Libertarian my ass!

[myrkul]

Well, exactly here is where we disagree: as I see it, anarchism is all bound to anti-capitalism, exactly as nazism is all bound to holocaust. Millions of people have died defending or fighting against anarchist ideals in the last two centuries, mainly in Spain and Russia, but also in Hungary and other eastern Europe countries.

So, what you're saying is, that you're arguing out of emotion, not a rational examination of the facts.

Not really - I'm analyzing the facts that make the "level of stigma" higher or lower. Anarchism had a tremendous impact on history and on million of lives. Thousands of books have been written about anti-capitalist anarchism. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new theory, which had way less impact (if it had any) on both history and peoples lives.

Again, you might be very surprised. Medieval Iceland, and pre-conquest Ireland were very much anarcho-capitalistic societies. Just because the name is new doesn't mean the idea is.

I admit I don't know much about medieval Iceland, but I could bet that rich people ruled de facto, just because Unfortunately that is the natural outcome of capitalism IMHO

The most powerful and elite leaders in Iceland were the chieftains (sing. goði, pl. goðar). The goðar were not elected to their positions, but rather owned their title. The position was most commonly inherited, but it could also be bought or sold. The office of the goði was called the goðorð. The goðorð was not delimited by strict geographical boundaries. Thus a free man could choose to support any of the goðar of his district. The supporters of the goðar were called Þingmenn ("assembly people"). In exchange for the goði protecting his interests, the Þingmann would provide armed support to his goði during feuds or conflicts. The Þingmenn were also required to attend regional and national assemblies.

Not exactly like, and not exactly unlike, the AnCap concept of protection agencies, or de Molinari's free-market "governments". The main thing differentiating it is that there were a limited number of them. I imagine this drove the price rather high, much like a NYC Taxi medallion.

In AnCap, of course, there's nothing stopping anyone from deciding not to have a protection agency, or even starting their own.

The judges, unfortunately, were also limited in number, and it is this fact that ultimately spelled the downfall of the system - they were all bought out by a foreign power. However, their action was very AnCap in nature:

Once a court decided a party was guilty, however, it had no executive authority to carry out a sentence. Instead, enforcement of a verdict became the responsibility of the injured party or his family. Penalties often included financial compensation or outlawry.

This would likely be handled by one's insurance, under AnCap. No insurance, of course, and it's back down to you or your family.

In AnCap, nothing is stopping anyone from being a judge - or, indeed, as long as both parties agree, anyone being picked as a judge. From Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:

A boy about fourteen spoke up. "Say! Aren't you Gospodin O'Kelly?"
"Right."
"Why don't you judge it."
Oldest looked relieved. "Will you, Gospodin?"
I hesitated. Sure, I've gone judge at times; who hasn't? But don't hanker for responsibility.
However, it troubled me to hear young people talk about eliminating a tourist. Bound to cause talk.
Decided to do it. So I said to tourist, "Will you accept me as your judge?"
He looked surprised. "I have choice in the matter?"
I said patiently, "Of course. Can't expect me to listen if you aren't willing to accept my judging. But
not urging you. Your life, not mine."
He looked very surprised but not afraid. His eyes lit up. "My life, did you say?"
"Apparently. You heard lads say they intend to eliminate you. You may prefer to wait for Judge
Brody."
He didn't hesitate. Smiled and said, "I accept you as my judge, sir."
"As you wish." I looked at oldest lad. "What parties to quarrel? Just you and your young friend?"
"Oh, no, Judge, all of us."
"Not your judge yet." I looked around. "Do you all ask me to judge?"
Were nods; none said No. Leader turned to girl, added, "Better speak up, Tish. You accept Judge
O'Kelly?"
"What? Oh, sure!"

They had something similar in Ireland, except it was a profession, and not something one can just have thrust upon them like that. If there was no Brehon handy, well, you just waited.

Having multiple, competing courts ensures that the best justice is served... not by giving the rich decision-making power, but by making those with the best decision making abilities rich.

[benjamindees]

In the US, liberty has long meant freedom from the interference of others, in France and much of Europe, it means freedom to be a bum and not starve.

And there is nothing contradictory about these views.

[myrkul]

In the US, liberty has long meant freedom from the interference of others, in France and much of Europe, it means freedom to be a bum and not starve.

And there is nothing contradictory about these views.

Well, aside from the fact that being a bum and not starving kinda requires you to interfere with others.

[benjamindees]

It only requires you to defend yourself against the predations of others.

[myrkul]

It only requires you to defend yourself against the predations of others.

Well, that and leech off of others' productivity.

[benjamindees]

Only for a very unscientific definition of "productivity".

[myrkul]

Only for a very unscientific definition of "productivity".

I'm not sure I follow.

