Let's discuss Anarcho-capitalism!

[Overtaken]

So I have some challenges and questions for any 'AnCaps' (?) who might be present on the boards. For disclosure, I am coming from a position of a Democratic Communist, to say in general. I've have numerous problems with especially Anarcho-Capitalism, but may even apply to more 'conventional' Libertarianism or Capitalism as well.

1. Enforcement of law (NAP) and private courts. A friend of mine with whom I had a friendly debate years back described that the system would function much like any other business, and that it wouldn't become corrupt for much of the typical reasoning that people would simply stop subscribing to a particular court if it were discovered to be corrupt or unfair in its judgements. However, there are still problems and practical issues I'm not understanding with this. First, if 'justice' is to be treated as just another commodity, then it can't be universal, which would be contradictory to its purpose. It would be something subject to consumer preferences. This is fine and all when we speak of product preference in normal circumstances because there is no moral or ethical implications involved when a market determines which sort of flavor of potato chip to make or which computer OS we want to use. With justice, even if you are merely trying to enforce the non-aggression principal and nothing more, there is nothing to guarantee or even foster a universal application of this in private courts. Some local consumer base can simply decide to subscribe to a security force and/or court that violates the NAP. That's one problem I find with Anarchy is that it commits to a society that follows a universal code of behavior, non-aggression, and deprives itself by its own definition of any means of enforcing that code. Furthermore, I don't understand how jurisdiction would be established. If I subscribe to a different court than does my neighbor, and we have a legal dispute, whose court is responsible for arbitrating matter, mine or theirs?

2. Backwardness of supply and demand, and consumerism. As I see it, a market system initiates the order of supply and demand backwardly, whereas a command economy does so with correct orientation. By this I mean, in capitalism, it is the supply side that informs the demand side in the exchange. A producer has to speculate with minimal to no feedback as to what it is the consumer wants. Already this encourages and favors the method of circumventing costly research, test-marketing, ect., in favor of propaganda and pressuring businesses to push junk product and focus on marketing, planned obsolescence, and all of these pursuant practices. In a word, consumerism. It fundamentally promotes waste and discourages innovation simply by following its own rules; succession of that which most profitable. On the other hand, a democratic command market would function properly by being built around a process where the entire public can determine first what its needs and wants are, and then pursuit the appropriate production and development-investments. This simultaneously excersises the unsightly and malignant tumors we know as consumerism and its sibling commercialism. There is no force in a command economy that is interested in lying to and short-selling itself (as opposed to the inherent enablence of one private party doing such to an entirely separate one in capitalism's case)

3. The de facto caste system. Economic mobility and inherited advantages are two related problems that capitalism is not only unable to solve, but will only ever, inevitably, exasperate it. The children of the poor are bound to their class by the lack of access to resources by no fault of their own. Surely I understand that there will be exceptions and possibilities in either direction, but the point is that there is undesirable and unjust disadvantage irremovably built into the system. It takes a prodigy genius to move upwards and a catastrophic dunce to fall downward. It is difficult for someone to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' when their bootstraps are inexorably tethered to their parents feet.

There is always more on the topic I could discuss but let's start with these and see if anyone takes me up.

 

[LarsINTJ]

An anarchist is technically somebody who applies the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) consistently, thus inevitably accepting that government is an immoral institution held aloft by coercion. Keep in mind that the NAP is derived from the axiom of self-ownership which extends to personal property. Anarchy doesn't mean 'no rules', but rather 'no rulers'.

I have little interest in arguing hypothetical solutions to the organisation of society as spontaneous order can easily arise from a group of healthy individuals - therein lies the crutch - our society is rotten and the only way to fix it is to stop shafting children, and breaking through the historical mess of tradition/culture/abuse is no easy task. More violence (power in the hands of the state) is not going to solve anything, we already know where that leads.

An important thing to remember is that all supposed functions of the state (barring war and taxation) were at some point completely private and a heck of a lot more efficient. Government naturally tends to stifle benevolent private agencies which threaten its perceived necessity. Usually they just take over and make it illegal to compete with their inferior doppelganger 'service'.

Here's the key difference between the public and private spheres. The public sphere is bloated by hordes of pointless, unskilled bureaucrats looking to leech off the public treasury (stolen wealth from the private sphere) whereas the private sphere is streamlined to reflect the needs of the consumer, so your success is proportional to the value you provide to others. People within government occupations are paid far more for the amount of value they actually provide, indirectly stealing from those who do provide significant value in the private sphere.

I am 100% in favour of helping those who do not deserve to be financially crippled, but the forceful re-distribution of wealth is not a solution. Yes, one person may inherit far more than another, but those at the bottom will always possess more determination to rise up than those at the top have for maintaining their position in the absence of other factors. What are those other factors? Government intervention. Without government intervention we wouldn't see the ridiculous prevalence of unbeatable monopolizing mega-corporations which are sustained by massive political favours, nor would we see a growing underclass with no drive to work both due to the lack of incentive (welfare) and the fact that they think that greedy capitalists are to blame for their poverty due to the incessant preaching of foolish academics seeping its way into the general culture. Also it's basically illegal for most young upstarts to compete within established industries because of all the stupid union and licencing nonsense implemented as part of the aforementioned political favors.

