Anarchism: Impossible Utopia or Best Possible Chance?

[mybike_yourface]

I personally am a Market Anarchist. I believe the most moral societal system is a system that functions purely on a voluntary, non-coercive scale in line with the Libertarian NAP and the concept of Natural Rights. The State by its very nature is an abomination that disregards these rights and concepts, and exists as an institution that cannot exist without violating our inherent rights to our lives, liberty, and property.

What and how do you feel about the State, the role it should and does play in society and what do you have to justify these notions?

market anarchist is a vague term. are you a capitalist?

[mac46]

From what you just said, it is an assumption. You've assumed that the only possible solution is no state. That's fine for you, but don't act like you're proving anything, because you're not giving "reasons," you're just countering our posts.

It's either "State" or "No-State". There is no between.


And I have given reasons. You just don't see them as "reasons".

You haven't given reasons, just unsupported generalizations like "I don't like taxes, therefore the state infringes all my rights." And yea, the only solutions are state or no state, but the institution of the state offers far more diverse choices than a non-state ever could.

[mybike_yourface]

I'm afraid people naturally exploit other people. Whatever system you have isn't going to change that. At some point we had no 'state' at all. You have to be able to explain why we developed the state before you can argue for its abolition.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying "you need to be able to explain why we had slavery before we can argue for its abolition". The reason why it came into being is frankly unknown. Can you think of any clear reason why it was created? What sort of system existed prior to it? We've have periods where no State has existed... only for it to be usurped by Statists. Iceland, The Not-so-Wild West, somewhat-Somalia.

i think government devoloped out of agriculture which i believe came about because of peoples want for fermented beverages, ale, wine etc. why else would people leave a free life with less work(and what work hunter-gathers did do would often qualify as lesiere to modern humans) . this is the ony plausible theory i have come across for people leaving a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

[mybike_yourface]

Anarchism is awesome. Too bad that, like communism, it fails to consider who it is dealing with.

People?

Yup.

i think your confusing civilization/society and the socialization we experience through it for human nature.

[mybike_yourface]

I'm not sure everyone understands what anarchism is so here goes. Anarchism is a peace and freedom movement. It's about organization without coercion. It's a word that's been purposely misused and given a dual meaning over the decades in an atempt to confuse the public and discredit anarchists and anarchism. Anarchist don't believe in government and authority. That's first and foremost what anarchism is about. We don't want a government. we want to organize ourselves freely and voluntarily. Anarchism is about organization and cooperation without coercion or force. It's about living communally and sharing not profiting off of each other. The tiny minority of rich and powerful people in the world use the force of government and law to get richer of the rest of the world. anarchist contend that this is the very reason for government and law. that's why we want to live without coercion and force. anarchists believe no one is really free as long as there is government authority who's control rests on violence or the threat of violence. We want a free life of choice, peace, voluntary participation and cooperation.

For me politically it means to live without government. To be able to organize and cooperate without coercion or force. I do beleive no one is really completely free as long as there is government authority who's control rests on violence or the threat of violence. I want a free life of choice, peace, voluntary participation and cooperation. I also believe that to live free it takes personal growth and self discipline. Here's what one of my favorite books Scholar Warrior has to say about it: "People sometimes subscribe to the mistaken notion that discipline is restriction. That is not true. Discipline enables on to act. Only with discipline can one be truly all that one wishes to be. With discipline, one is able to carry out a decision free from fear, doubt, ambivalence and laziness. Being a warrior means being disciplined. Training is discipline. Fighting is discipline. Discipline is freedom."

[MarketAnarchist]

I personally am a Market Anarchist. I believe the most moral societal system is a system that functions purely on a voluntary, non-coercive scale in line with the Libertarian NAP and the concept of Natural Rights. The State by its very nature is an abomination that disregards these rights and concepts, and exists as an institution that cannot exist without violating our inherent rights to our lives, liberty, and property.

What and how do you feel about the State, the role it should and does play in society and what do you have to justify these notions?

market anarchist is a vague term. are you a capitalist?

Market Anarchist is a very precise term. I believe that a free market part of the key to the voluntary society we both desire.

Can I be called a Capitalist? Yes, I suppose. But Capitalism has a stigma attached to it that it doesn't deserve due to uneducated people using its name interchangeably with the ideas of Corporatism and Mercantilism, much in the same that uneducated people have interchanged Communism with Stalinism and Maoism. I am more preferable to the term "propertarian" or "radical libertarian", but Capitalist, if used in an educated manner, would be a proper way to describe me.

