Freiheit: Which phrase is better: "eklarchy" or "eklektarchy"? The first is certainly more easily pronounceable than the second, but the second evokes the word "eclectic," which might give people a better prima facie grasp of our philosophy.
Which phrase is better: "eklarchy" or "eklektarchy"?
The first is certainly more easily pronounceable than the second, but the second evokes the word "eclectic," which might give people a better prima facie grasp of our philosophy.
I like the second one better because, as you say, it gives people a better prima facie grasp of our philosophy.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
I am going to start calling myself a "stateless libertarian".
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
GilesStratton:The sort of egaliarian collectivism is fundamental to all statist ideology, even of the monarchical kind. It makes no sense to ally with people who view the state in an entirely different manner. Most anarcho socialists have no issue with whether or not the state violates property rights, exactly the opposite, they see it as enabling property rights. As such they'd rather some sort of voluntary commune. Which, in reality is very similar to that of the state. Granted, this is a huge generalization and there are obviously cases that this does not apply. But why associate with these individuals anyway? They don't have much to offer and their conception of society is still very egalitarian.
Egalitarianism can be a wonderful thing, so long as it's not applied to wealth. Of course, equality under the law is simply not acheivable, simply because enforcement of the law depends upon wealth. At least some states aim at equal rights instead of equal wealth, which I view as a noble goal.
Anyway, if anarcho socialists don't care what the state does, then they are simply socialists. Why would they add "anarcho" if they don't oppose the state?
The reason that I would associate myself with them is because it seems the basis of anarchism is peaceful tolerance of different systems, not wholehearted devotion to capitalism, or anything other than intolerance of statism really. If we are going to label all socialists as statists because of the nature of their system, we might as well be statists ourselves. If we can claim outright that their belief system creates oppression, we will be labeled exactly the same. Essentially if we do not believe economic systems can be free of statism, then there is no such thing as anarcho-anything.
The truth is, we share a common root of philosophy with anarcho-socialists, which is that the state serves a double role in creating a privileged upper class and an oppressed lower class. In one sense, the state ARE the privileged upper class, in that they have arbitrary power over the property of others. Hence, they partially own ALL property. Secondly, they promote disequality of the law for their favored special interests. Anarcho-socialists believe that these are the tools the state uses to keep an oppressive capitalist structure in place and that without them, socialist syndicates would at least have a competitive shot at excelling in economic markets. We say the exact same thing, except about capitalist markets. In the absence of the state, these two groups could live in isolation or develop trading methods. I don't see why people believe that socialists don't respect property rights. Anarcho-socialism, according to every advocate I've talked to, says nothing about "socializing" the means of production belonging individuals who are not members. That's Marxism, clearly statist. Instead, ansocs believe in creating their own capital, or receiving it willingly from new members.
Does no one see the irony in this? What is our problem with government? Is it too statist, or is it too socialist? Well, the ansocs would answer, "Is it too statist, or is it too capitalist?" Both see the state as the hindrance to create their own, free system, maintained by respect for property rights, even though the systems themselves are wildly different.
And anarcho-socialism is not inherently majoritarianism. Any specific syndicate could use a number of means to make decisions. It would be ironic if ansocs and ancaps lived in isolation from each other and one day met and discovered they had a adapted a number of similar means to solve disputes. For example, the most productive syndicate worker may be given more voting power, just like the largest shareholder. This is more likely the result of necessity for syndicates to maintain competitiveness than idealistic socialist mantra. What most arguments against ansoc miss is that ansocs typically don't want one giant syndicate to produce everything. They prefer a variety of syndicates, each devoted to a particular line of production. These syndicates can trade with each other and other market entities, such as capitalists individuals or businesses. They can compete for members, or even to produce the same goods/services. Their membership contracts, allocation of capital, and investment plans will adapt to be competitive in the marketplace. As such, we shouldn't expect the sort of extreme wealth egalitarianism present in state socialist systems. Often those are used to score political points in democracy, whereas syndicates look more to compete for productivity in the marketplace. In other words, those that advocate direct majority democracy to decide all issues may quickly become too impoverished to survive.
