The Anarchist Brewing Co.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

But then how is anything enforced? Coercion is fine as long as there is not a monopolistic power. That was the system used in the American Old west and it worked beautifully.

Employees are subject to their bosses until they decide they don't want to be. They can quit at any time. Same with renters/landlords. Free market at work.

Taking your analogy with private property to another subject, isn't communal property the basis of authoritarian communism, where one ruling power owns all the land "In the name of the people"?

If someone wants to sell them self into slavery then let them. A person's property is theirs to do what they please with.

[1713515280]

1713515280

[1713515280]

1713515280

[1713515280]

1713515280

[Babylon]

Anarcho-capitalism...

Isn't that an oxymoron? Doesn't proper anarchism reject capitalism, insofar as capitalism promotes the subjugation of the poor by the rich?

I think impossible is a better term than oxymoron.  There's a discussion on that in he economics forum brewing at the moment.

Most of the people on this board are Anarcho-capitalists though, so calling them oxymorons isn't likely to get a good response

[Babylon]

...No. That is incorrect.

<edit>

Let me elaborate. In my opinion, and most anarchists' opinion (I presume), there is no entity that has a monopoly on coercive force in a true anarchistic society.

Capitalism does not promote the subjugation of anyone by anyone else- it merely suggests that the market will choose which businesses rise or fall, based on any number of factors.

In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is far superior to anarcho-communism for some of the reasons you mention, but mostly that anarcho-communism rejects the idea of private property; a critical, basic freedom.

</edit>

You are confusing market anarchy with anarcho-capitalism.

Capitalism means that the production is controlled by those with capital, the owners of the means of production, not by the workers, who do the actual producing.

As Father MacGruder points out worker control leads to a bit of a dillema for someone who wishes to found a business and then retire on the proceeds.  I think that I offered a workable solution in that he needs to work hard to cultivate the respect and admiration of the workers so that they choose to support him in his retirement.  If he's cultivated the respect and admiration of the wider community so that they do as well, all the better.

Personally if I started up a brewery I'd want to be involved in the day to day operation as a pat of my retirement, formulating recipes and such, things that a lifetime of knowledge helps with and a physically frail body doesn't serve as an obstacle to.

[Anonymous]

Why can't people manipulate their matter and energy in anyway they choose, at the consent of the people they hire to manipulate it? Workers have consent. If they aren't happy, they can slowly collect and manipulate matter and energy as well. This whole concept of coercion and giving power to the workers is retarded. The owners and workers are on an equal playing field (unless there is government subsidization). They just offer different skills and possess different materials. So what if one owns more than the other? It means nothing in the end. They can still sustain themselves.

[FatherMcGruder]

But then how is anything enforced?

That question spurred my recent curiosity in anarchism. Apparently, an anarchist society would rely on voluntary cooperation instead of coercion.

Coercion is fine as long as there is not a monopolistic power. That was the system used in the American Old west and it worked beautifully.

I won't argue that such systems don't work. However, that they qualify as anarchism contradicts what I've read on the subject.

Employees are subject to their bosses until they decide they don't want to be. They can quit at any time. Same with renters/landlords. Free market at work.

What free person would ever choose to work in a sweatshop or as a sharecropper? It's hard for comfortable people to see it, but in subscribing to the anarchist point of view, capitalism is just a means of oppression. The property holders just have to wait for times of scarcity to bust out the prima nocta.

Taking your analogy with private property to another subject, isn't communal property the basis of authoritarian communism, where one ruling power owns all the land "In the name of the people"?

Authoritarian communism is just state capitalism, wherein the state controls all the property, rationing it to the obedient and withholding it from the disobedient. If a state should not have this power, why should individuals or corporations?

If someone wants to sell them self into slavery then let them. A person's property is theirs to do what they please with.

Fine, but the slave and his master are not anarchists.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

But then how is anything enforced?

That question spurred my recent curiosity in anarchism. Apparently, an anarchist society would rely on voluntary cooperation instead of coercion.

Coercion is fine as long as there is not a monopolistic power. That was the system used in the American Old west and it worked beautifully.

I won't argue that such systems don't work. However, that they qualify as anarchism contradicts what I've read on the subject.

