Anarchism: Impossible Utopia or Best Possible Chance?

[Tyr]

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.

no anarchists are radicals whow ant to abolish government whereas libertarians simply want less government intrusions into our lives

[MarketAnarchist]

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?

You're already off to a shit start, with a strawman. First, you're blindly and incorrectly asserting that private monopolies are the norm in the market place; while it is true that sometimes natural monopolies may form, they won't hold out long and they don't typically exist as a result of unethical manipulations (which can only happen at the behest of a State-like entity). Consider the costs of being able to create a monopoly when you don't have a State to enforce it.

Second, I never stated that a private monopoly would be better. You're putting words in my mouth, and that's just plain fucking asshole of you.

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?

The "merit goods shortfall" is a faux problem that was already destroyed by marginalist economics in the late 19th century, and co-ordination is not something that is incapable to through voluntary individuals. After all, if it wasn't, nothing would get done, at all, anywhere.

[MarketAnarchist]

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.

Wouldn't this be an argument against the State? If we accept that everyone is evil, and given the opportunity they will be evil, wouldn't that mean that State, being made of men, run by men, and created by men, evil (if not more evil, due to its coercive power?). If this were truly the case, wouldn't man be better off without an unnatural hierarchy so that he isn't taken advantage of?

[MarketAnarchist]

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....

Son, don't give me that "no true scotsman" fallacy horseshit. When left with nothing, all you have are your personal attacks and "that's not anarchism!" clap trap. Frankly, I don't want to continue this conversation unless you can give me some reason of why Market Anarchism isn't Anarchism.

But before you do, read some Market Anarchist material, and read what I've posted.

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.

Oh, you've got to be shitting me. I asked for him to unstrawman his arguments and post something coherent, and I'm in the wrong? Where the f*ck am I, bizarro-world?

[mybike_yourface]

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.

no anarchists are radicals whow ant to abolish government whereas libertarians simply want less government intrusions into our lives

communist said they same thing. that anarchism was the logical outcome of their ideas. what you don't seem to grasp is why anarchism came to be and that your not part of it. you ideas weren't part of it in the begining(for very good reasons) while people were experiencing enfettered capitalism. you're just a libertarian. vote for ron paul, admit it, move on.

[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.

Wouldn't this be an argument against the State? If we accept that everyone is evil, and given the opportunity they will be evil, wouldn't that mean that State, being made of men, run by men, and created by men, evil (if not more evil, due to its coercive power?). If this were truly the case, wouldn't man be better off without an unnatural hierarchy so that he isn't taken advantage of?

So you managed to avoid answering my point, then...

The state, through mass participation, can act to limit monopolies and corruption. If we take the example of an area with a single exploitable natural resource which must be mined then the state can impose laws to limit the exploitation - minimum wage for example - where your ideal of society would be entirely powerless.

Thats my point. It is impotent in dealing with the unchecked excesses of a free market.

[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.

no anarchists are radicals whow ant to abolish government whereas libertarians simply want less government intrusions into our lives

Oh, how little you know.

Rothbard? Market Anarchist. Friedman and Friedman? Market Anarchists. Von Mises? Market Anarchist. Spooner? Market Anarchist. Bastiat? Market Anarchist. The foremost libertarians were Market Anarchists, and Market Anarchism is the full realization of the Non-Aggression Principle, unlike your Minarchism horseshit that only half ass applies the principle.

But hey, I don't begrudge you of that. Because in a Market Anarchist society, you could have whatever government you choose for yourself. Crazy, right? People making choices for themselves. Seems almost foreign to most folks these days.

So this horseshit about

anarchists are radicals whow ant to abolish government

is just plain uniformed. We don't want to abolish government. In order to abolish it, we would need to use force, which we're opposed to (that good ole NAP at it again!). If you want government, fine! Just don't force me into your little club.

[Frigidus]

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.

Wouldn't this be an argument against the State? If we accept that everyone is evil, and given the opportunity they will be evil, wouldn't that mean that State, being made of men, run by men, and created by men, evil (if not more evil, due to its coercive power?). If this were truly the case, wouldn't man be better off without an unnatural hierarchy so that he isn't taken advantage of?