But why not let the free market decide? The pre-condition to this is creating a free market, which means squashing statism.
GilesStratton:The thing is, culturally conservative, private property orientated communities would far outcompete those that differed. Essentially if some people did wish to form egalitarian communes, they'd be outcompeted by the well armed, richer "capitalists". People object to this by saying that it's a matter of preference, which is entirely wrong. There's nothing analogous to this in free market economics, I may well have a preference to produce cars with nothing but a screwdriver but at the end of the day I'll be outcompeted because I produce a superior product. Well, the same applies to the service that is the community, if I produce a superior community by means of exclusion people will move to it and adopt the norms that are required.
What you are saying many people should have issue with. Others can outcompete you in a marketplace, but no one can compete with you for your individual happiness. If I maximize my psychic profit by building auto's with a screwdriver, even if I can't sell them profitably on the market, that is purely and simply a matter of individual preference. Your ideal community will not be someone else's ideal community, simply because your ideals are not the ideals of others. Economic success means nothing if all I want is to meet sexually unrestrained heathens.
However, I believe you are correct about the relative economic success of capitalism, and its greater ability to provide services such as defense and justice. Thus, I think the point of contention, that anarcho-socialists would become statist, is simply moot. If there were indeed this tendency, why would ancaps feel they couldn't defend themselves or establish justice?
I still feel this entire argument against ansocs is paranoia. I don't support socialism, but I do support anarchism; and if people can't see why ancaps and ansocs can work together constructively, then I see little hope for this movement.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
I agree with the gist of the above, but a lot of anarcho-socialists would disagree that anarchism is simply anti-statism, and that is where the opposition to anarcho-capitalism comes from. As for anarcho-syndicalism, it is a different beast, and is not subject to the calculation argument as socialism is, for the reasons you outlined.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
In researching the differences between anarcho-syndacalism and anarcho-socialism/communism, I appear to have made a number of huge mistakes here. I owe a big apology to those I was arguing with.
I was under the assumption that anarcho-syndicalism was a means of expressing socialism. In other words, a syndicate could employ collective ownership of capital, direct democracy, wealth equality, and other socialist ideals. I had assumed that a anarcho-socialism was nothing more than support for socialist-flavored syndicates.
This does not appear to be the general philosophy of anarcho-socialism, which seeks to make all property public property. They also seek to eliminate money...and market practices. They seem to assume they can produce more than people will demand, even when everything is inherently free.
To be honest, such a system seems completely unworkable, and offers no common conception of property rights. I would agree that there is little means for any partnership as such. This is actually intruiging. The reason I did not think this could possibly be how it was reasoned is because this makes no sense to me. I am actually going to read a lot more about this. The whole thing sounds like an attempt to square a circle.
meambobbo:To be honest, such a system seems completely unworkable, and offers no common conception of property rights. I would agree that there is little means for any partnership as such.
Bingo.
meambobbo:The reason I did not think this could possibly be how it was reasoned is because this makes no sense to me. I am actually going to read a lot more about this. The whole thing sounds like an attempt to square a circle.
Most socialism is. It's almost all predicated on a labour theory of value, limited or no private property, democracy and is usually hostile to free exchange.
It's so far from what an Austrian/Anarcho-Capitalist presumably believes in (market, liberty, property) that to say we have a common battle is outrageous IMO.
See - we do agree...as I predicted. Only I was wrong
On the other hand, I believe Robin may actually be a syndacalist.
meambobbo: See - we do agree...as I predicted. Only I was wrong On the other hand, I believe Robin may actually be a syndacalist.
Most of the anti-globalization, anti-capitalist political activists are. I'm still trying to figure out the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and mutualism. Mutualism claims to be market anarchism, but seems to draw on ideas that don't seem compatible with the market (to me at least...)
liberty student: meambobbo: See - we do agree...as I predicted. Only I was wrong On the other hand, I believe Robin may actually be a syndacalist. Most of the anti-globalization, anti-capitalist political activists are. I'm still trying to figure out the difference between anarcho-syndicalism and mutualism. Mutualism claims to be market anarchism, but seems to draw on ideas that don't seem compatible with the market (to me at least...)
