If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

[myrkul]

Another place barter is alive and well is the school cafeteria and recess yard. Kids trade crap all the time.

[1714095471]

1714095471

[1714095471]

1714095471

[1714095471]

1714095471

[1714095471]

1714095471

[KSV]

because history is written by the winner. . . and we all know who won.

[MoonShadow]

because history is written by the winner. . . and we all know who won.

Well, that's also true enough.

[ktttn]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

I didn't say that.

[ktttn]

Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.

You even cannot spell the name of the most famous figure of the entire history of philosophy.

First, are you a German speaker?  Because I don't know of any English definition of "autark" that would make any sense in this context, and even a google search sheds no light.

Uhuuuu. Yes, Swiss German spoken and therefore my English language is loaded with some weakness. But you never heard about autarky/autarkic/autarkical? How is that possible not to find it with google? Am I really discussing with somebody who didn't hear anyting about autarky? That explains a lot.

Second, the above excerpt just sounds insane.  I've never had any interaction with anything that resembles a church mafia (although the state mafia is hard to avoid) and your claim that (I assume) traditional marriage was "for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money" is far from a fact, and you fail to provide any support for the claim.  Your calim is, therefore, quite literally baseless.

I see, you do know really nothing about anarchy and its opposite: the patriarchy. Collectivism/Patriarchy has always been a complicity between state and church (militarism and religion). Without any knowledge of the patriarchy and its  historical genesis, you will never realise what anarchy is (and always has been). Zero chance. For citizens without any knowlege in anarchy and patriarchy, I can recommend to read here:

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html

The problem of unsustainable growth that you refer to has much more to do with the effects of fiat money and fractional reserve lending, further juiced by the past 150 years or so of the industrial oil age, than it does have to do with any actual fault with capitalism or even traditional marriage contracts.  You have identified a longstanding problem of the modern world and completely misinterpreted the underlying causes.

Completely wrong. All empires did expand and grow rampant, whitout any fiat.
You are story telling on the basic of ahistoric science fiction. The non-business-doing, non-patriarchal, anarchistic communities do not grow and expand, because they are self-sufficient and autarkic. No surpluses are produced, as it is the case in capitalism/collectivism, where the surplus is demanded and forced by the state/church.

You seem to have more in common, ideologically,  with a communist hippie commune than you do with any flavor of 'anarchism' for which I am aware.

Indeed, with your ronpaulian pseudo-anarchism I do have nothing in common. It represents nationalism and christianism, the most monstrous hypercollective ever, regardless if he may be less evil than the Bushs and Obamas. On the opposite, I am a representative of the Nature, while you are a representative of a collectivist organisation of economic destruction of the Planet.

I don't think you're going to have much luck finding fellow travelers here.  Bitcoin literally has zero chance of ending the economy.  I really don't think you know what the word means.  Is English your first language?

Yes, very difficult to find real anarchists. If Bitcoin, cryptography and other subversive tools do not speed up the end of collectivism/capitalism/economism, it will end in itself, as all societies did in human history.
 
That's the difference between never growing/expanding anarchistic communities on one side, and growing patriarchal expanding/growing/business doing societies and empires (mafia) on the other (your) side. „They eat themselves.“ (quote: @Biomech)

First off, I've read it before, and he is somewhat full of shit, although not completely.  
He is wise enough  to 'condition' his statements to apply to the modern state of things.  

This is a shitty (to speak in your language) statement of somebody who impressively demonstrated, that he has no knowlegde about history, patriarchy and anarchy. So, the statement is worthless.

You should be very careful in this forum doing what you seem to be trying to do.  You will find that you are not the smartest guy in the room, if you ever were, and most of us cannot be bullshitted.

I knew it: as a collectivist by heart and soul, you think you are speaking not only for yourself, but also for 'most uf us'. Thanks for outing.

Best regards

+1 Id snip this, but I have about five sq inches to work with and regard for page length went out the window long ago.
Seems like procapitalism people really like insults and rebranding.

[ktttn]

The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.

This statement is false.  Many of the modern legal/corporate structures are finely grained in their differences in specifying both the possession and control of the collectively owned and maintained capital of the company.

Using convoluted legalese, some of the "its mine" can appear to be mitigated. In actuality, capital is still withheld from use by those who might use it.

Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.

Only in the sense that said appropration is by force, against the will or consent of those with a prior claim to that capital.  We do have corporate structures that are specificly designed to limit corporate ownership to present and/or former members of the corporate workforce.

That prior claim is invalid and based on imperialism. The workforce has only force to use. Any basic understanding of union politics wlll show this.

Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on
wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?

Can a capitalist enply non-coercive methods to maintain control of his capital?  Yes.  But the strawman you set up above should be set alight, because those are all examples of coercive methods.  Just because the cops are private thugs doesn't make it a non-coercive solution.

The strawman belongs to anarchocapitalists, not me.
Control of private capital requires violent defense.

Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.

How are you going to afford the service robot?

With my liberated community capital. Capital is not bad, capitalism is bad.

I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.

Good God, where do you people come up with this crap?

Derp.
Anarchism has lots of variants. some oppose others. Some are misnomers.

[wdmw]

Classic side issue that An-Cap&Co always struggles with: at what age are they "old enough"?

Old enough for what? Dress themselves? Most kids can do that by five.
Cross the street? 7, maybe 8 for the slow ones.
Drink responsibly? Hell, even some adults aren't mature enough to handle that.
Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

I think the real issue is when can they voluntarily enter into contracts.  For instance, I'm sure my son would have traded 20 years of service for a box of cookies when he was five.

[NewLiberty]

Capital withheld from those that might use it is sensible in the absence of mutual agreement.
I am happy to provide capital to those that use it well for our mutual benefit, and for some meaningful benefit for others.  
I am not so happy when forced to yield it to others by threat.  
This unhappiness is coupled with a sadness in the notion that what I have built is likely to be unappreciated by those that have taken it from me.  

[myrkul]

Classic side issue that An-Cap&Co always struggles with: at what age are they "old enough"?

Old enough for what? Dress themselves? Most kids can do that by five.
Cross the street? 7, maybe 8 for the slow ones.
Drink responsibly? Hell, even some adults aren't mature enough to handle that.
Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

I think the real issue is when can they voluntarily enter into contracts.  For instance, I'm sure my son would have traded 20 years of service for a box of cookies when he was five.

Again, I know adults whom I would not put much past such foolish choices. Maturity isn't magically granted at 18. That's just an arbitrary number our society has selected. And worse, by selecting it, we've prevented those under that age from gaining much responsibility.

[MoonShadow]

The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.

This statement is false.  Many of the modern legal/corporate structures are finely grained in their differences in specifying both the possession and control of the collectively owned and maintained capital of the company.

Using convoluted legalese, some of the "its mine" can appear to be mitigated. In actuality, capital is still withheld from use by those who might use it.

The withholding of capital (in this case, the growing forest and the land it grows upon) is using it.  In one sense, it's savings.  In another sense, the growing forest itself is capital at work.  Seriously, you guys don't understand what you are speaking about.

Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.

Only in the sense that said appropration is by force, against the will or consent of those with a prior claim to that capital.  We do have corporate structures that are specificly designed to limit corporate ownership to present and/or former members of the corporate workforce.

That prior claim is invalid and based on imperialism.

Says you.

The workforce has only force to use.

Bullshit.  I am not a slave to my employer.  If anything, I am a slave to my government to the same percentage that they take my income in taxes.

Any basic understanding of union politics wlll show this.

More bullshit.  I'm presently a member in two different unions, and own stock in both the company that I work for and several other companies.  You are not prevented from doing the same.

Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on
wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?

Can a capitalist enply non-coercive methods to maintain control of his capital?  Yes.  But the strawman you set up above should be set alight, because those are all examples of coercive methods.  Just because the cops are private thugs doesn't make it a non-coercive solution.

The strawman belongs to anarchocapitalists, not me.
Control of private capital requires violent defense.

Maybe, maybe not.  The key word is defense.  You don't agree with my views on property and rights; fine, don't work for me.  If yo utry to take my stuff because you think you have the right, expect a vigorous, and perhaps violent, defense.  This would not be different in any socity, no matter how primitive or "ideal" in your view.  What belongs to them, belongs to them.  You can choose to work for them, under their rules, or not.

Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.

How are you going to afford the service robot?