I suppose that you could say that, but I feel that it also implies that no matter what economic or political system we choose to live by the worse parts of human nature will plague us. Generally every political system, whether already in place or a possible alternative can be said to not "actually work" because of human nature. No matter what choice we make there will have to be sacrifices that have to be made. Until human nature is flawless we will constantly have to balance freedoms and well-being. Frankly I'm not nearly well-educated enough to say which political is system is best, but the above will always apply.

[Guiscard]

I suppose that you could say that, but I feel that it also implies that no matter what economic or political system we choose to live by the worse parts of human nature will plague us. Generally every political system, whether already in place or a possible alternative can be said to not "actually work" because of human nature. No matter what choice we make there will have to be sacrifices that have to be made. Until human nature is flawless we will constantly have to balance freedoms and well-being. Frankly I'm not nearly well-educated enough to say which political is system is best, but the above will always apply.

And it applies most weightily to anarchism.

[mybike_yourface]

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....

Son, don't give me that "no true scotsman" fallacy horseshit. When left with nothing, all you have are your personal attacks and "that's not anarchism!" clap trap. Frankly, I don't want to continue this conversation unless you can give me some reason of why Market Anarchism isn't Anarchism.

But before you do, read some Market Anarchist material, and read what I've posted.

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.

Oh, you've got to be shitting me. I asked for him to unstrawman his arguments and post something coherent, and I'm in the wrong? Where the f*ck am I, bizarro-world?

there are "market anarchists" who are actually anarchist. but you're a capitalist who doesn't even realise it. you believe in capital, usery, profit, private property right? sorry you're not in the club. no matter how much you'd bend over backwards you don't need to accomidate us. you're not one of us and we don't accomidate you. you people are the only people who can't see that. every anarchist of every stripe keeps telling you but you just can't face facts. it's not about an economic belief difference. economics IS the difference! i don't need or want to hash it out with you. anarcho-capitalist and market anarchist(in the way your using it) are just ugly misnomers.

[MarketAnarchist]

So you managed to avoid answering my point, then...

Your point is a non-point. When evaluated on the face of it, it only presents a moral conundrum which points to a voluntary society as the solution.

The state, through mass participation, can act to limit monopolies and corruption.

This is false, and disengenuous. The State derives some sort authority from the "masses", but where the masses derive their authority? From nowhere, and to be blunt, they don't and can't. The "masses" are made up of individuals all of whom have the same rights, which are Life, Liberty, and Property. None of these rights is "Give and take rights you don't possess". To further this, the State violates my right to property through taxation. By its very nature, it violates my liberty in order to exist.

Additionally, the State IS a monopoly, and if we concede that monopolies are bad, why isn't the State bad? What makes it so much better then any other monopoly?

If we take the example of an area with a single exploitable natural resource which must be mined then the state can impose laws to limit the exploitation

EDIT IN: When you don't have private property and it is all a rush to get as most as you can, as fast as you can, you have such exploitations. However, if you privatized the land so that only one or a few owned it, the resource output would be controlled so to maximize their profits.

- minimum wage for example - where your ideal of society would be entirely powerless.

Minimum wage is a terrible idea. It hurts entrance level workers, and can only be enforced by -you got it- force, which is wholly unethical. Moreover, it presupposes that the State has a right to interfere with voluntary contracts between individuals. This is the same right I'm pretty sure the State uses to justify banning Interracial and Homosexual marriage, among other things.

Thats my point. It is impotent in dealing with the unchecked excesses of a free market.

Horseshit. The "excesses" are a result of government intervention on the behalf of corporations, not the free market.

[mybike_yourface]

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.

Wouldn't this be an argument against the State? If we accept that everyone is evil, and given the opportunity they will be evil, wouldn't that mean that State, being made of men, run by men, and created by men, evil (if not more evil, due to its coercive power?). If this were truly the case, wouldn't man be better off without an unnatural hierarchy so that he isn't taken advantage of?