[MarketAnarchist]

From what you just said, it is an assumption. You've assumed that the only possible solution is no state. That's fine for you, but don't act like you're proving anything, because you're not giving "reasons," you're just countering our posts.

It's either "State" or "No-State". There is no between.


And I have given reasons. You just don't see them as "reasons".

You haven't given reasons, just unsupported generalizations like "I don't like taxes, therefore the state infringes all my rights."

While that would be a viable argument (if I don't consent to taxation, how is it ethical?), it could be broken down further.

What is taxation? It is forceful appropriation of my property to be used elsewhere. When the government holds a federal prison key to nose a gun to my chest saying "pay up or....", it's no different then a thug holding a gun to my chest and saying "give me your wallet or...."

Taxation presumes that the government has a higher right to my property, when it doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination.

And yea, the only solutions are state or no state, but the institution of the state offers far more diverse choices than a non-state ever could.

Are you kidding me? The State is a monopoly on services, and I have to pay, no matter what! I cannot choose a different service, I can not choose to not use a service, I have no say. I am forced to participate in a monopoly.

[MarketAnarchist]

I'm afraid people naturally exploit other people. Whatever system you have isn't going to change that. At some point we had no 'state' at all. You have to be able to explain why we developed the state before you can argue for its abolition.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying "you need to be able to explain why we had slavery before we can argue for its abolition". The reason why it came into being is frankly unknown. Can you think of any clear reason why it was created? What sort of system existed prior to it? We've have periods where no State has existed... only for it to be usurped by Statists. Iceland, The Not-so-Wild West, somewhat-Somalia.

i think government devoloped out of agriculture which i believe came about because of peoples want for fermented beverages, ale, wine etc. why else would people leave a free life with less work(and what work hunter-gathers did do would often qualify as lesiere to modern humans) . this is the ony plausible theory i have come across for people leaving a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

I don't know. I'm actually discussing it with my cabal of friends, and until we kind of have a clear solution, I'm not going to post on the origins of the State.

[MarketAnarchist]

I'm not sure everyone understands what anarchism is so here goes. Anarchism is a peace and freedom movement. It's about organization without coercion. It's a word that's been purposely misused and given a dual meaning over the decades in an atempt to confuse the public and discredit anarchists and anarchism. Anarchist don't believe in government and authority. That's first and foremost what anarchism is about. We don't want a government. we want to organize ourselves freely and voluntarily. Anarchism is about organization and cooperation without coercion or force. It's about living communally and sharing not profiting off of each other. The tiny minority of rich and powerful people in the world use the force of government and law to get richer of the rest of the world. anarchist contend that this is the very reason for government and law. that's why we want to live without coercion and force. anarchists believe no one is really free as long as there is government authority who's control rests on violence or the threat of violence. We want a free life of choice, peace, voluntary participation and cooperation.

For me politically it means to live without government. To be able to organize and cooperate without coercion or force. I do beleive no one is really completely free as long as there is government authority who's control rests on violence or the threat of violence. I want a free life of choice, peace, voluntary participation and cooperation. I also believe that to live free it takes personal growth and self discipline. Here's what one of my favorite books Scholar Warrior has to say about it: "People sometimes subscribe to the mistaken notion that discipline is restriction. That is not true. Discipline enables on to act. Only with discipline can one be truly all that one wishes to be. With discipline, one is able to carry out a decision free from fear, doubt, ambivalence and laziness. Being a warrior means being disciplined. Training is discipline. Fighting is discipline. Discipline is freedom."

I agree with you for the most part, except the following:

It's about living communally and sharing not profiting off of each other.

This is a Leftist brand of Anarchism. The Rightist Anarchisms (Market Anarchism/Anarcho-Capitalism) don't hold to this, and to assert this wholesale would be to establish a necessity for enforcement.

Anarchism is polycentric, with no set politic or economics ascribed to it.

Anarchist don't believe in government and authority.

Voluntary Authority is an exception (an employer whom you contract yourself too, etc.) to this. If it's voluntary, it does not violate the ethics of Anarchism.

Finally, laws aren't bad, per se, but most are, and since all people don't ascribe to all the same laws, polycentric law would be the norm.

