Robin: You haven't even read the book. In participatory economics, people can leave the system anytime that they want.
You haven't even read the book. In participatory economics, people can leave the system anytime that they want.
I've spent more than an hour reading up on it online at the link you provided.
People can leave. That's cool. Do they get to take a share of the capital with them when they leave? If they have to leave capital goods behind, do they get a share of the future production from those goods? If they brought capital goods to the group, can they take what they brought when they leave?
I didn't see a lot in there about dispute resolution.
I believe in Non-Aggression because I respect property rights. I have no right to another's property, and thus I have no right to their person since they own themselves. From what I have read about ParEcon, there is no provision for property rights, so I am wondering what a non-aggression principle under ParEcon would be based upon.
Also, you didn't refute what I said. You only indicated I made my claim ignorantly, not that it is incorrect. Would you care to dispute it?
liberty student: Like assuming water is wet, people who believe capitalists are evil and private property ownership does not exist (and thus, the right not to be aggressed against doesn't exist) are most likely to attack ancaps.
Like assuming water is wet, people who believe capitalists are evil and private property ownership does not exist (and thus, the right not to be aggressed against doesn't exist) are most likely to attack ancaps.
No, they (by "they" I mean most an-socs) believe our current system of capitalism is evil. We have never seen true free market capitalism in this country.
They enjoy living together in co-op communities. Many of them already do. They don't want to take your property. They might invite you to join them, but if you don't want to then just ignore them. I don't see why you're so hostile towards the leftist anarchists. Did one of them piss you off at some time in your life? Have you ever spoken with one face to face?
Robin:No, they (by "they" I mean most an-socs) believe our current system of capitalism is evil. We have never seen true free market capitalism in this country.
We currently have mixed economies. The closer you get to socialism, the greater the gap between rich and poor, the more poverty and the lower the standard of living. The closer you get to capitalism (free market) the more prosperity, efficicency and social justice you have.
Robin:They don't want to take your property.
Right, but they also endorse and live by a ideology that doesn't recognize my right to my property, correct?
Robin:I don't see why you're so hostile towards the leftist anarchists.
Because I think they are counterproductive to the liberty movement as a whole. If we're going to impose any standards on what constitutes a good alliance, as an ancap, as an anarchist and as a libertarian, property rights have to be close. I don't give a crap about anything else to be honest. Property rights are the foundation of liberty.
Robin:Did one of them piss you off at some time in your life? Have you ever spoken with one face to face?
Yeah, I've spoken to some. I don't have a problem with the individuals. I have a problem with the ideology. To me, it's just like statism. There is no individual. There is only the group. That is the justification for war, for regulation, for discrimination, for redistribution etc. I don't know that I will ever be able to reconcile it with what I believe.
liberty student: People can leave. That's cool. Do they get to take a share of the capital with them when they leave? If they have to leave capital goods behind, do they get a share of the future production from those goods? If they brought capital goods to the group, can they take what they brought when they leave?
Those specifics depend on the individual participatory businesses. They would compete for an-socs (or anyone else) to join them.
liberty student: Also, you didn't refute what I said. You only indicated I made my claim ignorantly, not that it is incorrect. Would you care to dispute it?
Ok, you said that ParEcon says, "Markets are bad. Free choices by individuals are bad."
What do you mean by "markets"? ParEcon is about reforming markets not abolishing them. And that second part about free choices is totally incorrect. People join participatory businesses and use consensus because they want to know what other people need. They aren't giving up their free choice. They choose to be part of the participatory economy.
liberty student:even if it is common (sed contra audentior ito) in one small aspect.
Robin:It's not some "small aspect" that we are all against the state. It is the fundamental belief that all anarchists share. It's what sets us apart from all the sheep in the world.
I can be against the state because I want to be King. That doesn't make me your ally.
Robin:Anyone who is against all coercion is your ally.
Robin, you seem like a very nice person. I'm sure you are against coercion. But many anarcho-socialists are not. They believe that coercion is inevitable, it's who wields it and for what end that makes them different than the statists. Basically, the ends justify the means.
Socialism is inherently a coercive system. Participatory socialism is an oxymoron in my opinion. You always have to keep a group of people who produce more than they consume to subsidize those who under produce. Now some people are all noble and egalitarian like that, but the notion of carrying everyone else, but having an equal say not proportionate to your output, well eventually people get real pissed off about that.
liberty student:Yeah, but I don't understand why you make this point. Of course socialists don't want to take responsibility for the outcomes of socialism, any more than they are willing to admit that free trades in an open market are a key component of individual liberty. Or that man is not a selfless creature who acts not in his own self-interest.
