My doubts about anarchy

[kiba]

Sickness, Forced Labor (sweet shops), etc... I do believe that this is covered under the law. But granted, people will let themselves be subjected in order to survive.  In America (if your a legal citizen), I don't know why you would though. You can force an employer to pay minimum wage, even the people that are not getting minimum wage would be "off the books" and tax free and would counteract the lower pay.

The unemployment rate for teenager is pretty damn high. Today it's 14 to 15 percents. Back in 2000, this rate was 33%. The minimum wage may not be the primary cause of job losses, but it doesn't help.

Remember, children and teenagers will work for peanuts. The adults will raise the specter of exploitation in order to cut the competition out.

When you have old people like FatherMcGruder saying that people should deserve fair wages, they have an interest in destroying their competitors' ability to find jobs.

The law of economics dictates what can or cannot happen. What do you suppose when we don't pay heed to economic laws? Well, we either die or become poorer.

[rebuilder]

When you have old people like FatherMcGruder saying that people should deserve fair wages, they have an interest in destroying their competitors' ability to find jobs.

To play devil's advocate: What about when competition drives wages below the point needed to actually pay for living expenses?

[kiba]

To play devil's advocate: What about when competition drives wages below the point needed to actually pay for living expenses?

Then people may shares apartments or reduce consumption to reduce cost.

However, don't forget that cheaper labor force have effects on everything else. It may leads to cheaper goods.

[rebuilder]

----SNIP ---

Of course, anarchism is not a Utopian ideal. There will always be people that wish to use aggression to accomplish their goals. The point of anarchism is to make these people diffuse their power across everyone instead of concentrating it into the hands a single asshole, or a group of them. In fact, the real Utopians are the ones that think they can use aggression to accomplish their goals without it leading to corruption and abuse. Also, just because we have a system of property rights doesn't mean we expect everyone will follow them. I have no doubt that there will always be thieves but that's an issue to be dealt with technologically, better theft prevention, etc. Anarchism makes sense exactly BECAUSE Utopian ideals are nothing but fantasy.

This is all very philosophical. You speak of what is justified, of rights, of how things ought best be done. None of this has anything to do with the practical running of the state - and if you're talking about rights,  you are talking about setting up a state. Rights are something only subjects of states have. They are not something you are born with, they are something you are granted as a subject, after your status as a subject is confirmed. Free people have only abilities. But I digress.

You say the idea is to make people diffuse their power. How? That's the crux of my doubt right there.

[rebuilder]

However, don't forget that cheaper labor force have effects on everything else. It may leads to cheaper goods.

It may also lead to starvation. There is a strong precedent for workers being abused en masse by powerful industry magnates. And if you're going to  say that was because they had the state behind them, you'll have to answer my question about how you prevent such powerful individuals from effectively forming their own states and making the less powerful their subjects.

[wb3]

When you have old people like FatherMcGruder saying that people should deserve fair wages, they have an interest in destroying their competitors' ability to find jobs.

To play devil's advocate: What about when competition drives wages below the point needed to actually pay for living expenses?

Deflation occur's

Prices will overtime (6-12 months) get cheaper. People seem to have forgot basic concepts. It isn't the amount of money you earn, it is its purchasing power. You can give everybody $50/hr but products would adjust to meet the new purchasing power. This also works in reverse, if you cut everyones wages in half, the price of products would come down to the new wages.

The wool that has been pulled over peoples eyes is the worth of money. To buy the same thing a $1 would buy in 1950 today costs $23.50. To find the true inflation, compare the hourly wage in 1950 (on average was 0.75¢/hr) to 2011 ( abt $17 ).

So we end up with two ratios;   $1 : $23.50   and   0.75¢ : $17  Combine them for a percentage of purchasing power between years to see if we are better or worse.

We end up with a purchasing powers as 1950 = 1.33   and   2011 = 1.38  so the true difference in purchasing power is .05 worse off. Higher is worse, lower is better.

This does not reflect the costs of products but the purchasing power to buy them. So all those pay raises didn't really mean much at all.

[rebuilder]

Deflation occur's

Wouldn't this still lead to a strongly stratified society, where the majority are able to purchase the bare necessities, but have limited to no access to luxury assets such as education, further solidifying the class divide?

[wb3]

Deflation occur's

Wouldn't this still lead to a strongly stratified society, where the majority are able to purchase the bare necessities, but have limited to no access to luxury assets such as education, further solidifying the class divide?

Education as a luxury. Hmm... No, education would become what it was before, just without the high wages for teachers. Public schools would still be buy property taxes. But a strong community could teach to the 12th grade relatively free of charge. College would return to an elite status, but personally I think most degrees are over-rated in their value. As a lot of recent graduates are finding out. But even college level education does not need to cost what it does. Remember they are only selling information, and then testing you on your retention of that information. I think that can be done somewhat cheaply. Of course there are some fields, Doctor (of Medicine) that might justify the cost.

BTW: Recent statistics show Homeschooling the fastest rising education method with the best results. They are using combined Homeschooling resources to share information and teaching techniques. I know of one community homeschool that is better equipped than a private school.

[kiba]

Wouldn't this still lead to a strongly stratified society, where the majority are able to purchase the bare necessities, but have limited to no access to luxury assets such as education, further solidifying the class divide?

It depends on if you believe that entrepreneurs' wealth come from serving the lower class or not. If you believe the entrepeneurs' wealth come from serving the richer class only, then there is no chance for the lower class to rise.

