Anarcho-capitalist FAQ, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 21-5-2009 @ 10:09 PM by TheAssociate
Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that

1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and

2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.

Part one is simply the definition of "anarchism," and part two is soft propertarianism, known more generally as "a free market" or "laissez-faire."
source


Found this FAQ about Anarcho-Capitalism, and decided to share. This more or less sums up the way i believe things should be run. It goes into great detail on the system and is a very informative read, even if you don't agree with the principles. If you don't subscribe to this or a similar political ideology, it still might be worth your perusal: it's important to know thy enemy.


TA


reply posted on 22-5-2009 @ 05:34 PM by TheAssociate
reply to post by milesp


First of all, i'm well aware of the differences between Anarchy and Anarcho-Capitalism. They aren't the same thing and nobody was implying they are.

Secondly,



all forms of coercive authority, including capitalism.


How exactly is Capitalism in it's pure, unregulated state "coercive?"


TA



reply posted on 22-5-2009 @ 11:15 PM by milesp
reply to post by TheAssociate


Capitalism, in it's purist form, is coercive because it compels people who don't own the means of producing wealth(AKA the vast majority of people on the planet) to work for those who do, in order to buy the things necessary to their survival, wellbeing, and comfort.

The people of an Anarchist society would not be compelled (coerced) to work to generate wealth or power in the same way they would be in a state socialist or capitalist system.

Instead, the people who build the roads, write the computer programs, and those who contribute in one way or another to the general well-being of society would be the ones to make the decisions on how it's run. A stateless socialist democracy, if you can imagine such a thing.

How to organize such a society is certainly debatable, but that's that whole point, right?


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 12:09 AM by Jazzyguy
reply to post by milesp

I'm wondering, do you know congressman Ron Paul?
His policies, do you think they promote pure capitalism?


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 12:59 AM by Wally Hope
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

Capitalism is a system that allows one group of people to exploit another for it's personal gain. It's coercive, and based on a set of rules designed to support exploitation not liberty.

Anarchism is traditionally a system based on socialism and libertarianism (and not the American version but the true traditional version) and was in direct conflict with the state and it's system of capitalism. It is in opposition to the coercive and exploitative nature of the state, the church and government.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is known as 'the father of Anarchism' and was a socialist. Most people have a very screwed up idea of what socialism is, notably because the capitalist system is in direct opposition to socialism, and has the power to demonize it's oppositions through it's media. Before you start, neither Russia nor China are socialist so don't make that caparison. No country has ever been truly socialist. Socialism also is not social programs, or free hand outs.

An anarcho-socialist, or anarcho-libertarian society would be based on the traditional socialist thought, that the 'means of production' should belong to all, not to private entities who use the means of production to exploit, coerce and control the population. No central government, but local committees appointed by the community could be set up to run basic needs locally.

This has been done before in Spain...

The role of anarchism in the Spanish Revolution, or Spanish Civil War of 1936, is too often absent from histories of this struggle against fascism. Alongside the war millions of workers collectivised the land and took over industry to pursue their vision of a new society. This page tells their story and the story of those who fought alongside them.

flag.blackened.net...

Capitalism is unnecessary, and only benefits the few as it creates massive divides in society that cause untold social troubles, crime, poverty etc. It has destroyed any unity the working class used to have, and left us powerless to control our own communities.

Capitalism is based on a scarcity of resources, jobs, food, housing etc. Which are often made artificially scarce to keep prices up and the economy from crashing. This means many people with out the resources to play the capitalist game loose out. Under capitalism an abundance of resources is not good for profit. If a company makes more product than they can sell it is wasted, and they lose money and we lose resources. Under Anarchism over production would be to our benefit as it would make these resources available to more people.

For example there is no reason for anybody on this planet to not get enough to eat, yet thousand are starving to death because capitalism makes resources available to only those they can make a profit from, and any surplus is destroyed or wasted.


