Libertarian my ass!

[herzmeister]

entire town constructed and handed to them for free

= top-down. Benevolent, but still top down. Paternalism, treating them like children, basically. That's almost certainly not how human nature works.

The Spanish example is something completely different. Bottom-up self-organization. Learning by doing.

[1714718244]

1714718244

[myrkul]

entire town constructed and handed to them for free

= top-down. Benevolent, but still top down. Paternalism, treating them like children, basically. That's almost certainly not how human nature works.

The Spanish example is something completely different. Bottom-up self-organization. Learning by doing.

The only real problem with communism is that it's against human nature in groups larger than a few hundred.
We're primates, at heart, and as such, don't do well with large "communities"
Once past a certain limit "community" starts to break down, and sharing with those outside of your community is a foreign concept to the primate mind.

Capitalism avoids this, by providing a means by which you can be certain that any interaction - even with a complete stranger - will result in you or your community benefiting. So if communism is better, economically, than capitalism, if it is more efficient, then what I would expect to see is multiple communities, interacting internally via communism, and externally via capitalism, or alternatively, individuals interacting only with friends, and strangers being automatically suspect.

[Merralea]

I will follow-up with my "silly as it gets", "godwin-like" example:

If you heard about a JEWISH NAZI AMERICAN PARTY, you would say it's ridicolous. I bet on that. You would laugh at their face, admit it. If they told you to look at the etymology of the NAZI word (National Socialist), insisting on the fact that etymologically nazism has nothing to do with antisemitism, you would just call them crazy. You would tell them that they know NOTHING about history. As an US citizen, you have written in your DNA that nazism is about intollerance, militarism and race, even if Nazionalsocialismus just means "Nationalist Socialism". They could tell you that they are: a) jewish, b) proud americans and c) socialists, but you would still fucking laugh at them for using JEWISH and NAZI in the same sentence.

Well, anarcho-capitalism is as ridiculous as jewish nazi...

Your reductio attempt is somewhat diminished by the fact that pretty much every Jew I know is essentially some form or another of a National Socialist. 

[Mike Christ]

snip

Anarcho-capitalo-communism...o

I just got done with Living Utopia.  Amazing!  What I found interesting is that even in a communistic society, they still had to barter at some point in time with different towns; for example, if one town didn't have the means to produce wheat, they'd trade sugar for the wheat to a town which had lots of wheat but not a whole lot of sugar.  I've also noticed that societies tend to fare much worse when in large packs.  Would it be possible to combine both systems, so one caters to the "village" so to speak, and the other caters to large societal interaction?  I don't think every town can support every little thing required to make all types of food, desktop PCs, deodorant, jewelry, smart phone a, smart phone b, etc, meaning communism on a large scale would eventually need to form some type of capitalistic method to exchange these goods in and out.

[Rampion]

snip

Anarcho-capitalo-communism...o

I just got done with Living Utopia.  Amazing!  What I found interesting is that even in a communistic society, they still had to barter at some point in time with different towns; for example, if one town didn't have the means to produce wheat, they'd trade sugar for the wheat to a town which had lots of wheat but not a whole lot of sugar.  I've also noticed that societies tend to fare much worse when in large packs.  Would it be possible to combine both systems, so one caters to the "village" so to speak, and the other caters to large societal interaction?  I don't think every town can support every little thing required to make all types of food, desktop PCs, deodorant, jewelry, smart phone a, smart phone b, etc, meaning communism on a large scale would eventually need to form some type of capitalistic method to exchange these goods in and out.

Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; and so on, adding more layers in which coordinate decisions would be taken horizontally and not vertically.

As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.

[herzmeister]

The only real problem with communism is that it's against human nature in groups larger than a few hundred.
We're primates, at heart, and as such, don't do well with large "communities"
Once past a certain limit "community" starts to break down, and sharing with those outside of your community is a foreign concept to the primate mind.