I suppose that you could say that, but I feel that it also implies that no matter what economic or political system we choose to live by the worse parts of human nature will plague us. Generally every political system, whether already in place or a possible alternative can be said to not "actually work" because of human nature. No matter what choice we make there will have to be sacrifices that have to be made. Until human nature is flawless we will constantly have to balance freedoms and well-being. Frankly I'm not nearly well-educated enough to say which political is system is best, but the above will always apply.

i don't believe it's human nature. it's society and this failed experiment called civilization. remember we're socialized into being human. when raised with dogs we act like dogs.

[MarketAnarchist]

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.

Wouldn't this be an argument against the State? If we accept that everyone is evil, and given the opportunity they will be evil, wouldn't that mean that State, being made of men, run by men, and created by men, evil (if not more evil, due to its coercive power?). If this were truly the case, wouldn't man be better off without an unnatural hierarchy so that he isn't taken advantage of?

I suppose that you could say that, but I feel that it also implies that no matter what economic or political system we choose to live by the worse parts of human nature will plague us. Generally every political system, whether already in place or a possible alternative can be said to not "actually work" because of human nature. No matter what choice we make there will have to be sacrifices that have to be made. Until human nature is flawless we will constantly have to balance freedoms and well-being. Frankly I'm not nearly well-educated enough to say which political is system is best, but the above will always apply.

Which is the beauty of Anarchism: We don't seek to change human nature (whatever it might be), as Statism does. We simply believe that for better or worse, man is better off in Liberty.

[Guiscard]

So you managed to avoid answering my point, then...

Your point is a non-point. When evaluated on the face of it, it only presents a moral conundrum which points to a voluntary society as the solution.

The state, through mass participation, can act to limit monopolies and corruption.

This is false, and disengenuous. The State derives some sort authority from the "masses", but where the masses derive their authority? From nowhere, and to be blunt, they don't and can't. The "masses" are made up of individuals all of whom have the same rights, which are Life, Liberty, and Property. None of these rights is "Give and take rights you don't possess". To further this, the State violates my right to property through taxation. By its very nature, it violates my liberty in order to exist.

Additionally, the State IS a monopoly, and if we concede that monopolies are bad, why isn't the State bad? What makes it so much better then any other monopoly?

If we take the example of an area with a single exploitable natural resource which must be mined then the state can impose laws to limit the exploitation

EDIT IN: When you don't have private property and it is all a rush to get as most as you can, as fast as you can, you have such exploitations. However, if you privatized the land so that only one or a few owned it, the resource output would be controlled so to maximize their profits.

- minimum wage for example - where your ideal of society would be entirely powerless.

Minimum wage is a terrible idea. It hurts entrance level workers, and can only be enforced by -you got it- force, which is wholly unethical. Moreover, it presupposes that the State has a right to interfere with voluntary contracts between individuals. This is the same right I'm pretty sure the State uses to justify banning Interracial and Homosexual marriage, among other things.

Thats my point. It is impotent in dealing with the unchecked excesses of a free market.

Horseshit. The "excesses" are a result of government intervention on the behalf of corporations, not the free market.

I'm not gonna bother dealing with this crap until you explain to me how your system cannot at any point develop an exploitative monopoly of employment in the style of my example. I'm thinking you don't have an answer.

To give you a clue, 'people will go and work for a more ethical employer elsewhere' isn't a solution. They won't. There is no 'go elsewhere' option.

[Frigidus]

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.

Wouldn't this be an argument against the State? If we accept that everyone is evil, and given the opportunity they will be evil, wouldn't that mean that State, being made of men, run by men, and created by men, evil (if not more evil, due to its coercive power?). If this were truly the case, wouldn't man be better off without an unnatural hierarchy so that he isn't taken advantage of?

I suppose that you could say that, but I feel that it also implies that no matter what economic or political system we choose to live by the worse parts of human nature will plague us. Generally every political system, whether already in place or a possible alternative can be said to not "actually work" because of human nature. No matter what choice we make there will have to be sacrifices that have to be made. Until human nature is flawless we will constantly have to balance freedoms and well-being. Frankly I'm not nearly well-educated enough to say which political is system is best, but the above will always apply.

i don't believe it's human nature. it's society and this failed experiment called civilization. remember we're socialized into being human. when raised with dogs we act like dogs.

