What are the must-read Rothbard's books ?

[twiifm]

Anarchism has nothing to do w AnCap except the word Anarchism

Its like Nazism has nothing to do w Socialism

Anarcho-capitalism is a combination of anarchy and capitalism.

AnCaps don't understand Anarchism.  

Anarchism has its roots in Marxist thinking so the economic system for classical Anarchists would be Socialist.  Anarchism & Capitalism are incompatible ideology.

AnCaps are followers of Rothbard and the libertarian ones are followers of Ayn Rand.  But its all just dumb neckbeard kids.  Nobody serious takes them seriously.  The same dumb kids who think Nazis are Socialists when everyone knows Nazis practice Fascism AND Capitalism

Actually there are some people that refer to themselves as anarchists that don't seem to understand that the word "anarchy" simply means "no rulers".  I'm not convinced that a truly anarchist society is possible, but I'm not opposed to letting them try it out.  It might work, but I would be happy if we just moved towards a more libertarian, or minarchist, political system that let people participate in an economic system of their choice.

Anarchists can be capitalists or socialists.  As long as they don't condone the imposition of an economic system (or a monetary system) on someone against their will through the initiation of force by rulers.  Just let people choose the monetary and economic system that they want to participate in, voluntarily.

Ayn Rand was an ojectivist, but I don't believe she was a libertarian, I've even read that she despised libertarians.  I've been a libertarian since the late 90's, but I don't think I qualify as an objectivist.  I don't really know all of the details about Ayn Rand or objectivism.  I believe there is a lot of overlap, and I agree with a great deal of her philosophy.  However, I also think she supported the concept of "intellectual property" and state/military intervention in the affairs of other nations.

The reason why anarchism is incompatible with capitalism is that in a capitalist society the ones that hold all the capital are the rulers.  Its not possible to have "no rulers" under capitalism

Anarchy is what happens after Capitalism collapse according to Marxist ideology.  Marx thought to get to this state you need a proletariat revolution first.  Anarchists think you can just skip the revolution part

[shawshankinmate37927]

The reason why anarchism is incompatible with capitalism is that in a capitalist society the ones that hold all the capital are the rulers.  Its not possible to have "no rulers" under capitalism

Holding or owning capital doesn't necessarily make one a ruler.  It's having and exercising the ability to force someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't do that makes one a ruler.  Rulers (governments) certainly have to have assets and resources to impose their will on the unwilling, but that doesn't mean that everyone with assets and resources will resort to initiating violence.  Those that want to live peacefully in a free market can agree to respond with force against someone that declares them self a ruler and initiates the use of force.

Anarchy is what happens after Capitalism collapse according to Marxist ideology.  Marx thought to get to this state you need a proletariat revolution first.  Anarchists think you can just skip the revolution part

So Marx wasn't a statist, but an anarchist?  No rulers would be required—everyone would just freely choose to participate in a socialist economic system?

[twiifm]

The reason why anarchism is incompatible with capitalism is that in a capitalist society the ones that hold all the capital are the rulers.  Its not possible to have "no rulers" under capitalism

Holding or owning capital doesn't necessarily make one a ruler.  It's having and exercising the ability to force someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't do that makes one a ruler.  Rulers (governments) certainly have to have assets and resources to impose their will on the unwilling, but that doesn't mean that everyone with assets and resources will resort to initiating violence.  Those that want to live peacefully in a free market can agree to respond with force against someone that declares them self a ruler and initiates the use of force.

Anarchy is what happens after Capitalism collapse according to Marxist ideology.  Marx thought to get to this state you need a proletariat revolution first.  Anarchists think you can just skip the revolution part

So Marx wasn't a statist, but an anarchist?  No rulers would be required—everyone would just freely choose to participate in a socialist economic system?

In a stateless & capitalist society the big corporations have no regulatory body, therefore they would weild most power.