Obviously I believe wealth does come from serving the lower classes. More importantly, I believe is that there two categories: The have-now, and the have-later. I believe the expansion in productivity will accrues to the lower class and diminish the relative power of the rich.

Consider the smartphone, for example. Before the decade's end, these will be available to the developing worlds. Now, everybody have lot of computational power they can take advantage of, and a global market they can enter.

Education cost will be lowered dramatically through entrepreneurial and charity effort.

Think of Khanacademy. It's not just a charity, but a hyper-efficient operation. The video lectures and the program for mastering these concepts can literally scale up to billions of people in the world provided that they throw enough brains and servers at it. Plus they utilize statistics to analyze the educational effort in depth to show where they can improve.

Today's public school system waste horrendous amount of money for their economic output. It doesn't have to be like that.

[Grinder]

To play devil's advocate: What about when competition drives wages below the point needed to actually pay for living expenses?

Then people may shares apartments or reduce consumption to reduce cost.

Yeah, and if they don't have bread they can just eat cake.

[The Script]

BTW: Recent statistics show Homeschooling the fastest rising education method with the best results. They are using combined Homeschooling resources to share information and teaching techniques. I know of one community homeschool that is better equipped than a private school.

Good points about education. I also believe that education could be done a lot more effectively for a much lower cost.  I was homeschooled and am doing just fine in "the real world".  Most people are surprised when I tell them I was homeschooled because I don't have the social awkwardness they expect from homeschoolers. 

[Anonymous]

Any type of private education is better than the political machine known as public education. Would you rather have over a decade's of your child's life in your control or up to the whim's and desires of a flawed inefficient democracy?

[deadlizard]

To play devil's advocate: What about when competition drives wages below the point needed to actually pay for living expenses?

Then people may shares apartments or reduce consumption to reduce cost.

Yeah, and if they don't have bread they can just eat cake.

"She didn't care to think about the peasants much less insult them."

How about they eat the rich 

[Anonymous]

What's a rich person?

[deadlizard]

What's a rich person?

They taste sweet but not excessively sweet 

[NghtRppr]

Aggression is the initiation of force. To say "the initiation of aggression" is to say something redundant.

I'm a spelling/grammar nazi and a keen student of linguistics in general... Where do I send you a tip for this enlightenment?

My sarcasm detector is broken so I might be missing the joke but just in case you're serious, I've added my bitcoin address to my signature.  

What do you say to the anarchists who say that the state, by threatening violence everyday, or even carrying it out, feel justified to attack it, even when not for any specific offence?

I've had this question asked a few times and I always find it an extremely uncomfortable topic. First of all, I think that all self-defense should be carried out by persons against other persons. I also think that self-defense should be limited to imminent threats. Therefore, attacking the state fails on both counts since you aren't defending yourself from any particular person and also you aren't under an imminent threat. However, if you were to refuse to pay your taxes and refuse to be evicted from your home then, even though you would likely most either be killed or captured, you would be justified in resisting.

Or those who say something like "the capitalists use violence to force people to work (see, e.g., sweatshops) and to defend against unions (many cases) etc., therefore it is justified to use violence against them, even when their violence was not specifically directed at us personally"?

Capitalists don't force people to work. Nature takes care of that.

If you were the only person on the planet, you would have to either farm, hunt, fish or forage. You would have to either work or starve. Simply adding a few billion people to the equation doesn't change anything. They don't owe you a living. You still must either work or starve. If I offer you a job then I'm just adding to your opportunities. I'm not forcing you to work. You have to do that anyways.

[TiagoTiago]

...

Inter-species aggression is higher then intra-species aggression (especially if you eat meat, but even not you kill the plant to eat it). ...
...

Not necessarilly, there are many species of plants that give animals nectar and fruits in exchange for non-destructive assitasnce in reproduction; the animal still gets fed, but the plant not only not get killed but actually gets helped with creating new life.

[Alex Beckenham]

My sarcasm detector is broken so I might be missing the joke but just in case you're serious, I've added my bitcoin address to my signature.  

No sarcasm. Tip sent.

[wb3]

...

Inter-species aggression is higher then intra-species aggression (especially if you eat meat, but even not you kill the plant to eat it). ...
...

Not necessarilly, there are many species of plants that give animals nectar and fruits in exchange for non-destructive assitance in reproduction; the animal still gets fed, but the plant not only not get killed but actually gets helped with creating new life.

Ahh,... so Aggression is a Natural process. 

[NghtRppr]

You say the idea is to make people diffuse their power. How? That's the crux of my doubt right there.

If you look at how slavery ended in Europe, it was done peacefully. As more and more people saw that slavery was immoral, eventually there was critical mass to make the change. I see anarchism happening over generations as old ideologies die out and Libertarianism becomes more and more popular. Once we have enough people, we withdraw our consent from the state and defend ourselves against any aggression, which hopefully won't come, just as with abolition in Europe.

Also, don't make the mistake of saying "anarchism is a great idea but it won't work" since imagine hearing something like "freeing the slaves is a good idea but it won't work". Even if that were true, it doesn't matter, slavery is immoral and we don't acquiesce just because it's impractical.

My sarcasm detector is broken so I might be missing the joke but just in case you're serious, I've added my bitcoin address to my signature. 

No sarcasm. Tip sent.

Thank you very much, kind sir!