Perhaps society has accentuated the behavior to some extent, but it is the nature of all animals to do whatever they can to survive. Generally the more comfortable your life is the easier it is to survive, making comfortable living a priority. On a side note, perhaps society has trained us to be moral beings. Humans are the only animal with morals, so what's to say that they have always existed?

[MarketAnarchist]

there are "market anarchists" who are actually anarchist.

Which I am. Market Anarchist, and Anarcho-Capitalist are interchangeable, or didn't you know? I just prefer rejecting "capitalist" because it is often associated with todays corporatism and mercantilism, when Capitalism is nothing of the sort.

but you're a capitalist who doesn't even realise it.

I admitted to being a Capitalist, but obviously you didn't read what I had wrote about that. This doesn't surprise me, given your responses to my posts.

you believe in capital, usery, profit, private property right?

Yes.

sorry you're not in the club.

This conversation goes no further. You obviously have no clue what Anarchism is or means.

[Dancing Mustard]

You're already off to a shit start, with a strawman. First, you're blindly and incorrectly asserting that private monopolies are the norm in the market place; while it is true that sometimes natural monopolies may form, they won't hold out long and they don't typically exist as a result of unethical manipulations (which can only happen at the behest of a State-like entity). Consider the costs of being able to create a monopoly when you don't have a State to enforce it.

Erm, despite your certain and pompous tone, that's all complete rubbish. Monopolies are the norm in marketplaces over time, especially when state like entities don't exist to prevent them. It's common sense (and basic economics) that eventually in any market with an appreciable entry/exit-cost that through the processes of merger, crowding-out and simple economies of scale; a dominant monopoly or oligarchy will emerge.
I mean, if you don't understand or appreciate that then it's going to be pretty difficult to argue with you, because you'll be basing everything you say on a completely fictional concept of economics.
Here, tell you what, you explain to me why monopolies won't be able to 'hold on' in any marketplace with an appreciable entry/exit-cost.
Then you explain to me (and the guys who own Microsoft) why a private corporation can't raise the funds to make itself a monopoly over time, and why they can't continue to exist without state support.

Second, I never stated that a private monopoly would be better. You're putting words in my mouth, and that's just plain fucking asshole of you.

Sorry, there was me thinking you were calling the state evil and immoral... and stating that your alternative was a good idea. How crazy of me to assume that you were asserting that your proposed system would be 'better' than those evil and immoral states... just mad I must have been.

The "merit goods shortfall" is a faux problem that was already destroyed by marginalist economics in the late 19th century, and co-ordination is not something that is incapable to through voluntary individuals. After all, if it wasn't, nothing would get done, at all, anywhere.

Well gosh, then you'll be happy to explain to us how. Because I don't believe you for a second. People tend not to when you don't provide evidence for sweeping and outlandish statements...

Also, do you know what economists mean by 'co-ordination problems'? I suspect you don't, allow me to explain:
The state co-ordinates various codes of behaivour that are to are universal benefit. This is a task no other body is capable of doing so efficiently. The things I'm talking about here are problems such as 'which side of the road should be drive on?'. In your bizarre free-market state-less system we would have no answer to that (and to other countless co-ordination problems)... and nothing would get efficiently done. Now do you see your problem?

[Jehan]

sorry its hard to follow what's going on in this thread, but have you answered the question of what maintains the balance in your society,
ive always thought that the state only exists because power amongst people naturally tends to clump, it seems your suggesting a system which while being balanced, wouldn't be stable. surely the opposition in this thread alone is some argument against the idea that people would voluntarily work co-operatively.

[MarketAnarchist]

So you managed to avoid answering my point, then...

Your point is a non-point. When evaluated on the face of it, it only presents a moral conundrum which points to a voluntary society as the solution.

The state, through mass participation, can act to limit monopolies and corruption.