Both Marxists and Anarchists share a common goal for liberating the working class

My error for thinking Anarchism has roots in Marxism.  Anarchism has roots in philosophies pre Marx such as Rousseau

But during the time of the First International,  Marx had ideological conflicts with Bakunin, an Anarchist.  Marx eventually had Bakunin expelled from the group although they share a common  anti capitalist goal

Im not an expert on Marx.  But I dont think he had a theory of what the state looks like in a post capitalist society.  His idea of the modern state is that it serves the interest of the bourgouis class.  I dont know if he just wants to replace that w a state that representative of the working class or no state/ minimal state

[Bees Brothers]

In a stateless & capitalist society the big corporations have no regulatory body, therefore they would weild most power.

In a stateless and capitalist society, individuals still retain the right of self defense, control of property, and association with whom they please.
These rights have the potential to form a stateless "regulatory power".

[twiifm]

In a stateless & capitalist society the big corporations have no regulatory body, therefore they would weild most power.

In a stateless and capitalist society, individuals still retain the right of self defense, control of property, and association with whom they please.
These rights have the potential to form a stateless "regulatory power".

You are ignoring the capitalist part. 

[shawshankinmate37927]

In a stateless & capitalist society the big corporations have no regulatory body, therefore they would weild most power.

A corporation is a legal entity created by the state.  Therefore, there are no corporations in a stateless society.

Both Marxists and Anarchists share a common goal for liberating the working class

Me too.  I'm all for liberating the working class from fiat.  I think everyone in the working class should convert a portion of their earnings to sound, honest money.  Also, no one should be forced to do anything against their will or be held as a prisoner, unless they have harmed someone else or their property.

My error for thinking Anarchism has roots in Marxism.  Anarchism has roots in philosophies pre Marx such as Rousseau

But during the time of the First International,  Marx had ideological conflicts with Bakunin, an Anarchist.  Marx eventually had Bakunin expelled from the group although they share a common  anti capitalist goal

Okay, but can the philosophy of anarchism evolve?  If an anarchist is someone that believes there should be "no rulers" in place, ruling over him, then there is no power in place to force him into an economic system he doesn't want to participate in.  Socialist anarchists can cooperate with each other and form a socialist society and capitalist anarchists can cooperate with each other and form a capitalist society.  The world is big enough for more than one economic system.

Im not an expert on Marx.  But I dont think he had a theory of what the state looks like in a post capitalist society.  His idea of the modern state is that it serves the interest of the bourgouis class.  I dont know if he just wants to replace that w a state that representative of the working class or no state/ minimal state

I've always assumed he was for a revolt that called for the working class to take over the reigns of power rather than eliminate the reigns of power and become the new rulers.  They would then use that power to establish a socialist economic system and force that system on capitalists as well.

[twiifm]

In a stateless & capitalist society the big corporations have no regulatory body, therefore they would weild most power.

A corporation is a legal entity created by the state.  Therefore, there are no corporations in a stateless society.

Both Marxists and Anarchists share a common goal for liberating the working class

Me too.  I'm all for liberating the working class from fiat.  I think everyone in the working class should convert a portion of their earnings to sound, honest money.  Also, no one should be forced to do anything against their will or be held as a prisoner, unless they have harmed someone else or their property.

My error for thinking Anarchism has roots in Marxism.  Anarchism has roots in philosophies pre Marx such as Rousseau

But during the time of the First International,  Marx had ideological conflicts with Bakunin, an Anarchist.  Marx eventually had Bakunin expelled from the group although they share a common  anti capitalist goal

Okay, but can the philosophy of anarchism evolve?  If an anarchist is someone that believes there should be "no rulers" in place, ruling over him, then there is no power in place to force him into an economic system he doesn't want to participate in.  Socialist anarchists can cooperate with each other and form a socialist society and capitalist anarchists can cooperate with each other and form a capitalist society.  The world is big enough for more than one economic system.

Im not an expert on Marx.  But I dont think he had a theory of what the state looks like in a post capitalist society.  His idea of the modern state is that it serves the interest of the bourgouis class.  I dont know if he just wants to replace that w a state that representative of the working class or no state/ minimal state

I've always assumed he was for a revolt that called for the working class to take over the reigns of power rather than eliminate the reigns of power and become the new rulers.  They would then use that power to establish a socialist economic system and force that system on capitalists as well.

No corporporations but AnCapistan has companies?  And these companies can get as big as Exxon or Apple?  The point is same, the bigger these companies get the more power they wield.