One immediate difference I think anyone could or at least should notice is that mutualism is critical of Marxist theory. I also do not think mutualism sees the state as a valid vehicle to abolishing the state itself, which seems to be a popular paradox that marxists & syndalcists sometimes dabble in.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict:One immediate difference I think anyone could or at least should notice is that mutualism is critical of Marxist theory.
Not Marxist class theory. And not Marxist capital theory.
As near as I can tell at least.
liberty student: Not Marxist class theory. And not Marxist capital theory. As near as I can tell at least.
As far as capital theory goes, Carson has an article on mutualist capital theory here. And for class theory, the only difference between an-caps and mutualists on this point is that many an-caps see parts of the corporate class as being part of the "exploited class", while mutualists would place them firmly in the ruling class. Some an-caps seem to place the welfare-recieving poor in the ruling class, too, but I can't make any sense of that argument.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron:As far as capital theory goes, Carson has an article on mutualist capital theory here.
Thank you very much!
wombatron:And for class theory, the only difference between an-caps and mutualists on this point is that many an-caps see parts of the corporate class as being part of the "exploited class", while mutualists would place them firmly in the ruling class. Some an-caps seem to place the welfare-recieving poor in the ruling class, too, but I can't make any sense of that argument.
Exactly. Mutualists think if you have capital, or you direct a firm, you are evil. If are just an employee, you are exploited for trading your labour.
Which is basically Marxism.
An Caps understand that the state serves cartelized labour, just as much as it serves corporate ownership. But that's bad for Mutualist recruitment to attack the inefficient, unskilled, lazy worker drones who are protected by the state and cartelization because that comprises the majority of it's base. You won't find small business people buying into Mututalism, they are too busy trying to fend off their employees who use state power to exploit their accumulated capital. But then, last time I checked, no mutualist could define how big a firm has to be, or under what business model, in order to fit their class theory and qualify for "massive evil" status.
Personally, I just call myself an "abolitionist," because I think that sounds awesome.It was my understanding that anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndacalism were the same thing, and if they aren't, then that's pretty important. Where was it that you got that information showing their difference? I'd like to do some reading.
I just finished reading a book by Daniel Quinn called "Beyond Civilization." (same author as "Ishmael") Most people consider Daniel Quinn an anarcho-primitist, but this book totally redefined that word, and also changed the way I see the entire anarchist movement.Here are some of the points he makes:1. Government programs will never be able to do as much good as the market. Government programs just waste time and resources.2. Our current legal system almost always puts more emphasis on punishing people than it does on trying to find the root of the problem (some examples he uses are the prohibition of drugs and homelessness).3. Anarcho-primitists are wrong if they think re-wilding is the answer. There is simply not enough land for 6 billion people to do that.4. It's possible to set up a business structure/lifestyle that is by design both environmentally friendly and fulfilling (He thoroughly explains how in the book).5. Communes (the attempt to equally share land) almost never work out and often lead to economic failure.6. When a business voluntarily (and he stresses that it can only work if voluntary) shares the means of production it often benefits the business (he gives tons of examples of this).
I think this book can appeal to any anarchist. No matter what they have after the hyphen. It's only 200 pages, go read it.
To comment on the original purpose of this thread: I think words like anarcho-capitalist/socialist/syndacalist/primitist/etc almost always cause the average person to turn off their brain and start using a negative bias. I suggest we just all call ourselves abolitionists.
We are the 21st century abolitionist movement. We want to end slavery (aka coercion). I can't think of anyone who would be against an abolitionist.
Thanks,Robin
Possibly because of the vagueness of the word "socialism". I guess you could subsume syndicalism under it, to a degree. However it differs drastically from what is typically denoted by the term, including what Mises understood by it. Any anarchist system that were to abolish private ownership of the MOP (which excludes syndicalism) is subject to the calculation problem.
Robin:We are the 21st century abolitionist movement. We want to end slavery (aka coercion). I can't think of anyone who would be against an abolitionist.