Oh yeah, government has been in charge of education for a while now, they're doing an amazing job, eh?

So how exactly do we help the sheer minority that is the undeserving poor? Charity of course. Clearly people care enough to raise it as an issue; surely they also care enough to voluntarily act on their concerns.... Well, if you don't care enough to act on those concerns then am I supposed to take it as some sort of sick joke?

That sums up my perspective as an Anarcho-Capitalist, but I do not speak for all Anarcho-Capitalists. I prefer not to use such labels anyway because most of us wish for a similar sort of prosperity. It's just a matter of identifying the world for what it is before claiming to know where the problems lie. Truth is empirical.

 

[Overtaken]

An anarchist is technically somebody who applies the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) consistently, thus inevitably accepting that government is an immoral institution held aloft by coercion. Keep in mind that the NAP is derived from the axiom of self-ownership which extends to personal property. Anarchy doesn't mean 'no rules', but rather 'no rulers'.

I have little interest in arguing hypothetical solutions to the organisation of society as spontaneous order can easily arise from a group of healthy individuals - therein lies the crutch - our society is rotten and the only way to fix it is to stop shafting children, and breaking through the historical mess of tradition/culture/abuse is no easy task. More violence (power in the hands of the state) is not going to solve anything, we already know where that leads.

An important thing to remember is that all supposed functions of the state (barring war and taxation) were at some point completely private and a heck of a lot more efficient. Government naturally tends to stifle benevolent private agencies which threaten its perceived necessity. Usually they just take over and make it illegal to compete with their inferior doppelganger 'service'.

Here's the key difference between the public and private spheres. The public sphere is bloated by hordes of pointless, unskilled bureaucrats looking to leech off the public treasury (stolen wealth from the private sphere) whereas the private sphere is streamlined to reflect the needs of the consumer, so your success is proportional to the value you provide to others. People within government occupations are paid far more for the amount of value they actually provide, indirectly stealing from those who do provide significant value in the private sphere.

I am 100% in favour of helping those who do not deserve to be financially crippled, but the forceful re-distribution of wealth is not a solution. Yes, one person may inherit far more than another, but those at the bottom will always possess more determination to rise up than those at the top have for maintaining their position in the absence of other factors. What are those other factors? Government intervention. Without government intervention we wouldn't see the ridiculous prevalence of unbeatable monopolizing mega-corporations which are sustained by massive political favours, nor would we see a growing underclass with no drive to work both due to the lack of incentive (welfare) and the fact that they think that greedy capitalists are to blame for their poverty due to the incessant preaching of foolish academics seeping its way into the general culture. Also it's basically illegal for most young upstarts to compete within established industries because of all the stupid union and licencing nonsense implemented as part of the aforementioned political favors.

Oh yeah, government has been in charge of education for a while now, they're doing an amazing job, eh?

So how exactly do we help the sheer minority that is the undeserving poor? Charity of course. Clearly people care enough to raise it as an issue; surely they also care enough to voluntarily act on their concerns.... Well, if you don't care enough to act on those concerns then am I supposed to take it as some sort of sick joke?

That sums up my perspective as an Anarcho-Capitalist, but I do not speak for all Anarcho-Capitalists. I prefer not to use such labels anyway because most of us wish for a similar sort of prosperity. It's just a matter of identifying the world for what it is before claiming to know where the problems lie. Truth is empirical.

No disrespect or anything, but had you read the OP? I am completely familiar with the introductory pamphlet on Anarchism, and I had a few questions or challenges in respect to some of the finer points of the matter.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Yes, I did read your post. My response was more for other people who are unfamiliar with the non-propagandized version of Anarchism, though I did address what you mentioned in an abstract sense. Next time remember to provide a clear definition for both sides before starting. I'm still not very clear on what Democratic Communism is supposed to be, at face value it's an oxymoron.

Arguing technicalities while ignoring the ethics of the situation is like wondering how to fix a tooth-ache while ignoring the rapidly bleeding hole in your torso. If we diverge in the acceptance of ethics, then there's no reasonable debate to be had.

...and referring to this perspective as an 'introductory pamphlet' to anarchism is disrespectful nonetheless. You're attaching an inherently disposable notion to the arguments, that's a cheat.

 

[Overtaken]

Yes, I did read your post. My response was more for other people who are unfamiliar with the non-propagandized version of Anarchism, though I did address what you mentioned in an abstract sense. Next time remember to provide a clear definition for both sides before starting. I'm still not very clear on what Democratic Communism is supposed to be, at face value it appears to be an oxymoron.

You speak of oxy morons in the next breath after you uttered "rules, but no rulers", which is actually exactly the objection I'm raising in the first point of my original post. But more on that in a second. Democratic Communism would be a statist position no doubt, but in no way does democracy nor communism contradict. Communism as a political theory is actually impossible without democracy, and democracy cannot be without communism. Communism is qualified by nothing more or less than public ownership and operation of all means of productions, which won't be true if you operate on anything other than democracy. And then democracy fails to meet its own definition if there is a free/private market as you no longer longer have rule by majority, you now have rule by wealth, also known as "plutocracy". So not only is "Democratic Communism" not an oxy moron, it's entirely the opposite; it's really a tautology.

Arguing technicalities while ignoring the ethics of the situation is like wondering how to fix a tooth-ache while ignoring the rapidly bleeding hole in your torso. If we diverge in the acceptance of ethics, then there's no reasonable debate to be had.

