Economics Questions

Re: Community vs. Society

ViennaSausage — Mon, 10 May 2010 16:36:18 GMT

Snowflake:
Ancap doesn't require that you assert your own property rights, just that you don't attack other's.

By any chance, do you have some references for this statement. It's a simple yet interesting take on Ancap.

Re: Community vs. Society

Sieben — Mon, 10 May 2010 16:18:13 GMT

z1235:
Please explain how a "true" Capitalist society could "prevent" any group of people from organizing in any way it sees fit, including a 100% communist commune.

Yeah, actually about half the successful anarchist experiments have been socialist/communist in organization. I would argue that they have really all been anarcho capitalist, because its free association where everyone has voluntarily given up their property rights. Ancap doesn't require that you assert your own property rights, just that you don't attack other's.

Re: Community vs. Society

Sieben — Mon, 10 May 2010 16:16:15 GMT

z1235:
Adoption makes this demonstrably wrong.

Its not wrong. Your observation only proves that we care about other people's children as well, which I fully agree with.

I feel very strong emotional/protectionist impulses when someone brings their baby to the office. Human beings seem to be biologically hardwired to care about kids.

My point is that the state does not have this biological impulse, so the analogy of parent-state is faulty.

Re: Community vs. Society

z1235 — Mon, 10 May 2010 16:10:32 GMT

Libertyandlife:
I think a Capitalist society (a true one) would either prevent a socialist one from rising due to equality, efficiency and prosperity.

Please explain how a "true" Capitalist society could "prevent" any group of people from organizing in any way it sees fit, including a 100% communist commune.

Re: Community vs. Society

Libertyandlife — Mon, 10 May 2010 14:16:06 GMT

I think a Capitalist society (a true one) would either prevent a socialist one from rising due to equality, efficiency and prosperity. Capitalism within socialism has existed in small forms or run by the state itself. That's why currency exists in socialist countries.

Cooperation? Sure, as long as it isn't on economic issues. For example, if Austrian libertarians and socialist libertarian or social democrats want to legalize drugs, I see no problem with organizing together for that purpose. I'm sure as a plus we'd even influence them.

Re: Community vs. Society

z1235 — Mon, 10 May 2010 09:12:03 GMT

Snowflake:
...the only reason parenthood works is because there is a biological imperative to take care of one's offspring.

Adoption makes this demonstrably wrong.

Re: Community vs. Society

The Late Andrew Ryan — Mon, 10 May 2010 01:02:32 GMT

"It is useful to point out that the only reason parenthood works is because there is a biological imperative to take care of one's offspring. This does not carry over to the parent-state."

Furthermore while the calculation problem still exist, it exists with such an excess that it doesnt matter, and furthermore parents are far more likely to know their children, and how to do things directly benefiting them, than the utter chaos of the state which is exceedingly large and discontected to everything.

Re: Community vs. Society

Sieben — Mon, 10 May 2010 00:55:28 GMT

It is useful to point out that the only reason parenthood works is because there is a biological imperative to take care of one's offspring. This does not carry over to the parent-state.

And even parents have to let their children become independent sometime...

Re: Community vs. Society

ViennaSausage — Mon, 10 May 2010 00:51:16 GMT

PirateRothbard:
Another problem with the analogy is that children can't take care of themselves while citizens in a statist nation can make decisions for themselves.

Perhaps the analogy holds, but in a somewhat pejorative manner. From the the statist point of view, people can't make decisions for themselves, and must have government make the decision for them.

Re: Community vs. Society

PirateRothbard — Sun, 09 May 2010 18:14:50 GMT

I'd say you can't really make a good analogy between the family and socialism.

A family is like socialism because parents use force against children, either by spanking them or restraining them from playing with dangerous objects or putting them in their room.

The family can work because there is a parental instinct for a mother(and to a lesser extent, a father) to care for her chilrdren due to evolutionary forces. Rulers don't have this instinct for their subjects.

Another problem with the analogy is that children can't take care of themselves while citizens in a statist nation can make decisions for themselves.

Re: Community vs. Society

z1235 — Sun, 09 May 2010 17:48:43 GMT

ViennaSausage:
Does this imply that families are socialistic by nature? Granted this form of socialism would be voluntary.

On a slight tangent, how does the economics of a family work? The Mom and Dad do all the work, yet the kids get to live off the parents.

Families could be socialist, capitalist, feudalist, communist, for all I care. Forget families, you can enter into whatever voluntary relationship you want with one (or more) people (corporate, cooperative, socialist, communist, door-knob-worshiping, masochist, slave-master, etc.) as long as you leave me and my property alone, i.e. your "entity" enters into strictly voluntary exchanges with the rest of the world. Libertarianism/voluntarism is the ONLY societal structure that allows for such freedoms. Socialism, not so much.

Re: Community vs. Society

The Late Andrew Ryan — Sun, 09 May 2010 17:46:48 GMT

"On a slight tangent, how does the economics of a family work? The Mom and Dad do all the work, yet the kids get to live off the parents"

Yes, and? The parents percieve the benefits of their children recieving a large amount of their income and so they spend it on them. The parents either feel they have a duty that must be met or that the love and enjoyment they recieve from the family is great enough ECT. In today's developed societies there is also the want of many parents to have someone to take care of them when they become old, although admittedly this is mostly a secondary concern, and in more underdeveloped and traditional societies children are a form of financial security when the parents become too old to work.... But for the modern family in the developed region children are simply there for percieved pleasure and love.

Re: Community vs. Society

ViennaSausage — Sun, 09 May 2010 17:25:43 GMT

z1235:
It already does. It's called a family.

Does this imply that families are socialistic by nature? Granted this form of socialism would be voluntary.

On a slight tangent, how does the economics of a family work? The Mom and Dad do all the work, yet the kids get to live off the parents.

Re: Community vs. Society

PirateRothbard — Sun, 09 May 2010 00:07:15 GMT

Can a Socialist community survive within a Capitalistic society? Why or why not?

It already does, it's called a Co-op.

Can a Capitalistic community survive with a Socialistic society? Why or why not?

Absolutely. The socialist government loves capitalist communities, because they want to tax them.

What is the possibility of Free Market Capitalists and Socialists to join forces against Corporatism? Is this feasible?

No. We are very careful who we get into bed with.

Re: Community vs. Society

z1235 — Sat, 08 May 2010 23:22:49 GMT

ViennaSausage:
I am curious to hear others thoughts on the questions poised. The Boaz quote suggests a socialist community can exist within a capitalist society.

It already does. It's called a family. Under libertarianism, a group of people can voluntarily organize and gather into whatever entities and under whatever rules they want, as long as they leave everyone else (and their property) alone, i.e. they only engage in voluntary exchanges with the outside world.