[mybike_yourface]

I personally am a Market Anarchist. I believe the most moral societal system is a system that functions purely on a voluntary, non-coercive scale in line with the Libertarian NAP and the concept of Natural Rights. The State by its very nature is an abomination that disregards these rights and concepts, and exists as an institution that cannot exist without violating our inherent rights to our lives, liberty, and property.

What and how do you feel about the State, the role it should and does play in society and what do you have to justify these notions?

market anarchist is a vague term. are you a capitalist?

Market Anarchist is a very precise term. I believe that a free market part of the key to the voluntary society we both desire.

Can I be called a Capitalist? Yes, I suppose. But Capitalism has a stigma attached to it that it doesn't deserve due to uneducated people using its name interchangeably with the ideas of Corporatism and Mercantilism, much in the same that uneducated people have interchanged Communism with Stalinism and Maoism. I am more preferable to the term "propertarian" or "radical libertarian", but Capitalist, if used in an educated manner, would be a proper way to describe me.

market anarchist is a vague term as not all people who call themselves it claim to be capitalist.

you're not an anarchist if you're a capitalist. i know it feels neat to say that you're an anarchist or maybe you think it describes you best but you're a capitalist.

[mybike_yourface]

I'm not sure everyone understands what anarchism is so here goes. Anarchism is a peace and freedom movement. It's about organization without coercion. It's a word that's been purposely misused and given a dual meaning over the decades in an atempt to confuse the public and discredit anarchists and anarchism. Anarchist don't believe in government and authority. That's first and foremost what anarchism is about. We don't want a government. we want to organize ourselves freely and voluntarily. Anarchism is about organization and cooperation without coercion or force. It's about living communally and sharing not profiting off of each other. The tiny minority of rich and powerful people in the world use the force of government and law to get richer of the rest of the world. anarchist contend that this is the very reason for government and law. that's why we want to live without coercion and force. anarchists believe no one is really free as long as there is government authority who's control rests on violence or the threat of violence. We want a free life of choice, peace, voluntary participation and cooperation.

For me politically it means to live without government. To be able to organize and cooperate without coercion or force. I do beleive no one is really completely free as long as there is government authority who's control rests on violence or the threat of violence. I want a free life of choice, peace, voluntary participation and cooperation. I also believe that to live free it takes personal growth and self discipline. Here's what one of my favorite books Scholar Warrior has to say about it: "People sometimes subscribe to the mistaken notion that discipline is restriction. That is not true. Discipline enables on to act. Only with discipline can one be truly all that one wishes to be. With discipline, one is able to carry out a decision free from fear, doubt, ambivalence and laziness. Being a warrior means being disciplined. Training is discipline. Fighting is discipline. Discipline is freedom."

I agree with you for the most part, except the following:

It's about living communally and sharing not profiting off of each other.

This is a Leftist brand of Anarchism. The Rightist Anarchisms (Market Anarchism/Anarcho-Capitalism) don't hold to this, and to assert this wholesale would be to establish a necessity for enforcement.

Anarchism is polycentric, with no set politic or economics ascribed to it.

Anarchist don't believe in government and authority.

Voluntary Authority is an exception (an employer whom you contract yourself too, etc.) to this. If it's voluntary, it does not violate the ethics of Anarchism.

Finally, laws aren't bad, per se, but most are, and since all people don't ascribe to all the same laws, polycentric law would be the norm.

you should really start to at least call yourself an "anarcho"-capitalist or more probably a libertarian which is what it sounds like you actually are. capitalism and anarchism are not compatible. your talking about unfettered capitalism. i have no idea why a minority of you rightwing capitalist insisted on trying to usurp the term anarchism and twist it. it's like hitler using the term socialism in national socialist or people who eat fish and still want to be called vegetarian.

[Guiscard]

Although you've not yet answered my original post, I wonder if you'd deal with the problem of natural hierarchies emerging in any free market... Surely you always get bosses, you always get exploitation. How is your co-operative and non-coercive free market going to avoid this?

[MarketAnarchist]

I personally am a Market Anarchist. I believe the most moral societal system is a system that functions purely on a voluntary, non-coercive scale in line with the Libertarian NAP and the concept of Natural Rights. The State by its very nature is an abomination that disregards these rights and concepts, and exists as an institution that cannot exist without violating our inherent rights to our lives, liberty, and property.

What and how do you feel about the State, the role it should and does play in society and what do you have to justify these notions?

market anarchist is a vague term. are you a capitalist?

Market Anarchist is a very precise term. I believe that a free market part of the key to the voluntary society we both desire.