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 01:14 AM by TheAssociate
There are some arguments, having a faint measure of plausibility, that have served politicians, charlatans and assorted do-gooders for well for over a century in their quest for control. One of those arguments is: capitalism primarily benefits the rich and not the common man. That vision prompts declarations such as: Congressman Richard Gephart's assertion that high income earners are "winners" in "the lottery of life." Then there's, Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, who says high income earners the "fortunate fifth." These nonsensical visions lead to calls for those who've been "blessed" to "give back" either voluntarily or coercively through the tax code.

While demagogic statements like these have high emotive worth, they reflect resolute, near incurable stupidity about the sources of income. Listening to some of the talk about income differences, one would think that out there somewhere is a pile of money. People who are wealthy just happened to get there first and greedily took an unfair share. Justice requires that they "give back." Or, there's talk about income distribution. The way some people talk, unequal distribution of income means that there is a dealer of dollars who shells out $1,000 to one person, $100,000 to another and a million dollars to yet another. Thus, the reason why some people are wealthy while others are not wealthy is that the dollar dealer is a racist, sexist, a multi-nationalist, or just plain mean. Economic justice requires a re-dealing of the dollars, income redistribution, where the ill-gotten gains of the few are returned to their rightful owners.

In a free society, for the most part, people with high incomes have demonstrated extraordinary ability to produce valuable services for, and therefore please their fellow man. Sam Walton, founder of Walmart, Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, and singer Michael Jackson provided services deemed highly valuable by their fellow men who voluntarily took money out of their pockets to purchase those services. Their high incomes stand as unambiguous proof of that service. Their high incomes also reflect the democracy of the market place. For example, millions upon millions of independent decision makers decided to fork over $200 or $300 for Microsoft founder Bill Gates' "Windows 98" operating system. Those who think Bill Gates is too rich, and want to redistribute his income, are really registering disagreement with the democracy of the market place and want to cancel or offset the market "vote."

Indeed, we might think of the dollars people earn as certificates of performance. Think of it in the following way. You hire me to mow your lawn. After I have completed the task, you give me $20. I go to the grocer and demand a pound of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced. The grocer says, "You're demanding something that your fellow man has produced. What have you done to serve him?" I reply, "I have served my fellow man by mowing his lawn." The grocer says, Prove it!" That's when I hand him my $20, my certificate of performance.

Income earners owe nothing else to their fellow man; they have met their social obligations. If "giving something back" means anything, it should be the admonition to thieves and social parasites: people who have taken and given nothing in return. We have it ass backwards. Highly productive people (the rich) like Sam Walton and Bill Gates are held up to social ridicule while thieves, bums and other social parasites are shown passion and concern and have become society's mascots.

Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to the common man. The rich have always had access to entertainment, often in the comfort of their palaces and mansions. The rich have never had to experience the drudgery of having to beat out carpets, iron their clothing or slave over a hot stove all day in order to have a decent dinner; they could afford to hire people. Capitalism's mass production and marketing have made radios and televisions, vacuum cleaners, wash-and-wear clothing and microwave ovens available and well within the means of the common man; thus, sparing him of the boredom and drudgery of the past. Today, the common man has the power to enjoy much (and more) of what only the rich could yesteryear.

What about those who became wealthy making comforts available to the common man? Henry Ford benefitted immensely from mass producing automobiles but the benefit for the common man, from being able to buy a car, dwarfs anything Ford received. Individual discovers and companies who produced penicillin, polio and typhoid vaccines may have become very wealthy but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary. In more recent times, computers and software products have benefitted our health, safety and quality of life in ways that dwarf whatever wealth received by their creators.

Here's a little test. Stand on the corner and watch people walk or drive by. Then, based on their appearances, identify which persons are wealthy. Years ago, that wouldn't have been a difficult challenge. The ordinary person wouldn't be dressed as well, surely not wearing designer clothing, nor would they have nice looking jewelry plus, they wouldn't be driving by. Compare the income status of today's airline passengers with those of yesteryear; you'll find a much greater percentage of ordinary people.

That's one of the great benefits of capitalism; it has made it possible for common people to enjoy at least some of what wealthy people enjoy. One might assert that common people don't have access to Rolls Royces and yachts. You're wrong. Microsoft's Bill Gates is super-rich and can afford to ride in a Rolls Royce and go yachting; but so can the average common man - just not as long. He can rent a Rolls or a yacht for a day, half-day or an hour.

Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to the rise of capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving one's fellow man. Capitalists seek to discover what people want and then produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question that we should ponder: are people who by their actions created unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and made more fun available for the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy really obliged to "give something back?" After all, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of, say, life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier.

Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn't do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent, non-realizable utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system will pale in comparison to a Utopia. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.

Walter E. Williams
Ideas on Liberty, January 2000
source



This gentleman pretty well sums it.


TA

Edit to add: This thread wasn't started to discuss Anarchism, there is a thread here for that. If you wish to continue discussing it, please do, i just wanted to note that that wasn't why the thread was started. Originally, the intended topic was Lassez-Faire Capitalism.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by TheAssociate]



reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 01:19 AM by Wally Hope
Originally posted by TheAssociate
Anarchism always has, and always will be against all forms of coercive authority...

...those who contribute in one way or another to the general well-being of society would be the ones to make the decisions on how it's run.

...Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand


I don't understand how you see that as a contradiction?

There is a massive difference between coercive authority, and people making decisions based on the need of their local communities.

Anarchism empowers people to not just be blind followers of leaders, but to be a participant in the running of their community.

Any 'leadership' under Anarchism would be temporary, and only used when necessary for a particular job. They would not have any power beyond their assigned role, and could be replaced whenever the community decides they're no longer needed.

Our politicians today are simply career climbing, and will do and say anything to further their careers, somewhat because the system gives them no choice. That is not good for any community. leadership should be a privilege not a way to make a living, or gain power. Money and the power it brings is the ultimate addictive drug, and you know drug addicts don't think logically when their motivation is just getting another fix.

Money is what causes the system to become corrupt as those with the power can use that to influence decisions. The biggest example of that is the war on the middle east, influenced by the oil industry and carried out by their agents in office. Is that community leadership? No, it's corporate management of resources using the state, it's military, and coercion of the public, through it's media, to except exploitation.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Wally Hope]


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 01:34 AM by Wally Hope
reply to post by TheAssociate


Really? Maybe you should have used a different title then?

'Anarcho-capitalist FAQ'

Sound like you opened the door for a discussion of Anarchism to me.

You can't have the convo about Anarcho-capitalism without interjecting what Anarchism really is, unless you just want a one sides discussion that ignore basic historical facts?

Nice C&P btw, how about we hear what you have to say, we've all read that stuff before.

I'd like to know if you really understand both capitalism and Anarchism, and your c&p doesn't tell me anything. Why do you think Anarcho-capitalism would work, and how do stop people like Dick Cheney and his oil friends from just ripping up the countryside, or your back yard, to dig up oil that they could charge whatever they wanted for because there would nothing to stop them?


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 01:52 AM by TheAssociate
reply to post by Wally Hope

.

Really? Maybe you should have used a different title then?


The Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ is the title of the article linked.



I'd like to know if you really understand both capitalism and Anarchism


Capitalism rewards effort. All socialist based economic systems, punish productivity through taxation, nationalization, etc. They're a not so clever way to gain the sanction of those they wish to loot.

Lassez-Faire Capitalism is the most fair economic system in that it asks no man to live for the sake of another.



how do stop people like Dick Cheney and his oil friends from just ripping up the countryside, or your back yard, to dig up oil that they could charge whatever they wanted for because there would nothing to stop them?


Under Lassez-Faire Capitalism, he would have to pay to use any land. There would be no legal means to take property without proper payment.

As for Anarchism, I've seen it defined in so many was as to make it meaningless. All that really needs to be said is that it's a vague, pie-in-the-sky, utopian notion that's never going to work.


TA


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 02:42 AM by Wally Hope
Originally posted by TheAssociate
Capitalism rewards effort. All socialist based economic systems, punish productivity through taxation, nationalization, etc. They're a not so clever way to gain the sanction of those they wish to loot.