No, it's more like worrying about whether or not the operation you intent to perform is going to result in the death of the patient you have before you with the 'rapidly bleeding torso'. If you want to call it a 'technicality' and not rebut my objection that's your prerogative, but my point remains that such anarchy is fundamentally impossible. You can't say "ok everyone, the rules are: don't initiate force or fraud, now go!" when your system literally has no mechanism for applying the rule. It's no such thing other than a request. It's like you're telling me "we're going to live in a society where we just don't murder each other". Well ok, so what happens when someone does murder someone? How is a private court going to administer fair and universal application? What if the murderer is someone who is particularly wealthy and can support a judge's salary that the poorer populace cannot? There is no mechanism to correct a judge who is conveniently biased toward his wealthy clients. You literally seek to take lady justice's blindfold off and make it a competition to see who can stack the most dollars on either side of her scale. Anarchy can't exist by definition. There is no "no ruler", not in the physical and material world. All interaction is interaction of forces. It's a matter of how that force is allocated, not a matter of whether that force is there at all.

Now, anarchy speaks of 'initiating force', which isn't as simple an idea as a lot of people like to assume. We like to fool ourselves into believing that only the fist and sword are forces, which is grossly mistaken. Words are forces, they are a deliberate projection of sound waves hurled at people who have no choice but to hear them, which in turn causes a reconfigured state of mind in that person which directly effects their behavior. Words are a force that some people can resist with superior mental strength just as a fist is a force one can resist with superior physical strength. You anarchists know better than anyone that this is true when you decry public schools as indoctrination camps. And then create this immaculate double-standard for commercialization.

If an employer can withhold income, and therefor food, shelter, and medicine, from an employee, then that employer has the authority to initiate coercion, even force as we would define it. Sure, maybe they could find another job, but then again maybe not. If they can't, then they are in an indefinite and anarchy-sanctioned state of effective slavery. Or what if every employer decided to act as a cartel, in a trust, to all exert such coercion? It would be more profitable than not doing so, so we already know that the laws of the free-market will predict that they will do exactly so, and what recourse or choice is left for the workers in this exchange? Absolutely none. Capital is tantamount to the control of resources, and controlling resources is ultimately power, and being able to "freely" withhold resources from other people because you "own" them and then blackmail them with it, is an initiation of force.

I could make yet another paragraph iterating this point in yet another way, but I'll simply conclude with this: Anarcho-capitalism is not the removal of 'aggression' nor is it the removal the 'the state', it is merely the replacement of democracy with plutocracy.

[quote
...and referring to this perspective as an 'introductory pamphlet' to anarchism is disrespectful nonetheless. You're attaching an inherently disposable notion to the arguments, that's an cheat.[/quote]

No, I mean introductory as in literally introductory. I mean, if someone doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism is and they've only just heard of the non-aggression principal and such as they read your post, then this isn't likely the thread for them just yet. And hey, honestly, it wouldn't have even bothered me in anyway if you had also addressed my points raised. I think I demonstrated clearly in the OP that I'm familiar with the 'non-propaganda' argument for A-C.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I'll humor you with a concise response despite the apparent futility.

You speak of oxy morons in the next breath after you uttered "rules, but no rulers", which is actually exactly the objection I'm raising in the first point of my original post.

What makes you think that rulers are subject to their own rules? If you're going to assume that evil is an inevitable part of the human condition then you must universalize it. Rulers are a subset of humanity too and positions of authority are quite attractive to particularly devious unethical individuals because they're able to get away with the most heinous of crimes and still be applauded at the end of the day. The whole point of law-making is to provide exceptions for the true criminals at the top so that their competition is reduced.

If everyone is a thief, then it isn't very lucrative to be a thief... nor anything else for that matter, wealth stagnates.

As far as rules are concerned, I actually summarized a rational theory of ethics in the 'Is it wrong to kill animals' debates thread, I won't repeat it here.

Democratic Communism would be a statist position no doubt, but in no way does democracy nor communism contradict. Communism as a political theory is actually impossible without democracy, and democracy cannot be without communism. Communism is qualified by nothing more or less than public ownership and operation of all means of productions, which won't be true if you operate on anything other than democracy. And then democracy fails to meet its own definition if there is a free/private market as you no longer longer have rule by majority, you now have rule by wealth, also known as "plutocracy". So not only is "Democratic Communism" not an oxy moron, it's entirely the opposite; it's really a tautology.

Oh I see, so you're attempting to wish away the disastrous failures of central planning by saying it wasn't 'Democratic' enough (positively regarded term) while simultaneously claiming that what we consider Democracy is actually a seedy impostor. Democratic Communism is where the big bad exploitative Capitalists who create jobs and drive technology are stamped out - TRUE Democracy *heavenly chorus*.

It's true that Democracy falls flat; the Average-Joe-majority isn't economically, philosophically or sociologically literate enough to make informed decisions, they will always vote for whoever dangles the tastiest carrot regardless of future implications. Voting is just a vapid popularity contest, not the bloody pinnacle of human achievement like some people make it out to be.