Can I be called a Capitalist? Yes, I suppose. But Capitalism has a stigma attached to it that it doesn't deserve due to uneducated people using its name interchangeably with the ideas of Corporatism and Mercantilism, much in the same that uneducated people have interchanged Communism with Stalinism and Maoism. I am more preferable to the term "propertarian" or "radical libertarian", but Capitalist, if used in an educated manner, would be a proper way to describe me.

market anarchist is a vague term as not all people who call themselves it claim to be capitalist.

I don't know what else a Market Anarchist could be. The Chicagoan and Austrian Schools are both Capitalist, and they're both Anarchist.

you're not an anarchist if you're a capitalist.

*facepalm*

This is never grasped by you commies, but when we market anarchists favorably speak of "capitalism", we are not talking about the current system, we oppose the current corporatist system in which business merges and colludes with the state, is subject to protectionistic devices and the state regulates everything. Accusing us of supporting something identical to the current system is utterly absurd on the face of it, it would be like me accusing people who live on a Kibbutz of supporting Stalinism. All one needs to do is read our material even briefly to see that this is a false and ridiculous claim. What's amazing is that the social anarchists practically ignore the role of the state in the exploitation of men. Kind of strange for "anarchists" to ignore the role of the state, the most monopolistic institution in any society.

You know, market anarchists practically trip over themselves to accommodate you commie-anarchists, we support your right to have your damn commune so long as you don't force us into it, yet you guys won't extend the same anarchistic value of polycentrism back towards us. That's more than a bit passing curious. Who is truly more "tolerant"? Those who could give a f*ck what type of association you engage in so long as it's voluntary, or those who would force a particular economic system onto others in the name of "anarchy"? As for the latter, that's not anarchy, that's Statism.

A common claim made by communist anarchists is that wages are slavery, and therefore under an anarchy wage-employment would disappear altogether. Both claims are absurd on the face of it. To begin with, there are plenty of people out there who want to work, because they have incentives o work (and it is frankly insulting to compare willing workers to slaves). Under an anarchy, incentives do not disappear, and basic economic facts such as the scarcity of resources and basic aspects of human nature such as self-interest do not disappear either. People have a natural incentive to mutually cooperate to mutual advantage precisely out of their self-interest (in economics, this is known best as "the law of association" and "comparative advantage"), and this includes employment. This incentive is intensified under an anarchy, not obliterated.

We also may run into a problem that cuts to the root of the question of anarchy. Under communist "anarchism", if I genuinely DO want to be employed, if I genuinely do want to work for someone else in exchange for payment, who is anyone else to stop me? If some body of people is in place that stops me, then this is not an anarchy, it is a state. Likewise, the reverse scenario applies: If I genuinely don't want to work, who is anyone else to force me to be employed and stay employed (real slavery)? If some body of people is in place that makes me work, it is a state. To force people to work or not work, in either direction, is contradictory to voluntaristic principle and as such it will require the initiating of force or the threat thereof, and a move towards centralization to attempt to enforce.

i know it feels neat to say that you're an anarchist or maybe you think it describes you best but you're a capitalist.

Whatever.

[mybike_yourface]

Although you've not yet answered my original post, I wonder if you'd deal with the problem of natural hierarchies emerging in any free market... Surely you always get bosses, you always get exploitation. How is your co-operative and non-coercive free market going to avoid this?

good question. but he likely can't admit that interest and profit areexploitative, that capitalism itself is exploitation.

[Dancing Mustard]

The State is a monopoly on services, and I have to pay, no matter what! I cannot choose a different service, I can not choose to not use a service, I have no say. I am forced to participate in a monopoly.

Dude you're so right! Screw this current democratically answerable institution that has made itself the provider of several naturally-monopolising goods! I hate the fact that I have no choice in influencing it (save only for regular balloting). I'd far rather be subjected to undemocratically elected monopolies on the precise same services which would be the inevitable product of an unregulated marketplace. Those monopolies would be totally awesome because I'd have no control over them at all, but it'd be ok, BECAUSE THEY'D BE CREATED BY MARKET FORCES WHILE I WAS ALIVE! f*ck my children's right to choose! The fact that they'd be born into a marketplace already dominated by unanswerable private monopolies isn't my problem... I mean, I got my right to have a choice made for me by a mass market, the fact that future generations wouldn't isn't part of my game plan at all... [/sarcasm]


Are you honestly suggesting that private monopolies (which are inevitable in a de-regulated marketplace) are a better alternative to the state? Tell me also what your crazy de-regulated marketplace is going to do to solve the issue of 'co-ordination problems' and the classic 'merit goods shortfall' problem?