As one of my much earlier posts said, they can believe whatever they want, illusion or reality, but they do so at their own cost. To attempt to plunder the productive would come at even greater cost, perhaps their lives. The ultimate manifestation of this is a peasant's revolt. Are those usually successful? And they are against the state, not the productive classes of society. In other words, who cares? If the starving socialists come to plunder us, they'll realize their survival is better-ensured by asking us for jobs.
liberty student: You join an ancoc group. Your capital is absorbed into communal capital. Vote occurs, you're not happy. You try to leave with your capital (which you relinquished ownership to by joining the group), violence ensues. Or you stay, because you cannot survive outside the commune without your capital.
You join an ancoc group. Your capital is absorbed into communal capital. Vote occurs, you're not happy. You try to leave with your capital (which you relinquished ownership to by joining the group), violence ensues. Or you stay, because you cannot survive outside the commune without your capital.
When you join the syndicate, unless you are extremely foolish, you will demand certain pre-conditions through free contract; and if the syndicate violates these at any time, you hire someone else to enforce your contract, or you enforce it yourself. If you do not reserve some rights or conditions that cannot be democratically dismissed, that's a big error on your part.
Of course, rights are inviolable. You may say that socialism violates property rights. This isn't true. Property can be freely exchanged and communally owned. This is possible due to property rights. If you freely exchange it to the collective when joining, you rights to property remain intact. It is only your ownership of your former property that is impaired. To demand it back when leaving is a violation of the property rights of others, unless this was contractually agreed upon beforehand.
Of course, people violate contracts. In enforcement of contracts, yes, violence can ensue; but if that's necessary for justice, then that's just the way the wind blows. Or maybe things can be peacefully worked out, especially if the syndicate faces a power greater than its own, who it could not defend against without suffering greater costs than compliance.
Finally, you have replaced the Marxist myth of wage slavery with capital slavery, another myth. You are essentially arguing that unforeseen negative outcomes destroy civil society. I beg to differ. People suffer investment losses daily. Risk is an essential part of the capitalist system, just as is submitting yourself and your property to democratic control. If the losses continually outweigh the benefits, your continued participation in the system should be abandoned. IE - you should accept your losses without resorting to violence, just as a capitalist would when he makes a bad investment.
liberty student:When you lose a vote, that is where the crying starts. The entire socialist paradigm is based upon compulsion, not market cooperation. You seem to continue to confuse the two. Go read up on ParEcon. Markets are bad. Free choices by individuals are bad.
Again, simply because I don't like decision A, doesn't mean I am compelled to accept it. You are mixing coercion with preference. You are claiming that one can "voluntarily" accept the benefits, then claim the costs are compulsion where he disagrees. Indeed one may disagree with a collective choice, but he retains his individual freedom of choice between remaining a part of or abandoning this collective. If he chose to relinquish his property ownership when he joined the collective, that is yet another free individual choice. Accepting a job where I have to work Sundays doesn't mean I no longer have free will on Sunday. It simply means I prefer my pay over my Sunday freedom, because I am free to quit whenever I want.
liberty student: Yes, because your example never addresses the resolution of the property rights issue. When you have no absolute right to property, you're not in power.
Yes, because your example never addresses the resolution of the property rights issue. When you have no absolute right to property, you're not in power.
Sure it does. Might makes rights, not logic. The reason rights exist is because most men are motivated to defend them and pursue their violation with force. Rights work into a framework for a free, civil society by creating consistently logical sets of rights. So long as everyone's rights are not broken, there is no justification nor motivation to pursue violence. The facts are, however, that rights are violated all the time. Thus, we desire a system where violence is more successful in defending rights than in violating rights. Without such a system, arguments about rights are simply laughable.
I think we would agree that anarcho-capitalism best describes this system. The fact that others believe anarcho-socialism is better is not important. Until they actually resort to violation of rights (or threat thereof), there are no moral grounds, or even logical motivation, to use violence against them. That doesn't mean they must violate our rights. If they violate the rights of their own members, we (some anarcho-capitalist defense/justice agency) could establish justice for them. We could do this for a fee, or pro bono. However, where we use violence, we must do so openly to the public and ensure we are pursuing justice. Else, we face the same fate, while simultaneously facing market losses (I am assuming the public would not seek defense/justice services from unpredictable gangland defense agencies whose encounters would escalate into quasi-warfare, inflicting massive collateral damage upon society). Attempting to establish justice when the supposed victim has not claimed to have his rights violated, is borderline, if not outright, statism. A clear example of this are laws against narcotic consumption, where the victim and perpetrator are the same person.