I don't want to end slavery.
I want to re-establish private property rights.
Big difference.
Cool. I just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
It seems to me that the communist side believes that there will be one giant commune, while the syndacalist side believes that there would be many cooperating but sovereign communes. In practice, they may actually be similar. I cannot imagine one commune being a natural state of society without statism.
liberty student: I don't want to end slavery. I want to re-establish private property rights. Big difference.
You don't want to end slavery?......
If we own ourselves, then ending slavery would probably be a big deal to anyone re-establishing private property rights. Doesn't sound like a big difference to me.
I don't want to put words in liberty student's mouth, but slavery is not necessarily wrong. If someone voluntarily contracts with another person to become their slave, they should have the right to do that. Thus, slavery as such should not be abolished.
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
Robin:You don't want to end slavery?......
Well, I was teasing you there. I do want to end slavery. But the only way to do that, is to establish private property rights.
Robin:If we own ourselves, then ending slavery would probably be a big deal to anyone re-establishing private property rights. Doesn't sound like a big difference to me.
One has to come before the other, or you are not free. And if you get your "freedom" and choose to renounce your private property rights (say, in a commune) you are back to being a slave, even if you choose to be in the commune.
Freiheit: I don't want to put words in liberty student's mouth, but slavery is not necessarily wrong. If someone voluntarily contracts with another person to become their slave, they should have the right to do that. Thus, slavery as such should not be abolished.
I understand Robin’s point about calling oneself an abolitionist but most people would simply assume you were an activist against modern slavery (in the traditional sense of that term) and this would not be an indication of actuall political beliefs except for that single issue.
Rothbard asserts that one cannot inalienate himself from his freedom. Any contract that gives up free will is unenforceable and meaningless.
If someone accepts money for a job, then they decide they don't want to do it, this doesn't mean they can keep the money. But they can't be forced to do the work. No employer can force continued provision of labor from anyone.
ryanpatgray: I understand Robin’s point about calling oneself an abolitionist but most people would simply assume you were an activist against modern slavery (in the traditional sense of that term) and this would not be an indication of actuall political beliefs except for that single issue.
I would much rather have someone assume that I'm an anti-slavery activist than have them assume that I'm a "bomb thrower" or whatever garbage most people relate to their idea of "anarchism."
There's a great article about this here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport4.html
Robin: ryanpatgray: I understand Robin’s point about calling oneself an abolitionist but most people would simply assume you were an activist against modern slavery (in the traditional sense of that term) and this would not be an indication of actuall political beliefs except for that single issue. I would much rather have someone assume that I'm an anti-slavery activist than have them assume that I'm a "bomb thrower" or whatever garbage most people relate to their idea of "anarchism." There's a great article about this here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport4.html
So would I! I have great respect for those people. I have met some of them - they are wonderful people. My larger point is that using that term could be a bit confusing. There are already some people who are confused by the term "Austrian Economist" (really, you are, when did you come over to this country?). Calling oneself an abolitionist is, to many people, like calling yourself a suffragette. It is a nice benevolent term but to most people it will not mean what you want it to mean for them.
I don't really care what people think of what I choose to call myself. If renaming ourselves was the key to freedom, I might buy it.
But as long as you cede control of definitions to people who would twist them, they will exercise this power over whatever term you use.
99% of people think the government is legitimate, democracy is good, killing Iraqis is good, Jesus was an American and such. Do we really give a flying fart what any of them think about what we call ourselves? These are the lost, the damaged, the stupid and the confused.
Anarchism-libertarianism doesn't have an image problem IMO. That's a cop out. They have an action problem.
liberty student: Anarchism-libertarianism doesn't have an image problem IMO. That's a cop out. They have an action problem.
That's a good point. What type of action are anarcho-capitalists involved with these days? I'm not saying an-caps don't do anything (I'm not trying to insult anyone), I'm just ignorant as to what this side of the anarchist movement does in the real world (aka, offline stuff). Are there any big groups practicing agorism? I know about the Free State Project and the whole Ron Paul movement, but that's mostly minarchism isn't it?