Employees are subject to their bosses until they decide they don't want to be. They can quit at any time. Same with renters/landlords. Free market at work.

What free person would ever choose to work in a sweatshop or as a sharecropper? It's hard for comfortable people to see it, but in subscribing to the anarchist point of view, capitalism is just a means of oppression. The property holders just have to wait for times of scarcity to bust out the prima nocta.

Taking your analogy with private property to another subject, isn't communal property the basis of authoritarian communism, where one ruling power owns all the land "In the name of the people"?

Authoritarian communism is just state capitalism, wherein the state controls all the property, rationing it to the obedient and withholding it from the disobedient. If a state should not have this power, why should individuals or corporations?

If someone wants to sell them self into slavery then let them. A person's property is theirs to do what they please with.

Fine, but the slave and his master are not anarchists.

My response to pretty much everything you said here is to go read up on anarcho-capitalism. You seem to have read mostly anarcho-communist writings so far.


"On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers."
—Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market

And a large part of our disagreement comes from semantics I believe. McGruder, you seem to think of anarchy as a COMPLETE lack of coercion. Which in my opinion is silly - that would never work, and as far as I know hasn't ever worked. Though again I'm not an expert in historical  examples of anarcho-communism.

In my opinion Anarcho-communism is coercive and more of a 'mob rule' than a true anarchist system. Only when the market is free can you have true freedom.

In contrast to anarcho-communism, which seeks to equalize everyone in every way (an unfair goal - people are different, and some are better than others. Shouldn't the people who are better and can do better/more work be paid a higher wage?), anarcho capitalism equalizes peoples rights only, not their property or holdings or any such thing. In this way it provides the option for anyone to succeed in their own way, while not penalizing people who work harder than their co-workers or what have you.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Also consider the fact that under an anarcho-communist system, you could not 'host' a small anarcho-capitalist system, whereas the reverse is possible. Hell, if you want to, go and collect money from many workers, and buy a factory. Then you all own a share of the company and the product of your labor. Unfortunately none of you would receive paychecks, but you have all those boots to sell so you should be fine, yes?

[Anonymous]

Employees are subject to their bosses until they decide they don't want to be. They can quit at any time. Same with renters/landlords. Free market at work.

What free person would ever choose to work in a sweatshop or as a sharecropper? It's hard for comfortable people to see it, but in subscribing to the anarchist point of view, capitalism is just a means of oppression. The property holders just have to wait for times of scarcity to bust out the prima nocta.

The property holders have no interest in simply holding their property because they still have to sustain it and themselves.

[Babylon]

Also consider the fact that under an anarcho-communist system, you could not 'host' a small anarcho-capitalist system, whereas the reverse is possible. Hell, if you want to, go and collect money from many workers, and buy a factory. Then you all own a share of the company and the product of your labor. Unfortunately none of you would receive paychecks, but you have all those boots to sell so you should be fine, yes?

Why couldn't you host a small anarcho-capitalist system?

Anarchists aren't going to prevent you from living in whatever manner you choose, so long as you don't go trying to keep them from living in whatever manner they choose.

Ownership meanwhile is a legal fiction, backed up by force.  Anarcho-capitalists are the ones which claim they wish to live in a society free of force, without force ownership is not possi8ble.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Also consider the fact that under an anarcho-communist system, you could not 'host' a small anarcho-capitalist system, whereas the reverse is possible. Hell, if you want to, go and collect money from many workers, and buy a factory. Then you all own a share of the company and the product of your labor. Unfortunately none of you would receive paychecks, but you have all those boots to sell so you should be fine, yes?

Why couldn't you host a small anarcho-capitalist system?

Anarchists aren't going to prevent you from living in whatever manner you choose, so long as you don't go trying to keep them from living in whatever manner they choose.

Ownership meanwhile is a legal fiction, backed up by force.  Anarcho-capitalists are the ones which claim they wish to live in a society free of force, without force ownership is not possi8ble.

True, without force, ownership is not possible. But what stops someone in an anarcho-communist society from claiming they own a larger portion of the factory than their co-workers? The threat of force from the rest of the workers.