You are arguing logic, law, and ideals. I am arguing about practical enforcement of the same principles. If you abandon your rights to property by joining a collective, you still have power over that property through democratic voting. In addition, you gain the power to compell others to action, so long as they wish to remain part of the collective. This doesn't mean you have statist power, as you cannot prevent them from abandoning the collective.
I am not drawn to anarchism because of the logical consistency of free market principles, which require anarchism to be fully realized. Rather, I favor it because I think it would best defend these principles, without ever fully realizing them.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Liberty Student,
Property rights exist under anarcho-socialism. Assume everyone operates their own, one-man collective. This arrangement of various collectives is no different from market capitalism. No collective (or individual) can coerce the use, output, or free exchange of another's property. This differs from state socialism, where all capital is forcefully stolen by the state, and all citizens are compelled by force to remain part of the single collective.
What you fail to see is that the property ownership is a communal rather than individual arrangement. Collective ownership is is no different from corporate stock ownership. You are entitled to a share of output and get a say about how the capital is used. If you don't like it, you can leave; but you must leave upon the pre-conditions for membership/stock ownership. You have no right to demand ownership of your share of the capital.
Do you not believe in communal property ownership? Rothbard and Mises would have severe qualms with that position. Mises once said the fundamental difference between a capitalist and socialist nation is a functional stock market for capital.
So long as ansocs do not believe in forced membership into some "master collective" and that individual property rights exist in all forms of goods, they are our allies.
meambobbo:When you join the syndicate, unless you are extremely foolish, you will demand certain pre-conditions through free contract; and if the syndicate violates these at any time, you hire someone else to enforce your contract, or you enforce it yourself. If you do not reserve some rights or conditions that cannot be democratically dismissed, that's a big error on your part.
Nobody plans on getting married twice.
meambobbo:Do you not believe in communal property ownership? Rothbard and Mises would have severe qualms with that position. Mises once said the fundamental difference between a capitalist and socialist nation is a functional stock market for capital.
Oh great, now communism is like the stock market. Or rather, shareholding is socialism. Unbelievable.
liberty student: Nobody plans on getting married twice.
Ever heard of a pre-nuptial agreement? Despite planning, half of marriages end. Does this mean property rights cease to exist? No. Property ownership is simply rearranged during its transition from its communal marriage to its individuals.
liberty student: Oh great, now communism is like the stock market. Or rather, shareholding is socialism. Unbelievable.
Not really. One's power regarding the stock market is generally based upon the size of investment, seeking to maximize calculable profits from market sales, while a democratic commune is democracy-based, seeking the approval of the majority of its members. That's a huge difference. One vote per share is not one vote per head, and the ultimate goals are different.
The fact that common ownership of property among many individuals exists in both cases makes them similar, however.
Robin:Those specifics depend on the individual participatory businesses. They would compete for an-socs (or anyone else) to join them.
Ok, but this doesn't jive with what I was reading. The gist of which, was that capital goods are public goods.
Robin:What do you mean by "markets"? ParEcon is about reforming markets not abolishing them.
1.
In any case, the basic model called capitalism because of its intrinsic tendencies of private ownership of means of production, hierarchical corporate divisions of labor, and competitive markets, not only doesn’t facilitate solidarity, diversity, equity, and participatory self-management, it violates each of these values producing virtually the exact opposite.
Robin:And that second part about free choices is totally incorrect.
Capitalist economics revolves around private ownership of the means of production, market allocation, and corporate divisions of labor. Remuneration is for property, power, and, to a limited extent, contribution to output, all causing huge differences in wealth and income. Class divisions arise due to differential property ownership and due to differential access to empowered versus obedient work. Huge differences exist in decision-making influence and in quality of circumstances. Buyers and sellers one-up each other, and the broader public reaps what self-interested competition sows. Antisocial trajectories of investment and personality development result. Decision-making ignores or exploits ecological decay. Reduced ecological diversity results.
I like how he says that self-interested market behaviour leads to antisocial trajectories.
2.
In a new economy consistent with just international relations, all citizens own each workplace in equal part. This ownership conveys no special right or income. Bill Gates won't own a massive proportion of the means by which software is produced. We will all own it, or symmetrically, no one will own it. Ownership becomes moot regarding distribution of income, wealth, or power.
Does this sound like "only within the anarcho-socialist commune, where everyone is participating voluntarily"? The beginning of the article where he endorses the WTO and IMF as originally being progressive made me ill.