With my liberated community capital. Capital is not bad, capitalism is bad.

"Liberated" capital?  Theft is worse.

I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.

Good God, where do you people come up with this crap?

Derp.
Anarchism has lots of variants. some oppose others. Some are misnomers.

Derp, Derp.  Some are simply deluded.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-question-libertarians-just-cant-answer/

This is strangely appropriate.

[myrkul]

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-question-libertarians-just-cant-answer/

This is strangely appropriate.

Even more appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMSMQHpIEQU

[ktttn]

Capital withheld from those that might use it is sensible in the absence of mutual agreement.
I am happy to provide capital to those that use it well for our mutual benefit, and for some meaningful benefit for others.  
I am not so happy when forced to yield it to others by threat.  
This unhappiness is coupled with a sadness in the notion that what I have built is likely to be unappreciated by those that have taken it from me.  

Nike and Coke are not among those as sane and reasonable as you and a number of others.
Threat only occurs in the face of oppression.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-question-libertarians-just-cant-answer/

This is strangely appropriate.

Even more appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMSMQHpIEQU

Amen, brother.  I'll show this one to my kids later.

[ktttn]

@MoonShadow
Sup with all the namecalling and aggression?
Don't just dismiss me out of hand.
I'm talking about the blatant imperfections of capitalism in practice, and what happens when wage slaves rise up to knock their bosses out of their position.
As a member of a union, you must have frustrations with union politics, unless youre the person folks are frustrated with.
A global perspective, you don't have.
Get one.
At yer local third world malwart manufacturing plant.
Or office building.

[MoonShadow]

@MoonShadow
Sup with all the namecalling and aggression?

When did I call you an unsupported "name"?

Don't just dismiss me out of hand.

I haven't been.  I generally give your side every opprotunity to argue your case, but that doesn't happen.  Most of the time; when the claimant doesn't simply assume that the superiority of his position is 'self evident' s/he resorts to 'feelings' of 'fairness'.  Make an argument.  But it has to be your own argument, not just a hotlink to some published somebody.  If you feel said somebody makes a good point, restate that point in your own language.  If you can't, then you didn't understand the point to begin with.

I'm talking about the blatant imperfections of capitalism in practice, and what happens when wage slaves rise up to knock their bosses out of their position.

I don't agree that what usually happens "when wage slaves rise up to knock their bosses out of their position" is a fault of capitalism, in practice or in theory.  Therein lies your problem, not everyone agrees with your worldview.  If you want to found a communist collective in the middle of a anarcho-capitalist utopia, you can.  No true anarcho-capitalists would prevent it.  They may not trade with you either, but that's a different issue.  However, your position (anarcho-communism) does not permit a dissenting sub-culture to exist.  The very premises that such a worldview is founded upon cannot ever achieve it's end goal without completely destroying competing worldviews, as the random 'capitalist' would take advantage or undermine the social structure of the communist non-state (a contradiction unto itself).  Ultimately, communism requires a state to enforce the worldview upon the people, because there will always be those who disagree.  

As a member of a union, you must have frustrations with union politics, unless youre the person folks are frustrated with.

All life is poitics.

A global perspective, you don't have.
Get one.

Son, you really don't know me, and you are not guessing well either.

At yer local third world malwart manufacturing plant.
Or office building.

My wife graduated from college with a BS in MicroBiology.  Got a job within her field doing product testing at P&G.  Worked there for 6 years, never earned more than $12.50 per hour and hated her job.  After she had our first child, she quit P&G; taking a part time job about a year later as a cashier at WalMart.  She worked there for 4 years, loved that job making $7.75.  She was offered health care coverage, even though she was only part time, as well as other less common perks such as a great employee discount on damn near everything, and a legal assistance benefit.  The discount was so good, the company had to safeguard who all got the discount cards, mine had a photo id on it so that no one else could use it.  My wife was not eligible for health care coverage at P&G because I already had a family coverage plan, and they never offerered legal assistance.