Perhaps you would like to explain this in greater detail?

[Jobe7]

*gets popcorn*

damn, I missed the start of this one!

[Rampion]

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist.

Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists.
Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes).

Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powers

In capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself.

[Rampion]

Myrkul: I thank you for your interesting information about Medieval Iceland. I didn't know much about it, but I have to say that I always superficially thought that Medieval Age is in general a good analogy for a no-state capitalist system (but this is not a positive analogy at all IMO).

I'll take this chance to remark another difference between the anarchism and the US "libertarians" views: in this case, focusing on monopolies

1) For an US libertarian, monopolies are an imperfection of the market, driven by non-market forces: state and lobbies. Without a State there would be no lobbies and the market would adjust itself, as an invisible hand would self-regulate the market and balance competition, reaching an always-fair market that would allow equal opportunities to market players.

2) For an anarchist, monopolies are the natural outcome of capitalism. The only goal in a capitalist system is capital growth/accumulation, and this goal has to be achieved by all means. The natural way to strengthen your position in capitalism is to wipe out the competition, thus creating a monopoly - and this is fairly easily achieved if your holdings are big enough... And there goes the invisible hand straight up your arse. In fewer words, state and lobbies are just a tool capitalists are currently using to achieve their goals.

I personally tend to agree with 2), based on my own analysis of both classic works and reality surrounding us.

[H@ml3t]

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.

[myrkul]

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist.

Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists.
Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes).

Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powers

In capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself.

You're confusing state capitalism - corporatism or fascism - with capitalism. To put it in perspective, it would comparing anarchosyndicalism to the Soviet state.

Some definitions:

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production.
Communism: Common ownership of the means of production.
State capitalism: Ownership of the majority of the means of production by state-protected corporations.
State communism: De-facto ownership of the means of production by the oligarchy put in place to manage it.
Anarcho-capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted trade of same, as well as the product.
Anarcho-syndicalism: Common ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted use of same, as well as the product.

Sound about right?

[Rampion]

Capitalism is a form of economy, not a form of government. Anarchism isn't inherently for or against it.

I skipped this post - the answer is really easy for an anarchist.

Who would you say that rules the US? Obama? I would say no. US is ruled by Wall Street finantial capitalists.
Who would you say that rules Europe? Markel? I can guarantee you that the answer is fucking NO. It's ruled by the Bundesbank and its proxies (ECB and the likes).

Capitalism is a system where politicians are allowed to manage the "res publica" because they are loyal to their true masters: the capitalist economic powers

In capitalism, the richest rules - this is why anarchism is inherently against capitalism - and this is why for the traditional anarchist theory capitalism is a coercive force by itself.

You're confusing state capitalism - corporatism or fascism - with capitalism. To put it in perspective, it would comparing anarchosyndicalism to the Soviet state.

Some definitions:

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production.
Communism: Common ownership of the means of production.
State capitalism: Ownership of the majority of the means of production by state-protected corporations.
State communism: De-facto ownership of the means of production by the oligarchy put in place to manage it.
Anarcho-capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted trade of same, as well as the product.
Anarcho-syndicalism: Common ownership of the means of production, and unrestricted use of same, as well as the product.

Sound about right?

I'm not confusing anything - I'm just stating the fact that for anarchists private ownership of means of production = monopolies = the richest rules, which is in opposition to US "libertarians" views.

For US libertarians the State is fucking up with the market making it imperfect

For traditional anarchists the modern State is only a tool for capital to grow and concentrate, thus is a product of capitalism itself

As I mentioned before, Bakunin even accused lenin's interpretation of communism of being just a state based form of capitalism

Please understand that the core of anarchism has never been "no state" - the core is the liberation of the individuals. For an anarchist, if you have to accept the wage offered by someone wealthier than you, you are not free. Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work. Not the state, not your boss: YOU. If you do not, you won't be free. As I explained earlier, anarchism was born as an answer to the advance of capitalist free market theories, as communism did in parallel when The Capital was written by Karl Marx.

[herzmeister]

now if we can also get rid of the false dichotomy public vs private, we're almost there. 

[myrkul]

2) For an [anarchosyndicalist], monopolies are the natural outcome of capitalism. The only goal in a capitalist system is capital growth/accumulation, and this goal has to be achieved by all means. The natural way to strengthen your position in capitalism is to wipe out the competition, thus creating a monopoly - and this is fairly easily achieved if your holdings are big enough... And there goes the invisible hand straight up your arse. In fewer words, state and lobbies are just a tool capitalists are currently using to achieve their goals.

Well, let's look at some of the ways monopolies gain power, shall we?

As an example, we'll take Microsoft. Arguably, this is the best example of a monopoly since Standard Oil (which we'll get to in a bit).