Capitalism avoids this, by providing a means by which you can be certain that any interaction - even with a complete stranger - will result in you or your community benefiting. So if communism is better, economically, than capitalism, if it is more efficient, then what I would expect to see is multiple communities, interacting internally via communism, and externally via capitalism, or alternatively, individuals interacting only with friends, and strangers being automatically suspect.

yes... Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

I also think that would approach a model which would largely satisfy most. Our modern "estranged" way of life results from too much separation, as some would argue. It boils down to individual property rights yes or no, I've always said you need a state for property rights. Without a state, you'd have to defend whatever you call your property. A group is surely more efficient to defend (and build) their common property. So the result is communal property "rights" if you will.

Now for the global scope, add internet and open source and free sharing of digital data, 3D printing, local production, industrial hemp, etc...

I wouldn't abolish it by force, as some Neo-Marxists seem to push for, but money would probably become more and more superfluous.

[Mike Christ]

Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; etc.

As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.

That's the issue; once a single collective group of people reaches a large enough number, it becomes highly impractical to make a decision that doesn't step on someone's toe somewhere.  In order for anarchism to work, communities would need to remain small enough to stay manageable among each other; to make sure communities remained small, you would encourage people to take complete responsibility over their own communities.  Because large communities become so unmanageable, they have to elect leaders to help keep the "brain" functioning, this leads to conflict, because the elected leader can never agree with the entire populace, making it a moot point to elect one.  The more people feel connected with each other, the less likely they'll feel the need to merge in great societies, and will stick to smaller ones, which communicate with other small societies if one society is stepping on another's toes, or they need/want something the other has that they themselves do not.

In this regard, cities could only exist in division; a city united would need a ruler, and thus, the anarchistic ideal goes away.  So the point would be: people must remain in their own "cliques", to keep a feeling of togetherness, to prevent the rising of rulers, and the division of people which happens anyway under statism.

OTOH, would ~6 or 7 billion societies of "me" function right if capitalism was the only focus?

[myrkul]

I've always said you need a state for property rights.

But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled."

[Rampion]

Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; etc.

As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.

That's the issue; once a single collective group of people reaches a large enough number, it becomes highly impractical to make a decision that doesn't step on someone's toe somewhere.  In order for anarchism to work, communities would need to remain small enough to stay manageable among each other; to make sure communities remained small, you would encourage people to take complete responsibility over their own communities.  Because large communities become so unmanageable, they have to elect leaders to help keep the "brain" functioning, this leads to conflict, because the elected leader can never agree with the entire populace, making it a moot point to elect one.  The more people feel connected with each other, the less likely they'll feel the need to merge in great societies, and will stick to smaller ones, which communicate with other small societies if one society is stepping on another's toes, or they need/want something the other has that they themselves do not.

In this regard, cities could only exist in division; a city united would need a ruler, and thus, the anarchistic ideal goes away.  So the point would be: people must remain in their own "cliques", to keep a feeling of togetherness, to prevent the rising of rulers, and the division of people which happens anyway under statism.

The fact is that we never actively worked to make that model of anarchist society possible: we always assumed that anarchy was "impractical" and we created all kinds of states to impose and maintain the order...

Proudhon wrote: "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter of order"

This is a very profound sentence that reflects the beliefs of Proudhon and the other anarchists on human nature... And by the way: aren't politics always about how we deal with what we believe it's human nature?

But the truth is that it's never been empirically proved that an anarchist society is not feasible - it's just speculations, and the very few anarchist experiences we had in History (as per Aragón, Spain 1930-1938) worked pretty well until the enemies wiped them out by force.

Anarchist theorists tend to think from smaller to bigger, in a federalist way: if you'd work in a factory, you would take strategical and operational decisions in assemblies together with your fellow coworkers; different factories in the same industry could associate and coordinate themselves in a "federal assembly"; etc.

As anarchism is anti-hierarchy, the common belief is that everybody should be involved in direct decision-making for day-by-day issues, and if impractical (large community), at least at some point in their lives and in a temporarily way.

OTOH, would ~6 or 7 billion societies of "me" function right if capitalism was the only focus?

I would say that we are pretty much looking at it - but still there have been major improvements in terms of freedom in the last centuries.

[Rampion]

I've always said you need a state for property rights.