I was recently talking to an anarchist friend of mine, and I asked him what he thinks of anarcho-capitalists, he said the following:
"Oh! The anarcho-capitalists! Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m very suspicious of a movement without any movement. Know what I mean? The power structure has a funny way of co-opting a legitimate movement’s language and symbols. I’ve seen these AC’s all over YouTube…but nowhere else in the universe!"
Robin:That's a good point. What type of action are anarcho-capitalists involved with these days?
We don't have a central planning area.
Robin:I'm not saying an-caps don't do anything (I'm not trying to insult anyone), I'm just ignorant as to what this side of the anarchist movement does in the real world (aka, offline stuff).
It's ok, AnCaps have action issues for sure.
Robin:Are there any big groups practicing agorism?
I hope so, but I doubt it. We wouldn't know if they were, because Agorism is illegal.
Robin:I was recently talking to an anarchist friend of mine, and I asked him what he thinks of anarcho-capitalists, he said the following: "Oh! The anarcho-capitalists! Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m very suspicious of a movement without any movement. Know what I mean? The power structure has a funny way of co-opting a legitimate movement’s language and symbols. I’ve seen these AC’s all over YouTube…but nowhere else in the universe!"
A legitimate movment. rotflmao.
Ancaps are everywhere. They are the ones selling the molotovs to the bomb throwers. They are small business owners, private contractors. Consultants. Educators. They print magazines. Write articles. Get law degrees. Drive cabs. Operate brothels. If you are for capitalism, but no state, then you're an ancap. That is a lot more people than anarcho-socialists (of various stripes).
liberty student: Robin:Are there any big groups practicing agorism? I hope so, but I doubt it. We wouldn't know if they were, because Agorism is illegal.
I wouldn't know to be honest. I don't ever use that site.
Juan: I see you're unable to give a coherent explanation of the benefits provided by fairy tales, aka, revealed religion ?
No, I just can't be bothered. You'll find out sooner or later though.
Juan:As to 'libertarians' who start fist fights, well yes, they are the same sort of hypocrite. Like people who preach "do as I say don't do as I do", that is to say the vast majority of 'leaders' of 'religious communities'.
Right, in which case, by your logic libertarianism is "false".
Juan:I think you're evading my question ? According to you 'social conservatism' will outcompete other world views, no ? You're talking about western social conservatism and western churches I suppose ? If that's the case, do you think these institutions will outcompete all other cultures ? Yes ? No ? Maybe ?
In a free market church and family orientated cultural conservative orientated lifestyles would outcompete the rest, yes.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
meambobbo:Egalitarianism can be a wonderful thing, so long as it's not applied to wealth. Of course, equality under the law is simply not acheivable, simply because enforcement of the law depends upon wealth. At least some states aim at equal rights instead of equal wealth, which I view as a noble goal.
No, egalitarianism is the doctrine that we are essentially all equal. We're not.
meambobbo: The reason that I would associate myself with them is because it seems the basis of anarchism is peaceful tolerance of different systems, not wholehearted devotion to capitalism, or anything other than intolerance of statism really. If we are going to label all socialists as statists because of the nature of their system, we might as well be statists ourselves. If we can claim outright that their belief system creates oppression, we will be labeled exactly the same. Essentially if we do not believe economic systems can be free of statism, then there is no such thing as anarcho-anything.
No, it isn't. In fact, anarchism in a broader sense is a system that is considerably less "tolerant" than today's society. No matter if they say the oppose the state, anarcho socialists's egalitarian rhetoric is perfectly compatible with that of the state's forced equality. Whereas a stateless sociey defined by private property is distinctly unequal they advocate equality. Moveover, there will be irreconcilable disputes between different conceptions of property. Both sides thinking their correct, the truth is they must be eliminate or stripped of their power. Anti statism goes far further that simply disagreeing with today's state.
meambobbo:The truth is, we share a common root of philosophy with anarcho-socialists, which is that the state serves a double role in creating a privileged upper class and an oppressed lower class.