How did they do it?
They cut a deal with computer manufacturers to include their operating system on their computers.

What was the result?
A near monopoly - over 90% market share, at peak (better than Standard Oil, actually). Their major competitors in the PC OS market gave up.

How did the market react?
Apple stepped up their game, and made a better product, marketed to the high-end consumer. Linux stepped in to become the major competitor for the low-end consumer. Firefox outcompeted IE by providing better stability, and extensibility. Chrome focused on speed, as well as extensibility.

What was the result?
Well, seeing as I'm currently writing this on Firefox, on a Linux-run laptop, you tell me. Microsoft has some pretty tough competition, and they've really had to work to keep their market share. Even games won't save them, since a lot of companies are putting out Mac and Linux ports, and they were a late entry into the console market - where they're doing pretty good, having learned the lessons Windows had to teach them. Their phone offering is still pretty crappy, though. (don't get me started on the Zune)

Our next example, is Standard Oil.

What did they do?
Ruthlessly bought out competition, innovated around problems (when the rail lines started charging too much, he built pipes), and generally outcompeted all the other oil companies.

What was the result?
Again, a near monopoly. At the peak, Standard oil had 88% of the (oil refinery) market. No mean feat, even in those days. In addition, they drove the price of refined oil down from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897. You'll forgive me if I don't see a problem with that.

How did the market react?
By 1911, their share of the oil refining business had been reduced to 64%, by increased competition. Whenever Standard Oil hesitated in taking an action into a new field, competitors sprang up in the new area, as was the case with discovery of the inferior grade Lima oil which would require new processing techniques.

What was the result?
After the anti-trust suit, the company was split up, into several different oil companies, most of which are still around today. Tarrifs and patents protect these companies from foreign and domestic competition. Arguably, this is the best outcome for Standard, if not for the consumers.

[myrkul]

Work is an essential aspect of anarchist philosophy: in order to be free, you need to control directly the means of production of your work.

So you are a capitalist!

As I said, capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

At root, the means of all production is your body. Could you swing a hammer, if not for your arm? Could you push a plow, if not for your legs? Could you lift a box, if not for your back? Would you know how and why to do any of these things, without your mind?

You control the means of production of your work. Perhaps you are using someone else's tools, but you control the means by which those tools are used.

If nobody will let you use their tools, you can get - or make - your own. But the means of production, even the production of those tools, is your body, and you own that.

[Rampion]

Thank you Myrkul - I will reply to your comments later on. Please allow me to throw my personal opinion on why capitalism have been approach so differently in Europe and the US:

When Proudhon analyzed private property in the XIX Century (What is the private property?) he concluded that wealth have been concentrated in the same few hands for centuries. He demonstrated empirically that hundreds of years ago, private property of means of production was established by force, and since then nothing changed much. Obviously this gave arguments to the prolific anarchist terrorism we have had in Europe, because anarchists thought that if private property was established by force, it could be possible to revert this situation by force only.

This lead to a time where the majority of European population was anti-capitalist, but it was crushed by the pro-capitalist minority, which was wealthier and thus more powerful.

In the US the majority of population have never been anti-capitalist: just a few generations ago you started from scratch, and you have had a wide spread of wealth since then. As I said earlier, we could say that US is founded on private property, which is quite a different situation compared to Europe.

Summing up, this would be a simple personal explanation of why for US intellectuals, private property=freedom, while for some of the major European intellectuals, private property=slavery

[myrkul]

Summing up, this would be a simple personal explanation of why for US intellectuals, private property=freedom, while for some of the major European intellectuals, private property=slavery

Yes, I'd say that the history of how private property was established definitely color the respective views. In Europe, and much of the rest of the world, private property was established by conquest and land grant - as you said, by force. Here in the states, while conquest was still used, it was to a much lesser extent, and rather than feudal land grants, most private land was gained through homesteading. We never had the serfs and nobles dynamic which is still fucking with Europeans' heads.

[Rampion]

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.

Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position.

[myrkul]

I think a fact some people are forgetting in this discussion is that capitalism and free market are different things which don't have to necessarily coexist. A market based economy can exist without capitalism, for example in Yugoslavia before 1990, and capitalism can exist without a free market(some people would say it was like this in the Soviet Union).

Capitalism is not only an economic system as some people here claim it to be, it is also a social order where money can be translated into power, thus making it incompatible with the anarchist view of no human having power over other humans.

In an anarchist society a free market, where trades are based on mutual agreement however is not contrary to Anarchism.

Well, hou pretty much have nailed it: in fact, what you say about the soviet union "being capitalism without free market" was exactly Bakunin's position.

I think both of you share a definition of "capitalism" that I find hard to grasp. If one or both of you could explain it, I'd be very appreciative.