But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled."

I believe you describe a society in which you are as free as you are wealthy. You can have justice, as long as you can pay for it.

[herzmeister]

I've always said you need a state for property rights.

But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled."

I believe you describe a society in which you are as free as you are wealthy. You can have justice, as long as you can pay for it.

To expand on that, you'd probably have an "agency" that gives a fuck about all other agencies and says that Earth belongs to everyone because it is natural common heritage. And most workers would be in this agency because they aren't wealthy.

[Rampion]

I know there's anarcho-communism, but I don't see how that could ever possibly work.

except that it has historical precedence while ancap has not (and don't come me with Iceland).


Living Utopia (The Anarchists & The Spanish Revolution)


but they were betrayed by state communists and republicans likewise.

Just watched this amazing documentary - really really beautiful. Thank you, I did not know it.

Myrkul (and the others, by the way): I really recommend you to watch that. You will hear directly from anarchist's who actually made a revolution about work, money, freedom...

[BlackSheep]

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

They have always wanted to abolish money.

"...houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished."

— Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread

4. The End of the Money Trick
Two features of capitalism are essential to its existence—the wages system and a thorough and all-reaching system of money relationships. Unfortunately men are now so used to living by money that they find it difficult to imagine life without it. Yet it should be obvious that no libertarian and equalitarian society could make use of money. Syndicalism, as well as ending the wages system, also aims at the destruction of money relationships.

WAGES. The abolition of all wages and the establishment of the principle of equal income for all. What that income would be cannot be expressed in money terms, the only terms known to capitalist society, but it should certainly be more than double the present average wage.

EDUCATION. Education will be free to all able to benefit from it and wishing to enjoy it, free from kindergarten to university. Classes would be smaller, equipment improved and new schools built. The recent trend of education from coercion and terrorism to freedom and co-operation of teacher and scholar would be accelerated.

MEDICINE. Medical treatment would be free—medicine, attendance, clinics and hospitals. But the new society would increase the health of all, not by a new flood of physic, but, in main, by a better diet, right working and living conditions and the end of industrial fatigue.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b3QPiFzdlAcJ:libcom.org/library/principles-of-syndicalism-tom-brown+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

It is embarrassing that someone in the 21st century can hold these views.

[Mike Christ]

I find it funny that this technology has attracted anti-capitalists.

They have always wanted to abolish money.

"...houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished."

— Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread

4. The End of the Money Trick
Two features of capitalism are essential to its existence—the wages system and a thorough and all-reaching system of money relationships. Unfortunately men are now so used to living by money that they find it difficult to imagine life without it. Yet it should be obvious that no libertarian and equalitarian society could make use of money. Syndicalism, as well as ending the wages system, also aims at the destruction of money relationships.

WAGES. The abolition of all wages and the establishment of the principle of equal income for all. What that income would be cannot be expressed in money terms, the only terms known to capitalist society, but it should certainly be more than double the present average wage.

EDUCATION. Education will be free to all able to benefit from it and wishing to enjoy it, free from kindergarten to university. Classes would be smaller, equipment improved and new schools built. The recent trend of education from coercion and terrorism to freedom and co-operation of teacher and scholar would be accelerated.

MEDICINE. Medical treatment would be free—medicine, attendance, clinics and hospitals. But the new society would increase the health of all, not by a new flood of physic, but, in main, by a better diet, right working and living conditions and the end of industrial fatigue.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b3QPiFzdlAcJ:libcom.org/library/principles-of-syndicalism-tom-brown+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

It is embarrassing that someone in the 21st century can hold these views.

Go on.

[myrkul]

I've always said you need a state for property rights.

But you don't, really. Rights, boiled down to it, are an agreement. "Property rights," as commonly understood, are simply the agreement: "I don't steal your stuff, you don't steal mine." The thief, having rejected that agreement, has opened himself to retaliation in kind: "You steal my stuff, I'll steal yours." Now, to avoid the chaos of all against all that is commonly called "anarchy," some structure is needed to make things more civilized. This structure need not be a government, and in fact, it's best if it's not. A government, by it's very nature, distorts the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but, I can steal from both of you." Not cool. Instead, what AnCap suggests is a system of agencies which provide that same structure, but do so without distorting the agreement: "You don't steal his stuff, and he won't steal yours, but if something does happen, you've both agreed to let me decide how it should be settled."