[Nicolas Dorier]

The point is same, the bigger these companies get the more power they wield.

Why to care about a big company ?
A big company on a free market only means they make greater and cheaper products.

It is not like they have the power to force anyone to buy their stuff. If they can, I'm interested to know how.

[twiifm]

The point is same, the bigger these companies get the more power they wield.

Why to care about a big company ?
A big company on a free market only means they make greater and cheaper products.

It is not like they have the power to force anyone to buy their stuff. If they can, I'm interested to know how.

If its a utility company that has a monopoly then you have to use their service whether you want to or not.  It already happens now with things like cable TV providers.  Or internet pipes like Comcast

But the more serious problems for example is that if a company pollutes your backyard but you can't "vote w your dollars".  For example a leather dying company that dumps its waste into the local river but its revenues come from overseas or they are selling their products B2B so theres not way for the consumer to protest simply through the market mechanism.

Another example would be a pharma that sells over the counter opiates that gets the community addicted to drugs or even quack medicine/ supplements that could be fatal to the user

[shawshankinmate37927]

The point is same, the bigger these companies get the more power they wield.

Why to care about a big company ?
A big company on a free market only means they make greater and cheaper products.

It is not like they have the power to force anyone to buy their stuff. If they can, I'm interested to know how.

Exactly.  In an anarchist society there are no rulers for the companies to fund election campaigns for.  There are no rulers prepared to do the bidding of the companies.  There is no government for them to buy out.  If a company begins initiating the use of force, then they are now, by definition, either the government or criminals (some would say one and the same).

[shawshankinmate37927]

If its a utility company that has a monopoly then you have to use their service whether you want to or not.  It already happens now with things like cable TV providers.  Or internet pipes like Comcast

Most monopolies are established and protected by the state.  Eliminate the state and there are no longer rulers protecting their monopoly.  In fact, in a statist society it's the state itself that often attempts to establish a monopoly on a particular service.  There would be nothing preventing multiple companies from providing me with these services in a stateless society and there would be nothing preventing me from choosing from multiple cable tv or internet service providers in a free market system.

[twiifm]

The point is same, the bigger these companies get the more power they wield.

Why to care about a big company ?
A big company on a free market only means they make greater and cheaper products.

It is not like they have the power to force anyone to buy their stuff. If they can, I'm interested to know how.

If a company begins initiating the use of force, then they are now, by definition, either the government or criminals (some would say one and the same).

Yup, that's why Chomsky says Anarchism is incompatible w Capitalism.  You are simply replacing a democratically elected ruler with a market dominant ruler.  In Ancapistan the mechanism that regulates power is either "market choices" or "NAP".  But most people would still exist in the consumer/ worker category how much 'voting power' do they really have?  We already have these problems EVEN though there is a democratically representative state & regulations.  

For example; if the people of Brazil don't want Monsanto doing business in their backyard, how can they voice their objection?  They already don't buy their stuff.  But at least for now Brazil govt can ban Monsanto.  If there was no govt this would be impossible.  The AnCap argument would be, "who cares if 2 private parties conduct business together'.  As if there is no collateral damage that arise from the business.  So if there is collateral damage wouldn't you say it is a conflict with your NAP?  If there is a conflict, who resolves the conflict absent the state?  Private court?  Wait so a private company is to hold trials?  So a bunch of farmers sue a giant company like Monsanto in a private court?  Easy to see who has more money to pay off the judge.  Who gets to choose which private court to use if there are competing courts?  And what is the extent of jusridiction of each private court?  All sorts of problems arise if you just think a little harder instead of sloganeering

AnCap can't work because it commodifies justice.  Justice needs to be impartial and if there is a profit motive it can't be impartial.

[twiifm]

If its a utility company that has a monopoly then you have to use their service whether you want to or not.  It already happens now with things like cable TV providers.  Or internet pipes like Comcast

Most monopolies are established and protected by the state.  Eliminate the state and there are no longer rulers protecting their monopoly.  In fact, in a statist society it's the state itself that often attempts to establish a monopoly on a particular service.  There would be nothing preventing multiple companies from providing me with these services in a stateless society and there would be nothing preventing me from choosing from multiple cable tv or internet service providers in a free market system.

