants of others.
Headshot!
there aren't universally observable behaviors throughout history
You guys are forgetting that the law of demand is proven a priori.
Um, you can turn that around: I'll do a service for you and then live off of the profits. Now the workers exploit the employer. I still fail to see how wage labor is exploitative beyond the very basic meaning of exploit "to make use of." Perhaps you mean to argue what Birthday Pony has previously argued (the initial distribution of property like land makes it impossible for an employee to become a big employer), which is still false, as many claims are illegitimate (and indeed, there is still much land available that is unclaimed but simply restricted by the government).
the fact that you point out myriad activities (or actions) that don't involve trade/exchange, but are nevertheless done routinely by the vast majority of people, seems to be counter-evidence to the notion that "our society" puts "competition" above all else.
Yerp.
Autolykos: This - at least in part - is why praxeology is a priori. It seems that your own semantics for the words "cooperation", "economics", and "competition" (at the very least) are different from those of anarcho-capitalists who ascribe to the Austrian School of economics*. For example, they would say that market competition is a form of social cooperation. They'd also say that "economic behavior" covers more than trade/exchange. Take your example of us having this dialogue on a free website, for instance. It's true that no one is charging anyone any goods (including money) or services to share opinions. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalists who ascribe to the Austrian School of economics* would consider this activity to be "economic" in the sense of currently preferring to share opinions here over doing anything else. Furthermore, they'd say that we're engaging in this activity right now because we believe that, by doing so, we'll somehow be better off than beforehand. On another note, the fact that you point out myriad activities (or actions) that don't involve trade/exchange, but are nevertheless done routinely by the vast majority of people, seems to be counter-evidence to the notion that "our society" puts "competition" above all else. * If not most or even all anarcho-capitalists per se.
I think most of those examples, if not all, do involve exchange. It's only a different kind of exchange involving personal and social capital.
Porco Rosso:I think most of those examples, if not all, do involve exchange. It's only a different kind of exchange involving personal and social capital.
True, you could put it that way. But I don't think your brother would at this point. I'm trying to express our position in terms that he can understand. :P