I believe you describe a society in which you are as free as you are wealthy. You can have justice, as long as you can pay for it.

Not at all. Justice is a decidedly inexpensive service to provide, and it is typical for the fees to be included in the judgment amount. In an AnCap society, you get justice, and the other guy pays for it.

To expand on that, you'd probably have an "agency" that gives a fuck about all other agencies and says that Earth belongs to everyone because it is natural common heritage. And most workers would be in this agency because they aren't wealthy.

While I can certainly see a market for low-cost legal services, and find it likely that a union would provide such for it's members, an isolationist policy like that would be ruinous. Are workers really "workers" if they can't find any work?

[ArmoredDragon]

One distinction I make between anarchism and libertarianism is that libertarians are fine with just enough laws to keep things civil and make sure that people aren't making each others lives miserable. But we don't need laws that protect us from ourselves.

I get annoyed when liberals act as though we treat any and all regulation as the boogyman. It's not true, we'll accept reasonable regulation, for example the EPA prevents dumping toxic substances from ground water, or the FCC regulating spectrum use. Unacceptable regulations would be like sugar tariffs, or any tariff for that matter because tariffs don't do anything except raise the price of domestic goods while doing nothing to help us compete with the global economy, and in fact make it harder to do so, which while protecting perhaps a few sugar industry jobs, will cost us many more jobs elsewhere.

[myrkul]

One distinction I make between anarchism and libertarianism is that libertarians are fine with just enough laws to keep things civil and make sure that people aren't making each others lives miserable. But we don't need laws that protect us from ourselves.

I get annoyed when liberals act as though we treat any and all regulation as the boogyman. It's not true, we'll accept reasonable regulation, for example the EPA prevents dumping toxic substances from ground water, or the FCC regulating spectrum use. Unacceptable regulations would be like sugar tariffs, or any tariff for that matter because tariffs don't do anything except raise the price of domestic goods while doing nothing to help us compete with the global economy.

Ironically, you're making the same mistake they are: conflating "laws" with "government."

[JordanL]

This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.

I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.

[myrkul]

This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.

I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.

First off, I take offense at being labeled "right wing." I am not a right winger, not in the least. I advocate personal freedoms, as well as economic ones. I don't care who you sleep with, what you smoke, or who you pray to.

Secondly, if you understood AnCap, you'd understand that ignorance is the last thing you will find among it's adherents.

Finally, I've yet to see a socialist explain how to get around the whole "you have to work to survive" thing, and I don't expect you to be any different.

Why the hell an anti-capitalist would be attracted to Bitcoin is beyond me.

[Mike Christ]

This is something that I've always laughed about, right wing capitalists calling themselves libertarian. The term that they came up with, "anarcho-capitalist", is a hilarious oxymoron. They have even taken to using the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist flags, replacing the red with gold. I'm not making that up. As explained by the OP, to the libertarian the free market is wage slavery, which is directly equivalent to chattel slavery.

I don't have time to read it, but I can imagine the amount of ignorance that is displayed in this thread from those who misuse the term. Page one was bad enough.

Where exactly are you getting this from?  And I don't mean this as a hypothetical; there must be some publication somewhere which has mislead you.  You should take a moment to actually understand; nobody who identifies with AnCap considers themselves anywhere close to either "wing".  If you've always laughed about it, it's troubling knowing you've been under a misconception for some time.  I'm well aware the current system we're under is slavery, which is why I advocate anarchism to begin with.  There's nothing I despise more than wage slavery; if the government sanctions on monopolies and oligarchies are torn down, you'll see the poor and the rich classes coincide and melt into one another; people work for themselves, not a boss, or their boss, or their boss.  The free market is exactly that: a market without government intervention.  How this translates into wage slavery is beyond me.