Nope that's not true.  In America we have anti-trust laws.  The state allows some temporary monopolies like patents.  For utility companies they allow some regional monopoly but its highly regulated.

The state did not establish Microsoft.  Microsoft is a private company that out competed the competition to be tog dog.  But competitors like Netscape complained and anti-trust laws forced MS to remove IE from Windows

[Nicolas Dorier]

If its a utility company that has a monopoly then you have to use their service whether you want to or not.  It already happens now with things like cable TV providers.  Or internet pipes like Comcast

If a company is both bad and in a monopoly, you don't have to search very far to find that the cause is government itself that protect them.

The allocation of TV channel, cable and water conduct and even electricity cable, is business of the state.
Most of these infrastructure is financed by the tax payer, and you are severely restricted to own your cable or channels by law.
These is property of the state, granting themselves the right to decide how to allocate "fairly" the scarce shared resource that a private party is forbidden to provide.

This create an artificial scarcity that only big companies (or with good enough connection) can afford, protecting them from competition.
You have nice story about such monopolistic crappy companies, like Bell, where the state helped them to kill their competitor by preventing the development of their own network. (either with legal restriction or subsidies to bell)

Quoting Rothbard

...by this definition, monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group. Entry into the field is prohibited to others and this prohibition is enforced by the gen­darmes of the State.

The only business that can give rise to a monopoly are those benefiting of network effect (telephony was in this case).
Preventing competitor by law of intellectual property the monopoly of developing this to Bell did not helped.
But even with such attempt after the patent expired, competitors were attacking Bell but Bell was then protected by the state with tax payer money and politicians.

Now let's see Myspace, MSN ? these benefited from network effect but died after all, not helped by the state. (well I think I already made this case some month ago on this forum :p)

[twiifm]

If its a utility company that has a monopoly then you have to use their service whether you want to or not.  It already happens now with things like cable TV providers.  Or internet pipes like Comcast

If a company is both bad and in a monopoly, you don't have to search very far to find that the cause is government itself that protect them.

The allocation of TV channel, cable and water conduct and even electricity cable, is business of the state.
Most of these infrastructure is financed by the tax payer, and you are severely restricted to own your cable or channels by law.
These is property of the state, granting themselves the right to decide how to allocate "fairly" the scarce shared resource that a private party is forbidden to provide.

This create an artificial scarcity that only big companies (or with good enough connection) can afford, protecting them from competition.
You have nice story about such monopolistic crappy companies, like Bell, where the state helped them to kill their competitor by preventing the development of their own network. (either with legal restriction or subsidies to bell)

Quoting Rothbard

...by this definition, monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group. Entry into the field is prohibited to others and this prohibition is enforced by the gen­darmes of the State.

The only business that can give rise to a monopoly are those benefiting of network effect (telephony was in this case).
Preventing competitor by law of intellectual property the monopoly of developing this to Bell did not helped.
But even with such attempt after the patent expired, competitors were attacking Bell but Bell was then protected by the state with tax payer money and politicians.

Now let's see Myspace, MSN ? these benefited from network effect but died after all, not helped by the state. (well I think I already made this case some month ago on this forum :p)

1.  You cannot make an argument that govt protects monopolies because it is A FACT that there are anti-trust laws.  Don't be intellectually dishonest just so you can argue Rothbard.  He is absolutely wrong about this.  If you think the govt protects monopolies then how do you reconcile the existence of anti-trust laws?

2.  I'm not making an argument whether monopolies are good or bad.  My argument is that without the state there is no mechanism to deal with bad monopolies.  If there is only "market choices" you are stuck with the monopolist.

3.  Patents grant a temporary monopoly on the intellectual property.  That is all.  Just because Google patents search, it doesn't mean no other companies are allowed to create a search engine.  They just can't use google's methods.  You don't seem to understand the spirit of patents.  Its to promote competition and innovation.  So Yahoo couldn't steal Google's methods back in the day.  And if I come up with better method, Google can't steal my patent.