Neither is some 'Democratic Communist' (Marxist) ruling party capable of casting down edicts which reflect the best interests of an entire population - people who they've never even met. Can you determine the best way I should live my life? That's a good place to start if you want to test the theory. Warning: if you try, I will consider it intellectual vanity of the highest order.

No, it's more like worrying about whether or not the operation you intent to perform is going to result in the death of the patient you have before you with the 'rapidly bleeding torso'. If you want to call it a 'technicality' and not rebut my objection that's your prerogative, but my point remains that such anarchy is fundamentally impossible. You can't say "ok everyone, the rules are: don't initiate force or fraud, now go!" when your system literally has no mechanism for applying the rule. It's no such thing other than a request. It's like you're telling me "we're going to live in a society where we just don't murder each other". Well ok, so what happens when someone does murder someone? How is a private court going to administer fair and universal application? What if the murderer is someone who is particularly wealthy and can support a judge's salary that the poorer populace cannot? There is no mechanism to correct a judge who is conveniently biased toward his wealthy clients. You literally seek to take lady justice's blindfold off and make it a competition to see who can stack the most dollars on either side of her scale. Anarchy can't exist by definition. There is no "no ruler", not in the physical and material world. All interaction is interaction of forces. It's a matter of how that force is allocated, not a matter of whether that force is there at all.

No Anarcho-Capitalist will support zero consequence for immoral behavior unless they're insane. Please don't insult my intelligence by assuming that I haven't processed Hume's is-ought dichotomy. Of course ethics are optional, that's what makes them ethics.

I'm not sure, but you may have failed to notice one glaring issue - the existence of laws has never stopped criminals, nor diminished their prevalence.

What should the consequences be for criminal action? If it were up to me - granted that everything in society is privatized and all transaction/consumption requires a valid ID - total ostracism until they accept rehabilitation. If they go on a homicidal rampage then it's fair enough to restrain or even kill them in self-defense. That's just one example where the initiation of force is not required.

Yet we've assumed that criminals are a constant within society. Fortunately, modern psychology can explain criminality, it's all linked back to childhood abuse almost without exception (where the exceptions are freak cases involving brain tumors). This means that the majority of criminality is easily preventable, society is just ignorant and/or sadistic when it comes to raising kids and fails to notice/penalize terrible parenting. This doesn't mean that abuse inevitably leads to criminality, only that it is a necessary factor.

Now, anarchy speaks of 'initiating force', which isn't as simple an idea as a lot of people like to assume. We like to fool ourselves into believing that only the fist and sword are forces, which is grossly mistaken. Words are forces, they are a deliberate projection of sound waves hurled at people who have no choice but to hear them, which in turn causes a reconfigured state of mind in that person which directly effects their behavior. Words are a force that some people can resist with superior mental strength just as a fist is a force one can resist with superior physical strength. You anarchists know better than anyone that this is true when you decry public schools as indoctrination camps. And then create this immaculate double-standard for commercialization.

Are you seriously conflating the idea of force in this context? Gravity is a 'force' too, that doesn't mean Anarchists are against the scientific method. There's a clear ethical difference between holding a gun up to someone's head and being persuasive, it's embarrassing to even point that out. Being persuasive is not a form of violence.

Is deception a way to initiate force? Yes, this is covered by the NAP.

If an employer can withhold income, and therefor food, shelter, and medicine, from an employee, then that employer has the authority to initiate coercion, even force as we would define it. Sure, maybe they could find another job, but then again maybe not. If they can't, then they are in an indefinite and anarchy-sanctioned state of effective slavery.

Ah, Marxist doctrine oozes through the gaps, lovely.

A salary is not an employer paying to own their workers, it is a compensation for the value an employee brings to the company. If an employee brings no value to a company then they will be fired; nobody is entitled to a salary which exceeds the value they bring to the table. Stuff like the minimum wage actually prevents many low-skilled workers from finding jobs because nobody is able to hire them without putting a strain on their profits.

If an employer hilariously refuses to pay an employee who does provide substantial value to their company then they're essentially shooting themselves in the foot because the employee can leave to provide value elsewhere; the employer is likely to be sacked by their higher-ups for incompetence.

What if this employee can't find a new job for some reason? Family, friends, charity, insurance - these support structures spring to mind. Access to none of these support structures? Oh well, voluntary isolation isn't our problem. There is another option though, how about creating your own job?

Or what if every employer decided to act as a cartel, in a trust, to all exert such coercion? It would be more profitable than not doing so, so we already know that the laws of the free-market will predict that they will do exactly so, and what recourse or choice is left for the workers in this exchange? Absolutely none. Capital is tantamount to the control of resources, and controlling resources is ultimately power, and being able to "freely" withhold resources from other people because you "own" them and then blackmail them with it, is an initiation of force.

Funny, cartels are actually impossible without the government preventing competition from sweeping in to put consumer/employee-screwing jerks in their place. Only the most idiotic of idiotic employers would be in favor of some plot to collectively take advantage of their employees because there's nothing stopping them from leaving to work for people who aren't repulsive. Trust me, if you're an employer, the last thing you want is to be losing valuable employees to your competition.

Being an employee is not synonymous with oppression. A successful employer will do everything in their power to keep their employees happy within the company. A bad employer will run their company into the ground if they think they can treat employees like dirt.

Marxists tend to recoil against the reality that you must generate income in order to receive income. I can only guess this is because they doubt their own ability to perform well in a Free Market (rampant sense of entitlement notwithstanding).