What you're talking about is state-socialism, which really isn't socialism at all because traditionally socialists appose the state. But what socialist societies are you talking about? It seems that anything that isn't like America you call socialist? There are NO socialist countries, I don't see anybody but private entities owning the means of production.

Show me a country where the means of production (farms, factories) are not owned privately who hire workers at an hourly wage.

Nationalism has nothing to do with socialism, that is closer to fascism as fascism is the government control of the means of production.

Socialism does not require government, that's why Anarchism was originally and traditionally socialists. You obviously didn't read my whole post so I'm having to repeat myself.

Socialism in it's basic definition is the workers ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. Anarcho-socialism, or Anarcho-libertarianism are the true forms of socialism. No state, no government, workers owning and controlling their own communities as they see fit.

Lassez-Faire Capitalism is the most fair economic system in that it asks no man to live for the sake of another.


Garbage, capitalism is based on people living simply to work to make profit for someone else. Without people to exploit capitalism wouldn't work. A system where the majority work for the minority.

It would be nice if we could all own a business, but someone has to be the laborer. It would be nice if we could all be rich, but then of course money would be worthless as it requires inequality to maintain it's value.
If everyone's income was doubled, for example, then prices would also double and you'd be back to where you were. If everyone had a good paying job, and no one was unemployed, then the workers would have the upper hand and would be able to dictate to the boss. The boss would have to pay ever higher wages to keep good workers, which in turn would cause the boss to run out of money, and he would have to lay people off, once again creating a unemployment class. It's a vicious cycle that capitalism creates and there's no way around it.

Proof is the fact that the rich-poor divide constantly gets wider. If capitalism worked like it's claimed the gap should get narrower and disappear altogether.


Under Lassez-Faire Capitalism, he would have to pay to use any land. There would be no legal means to take property without proper payment.


OK so without a government who is going to enforce that rule? What if dick came with an army and demanded your land?

As for Anarchism, I've seen it defined in so many was as to make it meaningless. All that really needs to be said is that it's a vague, pie-in-the-sky, utopian notion that's never going to work.


Nope you have not done enough reading. There are many ideas of how society would be organized, but most Anarchists agree on what is wrong with the present system, as in it's a coercive exploitative system. Anarchism has never really offered a blue print for society. That would be up to you and me once we had the power to organize our own communities.


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 03:35 AM by TheAssociate
reply to post by Wally Hope




No state, no government, workers owning and controlling their own communities as they see fit.


So, you're reasoning under the notion that a company can't run without its workers but it can without its CEO. The problem with that is that anyone can work a minimum wage job but it takes someone with the necessary skill and knowledge to keep said company afloat. CEO's don't just sit around all day and rake in cash, the actually run the business.



OK so without a government who is going to enforce that rule? What if dick came with an army and demanded your land?


This just makes no sense whatsoever. You are the one touting a system void of government. I'm proposing a Constitutional Republic (that actually abides by said Constitution) with Free Market Capitalism (i.e. the government keeps its nose out of business).



Garbage, capitalism is based on people living simply to work to make profit for someone else. Without people to exploit capitalism wouldn't work. A system where the majority work for the minority.


No, Capitalism is based people working for their own benefit. Wealth is created and those who helped to create it are rewarded based on how much they helped in its creation. The only exploiters are those who seek to "redistribute" the wealth created by the productive in any "even" or "more fair" manner.




If everyone had a good paying job, and no one was unemployed, then the workers would have the upper hand and would be able to dictate to the boss. The boss would have to pay ever higher wages to keep good workers, which in turn would cause the boss to run out of money, and he would have to lay people off, once again creating a unemployment class. It's a vicious cycle that capitalism creates and there's no way around it.


Not everyone has a "good paying job." Some simply lack the ability to perform the duties that high-paying jobs require. There will always be a market for unskilled labor. Under Lassez-Faire Capitalism, there would be no need to gain the "upper hand." There would be no need for unions, which is what you're describing, because business wouldn't be forced to give a portion of the wealth they create to the government, and therefore everyone would earn more. The more wealth that is created, the more jobs become available, the more we all benefit. There would be no need to try and "get the upper hand" on your boss.