You are an anarchist, but the guys behind ParEcon clearly are not.
Robin:They aren't giving up their free choice. They choose to be part of the participatory economy.
This is what we would call a free market. But I think I showed that the ParEcon rhetoric is pretty anti-free market.
meambobbo:Ever heard of a pre-nuptial agreement? Despite planning, half of marriages end. Does this mean property rights cease to exist? No. Property ownership is simply rearranged during its transition from its communal marriage to its individuals.
You're completely missing the point.
meambobbo:The fact that common ownership of property among many individuals exists in both cases makes them similar, however.
Like how chocolate and vanilla are both ice cream flavours, even if they look, taste and smell totally different.
How do you define "syndicalism"?
Worker ownership of the means of production. That can easily be incorporated into the market.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
liberty student:You're completely missing the point.
Then explain why pre-nuptial agreements exist. This seems exactly like the point. A clear plan of how to transition joint ownerships to individual ownerships..
You are saying that one's entire belief system is based upon their idea of economics. Most people could care less about economics. They just want to live well. With a free market, consisting of capitalists individuals, syndicates, and whatever else, most people would take the exact opposite of the approach you just described. They would not discover a philosophy and embrace it heart in hand. They would experiment, listen to the opinions of others. And their ultimate preferences wouldn't simply be based upon what delivers the most pudding. Being your own boss can be rewarding as well.
Such a social scenario would simultaneously serve to destroy most economic myths that have existed throughout history. This would be a welcome blessing to me. Then you would complain about the socialists coming into capitalist society to loot it. Do you see refugees from socialist nations coming here (USA) to loot, or to embrace capitalism and work hard?
liberty student:Like how chocolate and vanilla are both ice cream flavours, even if they look, taste and smell totally different.
I am amused that this is your response. We have a common agreement - when someone can simply claim the property of others as their own, or indirectly do so by regulating how they use or exchange it, then we fail to have property rights.
What we fail to agree upon is whether you think property rights can exist communally/jointly. I am assuming that you are saying they do when you own stock in a corporation, but not when they are owned by the workers of a syndicate. Can you give me an adult explanation as to why they wouldn't in the latter expample?
You would say that the more productive worker in the syndicate subsidizes the less productive worker. This may not be true, per se, even though it would probably tend to if there was direct democracy, which a syndicate might not have. Even so, that does not mean the more productive's property is taxed. He never owns more than the syndicate doles out. That is his agreement with the syndicate, and in turn he gets to use its capital in cooperation with the other workers. He may consider this little different from owning stock in and working for his company, then donating some of his earnings to the less productive and less paid co-workers.
Additionally, syndicates may indeed have plans for termination of business relations. To ensure against violence, this seems wise. The exit plan for stock ownership is to sell it via an exchange. Syndicates could have some objective value in terms of a universal money for their fraction of their contribution to their accumulated capital. In other words, they'd buy them out. If they were super-marxist, they'd buy him out with their own products; and we'd probably agree that would create serious divisibility, portability, etc. problems. That's why money exists, Karl.
Then you may counter - but they would simply refuse. And I would counter, then he could bring his case to the public, via some defense agency, in an attempt to attain justice, which is the purpose of anarchism - to ensure that those providing justice are not free to pursue injustice without facing more serious consequences than they currently are.
What parEcon seems to be arguing is that socialism would be a more beneficial form of economy. Does it claim that capitalists outside of a socialist nation/syndicate/whatever are somehow restraining them economically, or simply the workers that those capitalists employ? Does it claim the state prevents them from practicing their ideal form of economy? What Robin seems to be saying is that the state, not capitalists, are preventing the practice of free market syndicalism, with each syndicate free to operate its capital how it chooses, not how the state tells them, and free to enjoy the fruits of their labor, rather than being taxed away by the state. In other words, property rights. I would agree.
What Robin and parecon are additionally saying is that capitalism is restraining workers from a more productive and enjoyable living. We would both disagree with them here.
But we all agree that workers should be free to choose whether they work for a capitalist enterprise of they work for a socialist syndicate. Property rights enforcement would be agreeably enforced by either capitalist enterprises or socialist syndicates, done in public view. Most of the time, this would be peaceful between these two groups. If a capitalist agency violates the property rights of a syndicate, other capitalist agencies or socialist agencies could be called to attain justice. And vice versa. Ultimately, justice is enforced by the market.
...or are you a minarchist?
meambobbo: ...or are you a minarchist?