I could make yet another paragraph iterating this point in yet another way

I'm sure you could.

And hey, honestly, it wouldn't have even bothered me in anyway if you had also addressed my points raised.

Happy now? Probably not.

 

[Overtaken]

I'll humor you with a concise response despite the apparent futility.

You charitable soul, thank you.

What makes you think that rulers are subject to their own rules?

They aren't. That's why I would support democracy as this is necessarily the least centralized form of power possible. But that's another discussion, as this thread isn't for arguing which form of statism is the most desirable, but to argue that all civilization necessarily operates on statism and that anarchism is therefor an empty term (or in other words, anarchists are actually statists.)

If you're going to assume that evil is an inevitable part of the human condition then you must universalize it.

There is no such thing as "evil". If you mean sociopaths, then yes, we can always assume there will be sociopaths, but I don't need to universalize it if you mean to say "then everyone is a sociopath".

Rulers are a subset of humanity too and positions of authority are quite attractive to particularly devious unethical individuals because they're able to get away with the most heinous of crimes and still be applauded at the end of the day. The whole point of law-making is to provide exceptions for the true criminals at the top so that their competition is reduced.

In theory yes, again I'm arguing that the ruler(s) are inevitable.

Oh I see, so you're attempting to wish away the disastrous failures of central planning by saying it wasn't 'Democratic' enough (positively regarded term) while simultaneously claiming that what we consider Democracy is actually a seedy impostor. Democratic Communism is where the big bad exploitative Capitalists who create jobs and drive technology are stamped out - TRUE Democracy *heavenly chorus*.

What are you talking about? I'm explaining the definition of democratic communism, as per your request.

It's true that Democracy falls flat; the Average-Joe-majority isn't economically, philosophically or sociologically literate enough to make informed decisions, they will always vote for whoever dangles the tastiest carrot regardless of future implications. Voting is just a vapid popularity contest, not the bloody pinnacle of human achievement like some people make it out to be.

Oh then I know you will be the first capitalist to admit that the consumer, the same idiot illiterates you speak of, who we are expected to "vote with their dollar", will be similarly inept at choosing the best product or company to support?

Neither is some 'Democratic Communist' (Marxist) ruling party

Are your own quotation marks lost upon you?

Can you determine the best way I should live my life? That's a good place to start if you want to test the theory. Warning: if you try, I will consider it intellectual vanity of the highest order.

Is framing a demand for a an explanation and dismissing it before even hearing my explanation 'intellectual vanity' of a lower order?

No Anarcho-Capitalist will support zero consequence for immoral behavior unless they're insane. Please don't insult my intelligence by assuming that I haven't processed Hume's is-ought dichotomy. Of course ethics are optional, that's what makes them ethics.

I'm not sure, but you may have failed to notice one glaring issue - the existence of laws has never stopped criminals, nor diminished their prevalence.

What should the consequences be for criminal action? If it were up to me - granted that everything in society is privatized and all transaction/consumption requires a valid ID - total ostracism until they accept rehabilitation.

How would you know if someone has or hasn't committed a crime they are accused of?

If they go on a homicidal rampage then it's fair enough to restrain or even kill them in self-defense.

What if no one is successful in killing him in self-defense? And he just sort leaves a a pile of bodies and goes home and continues about his business? How do you even know if it truly was self-defense and that he wasn't the one being aggressed upon?

Yet we've assumed that criminals are a constant within society. Fortunately, modern psychology can explain criminality, it's all linked back to childhood abuse almost without exception (where the exceptions are freak cases involving brain tumors). This means that the majority of criminality is easily preventable, society is just ignorant and/or sadistic when it comes to raising kids and fails to notice/penalize terrible parenting. This doesn't mean that abuse inevitably leads to criminality, only that it is a necessary factor.

I have a suspicion you frequent "Freedomain Radio" a bit. You haven't disowned all of your friends and family because they aren't anarcho-capitalists and blame women on all violence in society by chance do you? Just speculation, not an accusation.

Any way, let's assume this wild, and amazingly unsourced, claim that I've never even heard before is true, and we'll even put aside the fact that we don't have a cure for cancer. "Penalize bad parenting". Am I to assume that this your anarchist solution to eliminating all crime? Care to explain how you intend to do that without initiation of force?

Are you seriously conflating the idea of force in this context? Gravity is a 'force' too, that doesn't mean Anarchists are against the scientific method. There's a clear ethical difference between holding a gun up to someone's head and being persuasive, it's embarrassing to even point that out. Being persuasive is not a form of violence.

Ever heard of the "Laser beam problem"? It might be referred to as other things but interestingly enough a libertarian came up with it. Should we consider shining a flashlight towards someone an act of aggression? I hope we could agree, no. How about a gigawatt laser? I hope just as well we would agree, yes. The only difference between a flash light and laser is amount and concentration of photons, and as such the difference between aggression and non-aggression is arbitrary. In the same way, the difference between slamming someone into the ground and lightly bumping into them, the difference between tapping someone's shoulder and jamming your finger through their jugular, and indeed, the difference between your words "going in one ear and out of the other" and your words forcibly and manipulatively placing ideas and thoughts into someone's head who in some form or another act upon those beliefs and thoughts such that you are cohersing them, are all arbitrary. Being that it is all arbitrary, it follows quite directly (assuming we do not accept that either all interactions are aggressions or that no interaction is aggression) it requires arbitration. So my question to you, again, is how do you accomplish this without a state?