[MarketAnarchist]

Although you've not yet answered my original post,

I haven't forgotten. I honestly couldn't explain the origin of the State, but myself and my friends are fielding arguments around it. When we come up with a definitive answer (might be tonight, might be a few days), I'll get back to you, I promise.

I wonder if you'd deal with the problem of natural hierarchies emerging in any free market... Surely you always get bosses, you always get exploitation. How is your co-operative and non-coercive free market going to avoid this?

Voluntary interaction (contracts, jobs, etc.) aren't antithetical to anarchsim. I don't equate bosses with exploitation either, as you choose who to contract your labor and time too. There is no coercive process behind finding and choosing an employer.

Also consider that companies have less leeway to be unethical; without governments to support, enforce, and give money to such companies that would brandish such a view and actions, companies rely on their own ethical judgments to not only attract the consumer, but employees as well. It's one big circle.

[mybike_yourface]

I personally am a Market Anarchist. I believe the most moral societal system is a system that functions purely on a voluntary, non-coercive scale in line with the Libertarian NAP and the concept of Natural Rights. The State by its very nature is an abomination that disregards these rights and concepts, and exists as an institution that cannot exist without violating our inherent rights to our lives, liberty, and property.

What and how do you feel about the State, the role it should and does play in society and what do you have to justify these notions?

market anarchist is a vague term. are you a capitalist?

Market Anarchist is a very precise term. I believe that a free market part of the key to the voluntary society we both desire.

Can I be called a Capitalist? Yes, I suppose. But Capitalism has a stigma attached to it that it doesn't deserve due to uneducated people using its name interchangeably with the ideas of Corporatism and Mercantilism, much in the same that uneducated people have interchanged Communism with Stalinism and Maoism. I am more preferable to the term "propertarian" or "radical libertarian", but Capitalist, if used in an educated manner, would be a proper way to describe me.

market anarchist is a vague term as not all people who call themselves it claim to be capitalist.

I don't know what else a Market Anarchist could be. The Chicagoan and Austrian Schools are both Capitalist, and they're both Anarchist.

you're not an anarchist if you're a capitalist.

*facepalm*

This is never grasped by you commies, but when we market anarchists favorably speak of "capitalism", we are not talking about the current system, we oppose the current corporatist system in which business merges and colludes with the state, is subject to protectionistic devices and the state regulates everything. Accusing us of supporting something identical to the current system is utterly absurd on the face of it, it would be like me accusing people who live on a Kibbutz of supporting Stalinism. All one needs to do is read our material even briefly to see that this is a false and ridiculous claim. What's amazing is that the social anarchists practically ignore the role of the state in the exploitation of men. Kind of strange for "anarchists" to ignore the role of the state, the most monopolistic institution in any society.

You know, market anarchists practically trip over themselves to accommodate you commie-anarchists, we support your right to have your damn commune so long as you don't force us into it, yet you guys won't extend the same anarchistic value of polycentrism back towards us. That's more than a bit passing curious. Who is truly more "tolerant"? Those who could give a f*ck what type of association you engage in so long as it's voluntary, or those who would force a particular economic system onto others in the name of "anarchy"? As for the latter, that's not anarchy, that's Statism.

A common claim made by communist anarchists is that wages are slavery, and therefore under an anarchy wage-employment would disappear altogether. Both claims are absurd on the face of it. To begin with, there are plenty of people out there who want to work, because they have incentives o work (and it is frankly insulting to compare willing workers to slaves). Under an anarchy, incentives do not disappear, and basic economic facts such as the scarcity of resources and basic aspects of human nature such as self-interest do not disappear either. People have a natural incentive to mutually cooperate to mutual advantage precisely out of their self-interest (in economics, this is known best as "the law of association" and "comparative advantage"), and this includes employment. This incentive is intensified under an anarchy, not obliterated.