No, we don't. We both have different conceptions of the state. Hence we oppose it for different reasons, any resemblance is superficial. All we share is the same name, unfortunately. As we oppose the state for different reasons upon abolishing it we will have different views as to how a free society should proceed. Violence will be the only way to settle many of these conflicts. Fortunately we have the system that maximizes wealth, thus we will outcompete them economically and conquer them militarily if necessary.
meambobbo: Hence, they partially own ALL property.
Yes, and this is what we have an issue with. Socialists? No.
meambobbo:Anarcho-socialists believe that these are the tools the state uses to keep an oppressive capitalist structure in place and that without them, socialist syndicates would at least have a competitive shot at excelling in economic markets. We say the exact same thing, except about capitalist markets.
Exactly, they have the state abolishing private property already. Now, when we abolish the state and private property rights become secured and a hierarchical society comes into place with greater inequality, I would hazard a guess that they won't look too kindly upon it. Especially not when their system is proven untenable. They have their day dreams now of an equal society without the state, but that's fairly easy, they don't have to put their money where their mouth is and they don't have to live with the reality of the system. Once entertaining these fantasies becomes more difficult as a result of economic laws, it's only natural that they would turn to violence to enforce a weaker system.
meambobbo: Does no one see the irony in this? What is our problem with government? Is it too statist, or is it too socialist? Well, the ansocs would answer, "Is it too statist, or is it too capitalist?" Both see the state as the hindrance to create their own, free system, maintained by respect for property rights, even though the systems themselves are wildly different.
And their question is nonsensical because capitalism and statism are antonyms.
meambobbo: And anarcho-socialism is not inherently majoritarianism. Any specific syndicate could use a number of means to make decisions. It would be ironic if ansocs and ancaps lived in isolation from each other and one day met and discovered they had a adapted a number of similar means to solve disputes. For example, the most productive syndicate worker may be given more voting power, just like the largest shareholder. This is more likely the result of necessity for syndicates to maintain competitiveness than idealistic socialist mantra. What most arguments against ansoc miss is that ansocs typically don't want one giant syndicate to produce everything. They prefer a variety of syndicates, each devoted to a particular line of production. These syndicates can trade with each other and other market entities, such as capitalists individuals or businesses. They can compete for members, or even to produce the same goods/services. Their membership contracts, allocation of capital, and investment plans will adapt to be competitive in the marketplace. As such, we shouldn't expect the sort of extreme wealth egalitarianism present in state socialist systems. Often those are used to score political points in democracy, whereas syndicates look more to compete for productivity in the marketplace. In other words, those that advocate direct majority democracy to decide all issues may quickly become too impoverished to survive.
They'd be outcompeted, moreover anybody showing sympathy towards democracy and equality would have to be removed from the private property orientated communities. If they respected our property rights, wonderful. They'd simply have to be outcompeted and their egalitarian nonsense refuted. I doubt that is the case, they clearly view certain forms of property, if not all, as illegitimate, which means there would be conflict that would need to be resolved through violence more often than not. In addition, it is unlikely that many will subscribe to ethical systems that are the same as ours, as I understand it many adhere to utilitarianism, which would not be compatible with our society.
In any case, I fail to see how some silly superficial opposition to the state can be the basis of any sound alliance. Especially when we advocate competing governments and a strict hierarchical society whereas they don't. Moreover we defend capitalism whereas they don't.
meambobbo: What you are saying many people should have issue with. Others can outcompete you in a marketplace, but no one can compete with you for your individual happiness. If I maximize my psychic profit by building auto's with a screwdriver, even if I can't sell them profitably on the market, that is purely and simply a matter of individual preference. Your ideal community will not be someone else's ideal community, simply because your ideals are not the ideals of others. Economic success means nothing if all I want is to meet sexually unrestrained heathens.