A salary is not an employer paying to own their workers, it is a compensation for the value an employee brings to the company. If an employee brings no value to a company then they will be fired; nobody is entitled to a salary which exceeds the value they bring to the table. Stuff like the minimum wage actually prevents many low-skilled workers from finding jobs because nobody is able to hire them without putting a strain on their profits.

If an employer hilariously refuses to pay an employee who does provide substantial value to their company then they're essentially shooting themselves in the foot because the employee can leave to provide value elsewhere; the employer is likely to be sacked by their higher-ups for incompetence.

This is the same argument that has been used to say we don't need anti-discrimination laws. Libertarians will argue that the consumer will obviously just stop supporting the business and the free-market will get the job done itself. Rather hilariously, this country ('murica) had a time when there was no anti-discrimination laws and hilariously, business that practiced discrimination flourished just fine and all the same.

What if this employee can't find a new job for some reason? Family, friends, charity, insurance - these support structures spring to mind. Access to none of these support structures? Oh well, voluntary isolation isn't our problem. There is another option though, how about creating your own job?

What if they 'defooed' all of their friends and family because they were all statists?

But seriously, that argument is reductionist in an unsavory way. Why not say that violating the non-aggression principal is perfectly fine because it's the target's fault for lacking foresight and preparedness enough to resist or avoid your aggression?

What you are saying is essentially "the abuser isn't to blame because the victim could have been somewhere else, done something else, etc" But the basic flaw I want to point out is (and honestly I should have just started with this anyway), that in a capitalist economy, it is always and necessarily the case that in order to live, the wealthy are withholding all food, medicine, and shelter from you unless you do something that is profitable to them. The employee cannot withhold anything but his disposable labor. Differences in wealth automatically entail differences in power and leverage. Now, given a sizable enough difference in this leverage, it will become "The gun in the room". It will become, inescapably, a state, defined by a systemic organization of society where violation of NAP is legitimized. Your only route out at this point is "anyone being exploited can 'work harder' or do something something profitable enough so that they gain wealth, thus gain leverage, and therefor have a choice and aggression has not been initiated. The problem is, the exploitable lower class must exist. Even if every single person spontaneously became a highly qualified surgeon or stockbroker, it would not change that there is only necessarily a limited number of positions to meet those demands, nor would it change that someone must be stocking shelves and flipping burgers for most businesses to exist at all.

To offer a hypothetical to illustrate what I am saying, let's use your capitalist logic to justify slavery (as we conventionally understand it). All we would have to do is say that once a year, we will hold an arm wrestling tournament among the slaves and whoever wins, is set free from slavery, while the rest obviously must remain slaves. Now, your logic would dictate that while yes, force is seemingly being initiated upon them, it isn't really because any single one of them has the ability to 'work hard and work out' and with enough work ethic and determination, could win the tournament and become free. So you see, it's not a violation of NAP because they have a choice to escape the labor, and if they have choice it isn't coercion.

Funny, cartels are actually impossible without the government preventing competition from sweeping in to put consumer/employee-screwing jerks in their place. Only the most idiotic of idiotic employers would be in favor of some plot to collectively take advantage of their employees because there's nothing stopping them from leaving to work for people who aren't repulsive. Trust me, if you're an employer, the last thing you want is to be losing valuable employees to your competition.

Do you not understand what I'm saying? I'd be tempted to be frusterated because of how clear and obvious it is to me, and to think you were being obtuse, but since this doesn't seem to 'click' with even the most educated and refined of professional economists, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept the possibility that I'm a suffering from lunacy. If that's the case, let me explain in the most exact way I can what I am arguing one more time, just humor me. If I'm the one missing something, point it out and I will promptly accept it.

In free-market economics, there is a very big 'something' that could precisely prevent employees and patrons from simply going to a non-repulsive business, A TRUST! A complete trust across a particular industry, or even the entire economy if allowed to go to that extreme. So simply put, say the 'idiot employers' in the oil market for example decide to so foolishly defy your logic and form a monopolistic trust to exploit their workers and customers anyway. You are saying that someone will simply start their own business and... and then what? They have a choice at this point. They could either foil the monopoly by entering the market and selling the product at fair value, which would actually not "give them 100% market share thereby" as is so commonly and erroneously stated by capitalists, but would force the (no-longer) monopoly to reset its prices back to fair value again and resume their normal market share less the new businesses' likely small take of it (because any given share of the market at fair value is more profitable than just going out of business.) This would net the foil, very immediately, to have a given fraction X of the market at fair value prices. And if this were not the case it, in the most ironic and absurdly circular of fashions, would actually create a monopoly by the original 'foil' business who could now gouge the prices himself as he now, as we know, would have 100% market share. THEIR OTHER CHOICE, is to join the trust, and gain the same X market share but at the gouged prices. So basically, they can either A. Foil the trust and receive less money, or B. Join the trust and receive more money.

Now I ask you to, at this point, straightforwardly and honestly, tell me and whoever may be reading this thread, which choice the laws of the free-market dictate (or very least predict) they would make? A or B?