I stopped taking you seriously here.
"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
Stranger: Words and labels are important in politics, and I believe the terms "anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist" are the most misleading, inappopriate words to describe what total emancipation from the government produces. As studies into framing have shown, if we start with a term that is immediately associated with something bad, we are not going to get far into the debate. While anarchists in the 19th century sense desired the total abolition of laws protecting private property; we desire the very opposite. To frame ourselves as anarchists is therefore not very sensible. From an etymological point of view, an-archon means that there is no rule, while mono-archon means that there is a single ruler. The political end of liberty is to abolish the monopoly on the production of law and order, therefore the correct word should be pluri-archon or multi-archon. What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism. This affects the political strategy that we ought to employ as well. For example, I cannot see Ron Paul proposing to abolish the government of the United States. However I can see him campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would allow competition in the provision of security and justice. While we're at it we should abolish the word libertarian as well. It was a codename for anarchist when anarchists were banned in France, and it's just plain ugly in its english aspect.
Words and labels are important in politics, and I believe the terms "anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist" are the most misleading, inappopriate words to describe what total emancipation from the government produces. As studies into framing have shown, if we start with a term that is immediately associated with something bad, we are not going to get far into the debate.
While anarchists in the 19th century sense desired the total abolition of laws protecting private property; we desire the very opposite. To frame ourselves as anarchists is therefore not very sensible. From an etymological point of view, an-archon means that there is no rule, while mono-archon means that there is a single ruler. The political end of liberty is to abolish the monopoly on the production of law and order, therefore the correct word should be pluri-archon or multi-archon.
What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism.
This affects the political strategy that we ought to employ as well. For example, I cannot see Ron Paul proposing to abolish the government of the United States. However I can see him campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would allow competition in the provision of security and justice.
While we're at it we should abolish the word libertarian as well. It was a codename for anarchist when anarchists were banned in France, and it's just plain ugly in its english aspect.
I finally get what you are saying and I agree with you. I am not an anarchist. I do not wish an end to government. What I want is an end to government without consent.
I do not think "multiarcho-capitalism" really tells people what I believe though.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
How 'bout "Individual Sovereigntism"?
Nitroadict:I stopped taking you seriously here.
Why? Why are you being excessively vague? The only reason I have continued this conversation is because I don't think Liberty Student understands how anarchism works.
What Liberty Student seems to be saying is that he's not an anarchist. He has moral qualms not simply about allying with socialists of any kind, but even tolerating their existence. I would agree that if they sought to impose socialism onto others or their property, they would be statists and their aggression would not be tolerated. But he seeks implicitly to impose statism onto anarcho-socialists by refusing to recognize the property rights of syndicates, expressed as communal ownership. He considers such to be theft.
How is that not minarchism?
As far as anarchism vs. panarchy vs. anarchy vs. multiarchy, etc., I find it is more effective to call it "self-governance". When people inevitably say, "Aren't we self-governed?" I reply, "No, you are allowed a very minute mechanism to direct the monopoly government, but you cannot refuse to be governed by it, without it intentionally and directly harming your life, freedom, and property."
Individual sovereignty is "self-governance". They are synonomous. It is the tyranny of state sovereignty that should be opposed by any and all anarchists. Sovereignty lies solely in the individual and any form of governance should derive its authority from the universal support of its individual members. By what social, economic, or philosophical means such governance expresses that authority is of no real importance so long as individual sovereignty is maintained.
I agree. However, if I were to say that to an average person, they'd ask me what sovereignty is...but they wouldn't really pay attention to the answer. If they don't know what it is already, it must be unimportant.
Isn't that actually an advantage of the term? It has none of the social stigma of either anarchism or capitalism, and actually speaks to the crux of the issue: voluntary social structure based on an axiom of individual liberty.
Does the "average person" give a damn about any of these labels? No, but they do have an adverse reaction to a number of the words associated with them.
meambobbo: Nitroadict:I stopped taking you seriously here. Why? Why are you being excessively vague? The only reason I have continued this conversation is because I don't think Liberty Student understands how anarchism works. What Liberty Student seems to be saying is that he's not an anarchist. He has moral qualms not simply about allying with socialists of any kind, but even tolerating their existence. I would agree that if they sought to impose socialism onto others or their property, they would be statists and their aggression would not be tolerated. But he seeks implicitly to impose statism onto anarcho-socialists by refusing to recognize the property rights of syndicates, expressed as communal ownership. He considers such to be theft. How is that not minarchism? As far as anarchism vs. panarchy vs. anarchy vs. multiarchy, etc., I find it is more effective to call it "self-governance". When people inevitably say, "Aren't we self-governed?" I reply, "No, you are allowed a very minute mechanism to direct the monopoly government, but you cannot refuse to be governed by it, without it intentionally and directly harming your life, freedom, and property."