At the time, I was a full on 'drink the cool aid' unionist, and she applied to WalMart, in part, to yank my chain.  She even noted during her interview that she was married to a 'salt' union orgainizer in the construction trades. (I can't remember why that even came up)  It didn't even matter, she got the job without issues.  She was, quite literally, the smartest person in the store anytime she was there.   She was offered management after 9 months, but didn't want full time work.  She only quit that job because the demands of increasing motherhood and homeschooling took precidence, and considering that I have made over $100K every year for nearly a decade now, we really didn't need the (by then) $8.50 an hour cashier's work.

I know from second hand experience that, although WalMart certainly isn't the greatest employer ever, it's nothing like what it's often portrayed as in union propaganda.  I may not have a 'global' perspective, but I certainly do have a 'local' one.  From where I've been standing, your worldview makes no sense.

[myrkul]

I know from second hand experience that, although WalMart certainly isn't the greatest employer ever, it's nothing like what it's often portrayed as in union propaganda.  I may not have a 'global' perspective, but I certainly do have a 'local' one.  From where I've been standing, your worldview makes no sense.

And I know from first hand experience that while Wal-Mart is decidedly anti-union, it's a very good employer. Reasonable pay, very nice benefits. And no other breakroom I've ever been in has had rotisserie chicken up for grabs in it - even occasionally.

[MoonShadow]

My wife graduated from college with a BS in MicroBiology.  Got a job within her field doing product testing at P&G.  Worked there for 6 years, never earned more than $12.50 per hour and hated her job.  After she had our first child, she quit P&G; taking a part time job about a year later as a cashier at WalMart.  She worked there for 4 years, loved that job making $7.75.  She was offered health care coverage, even though she was only part time, as well as other less common perks such as a great employee discount on damn near everything, and a legal assistance benefit.  The discount was so good, the company had to safeguard who all got the discount cards, mine had a photo id on it so that no one else could use it.  My wife was not eligible for health care coverage at P&G because I already had a family coverage plan, and they never offerered legal assistance.

BTW, if you have ever heard the statistic that many unions put out about how a part-time employee at Wal-mart is so much more likely to be collecting welfare or some other government aid while working than, say, Target.  (often referred to as the 'working poor')  The legal assistance benefit is the reason why; because in many states (particularly California) a single mother is eligible for a great deal of government aid at a much higher annual salary than, say, your unemployed white male under 40.  The legal aid department was very good at identifying aid programs for which these part-time single mom's qualfied for.  It's not that the part-time single mom's who worked at Target didn't qualfiy, they just didn't know to apply.  My wife never qualfied for any of that crap because she was married, I was working full time, and she's white; but she did know a few cashiers who were able to get something along those lines even in Kentucky due to the help of legal aid.  My wife wouldn't have wanted a handout anyway, but learning about that perk and how it's commonly used greatly affected my perspectives regarding Walmart and the trustworthyness of the propaganda that spewed forth from my union.  That revelation might have been the turning point for me; as I was once a Democrat so blue that I was a county delegate to the Demcratic Party's state convention.

Hell, as a still younger man, I was a card carrying Green!

If you are not a communist at 20, then you have no heart; if you are still a communist at 40 then you have no sense.

[Zarathustra]

If you are not a communist at 20, then you have no heart; if you are still a communist at 40 then you have no sense.

And if you are a capitalist collectivist (collectivist capitalist) at 60, you are somebody without any knowledge about history.

I know all these utopian and ahistorical arguments of the so called ancaps very well, and I found, that most of these enthusiasts are employees, not self-employed. They even don't realise, that they are enslaved. They are too busy to think, while the real homines sapientes in the non-business-doing communities in the rain forests are dancing and living. This enthusiasm with production, markets and trade within a worldwide hypercollective has its origin in the christian labor (slave-) ethos, and the ancaps are unfortunate victims of this collectivist religion which is destroying the planet with exponentially increasing speed. Collective, suicidal folly in perfection. The opposite of this collective, sucidal folly is represented by tribalism, where we find no growth and no expansion, either economically or territorially.

[hawkeye]

If you are not a communist at 20, then you have no heart; if you are still a communist at 40 then you have no sense.

I hate that phrase.  I was never a communist or socialist if you prefer.  I knew it was nonsense even back then before I learned anything about libertarianism.

How about this,

If upon learning of libertarianism you don't embrace it then you have no heart and it doesn't matter what age you are. 

I like that better.  I left "not having a brain out" deliberately.