 

[LarsINTJ]

Oh boy... This is where the marbles truly spill out of the bag.

They aren't. That's why I would support democracy as this is necessarily the least centralized form of power possible. But that's another discussion, as this thread isn't for arguing which form of statism is the most desirable, but to argue that all civilization necessarily operates on statism and that anarchism is therefor an empty term (or in other words, anarchists are actually statists.)

Ah, so you're in favor of decentralization, yet claim to be a communist. Well done.

Why does civilization necessarily operate on Statism? You could also say that agriculture in ancient times necessarily operated on an open acceptance of slavery. What we view as civilization now is nothing like what it could potentially be in the future. Anarchism is not an empty term because you can't possibly imagine a society which does not revolve around threats of violence.

"In other words, Anarchists are actually Statists" - Overtaken.
This quote goes a long way in demonstrating a sheer lack of comprehension. It's exactly the same as positing those in favor of love-making are actually rapists.

There is no such thing as "evil". If you mean sociopaths, then yes, we can always assume there will be sociopaths, but I don't need to universalize it if you mean to say "then everyone is a sociopath".

Clearly you did not bother to read or understand the post(s) I referred to.

I understand that Statist dogma requires you to accept relativistic thought, but if you're going to make bold claims like 'there is no such thing as evil' then at least provide some reasoning. It's like telling a physicist that gravity does not exist then responding to everything else with a raspberry.

If you don't understand my arguments then don't try to frame them as something they're not. I swear...

In theory yes, again I'm arguing that the ruler(s) are inevitable.

Psst, I'll tell you a little secret. "In theory" is not an argument.

What are you talking about? I'm explaining the definition of democratic communism, as per your request.

It's pretty clear to me now that the reason you attach 'Democratic' onto 'Communism' is to coax approval. Not that it's fundamentally any different from the proven cataclysmic disaster that is Marxism.

Oh then I know you will be the first capitalist to admit that the consumer, the same idiot illiterates you speak of, who we are expected to "vote with their dollar", will be similarly inept at choosing the best product or company to support?

Again, there is there is a huge moral distinction between voting to force compliance and collectively guiding the marketplace by individuals purchasing the things they like. This is where we ultimately disagree and the very reason why I was reluctant to start this one-way bickering.

Is framing a demand for a an explanation and dismissing it before even hearing my explanation 'intellectual vanity' of a lower order?

Does the term 'rhetorical question' ring a bell?

How would you know if someone has or hasn't committed a crime they are accused of?

Are you suggesting that I should study forensics? Now that's pretty irrelevant.

What if no one is successful in killing him in self-defense? And he just sort leaves a a pile of bodies and goes home and continues about his business? How do you even know if it truly was self-defense and that he wasn't the one being aggressed upon?

WHAT IF scenarios contribute nothing to this argument, they have no place in the realm of principles. What if meteorites spontaneously kill everyone on Earth with perfect accuracy? Well damn, surely that means it's A-OK to initiate force.

You asked for a possible solution and I (with my extreme limitations compared to billions of cooperating minds) provided a suggestion.

I have a suspicion you frequent "Freedomain Radio" a bit. You haven't disowned all of your friends and family because they aren't anarcho-capitalists and blame women on all violence in society by chance do you? Just speculation, not an accusation.

Yes, I am a disciple of the misogynist cult leader Stefan Basil Molyneux, here to separate everyone from their families and friends.

*facepalm*

Such ignorant passive aggression. You really need to learn how to provide arguments upon disagreement. If you can't provide counter-arguments then truth requires you to reassess your paradigm.

Any way, let's assume this wild, and amazingly unsourced, claim that I've never even heard before is true, and we'll even put aside the fact that we don't have a cure for cancer. "Penalize bad parenting". Am I to assume that this your anarchist solution to eliminating all crime? Care to explain how you intend to do that without initiation of force?

*aside* Hey, lurkers, can you see any counter-arguments here? I sure can't.

Descriptions are not counter-arguments. You're starting to sound like Peter Joseph.

If crime is largely the result of child abuse then I wonder how we can reduce crime without initiating force... do I really have to spell it out for you?

Ever heard of the "Laser beam problem"? It might be referred to as other things but interestingly enough a libertarian came up with it. Should we consider shining a flashlight towards someone an act of aggression? I hope we could agree, no. How about a gigawatt laser? I hope just as well we would agree, yes. The only difference between a flash light and laser is amount and concentration of photons, and as such the difference between aggression and non-aggression is arbitrary. In the same way, the difference between slamming someone into the ground and lightly bumping into them, the difference between tapping someone's shoulder and jamming your finger through their jugular, and indeed, the difference between your words "going in one ear and out of the other" and your words forcibly and manipulatively placing ideas and thoughts into someone's head who in some form or another act upon those beliefs and thoughts such that you are cohersing them, are all arbitrary. Being that it is all arbitrary, it follows quite directly (assuming we do not accept that either all interactions are aggressions or that no interaction is aggression) it requires arbitration. So my question to you, again, is how do you accomplish this without a state?

The conflation of force persists! Unreal.

Expanding and equalizing what can be considered an initiation of force to the point of absurdity does not invalidate the NAP.