I seriously do not recall LS saying he will enforce his views over an-soc's, only that they're would be an eventually dispute between the two, in a stateless society that may not have the mechanisms (aside from arbitration) to deal with incompatible views of property rights (this in itself is a messy problem & has been or is being addressed in a parallel thread concerning the possibility of meta-ethic, meta-politics, & meta-property rights laws. You are new however, so maybe you did not know about that...).A minarchist wouldn't call a spade a spade; a minarchist would still advocate coercion in an unclawed form. A minarchist would not bother seeing the problem of non- an-socs (for the sake of the lack of a current good term) & an-socs living parallel one another in a stateless society. A minarchist may not even make the option of "opting out" from The State a possibility. My previous comment reflected my view that LS is not minarchist; he may not agree with you, but that doesn't implicitly make him what you think he is. This is further reflected by the modifier in your sentence "...What LS *seems* to be saying...."In regards to that sentence alone, many people on the forums, recently, have questioned utilizing the term anarchist in light of recent events, & the association the word anarchist has with other people who may have Statist tendencies, & are not totally against coercion.I thought that would obvious since this is the same thread in which said conversation has ocurred, regarding the possibility of a different term and/or label that those previously associated with anarcho-capitalism / market-anarchistsm, could align themselves with to more acurratley reflect their stances. Many self-proclaimed anarchists do not believe in strong property rights; I do, so I do not consider myself an anarchist, but a Voluntaryist. In fact, many anarchists I've spoken too have always had a pet peeve with anarcho-capitalists, not merley on the basis of the term itself, but because of what those anarchists percieved as a contradiction to anarchism regarding the stance on property rights. Typically, many anarchists who disagreed outright with said property rights tended to be more Socialist/Communist/Syndalcist.In light of the above, can you can see why I object to your charge of minarchism, then?
I find that if I do not quote my opposite directly and specifically in an argument, sometimes I run the risk of putting words in their mouth.
It's a bad habit and I do it as well, although I try not to.
I've asked someone to point out where I justified coercion, where I said the ansocs should not be allowed to follow their vision. I have quoted directly from the ParEcon founder, and seed document in response to the question of why I believe it is not in the best interest of ancaps to work with ansocs.
Wanting to get rid of the state is not enough. I want to get rid of the state to get to a post state world. And I'm in no rush to help people establish pre-state structures in that post state world so we can go through this all over again. I view democracy as a state, or pre-state institution. Should they be able to do it? Sure. Am I going to help them do it? EFF no!
Libertarians, ancaps, austrians believe that our democracy is the market. Ansocs have a more permanent institution in mind. You don't withdraw if you don't like a scheme the majority agrees upon. Again, socialism is coercive, otherwise it wouldn't work (as well as it is understood to work in the first place).
I apollogize for being stuck on the concept of sovereignty, and I realize I have jumped into this discussion in the middle of some heated tangential debates, but I think there's a point being missed.
The problem of any post-state philosophy is obviously the notion of how sovereignty is dictated. Currently all political and social philosophy besides anarcho-capitalism fail in this matter, because each relies on some variant of collectivism, which is inherently statism. Only a philosophy of individual sovereignty allows for a variance of social structures not inherent to some form of coersion and thus statism. Anyone truly devoted to erradication of the state, regardless of their moral or economic perspective, should also be devoted not just to individual liberty, but it's absolute expression: individual sovereignty.
Starting from such a position, all sorts of social contracts are possible from a purely voluntary perspective.
liberty student:Wanting to get rid of the state is not enough. I want to get rid of the state to get to a post state world. And I'm in no rush to help people establish pre-state structures in that post state world so we can go through this all over again. I view democracy as a state, or pre-state institution. Should they be able to do it? Sure. Am I going to help them do it? EFF no!
I agree with most of this. I wouldn't want to help anyone form socialist syndicates, nor encourage anyone to join them. However, I would like to help our cause by freeing ourselves from our current state. I think this allows a limited degree of cooperation with ansocs, at least those with the opinions of Robin, who we seem to have a common understanding of property rights with.