You missed the point. Yes, you can build a car with nothing but a screwdriver and wood. You'd be outcompeted on the market place though, just like communities built around certain lifestyles would be outcompeted by others. You could choose to live in one of those communities practising heavy drug use and ignoring the family and the church. It wouldn't last long though and I doubt such lifestyles would truly bring anybody happiness.
meambobbo: still feel this entire argument against ansocs is paranoia. I don't support socialism, but I do support anarchism;
It's a shame that most self decribed anarcho capitalists don't fit under the term anarchism. We're not anarchists, we're multiarchists.
wombatron: As far as capital theory goes, Carson has an article on mutualist capital theory here. And for class theory, the only difference between an-caps and mutualists on this point is that many an-caps see parts of the corporate class as being part of the "exploited class", while mutualists would place them firmly in the ruling class. Some an-caps seem to place the welfare-recieving poor in the ruling class, too, but I can't make any sense of that argument.
Its simple really, the state relies on consent, the consent of the poor is bought by welfare. As they make up the majority of the population it's clear that without their support the state would crumble. So yes, they do oppress us and themselves also.
Only, slavery implies that one does not own their own body, on the other hand, in order to sign a contract, one must own their own body.
liberty student:I don't really care what people think of what I choose to call myself. If renaming ourselves was the key to freedom, I might buy it.
Abolishing the state is a difficult idea to swallow. Buying your protection from a competing provider of defense? That's far easier to come to terms with. As such it makes no sense to call ourselves anarchists, multiarchists is more accurate and more sensible.
Multiarchy is non-specific.
I think I am just an anarcho-capitalist. I'm for voluntaryism (no archy without consent) and I'm a capitalist.
I think this is important because it (1) separates me from statists, and (2) separates me from left anarchists.
GilesStratton: Its simple really, the state relies on consent, the consent of the poor is bought by welfare. As they make up the majority of the population it's clear that without their support the state would crumble. So yes, they do oppress us and themselves also.
Right, but it's not just the poor. It's the thousands of state employees. It's the millions of union members. These are the bulk of the people voting, once you get outside of pensioners, which is another organized special interest demographic.
Unfortunately, Wombie is still caught up in believing these people are somehow more innocent than businessmen who may receive state privileges. If you know anything about how Unions or Associations work with government, they are just as bad as GE or Exxon.
GilesStratton: Juan: I see you're unable to give a coherent explanation of the benefits provided by fairy tales, aka, revealed religion ? No, I just can't be bothered.
You'll find out sooner or later though.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
liberty student:Unfortunately, Wombie is still caught up in believing these people are somehow more innocent than businessmen who may receive state privileges. If you know anything about how Unions or Associations work with government, they are just as bad as GE or Exxon.
I don't think I've ever supported statist unions here. Anytime I talk about unions, I'm talking about them like they were before they were co-opted by the state (not intended towards you, LS, but: right-libertarians can whine about "militancy" all they want; company bosses engaged in as just as much or more violence than unions did, and that is just as bad an argument against them as it is against unions). Also, it can be argued that most of the privileges given to unions go to the organizers and bosses, rather than the rank-and-file members.
And besides all that, receiving state privileges isn't necessarily immoral. It won't exist in a free market by definition, though, so it is something that must enter the economic analysis of free markets.
Juan: GilesStratton: Juan: I see you're unable to give a coherent explanation of the benefits provided by fairy tales, aka, revealed religion ? No, I just can't be bothered. Translation : I'm lying and I know it. You'll find out sooner or later though. What ? A miracle ? Will the gods turn me into a frog ? Or maybe I'll burn in hell ? I'd so love to be enlightened by your divine knowledge... In a free market church and family orientated cultural conservative orientated lifestyles would outcompete the rest, yes. Lovely. Here's anther unfounded assertion, as valid as yours : In a free market pigs will fly.
If only you weren't so predictable you might by less boring.
liberty student: Multiarchy is non-specific. I think I am just an anarcho-capitalist. I'm for voluntaryism (no archy without consent) and I'm a capitalist. I think this is important because it (1) separates me from statists, and (2) separates me from left anarchists.
So add capitalism as a suffix. You're not an anarchist, you just advocate voluntary rulers, not a complete lack of.
I view the poor and the other groups you mentioned in very much the same light as I do big buisness, it's just that, it makes no sense to whine about their poverty when one consides that they bring it upon themselves through a lack of moral and intellectual strength.