Let us break down this argument (props for the attempt):
1. There is no such thing as evil because I see it possible to classify all human interaction as equally evil.
2. Ethics are arbitrary because it's impossible to tell the difference between a playful poke and jamming my fist down someone's throat, we need rulers to tell the difference.
3. Therefore it is acceptable to initiate force.

Now that's sound reasoning.

This is the same argument that has been used to say we don't need anti-discrimination laws. Libertarians will argue that the consumer will obviously just stop supporting the business and the free-market will get the job done itself. Rather hilariously, this country ('murica) had a time when there was no anti-discrimination laws and hilariously, business that practiced discrimination flourished just fine and all the same.

I'm not concerned with past examples of discrimination which were openly supported by the state, they do not apply to a stateless society. You can't say that it is impossible for a boat to float just because every dinghy you have tested was designed with a massive hole.

But seriously, that argument is reductionist in an unsavory way. Why not say that violating the non-aggression principal is perfectly fine because it's the target's fault for lacking foresight and preparedness enough to resist or avoid your aggression?

Ah... reductionist... unsavory. Lovely descriptions there, I'm sure you wouldn't mind adding 'truncated' as well. Too bad there's no counter-argument.

It's the Non-Aggression Principle. If the initiate force is wrong then it's wrong no matter what.

What you are saying is essentially "the abuser isn't to blame because the victim could have been somewhere else, done something else, etc" But the basic flaw I want to point out is (and honestly I should have just started with this anyway), that in a capitalist economy, it is always and necessarily the case that in order to live, the wealthy are withholding all food, medicine, and shelter from you unless you do something that is profitable to them. The employee cannot withhold anything but his disposable labor. Differences in wealth automatically entail differences in power and leverage. Now, given a sizable enough difference in this leverage, it will become "The gun in the room". It will become, inescapably, a state, defined by a systemic organization of society where violation of NAP is legitimized. Your only route out at this point is "anyone being exploited can 'work harder' or do something something profitable enough so that they gain wealth, thus gain leverage, and therefor have a choice and aggression has not been initiated. The problem is, the exploitable lower class must exist. Even if every single person spontaneously became a highly qualified surgeon or stockbroker, it would not change that there is only necessarily a limited number of positions to meet those demands, nor would it change that someone must be stocking shelves and flipping burgers for most businesses to exist at all.

Nope, that isn't what I suggested at all, that's a convenient straw-man for you to rant about by pretending to address my argument with recycled Marxist rhetoric.

To offer a hypothetical to illustrate what I am saying, let's use your capitalist logic to justify slavery (as we conventionally understand it). All we would have to do is say that once a year, we will hold an arm wrestling tournament among the slaves and whoever wins, is set free from slavery, while the rest obviously must remain slaves. Now, your logic would dictate that while yes, force is seemingly being initiated upon them, it isn't really because any single one of them has the ability to 'work hard and work out' and with enough work ethic and determination, could win the tournament and become free. So you see, it's not a violation of NAP because they have a choice to escape the labor, and if they have choice it isn't coercion.

Wow, you're just rambling now.

Do you not understand what I'm saying? I'd be tempted to be frusterated because of how clear and obvious it is to me, and to think you were being obtuse, but since this doesn't seem to 'click' with even the most educated and refined of professional economists, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept the possibility that I'm a suffering from lunacy. If that's the case, let me explain in the most exact way I can what I am arguing one more time, just humor me. If I'm the one missing something, point it out and I will promptly accept it.

How gracious, so the problem isn't that you're refusing to accept the validity of the NAP for no good reason, it's that I'm so gosh-darn stupid and nonsensical. Dammit man, I'm trying my best here.

In free-market economics, there is a very big 'something' that could precisely prevent employees and patrons from simply going to a non-repulsive business, A TRUST! A complete trust across a particular industry, or even the entire economy if allowed to go to that extreme. So simply put, say the 'idiot employers' in the oil market for example decide to so foolishly defy your logic and form a monopolistic trust to exploit their workers and customers anyway. You are saying that someone will simply start their own business and... and then what? They have a choice at this point. They could either foil the monopoly by entering the market and selling the product at fair value, which would actually not "give them 100% market share thereby" as is so commonly and erroneously stated by capitalists, but would force the (no-longer) monopoly to reset its prices back to fair value again and resume their normal market share less the new businesses' likely small take of it (because any given share of the market at fair value is more profitable than just going out of business.) This would net the foil, very immediately, to have a given fraction X of the market at fair value prices. And if this were not the case it, in the most ironic and absurdly circular of fashions, would actually create a monopoly by the original 'foil' business who could now gouge the prices himself as he now, as we know, would have 100% market share. THEIR OTHER CHOICE, is to join the trust, and gain the same X market share but at the gouged prices. So basically, they can either A. Foil the trust and receive less money, or B. Join the trust and receive more money.

(Heads up - there aren't many people who would be able to process this paragraph... after you accuse me of being unclear)

By what mechanism do private companies force compliance without the state?

Anyway, you're assuming that the Free Market is inherently corrupting, that everyone in it is just out to screw over everyone else. You should probably redirect your enraged finger over toward government if that's what you're so concerned about.

Now I ask you to, at this point, straightforwardly and honestly, tell me and whoever may be reading this thread, which choice the laws of the free-market dictate (or very least predict) they would make? A or B?

False dichotomy.