I also agree with taking precaution of pre-state institutions. However, I think we are missing something, which is that pre-state institutions were tribal, occasionally relied on violence to survive, and geographically-centered. This is not the way of the world anymore. Between the industrial revolution and the infomation revolution, social orders do not need to be geographically based or even occasionally revert to violence for survival. This strongly limits transaction costs of switching economic or political systems.
I think any institution that uses force to do its work is dangerous as a pre-state institution, even a capitalist defense agency. This is particularly true if they are large or hold a natural monopoly (which would be extremely improbable).
I think you are fearing the case where 50+% of the population decides to enter a socialist organization that is particularly difficult, economically or socially, to leave. This would indeed be a dangerous situation; however, I simply do not think anarchism could produce this. On the other hand, I think socialist institutions would generally shrink rather than gain members, and the total number of syndicates would multiply quickly. I also think the total number of syndicate members would be a super-minority of the population.
I apologize if I have put words in your mouth. I just think we generally agree on more than this thread has led us to believe.
Nitroadict:In light of the above, can you can see why I object to your charge of minarchism, then?
Yes, thank you.
Nitroadict:I seriously do not recall LS saying he will enforce his views over an-soc's, only that they're would be an eventually dispute between the two, in a stateless society that may not have the mechanisms (aside from arbitration) to deal with incompatible views of property rights (this in itself is a messy problem & has been or is being addressed in a parallel thread concerning the possibility of meta-ethic, meta-politics, & meta-property rights laws. You are new however, so maybe you did not know about that...).
I am new and would be interested in reading it.
My response to dispute is that there will always be dispute. If the opposing sides wish to escalate it into violent war, then it seems the more powerful side will win. Given the industrial and technological nature of modern warfare, I would assume the more capitalist side of any dispute would usually win.
Might I step into this discussion late and add the idea of renaming anarcho-capitalism: "eklarchy" or "eklektarchy?"
It combines the Greek words "eklektos" and "archon." Eklektos means, in Greek, "the freedom to choose." Archon, in Greek, of course, refers to leader or ruler. As you can probably infer, eklektos is also the root word of "eclectic" (which means "composed of elements drawn from various sources.") I think "eklarchy" is a really etymologically sound word, as it separates our philosophy from "anarchy" (no regulations or authority), and embodies the notion that we support having orderly rules we agree to follow, and some type of authority to answer to, but that we should be able to freely choose which rulers/authorities we pay for, and even that the authority we submit to be composed of elements drawn from various sources (contracting with one firm for our defense/security, another for our legal recourse, etc.).
Thoughts?
"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
Freiheit: Might I step into this discussion late and add the idea of renaming anarcho-capitalism: "eklarchy" or "eklektarchy?" It combines the Greek words "eklektos" and "archon." Eklektos means, in Greek, "the freedom to choose." Archon, in Greek, of course, refers to leader or ruler. As you can probably infer, eklektos is also the root word of "eclectic" (which means "composed of elements drawn from various sources.") I think "eklarchy" is a really etymologically sound word, as it separates our philosophy from "anarchy" (no regulations or authority), and embodies the notion that we support having orderly rules we agree to follow, and some type of authority to answer to, but that we should be able to freely choose which rulers/authorities we pay for, and even that the authority we submit to be composed of elements drawn from various sources (contracting with one firm for our defense/security, another for our legal recourse, etc.). Thoughts?
I like eklektarchy. I could support this. It also has nice "open minded" feel to it. So this would make me an eklektarchist? I like it.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
ryanpatgray: Freiheit: Might I step into this discussion late and add the idea of renaming anarcho-capitalism: "eklarchy" or "eklektarchy?" It combines the Greek words "eklektos" and "archon." Eklektos means, in Greek, "the freedom to choose." Archon, in Greek, of course, refers to leader or ruler. As you can probably infer, eklektos is also the root word of "eclectic" (which means "composed of elements drawn from various sources.") I think "eklarchy" is a really etymologically sound word, as it separates our philosophy from "anarchy" (no regulations or authority), and embodies the notion that we support having orderly rules we agree to follow, and some type of authority to answer to, but that we should be able to freely choose which rulers/authorities we pay for, and even that the authority we submit to be composed of elements drawn from various sources (contracting with one firm for our defense/security, another for our legal recourse, etc.). Thoughts? I like eklektarchy. I could support this. It also has nice "open minded" feel to it. So this would make me an eklektarchist? I like it.
This sounds similar to panarchy, but the explanation makes good sense. I would definitley consider it myself.
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.
"Panarchy" literally means "All rule," which makes me think of everyone ruling everyone, or everyone having authority over everyone. Maybe other people won't think the same, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "panarchy."