We also may run into a problem that cuts to the root of the question of anarchy. Under communist "anarchism", if I genuinely DO want to be employed, if I genuinely do want to work for someone else in exchange for payment, who is anyone else to stop me? If some body of people is in place that stops me, then this is not an anarchy, it is a state. Likewise, the reverse scenario applies: If I genuinely don't want to work, who is anyone else to force me to be employed and stay employed (real slavery)? If some body of people is in place that makes me work, it is a state. To force people to work or not work, in either direction, is contradictory to voluntaristic principle and as such it will require the initiating of force or the threat thereof, and a move towards centralization to attempt to enforce.

i know it feels neat to say that you're an anarchist or maybe you think it describes you best but you're a capitalist.

Whatever.

i'm not a communist. and you are not an anarchist.

[MarketAnarchist]

The State is a monopoly on services, and I have to pay, no matter what! I cannot choose a different service, I can not choose to not use a service, I have no say. I am forced to participate in a monopoly.

Dude you're so right! Screw this current democratically answerable institution that has made itself the provider of several naturally-monopolising goods! I hate the fact that I have no choice in influencing it (save only for regular balloting). I'd far rather be subjected to undemocratically elected monopolies on the precise same services which would be the inevitable product of an unregulated marketplace. Those monopolies would be totally awesome because I'd have no control over them at all, but it'd be ok, BECAUSE THEY'D BE CREATED BY MARKET FORCES WHILE I WAS ALIVE! f*ck my children's right to choose! The fact that they'd be born into a marketplace already dominated by unanswerable private monopolies isn't my problem... I mean, I got my right to have a choice made for me by a mass market, the fact that future generations wouldn't isn't part of my game plan at all... [/sarcasm]


Are you honestly suggesting that private monopolies (which are inevitable in a de-regulated marketplace) are a better alternative to the state? Tell me also what your crazy de-regulated marketplace is going to do to solve the issue of 'co-ordination problems' and the classic 'merit goods shortfall' problem?

I haven't the time to respond to trolls like yourself. Come back with some semblance of correct English and something that you haven't strawmanned.

[MarketAnarchist]

I personally am a Market Anarchist. I believe the most moral societal system is a system that functions purely on a voluntary, non-coercive scale in line with the Libertarian NAP and the concept of Natural Rights. The State by its very nature is an abomination that disregards these rights and concepts, and exists as an institution that cannot exist without violating our inherent rights to our lives, liberty, and property.

What and how do you feel about the State, the role it should and does play in society and what do you have to justify these notions?

market anarchist is a vague term. are you a capitalist?

Market Anarchist is a very precise term. I believe that a free market part of the key to the voluntary society we both desire.

Can I be called a Capitalist? Yes, I suppose. But Capitalism has a stigma attached to it that it doesn't deserve due to uneducated people using its name interchangeably with the ideas of Corporatism and Mercantilism, much in the same that uneducated people have interchanged Communism with Stalinism and Maoism. I am more preferable to the term "propertarian" or "radical libertarian", but Capitalist, if used in an educated manner, would be a proper way to describe me.

market anarchist is a vague term as not all people who call themselves it claim to be capitalist.

I don't know what else a Market Anarchist could be. The Chicagoan and Austrian Schools are both Capitalist, and they're both Anarchist.

you're not an anarchist if you're a capitalist.

*facepalm*

This is never grasped by you commies, but when we market anarchists favorably speak of "capitalism", we are not talking about the current system, we oppose the current corporatist system in which business merges and colludes with the state, is subject to protectionistic devices and the state regulates everything. Accusing us of supporting something identical to the current system is utterly absurd on the face of it, it would be like me accusing people who live on a Kibbutz of supporting Stalinism. All one needs to do is read our material even briefly to see that this is a false and ridiculous claim. What's amazing is that the social anarchists practically ignore the role of the state in the exploitation of men. Kind of strange for "anarchists" to ignore the role of the state, the most monopolistic institution in any society.

You know, market anarchists practically trip over themselves to accommodate you commie-anarchists, we support your right to have your damn commune so long as you don't force us into it, yet you guys won't extend the same anarchistic value of polycentrism back towards us. That's more than a bit passing curious. Who is truly more "tolerant"? Those who could give a f*ck what type of association you engage in so long as it's voluntary, or those who would force a particular economic system onto others in the name of "anarchy"? As for the latter, that's not anarchy, that's Statism.

A common claim made by communist anarchists is that wages are slavery, and therefore under an anarchy wage-employment would disappear altogether. Both claims are absurd on the face of it. To begin with, there are plenty of people out there who want to work, because they have incentives o work (and it is frankly insulting to compare willing workers to slaves). Under an anarchy, incentives do not disappear, and basic economic facts such as the scarcity of resources and basic aspects of human nature such as self-interest do not disappear either. People have a natural incentive to mutually cooperate to mutual advantage precisely out of their self-interest (in economics, this is known best as "the law of association" and "comparative advantage"), and this includes employment. This incentive is intensified under an anarchy, not obliterated.