This is false, and disengenuous. The State derives some sort authority from the "masses", but where the masses derive their authority? From nowhere, and to be blunt, they don't and can't. The "masses" are made up of individuals all of whom have the same rights, which are Life, Liberty, and Property. None of these rights is "Give and take rights you don't possess". To further this, the State violates my right to property through taxation. By its very nature, it violates my liberty in order to exist.

Additionally, the State IS a monopoly, and if we concede that monopolies are bad, why isn't the State bad? What makes it so much better then any other monopoly?

If we take the example of an area with a single exploitable natural resource which must be mined then the state can impose laws to limit the exploitation

EDIT IN: When you don't have private property and it is all a rush to get as most as you can, as fast as you can, you have such exploitations. However, if you privatized the land so that only one or a few owned it, the resource output would be controlled so to maximize their profits.

- minimum wage for example - where your ideal of society would be entirely powerless.

Minimum wage is a terrible idea. It hurts entrance level workers, and can only be enforced by -you got it- force, which is wholly unethical. Moreover, it presupposes that the State has a right to interfere with voluntary contracts between individuals. This is the same right I'm pretty sure the State uses to justify banning Interracial and Homosexual marriage, among other things.

Thats my point. It is impotent in dealing with the unchecked excesses of a free market.

Horseshit. The "excesses" are a result of government intervention on the behalf of corporations, not the free market.

I'm not gonna bother dealing with this crap until you explain to me how your system cannot at any point develop an exploitative monopoly of employment in the style of my example. I'm thinking you don't have an answer.

I've already told you why. If you can't accept that because "Human nature *rabble rabble rabble*!", that's your problem, not mine.

To give you a clue, 'people will go and work for a more ethical employer elsewhere' isn't a solution. They won't. There is no 'go elsewhere' option.

Oh no? Just like that? Get fucking real. Even today, if I don't like working for McDonalds, I can go work for Burger King. It's that fucking easy.

[Snorri1234]

Which is the beauty of Anarchism: We don't seek to change human nature (whatever it might be), as Statism does. We simply believe that for better or worse, man is better off in Liberty.

So your solution to the problem of people exploiting other people is denying there is a problem?

[Snorri1234]

Oh no? Just like that? Get fucking real. Even today, if I don't like working for McDonalds, I can go work for Burger King. It's that fucking easy.

And when there are no laws, McDonalds can just get a bunch of guns and take over Burger King.

[Guiscard]

I've already told you why. If you can't accept that because "Human nature *rabble rabble rabble*!", that's your problem, not mine.

To give you a clue, 'people will go and work for a more ethical employer elsewhere' isn't a solution. They won't. There is no 'go elsewhere' option.

Oh no? Just like that? Get fucking real. Even today, if I don't like working for McDonalds, I can go work for Burger King. It's that fucking easy.

You've not told me anything. You've said:

When you don't have private property and it is all a rush to get as most as you can, as fast as you can, you have such exploitations. However, if you privatized the land so that only one or a few owned it, the resource output would be controlled so to maximize their profits.

Which is obviously bollocks. If one or a few own the land then what is to stop them paying their workers the absolute minimum to maximize their personal profit? This isn't an answer its jargon.

Secondly, yes you can go and work at wherever the f*ck you like if you work in a city, but here is real life: My father is the head teacher of a school where pretty much 90% of the males members of families were miners. All the villages around were exactly the same. There was no option to move because that was where your family lived, where your relations lived, your support network. Anyway, there would be no way of financing a move even if they wanted to. You had to work in a pit. One pit employed whole communities. The pit owner, in your system, could pay the miners whatever the f*ck he liked because there was absolutely no guarantee of fair practice.

[MarketAnarchist]

I'm done here for the evening ladies, as I have to eat some tasty venison, and even tastier cake.


So, until tomorrow, keep your panties on.


Also, cocks.

[Guiscard]

I'm done here for the evening ladies, as I have to eat some tasty venison, and even tastier cake.


So, until tomorrow, keep your panties on.


Also, cocks.

Pussy.

[Frigidus]

I'm done here for the evening ladies, as I have to eat some tasty venison, and even tastier cake.


So, until tomorrow, keep your panties on.


Also, cocks.

Enjoy, and a good finish I must say.