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. "Panarchy" literally means "All rule," which makes me think of everyone ruling everyone, or everyone having authority over everyone. Maybe other people won't think the same, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "panarchy."
Panarchy does not mean what you think it means. What you describe as "Panarchy" sounds much more like Global Fascism or Global Dictatorship.
"PANARCHY: The realization of as many different and autonomous communities as are wanted by volunteers for themselves, all non-territorially coexisting, side by side and intermingled, as their members are, in the same territory or even world-wide and yet separated from each other by personal laws, administrations and jurisdiction, as different churches are or ought to be."
Essentially, anarchism on a global scale, at least when taking the above & the sites' other sources into context.
meambobbo:I agree with most of this. I wouldn't want to help anyone form socialist syndicates, nor encourage anyone to join them. However, I would like to help our cause by freeing ourselves from our current state. I think this allows a limited degree of cooperation with ansocs, at least those with the opinions of Robin, who we seem to have a common understanding of property rights with.
How so? 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.
If "anarcho capitalists" keep using silly terms such as that and refuse to distant ourselves from the term "anarchist", we won't be taken seriously. We'll continue to be associated with: bomb throwing thugs, punks and utopians.
meambobbo:I think you are fearing the case where 50+% of the population decides to enter a socialist organization that is particularly difficult, economically or socially, to leave. This would indeed be a dangerous situation; however, I simply do not think anarchism could produce this. On the other hand, I think socialist institutions would generally shrink rather than gain members, and the total number of syndicates would multiply quickly. I also think the total number of syndicate members would be a super-minority of the population.
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.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Why not go with multiarchy as suggest in the original post. It isn't too different from what people know and it captures what we believe in perfectly: competing governments.
GilesStratton:Essentially if some people did wish to form egalitarian communes, they'd be outcompeted by the well armed, richer "capitalists".
...at the end of the day I'll be outcompeted because I produce a superior product.
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."
GilesStratton:If "anarcho capitalists" keep using silly terms such as that and refuse to distant ourselves from the term "anarchist", we won't be taken seriously. We'll continue to be associated with: bomb throwing thugs, punks and utopians.
Juan:Well armed...? Maybe the right-wing-nuts, sorry! cultural conservatives will preemptively shoot the 'hippies' ? Well, we all know killing potential criminals is self-defense and is in line with culturally conservative values
What?
Juan:You mean like revealed religion
Yes.
Juan:bigotry
Depends what you mean.
Juan:Out of curiosity...How do envision the future ? Do you think, for instance, that the asian world will either embrace catholicism and western conservatism or else die ?
I think that a free society will tend towards cultural conservatism, yes. Do I think the asian world will? Not in the near future, no.
GilesStratton:What?
GS:Essentially if some people did wish to form egalitarian communes, they'd be outcompeted by the well armed, richer "capitalists".
GS: J: You mean like revealed religion Yes.
J: You mean like revealed religion
I think that a free society will tend towards cultural conservatism, yes.
Do I think the asian world will? Not in the near future, no.
Juan:So, what's the relevance of 'well armed' here ? Unless you think that hippies are wild dangerous animals or something...?
Wild animals? Perhaps. As for dangerous, no, but that doesn't mean they won't try violating my property rights. In any case, I wasn't talking about hippies.
Juan:Well, why would irrational beliefs in fairy tales, and hypocritical 'morals', outcompete people with a more rational worldview ? When I say hypocritical what I have in mind is, for instance, religious conservatives who cheat on their wives -- there's good of deal of them, you know.
You mean, like libertarians who have started fist fights? So what?
Juan:A rather vague claim...
A vague question.
Juan:But it the long run, it will ? Or else it will be outcompeted ?
Not unless they abolish the state, something I don't see happening anytime soon. Less soon than in the western world that is.
GS: J: Well, why would irrational beliefs in fairy tales, and hypocritical 'morals', outcompete people with a more rational worldview ? When I say hypocritical what I have in mind is, for instance, religious conservatives who cheat on their wives -- there's good of deal of them, you know. You mean, like libertarians who have started fist fights? So what?
J: Well, why would irrational beliefs in fairy tales, and hypocritical 'morals', outcompete people with a more rational worldview ? When I say hypocritical what I have in mind is, for instance, religious conservatives who cheat on their wives -- there's good of deal of them, you know.
GS: J: But it the long run, it will ? Or else it will be outcompeted ? Not unless they abolish the state, something I don't see happening anytime soon. Less soon than in the western world that is.
J: But it the long run, it will ? Or else it will be outcompeted ?