We also may run into a problem that cuts to the root of the question of anarchy. Under communist "anarchism", if I genuinely DO want to be employed, if I genuinely do want to work for someone else in exchange for payment, who is anyone else to stop me? If some body of people is in place that stops me, then this is not an anarchy, it is a state. Likewise, the reverse scenario applies: If I genuinely don't want to work, who is anyone else to force me to be employed and stay employed (real slavery)? If some body of people is in place that makes me work, it is a state. To force people to work or not work, in either direction, is contradictory to voluntaristic principle and as such it will require the initiating of force or the threat thereof, and a move towards centralization to attempt to enforce.

i know it feels neat to say that you're an anarchist or maybe you think it describes you best but you're a capitalist.

Whatever.

i'm not a communist. and you are not an anarchist.

You're not a communist? Oh wait, let me guess.

Anarcho-Syndicalist? Kropotkinist? Trotskyite?

Get off your goddam high horse, and read what I wrote.

[Tyr]

stop equating libertarian and anarchist thier not the same

[Dancing Mustard]

The State is a monopoly on services, and I have to pay, no matter what! I cannot choose a different service, I can not choose to not use a service, I have no say. I am forced to participate in a monopoly.

Dude you're so right! Screw this current democratically answerable institution that has made itself the provider of several naturally-monopolising goods! I hate the fact that I have no choice in influencing it (save only for regular balloting). I'd far rather be subjected to undemocratically elected monopolies on the precise same services which would be the inevitable product of an unregulated marketplace. Those monopolies would be totally awesome because I'd have no control over them at all, but it'd be ok, BECAUSE THEY'D BE CREATED BY MARKET FORCES WHILE I WAS ALIVE! f*ck my children's right to choose! The fact that they'd be born into a marketplace already dominated by unanswerable private monopolies isn't my problem... I mean, I got my right to have a choice made for me by a mass market, the fact that future generations wouldn't isn't part of my game plan at all... [/sarcasm]


Are you honestly suggesting that private monopolies (which are inevitable in a de-regulated marketplace) are a better alternative to the state? Tell me also what your crazy de-regulated marketplace is going to do to solve the issue of 'co-ordination problems' and the classic 'merit goods shortfall' problem?

I haven't the time to respond to trolls like yourself. Come back with some semblance of correct English and something that you haven't strawmanned.

Well la-de-da! Nice to see somebody who isn't remotely stuck up their own arse for a change. If you can't deal with my questions then there's no harm in saying so, but there's really no need to get so defensive about it.

Here, perhaps this will be more to your liking:

Are you honestly suggesting that private monopolies (which are inevitable in a de-regulated marketplace) are a better alternative to the state? Tell me also what your crazy de-regulated marketplace is going to do to solve the issue of 'co-ordination problems' and the classic 'merit goods shortfall' problem?

[mybike_yourface]

stop equating libertarian and anarchist thier not the same

i agree.
in much of the world such as latin america the term libertarian actually implies anarchist. i wish it still did because it's a nice term. much like they would like to steal the term anarchist in the U.S. at least they've stolen the term libertarian.

[MarketAnarchist]

stop equating libertarian and anarchist thier not the same

To the contrary. Anarchism is the logical outcome of libertarianism, a full realization of the NAP.

You and bike boy don't seem to grasp that.

[Guiscard]

Voluntary interaction (contracts, jobs, etc.) aren't antithetical to anarchsim. I don't equate bosses with exploitation either, as you choose who to contract your labor and time too. There is no coercive process behind finding and choosing an employer.

Also consider that companies have less leeway to be unethical; without governments to support, enforce, and give money to such companies that would brandish such a view and actions, companies rely on their own ethical judgments to not only attract the consumer, but employees as well. It's one big circle.

This is quite obviously bollocks. People will always seek positions of power. They will always exploit others below them to get ahead. The state may well allow this to happen in some instances, but there are plenty of obvious situations in which abuse and exploitation would happen with or without state intervention. Companies don't have to rely on their own ethical judgments if they have monopolies, especially geographically. If you live in a region where the only natural resource and therefore job opportunity is, for example, mining then your employer has a monopoly and can pay you whatever the f*ck he likes. There is categorically no way to avoid abuse and exploitation in a free market because it is an inherent part of the human personality. People will lie, cheat, steal and shit on the people below them.