You're right about the current system, which isn't capitalism at all, even though it's called that. The only cycle created in Lassez-Faire Capitalism is the ever growing cycle of wealth.



Anarchism has never really offered a blue print for society. That would be up to you and me once we had the power to organize our own communities.



Without objective principles, you can't define a blueprint for society. The only organization needed is defined by the Constitution.




[edit on 24-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 24-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

Edit for typos

[edit on 24-5-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 24-5-2009 by TheAssociate]


reply posted on 24-5-2009 @ 03:59 AM by Wally Hope
Originally posted by TheAssociate
So, you're reasoning under the notion that a company can't run without its workers but it can without its CEO. The problem with that is that anyone can work a minimum wage job but it takes someone with the necessary skill and knowledge to keep said company afloat. CEO's don't just sit around all day and rake in cash, the actually run the business.


Well I'm sorry but I don't think someones income is any sign of their intelligence, or ability to be an active part in a collective.

Also what is there to keep afloat if there is no capitalism?

There will be no companies per sey, other than to produce what we need. There will be no companies simply making a product just to make money, it won't be necessary. When all our needs are met we will be free to pursue more intellectual pursuits, and better ourselves as people, instead of improving our bank accounts and trying one up each other with what we can 'buy'. That is such a shallow meaningless existence.


This just makes no sense whatsoever. You are the one touting a system void of government. I'm proposing a Constitutional Republic (that actually abides by said Constitution) with Free Market Capitalism (i.e. the government keeps its nose out of business).


No, you were touting anarcho-capitalism as in your OP. If you changed your mind you should have started a new thread.

Found this FAQ about Anarcho-Capitalism, and decided to share. This more or less sums up the way i believe things should be run...



No, Capitalism is based people working for their own benefit. Wealth is created and those who helped to create it are rewarded based on how much they helped in its creation. The only exploiters are those who seek to "redistribute" the wealth created by the productive in any "even" or "more fair" manner.


But what good is 'wealth' when most of it is in the hands of very few people?

How much did the slaves get paid for years of helping America become very wealthy?


Not everyone has a "good paying job." Some simply lack the ability to perform the necessary duties that said jobs require. There will always be a market for unskilled labor. Under Lassez-Faire Capitalism, there would be no "upper hand." There would be no need for unions, which is what you're describing, because business wouldn't be forced to give a portion of the wealth they create to the government, and therefore everyone would earn more. The more wealth that is created, the more jobs become available, the more we all benefit. There would be no need to try and "get the upper hand" on your boss.


You missed my point, and no I'm not talking about unions or I would have said so. There would no need for unions when there is no 'boss' to have to negotiate with.

OK so how come when all this wealth has been created most of the world still lives in poverty? When is this wealth creation going to benefit everyone as you claim. It is capitalism that created the poverty to begin with. When people were living off the land there was no poverty until the capitalist took the resources and sold them to someone else for a profit. Mainly taken from third world countries and sold to the west, the very people who relied on those resources to live now can't afford to pay the prices western companies demand (for a resource that wasn't theirs in the first place). They become slaves to the system like the rest of us, no longer free to use the resources of their own land. Priced into poverty while the resources they need go elsewhere.

You're right about the current system, which isn't capitalism at all, even though it's called that. The only cycle created in Lassez-Faire Capitalism is the ever growing cycle of wealth.


Of course it is. Your ever growing cycle of wealth has failed, the proof is all around you. Wealth for the few, poverty for the rest of us.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism
  Posted 10 days ago with 78 member flags
Hippy Do-Gooders have Destroyed the World
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags
Facts About Socialism
  Posted 3 days ago with 23 member flags
Are Liberals REALLY More Intelligent Than Conservatives?
  Posted 7 days ago with 18 member flags
The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread
  Posted 11 days ago with 8 member flags
Unpopular Opinions: Say NO to Human Rights
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags
This is what needs to happen: REVOLUTION!
  Posted 14 days ago with 5 member flags
Why conservatives . . . . . suck!
  Posted 0 days ago with 4 member flags