And look at the land claims societies that were created in the American Old West. They did a remarkable job of settling disputes.

Nothing is truly coercive as long as there is an opt out. Go somewhere else and make your own society, or start your own land claims organization. Doing so lets the market decide which organization is better, and thus who is in control.


As far as why you couldn't host a small anarcho-capitalist society, anarcho-communists seem rather hostile toward anarcho-capitalists, at least on this forum I've noticed. I'd imagine that they would feel the need to 'liberate' their fellow workers from wage slavery by running the factory owners out. That's how anarcho-communism starts, in most cases that I've read about, whereas Anarcho-capitalism would allow a group of people to do whatever they want with a factory owned by a group or individual in the name of the group or whatever. Since the A-Caps don't mind  what any other particular group does with their own land, that organization would be peaceful. Whereas A-Coms hosting A-Caps would tend toward being hostile because of how A-Com societies are created, and they would be in the majority.

[Babylon]

I'm not hostile to A-caps.  I just think they're wrong.  You guys have great morals. 

Also, with that assumption (that A-coms won't allow A-caps to exist) wouldn't it be in the best interest of the A-caps to destroy the collective the a-coms were attempting to build?

[kiba]

I'm not hostile to A-caps.  I just think they're wrong.  You guys have great morals.  

Also, with that assumption (that A-coms won't allow A-caps to exist) wouldn't it be in the best interest of the A-caps to destroy the collective the a-coms were attempting to build?

Why? It's unethical.

[Babylon]

I'm not hostile to A-caps.  I just think they're wrong.  You guys have great morals. 

Also, with that assumption (that A-coms won't allow A-caps to exist) wouldn't it be in the best interest of the A-caps to destroy the collective the a-coms were attempting to build?

Why? It's unethical.

Eliminating an existential threat is immoral?

I know that if I was living in an anarchist society, of any kind, and the neighbors decided they were going to build an expansionist militaristic feudal society next door I'd stop them as soon as I possibly could.  and I'd hope that all my anarchist neighbors, capitalist, communist, primitivist or what have you, would have the same self interest in doing so that I would.

Now mind you, I don't think that anarcho-communists are an existential threat to anarcho-capitalists, but that we are seems to be an assumption of many anarcho-capitalists.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Destroy economically perhaps, by trying to undercut their prices, but no more so than any other business they're trying to take down.

You could make the same argument about any business that competes with a company.

And fair enough, guess we're just getting caught up in the debate and are a little gruff with each other, no harm done  

But to be fair, most communist takeovers were fairly violent toward the owners of property, from what I've read. Please correct me if I'm wrong, this is related directly to my Thesis paper, so the more information the better!


And I'm glad I realized I could just type A-Cap and A-Com, saves me lots of typing  


If everyone is in agreement that all interaction should be voluntary, then I think no matter who is right, the free market will chose , from people moving between societies or organizational types depending on which is better for them. Personally, I'd rather live in an A-Cap society, not just because I think it is right, but it allows people to be rewarded for coming up with something that people want or doing something that people feel they should be rewarded for, rather than just being paid a set wage no more or less than your coworkers.

So while we can agree to disagree and let each other be, it's always fun to debate  

[kiba]

Eliminating an existential threat is immoral?

I know that if I was living in an anarchist society, of any kind, and the neighbors decided they were going to build an expansionist militaristic feudal society next door I'd stop them as soon as I possibly could.  and I'd hope that all my anarchist neighbors, capitalist, communist, primitivist or what have you, would have the same self interest in doing so that I would.

Now mind you, I don't think that anarcho-communists are an existential threat to anarcho-capitalists, but that we are seems to be an assumption of many anarcho-capitalists.

I misunderstood the questions in my fast reading.

[Babylon]

Destroy economically perhaps, by trying to undercut their prices, but no more so than any other business they're trying to take down.

You could make the same argument about any business that competes with a company.

And fair enough, guess we're just getting caught up in the debate and are a little gruff with each other, no harm done  

But to be fair, most communist takeovers were fairly violent toward the owners of property, from what I've read. Please correct me if I'm wrong, this is related directly to my Thesis paper, so the more information the better!