Free market ethics works on paper, but nowhere else.

[mybike_yourface]

I personally am a Market Anarchist. I believe the most moral societal system is a system that functions purely on a voluntary, non-coercive scale in line with the Libertarian NAP and the concept of Natural Rights. The State by its very nature is an abomination that disregards these rights and concepts, and exists as an institution that cannot exist without violating our inherent rights to our lives, liberty, and property.

What and how do you feel about the State, the role it should and does play in society and what do you have to justify these notions?

market anarchist is a vague term. are you a capitalist?

Market Anarchist is a very precise term. I believe that a free market part of the key to the voluntary society we both desire.

Can I be called a Capitalist? Yes, I suppose. But Capitalism has a stigma attached to it that it doesn't deserve due to uneducated people using its name interchangeably with the ideas of Corporatism and Mercantilism, much in the same that uneducated people have interchanged Communism with Stalinism and Maoism. I am more preferable to the term "propertarian" or "radical libertarian", but Capitalist, if used in an educated manner, would be a proper way to describe me.

market anarchist is a vague term as not all people who call themselves it claim to be capitalist.

I don't know what else a Market Anarchist could be. The Chicagoan and Austrian Schools are both Capitalist, and they're both Anarchist.

you're not an anarchist if you're a capitalist.

*facepalm*

This is never grasped by you commies, but when we market anarchists favorably speak of "capitalism", we are not talking about the current system, we oppose the current corporatist system in which business merges and colludes with the state, is subject to protectionistic devices and the state regulates everything. Accusing us of supporting something identical to the current system is utterly absurd on the face of it, it would be like me accusing people who live on a Kibbutz of supporting Stalinism. All one needs to do is read our material even briefly to see that this is a false and ridiculous claim. What's amazing is that the social anarchists practically ignore the role of the state in the exploitation of men. Kind of strange for "anarchists" to ignore the role of the state, the most monopolistic institution in any society.

You know, market anarchists practically trip over themselves to accommodate you commie-anarchists, we support your right to have your damn commune so long as you don't force us into it, yet you guys won't extend the same anarchistic value of polycentrism back towards us. That's more than a bit passing curious. Who is truly more "tolerant"? Those who could give a f*ck what type of association you engage in so long as it's voluntary, or those who would force a particular economic system onto others in the name of "anarchy"? As for the latter, that's not anarchy, that's Statism.

A common claim made by communist anarchists is that wages are slavery, and therefore under an anarchy wage-employment would disappear altogether. Both claims are absurd on the face of it. To begin with, there are plenty of people out there who want to work, because they have incentives o work (and it is frankly insulting to compare willing workers to slaves). Under an anarchy, incentives do not disappear, and basic economic facts such as the scarcity of resources and basic aspects of human nature such as self-interest do not disappear either. People have a natural incentive to mutually cooperate to mutual advantage precisely out of their self-interest (in economics, this is known best as "the law of association" and "comparative advantage"), and this includes employment. This incentive is intensified under an anarchy, not obliterated.

We also may run into a problem that cuts to the root of the question of anarchy. Under communist "anarchism", if I genuinely DO want to be employed, if I genuinely do want to work for someone else in exchange for payment, who is anyone else to stop me? If some body of people is in place that stops me, then this is not an anarchy, it is a state. Likewise, the reverse scenario applies: If I genuinely don't want to work, who is anyone else to force me to be employed and stay employed (real slavery)? If some body of people is in place that makes me work, it is a state. To force people to work or not work, in either direction, is contradictory to voluntaristic principle and as such it will require the initiating of force or the threat thereof, and a move towards centralization to attempt to enforce.

i know it feels neat to say that you're an anarchist or maybe you think it describes you best but you're a capitalist.

Whatever.

i'm not a communist. and you are not an anarchist.

You're not a communist? Oh wait, let me guess.

Anarcho-Syndicalist? Kropotkinist? Trotskyite?

Get off your goddam high horse, and read what I wrote.

i'm none of those things. and it really shows how little an understanding you have of modern day anarchists. but since you're not one....

and i've looked at your lack of responses once you get backed into a corner. you'll likely accuse me of being a troll and of not have a "semblance of correct English" instead of responding. which is always a sure sign someone is loosing an argument.