[shawshankinmate37927]

The state did not establish Microsoft.  Microsoft is a private company that out competed the competition to be tog dog.  But competitors like Netscape complained and anti-trust laws forced MS to remove IE from Windows

The state established the intellectual property laws that allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly in the operating systems market.  They were giving away IE for free, which is their prerogative and not a threat to anyone's safety or a violation of anyone's rights.  They weren't forcing anyone to use it.  Lots of applications, utilities, and operating systems themselves are free.  Should Microsoft sue Ubuntu for making operating systems available for free and use the force of government to force me to pay for an operating system?  I use gmail for free.  Should someone that wants to charge me for webmail service have the grounds to sue Google and force me to pay for webmail?

[twiifm]

The state did not establish Microsoft.  Microsoft is a private company that out competed the competition to be tog dog.  But competitors like Netscape complained and anti-trust laws forced MS to remove IE from Windows

The state established the intellectual property laws that allowed Microsoft to become a monopoly in the operating systems market.  They were giving away IE for free, which is their prerogative and not a threat to anyone's safety or a violation of anyone's rights.  They weren't forcing anyone to use it.  Lots of applications, utilities, and operating systems themselves are free.  Should Microsoft sue Ubuntu for making operating systems available for free and use the force of government to force me to pay for an operating system?  I use gmail for free.  Should someone that wants to charge me for webmail service have the grounds to sue Google and force me to pay for webmail?

Where are you going with this argument?  First you claim that the govt is responsible for abetting MS road to monopoly by establishing patent laws.  Then you say they shouldn't have tried to break up the MS monopoly.  Then you say no monopolies exist despite these patent protections because competitors like Ubuntu exist.

I'm so confused what your point is except you wanna say: govt = bad. 

[Nicolas Dorier]

Some reading about Bell http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf

Trailer :

A Senate Commerce Committee hearing in 1921 stated that “telephoning is a natural monopoly.” And a House of Representative committee report noted, “There is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone business” (quoted in Loeb 1978: 14).

A Michigan Public Utilities Commission report (1921: 315) from that same year also illustrates this prevailing sentiment, “Competition resulted in duplication of investment.... The policy of the state was to eliminate this by eliminating as far as possible, duplication.”

Here is how they prevented competitors to make their own network.

Telephone, television, water pipe or electricity, the strategy is the same : creating scarcity by law, then distribute "fairly" to the big guys. Wonder why there is no competition.  

[twiifm]

Some reading about Bell http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf

Trailer :

A Senate Commerce Committee hearing in 1921 stated that “telephoning is a natural monopoly.” And a House of Representative committee report noted, “There is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone business” (quoted in Loeb 1978: 14).

A Michigan Public Utilities Commission report (1921: 315) from that same year also illustrates this prevailing sentiment, “Competition resulted in duplication of investment.... The policy of the state was to eliminate this by eliminating as far as possible, duplication.”

Here is goes how they prevented others to make their own network.

Telephone, television, water pipe or electricity, the strategy is the same : creating scarcity by law, then distribute "fairly" to the big guys. You bet you don't have competition with bad monopoly companies.

And then Bell got broken up by the state in 1982.  What is your point?  That the state can grant as well as breakup monopolies?  Yes that is true.  (Although the grant of monopoly would come with some heavy regulations)

My question to you is without the state mechanism, how do you deal with harmful monopolies?  (Monopolies that are in conflict with your NAP)

[Nicolas Dorier]

Without state there is no such thing as harmful monopoly. Either you provide value and make money, either you don't, loose money and die.

If the company is harmful to the point of initiating force (conflict with NAP), then, this become a government.
So then, the question is how to prevent that from happening.

Rothbard talk about private police and court, but this is a whole chapter of a book.
Since NAP is violated, the libertarian is in right to defend itself against it with force. But he would most likely use a private police for that.

If the company does not recognize violation, then, there is a private court to decide of the matter.
Such private court arbitrers are assigned by the 2 parts voluntary.
Each arbitrer has an incentive to not cheat, because this would affect his reputation, and thus diminish his customer base.
Such private court existed between merchants in the middle age, down to 1920.
In 1900, voluntary arbitration took hold in the US.
He takes a very long example in ancient Ireland, where tribes had a leader, but he could be attacked by everyone in court, and could not impose force against subjects.

I can't make justice to Rothbard, he discusses about that very deeply for a long part of "For a new libery", but that's the general idea.