And I'm glad I realized I could just type A-Cap and A-Com, saves me lots of typing  


If everyone is in agreement that all interaction should be voluntary, then I think no matter who is right, the free market will chose , from people moving between societies or organizational types depending on which is better for them. Personally, I'd rather live in an A-Cap society, not just because I think it is right, but it allows people to be rewarded for coming up with something that people want or doing something that people feel they should be rewarded for, rather than just being paid a set wage no more or less than your coworkers.

So while we can agree to disagree and let each other be, it's always fun to debate  

Communist revolutions, actually all revolutions, tend to be quite violent toward the holders of property yes.

This is where we run into a basic conflict, there's not a bunch of free wealth laying around to be utilized by hard workers, there was in the American West, which was what allowed the society that evolved there to evolve, there isn't anymore. By this I mean real wealth, land and resources, not just capital.  Bitcoins make a lovely form of capital, and I am glad that I have more wealth in them now than I used to, but I know that wealth has been redistributed from others, it's not something I extracted from the environment or created with my own labor.

So yes, for a new society, of any sort, to be successful the wealth has to be redistributed.  If it remains in the hands of the rulers then nobody, capitalist, communist, or anything else, is going to have any success establishing a new society.

I may be an unusual A-com in that I consider a-caps to be far better allies than Authoritarian Communists, but I do think hopefully we've learned our lesson from trying to work with the Leninists in Spain and Russia.  Those guys are jerks.

You guys have a similar experience in the American West of being sold out by those that agree with you economically but not politically, however it was longer ago and the lines were not as sharply drawn, so it may not sting as badly.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

Babylon- I was thinking about this a few posts ago. It would be entirely possible in many places to buy land from the government representing a group of people, and then simply leave it communally owned or stake claims, etc.

In other words, just work within the system and start your own system within theirs, and when you are big enough you can secede, which unfortunately would likely turn into a violent conflict.

My personal dream is to group up with a bunch of people and buy an island, then work out how we distribute land and such, then see what can be done in such a system

Maybe when 1btc=1000000000000 USD I'll be able to do so 

[Babylon]

Babylon- I was thinking about this a few posts ago. It would be entirely possible in many places to buy land from the government representing a group of people, and then simply leave it communally owned or stake claims, etc.

In other words, just work within the system and start your own system within theirs, and when you are big enough you can secede, which unfortunately would likely turn into a violent conflict.

My personal dream is to group up with a bunch of people and buy an island, then work out how we distribute land and such, then see what can be done in such a system

Maybe when 1btc=1000000000000 USD I'll be able to do so 

Stay in touch, your island sounds like it would be a good trading partner for mine.

I'll see if I can get father MacGruder to come onboard with the brewing enterprise that will be one of our primary exports.

[The Script]

The Kid, any chance we get to read your thesis when you finish?  What is your major that you are writing the thesis for?

Also, the island thing has been done before: google "The Republic of Minerva".  However, if you let me join your island we won't suffer the same fate as I'll bring my friends and their arsenal of firearms. 

[FatherMcGruder]

The property holders have no interest in simply holding their property because they still have to sustain it and themselves.

Nor do they necessarily have any interest in trading fairly. Desperate workers and tenants benefit employers and landlords most of all, as long as their discontent isn't so great as to provoke mutiny.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue for one type of political theory or another. I'm just not convinced that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. If I thought it was, I would have never created the thread. I doubt a brewery would function differently under anarcho-capitalist ideals than most do in our current society. How workers of a traditional anarchist persuasion might create, run, and make a living off of one interests me much more.

The Kid, any chance we get to read your thesis when you finish?  What is your major that you are writing the thesis for?

Also, the island thing has been done before: google "The Republic of Minerva".  However, if you let me join your island we won't suffer the same fate as I'll bring my friends and their arsenal of firearms. 

Do your friends have a navy? In the tradition of individualist anarchism, I think, I don't really like the idea of revolution or snatching remote islands. Can't we just adopt anarchistic behavior, in whatever little ways we can, to slowly convince our neighbors and change our present society? What if I were to start a brewery that embodied anarchist ideals in our present society? Could it work?